Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2014, 03-11 Regular Meeting
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Manuel Denning, Fountain Ministries Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: Proclamation: CelebratingAvista's 125th Anniversary PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 02 -21 -2014 31579 -31618 $191,791.87 02 -27 -2014 5708 -5709 $262.00 02 -27 -2014 31619 -31669 $373,708.20 02 -28 -2014 31670 -31694 $153,557.76 GRAND TOTAL $719,319.83 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending February 28, 2014: $423,465.41 c. Approval of Minutes of Council's February 18, 2014, Workshop Meeting d. Approval of Minutes of the February 24, 2014 Joint Council /County Special Meeting e. Approval of Minutes of Council's February 25, 2014 Regular Meeting f. Approval of Minutes of the February 27, 2014 Special Regional Solid Waste Meeting g. Approval of Minutes of the February 28, 2014 Special Regional Council of Governments Meeting h. Approval of Minutes of the March 4, 2014 Council Meeting Study Session Format Council Agenda 03 -11 -14 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 NEW BUSINESS: 2. First Reading Ordinance 14 -003 Amending Permitted Use Matrix — John Hohman /Mike Basinger [public comment] ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3. Pulse Point Citizen Responder — Chief Bryan Collins 4. Solid Waste — Mike Jackson 5. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): 6. SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Call for Projects CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2"—d and 41 Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1St 3ra and 51 Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 03 -11 -14 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 Spokane Valley® toddamation City of Spokane 'alThy, Washington Ce(e6rating Avista's 125th Anniversary in the City of Spokane galley, Washington WHEREAS, Avista has deep roots in this region's history, beginning in 1889 with its incorporation as Washington Water Power in direct response to an increasing demand for electricity in the growing region; and WHEREAS, Innovation and award - winning accomplishments, while providing a legacy of reliable service and partnerships for economic and community vitality are milestones throughout the company's long history; and WHEREAS, Avista, which changed its name in 1999 from Washington Water Power, has remained true to its principles and values of trust, innovation, and collaboration while evolving to meet customer needs. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Dean Grafos, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council and the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, do hereby proclaim the month of March, 2014, as the beginning of a year -long celebration of Avista's 125th Anniversary in the City of Spokane Valley and we share and acknowledge with our citizens the important role Avista plays in bringing essential energy to our homes, schools and businesses. Dated this 11th day of March, 2014. an Grafos, Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 11, 2014 Check all that apply: ® consent Department Director Approval: ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS 02 -21 -2014 31579 -31618 02 -27 -2014 5708 -5709 02 -27 -2014 31619 -31669 02 -28 -2014 31670 -31694 GRAND TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT $191,791.87 $262.00 $373,708.20 $ 153,557.76 $719,319.83 #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511 001.013.000.513. 001.013.015.515. 001.016.000. 001.018.013.513. 001.018.014.514. 001.018.016.518. 001.032.000. 001.058.050.558. 001.058.055.558. 001.058.056.558. 001.058.057.558. 001.076.000.576. 001.076.300.576. 001.076.301.571. 001.076.302.576. 001.076.304.575. 001.076.305.571. 001.090.000.511. 001.090.000.514. 001.090.000.517. 001.090.000.518. 001.090.000.519. 001.090.000.540. 001.090.000.550. 001.090.000.560. 001.090.000.594. 001.090.000.595. Explanation of Fund Numbers found City Council City Manager Legal Public Safety Deputy City Manager Finance Human Resources Public Works Comm. Develop.- Administration Comm. Develop.— Develop.Eng, Community Develop.- Planning Community Develop.- Building Parks & Rec— Administration Parks & Rec - Maintenance Parks & Rec - Recreation Parks & Rec- Aquatics Parks & Rec- Senior Center Parks & Rec - CenterPlace General Gov't- Council related General Gov't - Finance related General Gov't - Employee supply General Gov't- Centralized Services General Gov't -Other Services General Gov't - Transportation General Gov't - Natural & Economic General Gov't - Social Services General Gov't - Capital Outlay General Gov't - Pavement Preservation on Voucher Lists Other Funds 101 — Street Fund 103 --- Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel /Motel Tax 120 — CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 — Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 123 -- Civic Facilities Replacement 204 — Debt Service 301 — Capital Projects (15'1/4% REET) 302 — Special Capital Proj (2°1 %a% REET) 303 — Street Capital Projects 304 -- Mirabeau Point Project 307 — Capital Grants 309 -- Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic BIdg Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 -- Risk Management RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director; ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist 0212//2014 1:12:55PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 31579 2/21/2014 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 31580 2/21/2014 000135 APA 31581 2/21/2014 003597 ARTISTIC FRAMING 31582 2/21/2014 000506 ASCE 31583 2/21/2014 001816 BENTHIN & ASSOCIATES 31584 2/21/2014 000101 CDW -G 31585 2/21/2014 003221 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 31586 2/21/2014 002920 DIRECTV INC 31587 2/21/2014 001926 FARR, SARAH 31588 2/21/2014 001232 FASTENAL CO 31589 2/21/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 51125 096840 -13113 100486 -13113 021714 1042544881 2129 JR58730 JS59428 0166 22390625155 EXPENSE I DLEW94251 I DLEW94327 41451 41452 41453 41455 Fund /Dept 402.402.000.531 Description /Account Amount 2014 STORM DRAIN CLEANING Total : 001.058.056.558 2014 "M. BASINGER" 001.058.056.558 2014 "S. KUHTA" 001.011.000.511 BATES REFRAME 001.032.000.543 2014 " E. GUTH" 403.000.192.595 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 303.303.166.595 101.042.000.543 001.018.014.514 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 Total : Total : Total : 0192 - PROFESSIONAL SURVEYIN( Total : SUPPLIES: IT HARDWARE: IT Total : SEPA CHECKLIST PROCESSING Fl Total : CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINT SHOF Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : 5,669.17 5,669.17 429.00 511.00 940.00 17.39 17.39 250.00 250.00 9,688.00 9,688.00 70.05 91.49 161.54 350.00 350.00 50.99 50.99 82.60 82.60 15.16 30.56 45.72 390.40 59.50 30.60 89.25 Page: 1 vchlist 02/21/2014 1:12:55PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor 31589 2/21/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 31590 2/21/2014 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 31591 2/21/2014 002810 INLAND NW PARTNERS ASSOC 31592 2/21/2014 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 31593 2/21 /2014 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS 31594 2/21/2014 000662 NATL BARRICADE & SIGN CO 31595 2/21/2014 001035 NDM TECHNOLOGIES INC 31596 2/21/2014 000290 NORTHWEST MAP SERVICE 31597 2/21/2014 001090 NORTHWEST SIGNAL 31598 2/21/2014 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Invoice (Continued) 41456 41457 93305 95643 CM92973 CM95643 REGISTRATION 439 492 511 JANUARY 2014 82602 5240 5240 101038513 1271 JANUARY 2014 Fund /Dept 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.011.000.511 001.013.015.515 303.303.060.595 001.013.015.515 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.594 001.090.000.518 001.011.000.511 101.042.000.542 001.016.000.586 Description /Account LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW CREDIT MEMO SUPPLIES: PW CREDIT MEMO SUPPLIES: PW Total : R. HIGGINS FOR MARCH MADNES, Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 1604259 Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : HP MSA 2040 SAS DC SFF STORM VMWARE SOFTWARE AND ACCES ATLAS STREET MAPS POLE ANALYSIS STATE REMITTANCE Total : Total : Total : Amount 97.75 98.60 766.10 354.51 393.66 - 160.40 - 314.93 272.84 40.00 40.00 2,984.43 1,045.00 56.20 4,085.63 408.75 408.75 190.77 190.77 23,175.39 8,057.98 31,233.37 211.15 211.15 1,000.00 1,000.00 49,993.87 Page: 2 vchlist 02/21/2014 1:12:55PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund /Dept Description /Account Amount 31598 2/21/2014 000307 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASUREF (Continued) Total : 49,993.87 31599 2/21/2014 000881 OXARC R251288 101.000.000.542 CYLINDER RENTAL: PW 93.85 Total : 93.85 31600 2/21/2014 000437 PERIDOT PUBLISHING LLC, LIBERTY LA 2014 SUBSCRIPTION 001.018.013.513 2014 YEAR OF THE CURRENT 12.00 Total : 12.00 31601 2/21/2014 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 1428301 -FB14 001.090.000.518 POSTAGE METER RENTAL 275.00 Total : 275.00 31602 2/21/2014 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 44076 101.000.000.542 2014 STREET AND STORMWATER 15,940.19 Total : 15,940.19 31603 2/21/2014 002510 POHL SPRING WORKS INC 161381 101.000.000.542 SERVICE PLOWS 1,735.27 Total : 1,735.27 31604 2/21/2014 002616 ROADWISE INC 55198 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5,635.49 55199 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5,633.88 55200 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5,648.36 55234 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5,633.88 55235 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5,516.44 55236 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5,511.61 55237 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5,633.88 55298 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5,635.49 55299 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5,664.44 55300 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 5,661.23 Total : 56,174.70 31605 2/21/2014 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 5898371 101.042.000.542 2014 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONT 530.46 Total : 530.46 31606 2/21/2014 002021 SHRM 9005669296 001.018.016.518 2014 " S. DEHN" 01542680 185.00 Total : 185.00 31607 2/21/2014 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 5- 693835 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 35.06 Total : 35.06 Page: 3 vchlist 02121/2014 1:12:55PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code : Voucher 31608 31609 31610 31611 31612 31613 31614 31615 31616 31617 31618 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 2/21/2014 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE 2/21/2014 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY 2/21/2014 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 2/21/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 2/21/2014 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 346889 346925 2/21/2014 001903 SPOKANE TRAFFIC CONTROL INC SMV14 -JAN JANUARY 2014 JANUARY 2014 3550.200 51502000 2/21/2014 000093 SPOKESMAN - REVIEW 2/21/2014 002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS INC 2/21/2014 000100 WABO INC. 2/21/2014 002960 WICK, BEN 2/21/2014 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 40 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 382041 384416 224282 28218 EXPENSE JANUARY 2013 B JANUARY 2014 Fund /Dept 001.058.056.558 001.016.000.586 001.013.015.515 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.043.000.542 001.013.000.513 001.013.0011513 101.000.000.542 001.018.016.518 001.011.000.511 Description /Account Amount RECORDING FEES Total: CRIME VICITIMS COMPENSATION I Total : FILE COMPLAINT 3550.200 Total : JANUARY 2014 WORK CREW INVC Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW FLAGGING SERVICES Total : Total : ADVERTISING FOR ACCOUNT 423E ADVERTISING ACCOUNT 42365 Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : OPEN POSITION ADVERTISING Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 001.090.000.518 HIGH SPEED INTERNET 101.042.000.542 DARK FIBER LEASE Total : Bank total : 921.00 921.00 761.90 761.90 240.00 240.00 3,718.38 3,718.38 52.07 10.01 62.08 1,566.25 1,566.25 1,439.25 1,122.02 2,561.27 305.56 305.56 50.00 50.00 198.11 198.11 556.99 410.91 967.90 191,791.87 Page: 4 vchlist 02/27/2014 1:43:03PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : Voucher 5708 5709 pk -ref Date Vendor Invoice 2/27/2014 003601 NIELSON, KAYLENE 2/27/2014 003547 RIVER CITY CHIROPRACTIC 2 Vouchers for bank code : pk -ref 2 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND Fund /Dept 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT Description /Account Amount 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FIRESIDE LOUP Total : ROOM 1092/8/' Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 210.00 210.00 52.00 52.00 262.00 262.00 Page: 1 vchlist 02/27/2014 3:23:00PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 31619 2/27/2014 003599 ARROTTA, CASSANDRA CRY WOLF 31620 2/27/2014 003588 BATES, BILL 1ST QTR 2014 31621 2/27/2014 003090 BIG R STORES 053821/3 31622 2/27/2014 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG 1ST QTR 2014 31623 2/27/2014 000904 BRANCH, CAROLBELLE 1ST QTR 2014 31624 2/27/2014 003577 CATHERINE LINDNER, DUSTIN HETTING CIP 0156 31625 2/27/2014 002562 CD'A METALS 31626 2/27/2014 000322 CENTURYLINK 31627 2/27/2014 003589 CHARLO, KAO 31628 2/27/2014 001880 CROWN WEST REALTY LLC 31629 2/27/2014 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 31630 2/27/2014 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 31631 2/27/2014 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 698584 FEBRUARY 2014 CIP 0156 MARCH 2014 341198 558204 3213- 2013 -gtr4 Fund /Dept 001.000.000.342 001.011.000.511 101.000.000.542 001.018.014.518 001.018.013.513 303.303.156.595 101.000.000.542 001.076.000.576 303.303.156.595 101.042.000.543 001.058.055.558 101.042.000.543 001.090.000.518 Description /Account FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VV Total ; Total : Total : Total : Total : CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE SUPPLIES: PW CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE RELOCATION VOUCHER ASSISTAII Total : SUPPLIES: PW Total : 2014 PHONE SVCS: ACCT 509 Z14- Total : RENTAL SUPPLEMENT/ RELOCATI( Total : COMMON AREA MAINT FACILITY C Total : 2013 SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL Total : TOWER RENTAL FOR PUBLIC WOE Total : MLS CREDIT CARD FEES 4TH QTR Amount 25.00 25.00 135.00 135.00 14.65 14.65 135.00 135.00 135.00 135.00 900.00 900.00 97.07 97.07 465.86 465.86 750.00 750.00 172.67 172.67 1,234.50 1,234.50 204.02 204.02 319.63 Page: 1 vch l ist 02/27/2014 3:23:00PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 31631 2/27/2014 000409 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 31632 2/27/2014 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 31633 2/27/2014 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 31634 2/27/2014 003600 DOLPHIN, IDA 31635 2/27/2014 000999 EASTERN WAATTORNEY SVC INC 31636 2/27/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 31637 2/27/2014 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN 31638 2/27/2014 002568 GRANICUS INC 31639 2/27/2014 003177 GUTH, ERIC 31640 2/27/2014 002682 HAFNER, CHARLES 31641 2/27/2014 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD (Continued) RE- 313- ATB40114063 RE- 313- ATB40114065 RE- 313- ATB40114090 RE- 313- ATB40211053 RE- 313- ATB40211055 FEBRUARY 2014 CRY WOLF 83611 83732 41490 1ST QTR 2014 52465 1ST QTR 2014 EXPENSE 1ST QTR 2014 1ST QTR 2014 Fund /Dept 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 Description /Account Total : STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT SIGNAL & ILLUNIMATION INTELLIGENT TRAFFIC SYSTEMS STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT SIGNAL & ILLUMINATION MAIN Total : 001.076.305.575 ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 001.000.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VE Total : 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.011.000.511 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE Total : Total : 001.011.000.511 BROADCASTING SERVICES- COUP Total : 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 001.011.000.511 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 001.011.000.511 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE Total : Total : Amount 319.63 39,666.10 571.38 217.32 28,405.75 1,010.81 69,871.36 225.25 225.25 25.00 25.00 40.00 15.00 55.00 51.85 51.85 135.00 135.00 719.59 719.59 135.00 50.05 185.05 135.00 135.00 135.00 135.00 Page: 2 vchlist 02/27/2014 3:23:00PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor 31642 2/27/2014 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 31643 2/27/2014 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 31644 2/27/2014 002384 IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MGMT. LLC 31645 2/27/2014 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE & FITINGS Invoice 600400455 600400571 600400572 97477 97640 97701 97914 97938 98042 98229 10113 -10 505278 31646 2/27/2014 000265 JACKSON, MIKE 1ST QTR 2014 MARCH 2014 31647 2/27/2014 001987 JENKINS, ART 31648 2/27/2014 003238 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 31649 2/27/2014 001944 LANCER LTD 31650 2/27/2014 003251 MDI MARKETING 31651 2/27/2014 003598 MILLER, HAROLD EXPENSE 11226430 -0114 0443283 9867 CRY WOLF Fund /Dept 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 403.000.173.594 403.000.173.594 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.558 001.000.000.342 Description /Account SCHEDULE 572081 DD: 217- 3/6/14 SCHEDULE 5720A494: 2/19- 3/18/14 SCHEDULE 57200016: 02/11 - 03/10, Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total : 2013 PAVEMENT MGMT PLAN UPD, Total : SUPPLIES: PW CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE AUTO ALLOWANCE Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : DESIGN SERVICES BUISNESS CARDS Total : Total : TOURISM CAMPAIGN ADVERTISINI Total : FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT V1 Amount 550.02 839.80 745.84 2,135.66 266.55 57.00 29.75 60.08 160.70 57.07 113.41 744.56 1,350.00 1,350.00 198.27 198.27 135.00 300.00 435.00 50.00 50.00 2,235.96 2,235.96 343.55 343.55 1,630.50 1,630.50 25.00 Page: 3 vchlist 02/27/2014 3:23:00PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor 31651 2/27/2014 003598 003598 MILLER, HAROLD 31652 2/27/2014 000662 NAIL BARRICADE & SIGN CO 31653 2/27/2014 001035 NDM TECHNOLOGIES INC 31654 2/27/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. Invoice 31655 2/27/2014 003587 PACE, ED 31656 2/27/2014 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 31657 2/27/2014 003133 SHAMROCK MANUFACTURING INC 31658 2/27/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 31659 2/27/2014 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER (Continued) 82665 5240 5240 697573922001 697776057001 697776077001 1ST QTR 2014 5926109 2275 110100027 51501988 35241.4101 45093.0646 45105.9010 45114.9015 45121.9118 45162.0327 45174.9059 45182.9132 45277.0227 45271.9007 Fund /Dept 303.303.181.595 001.090.000.594 001.090.000.518 001.018.016.518 001.076.000.576 001.076.305.575 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 303.303.181.595 001.016.000.523 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 402.402.000.531 001.076.000.576 001 .076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.016.000.521 001.076.000.576 Description /Account SUPPLIES FOR CIP 0181 Total : Total : HP MSA 2040 SAS DC SFF STORM VMWARE SOFTWARE AND ACCES Total : SUPPLIES: HR SUPPLIES: PARKS AND REC SUPPLIES: PARKS AND REC Total : CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE SNOW REMOVAL CITY HALL SUPPLIES: PW Total: Total : Total : ENGINEERING AND ROAD SERVIC HOUSING INVOICE JANUARY 2014 Total : 1ST HALF STORMWATER & AQUIFI 1ST HALF AQUIFER & STORMWATI 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW. 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW, 1ST HALF AQUIFER & STORMWATI 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW, 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW. 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW Amount 25.00 1,809.86 1,809.86 23,175.39 8,057.97 31,233.36 23.96 100.02 14.95 138.93 135.00 135.00 195.66 195.66 3,141.43 3,141.43 102,078.34 122,049.00 224,127.34 142.45 873.99 1,412.58 371.52 411.85 552.72 28.39 214.45 357.60 81.03 Page: 4 vchlist 02/27/2014 3:23:00PIVI Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 5 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 31659 2/27/2014 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER (Continued) 45271.9008 45273.9036 45332.1517 55073.3101 55182.1553 55182.1623 55182.1624 31660 2/27/2014 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 347477 31661 2/27/2014 002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS INC 224378 31662 2/27/2014 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 66349 31663 2/27/2014 000335 TIRE -RAMA 8040039205 8080026573 31664 2/27/2014 003458 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO 31665 2/27/2014 001464 TW TELECOM 31666 2/27/2014 000014 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC. 31667 2/27/2014 002960 WICK, BEN 31668 2/27/2014 002651 WOODARD, ARNE 978811 269215 045- 100929 1ST QTR 2014 1ST QTR 2014 Fund /Dept 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 402,402.000.531 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.018.016.518 101.000.000.542 001.058.057.558 303.303.181.595 001.076.305.575 001.090.000.518 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 Description /Account 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW 1ST HALF IRRIGATION FEES 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW, 1ST HALF AQUIFER AND STORMW Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : Total : COMPLETE PAYMENT ON INVOICE COMPLETE PAYMENT OF INVOICE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CIP 0181 Total : INTERNET /DATA/ PHONE LINES: FE Total : OMITTED SALES TAX FROM INVOI( Total : Total : Total : CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE Amount 151.20 218.91 102.00 3.50 30.00 173.00 30.00 5,155.19 46.05 46.05 19.02 19.02 81.00 81.00 73.80 217.78 291.58 16,771.70 16,771.70 1,303.80 1,303.80 3,444.28 3,444.28 135.00 135,00 135.00 135.00 Page: 5 vchlist 02/27/2014 3:23:00PM Voucher List Page: 6 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 31669 2/27/2014 000129 WRPA 51 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 51 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date 200000032 Fund /Dept Description /Account Amount 001.076.301.571 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 269.00 Total : 269.00 Bank total : 373,708.20 Total vouchers : 373,708.20 Page: 6 vchlist 02/28/2014 10:40:19AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 31670 2/28/2014 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 31671 2/28/2014 000030 AVISTA 31672 2/28/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 31673 2/28/2014 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 31674 2/28/2014 001795 BRIDAL FESTIVAL 31675 2/28/2014 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 31676 2/28/2014 003083 DEBOISE, BRITTANI 31677 2/28/2014 002308 FINKE, MELISSA 31678 2/28/2014 003136 GIBSON, CARLY INV009853 February 2014 January 2014 2223 2321 2784 4064 7511 9513151 9515198 S0073881 S0074526 S0074603 S0736742 2014 February 2014 Expenses February 2014 Expenses Fund /Dept 001.016.000.521 101.042.000.542 001.076.302.576 001.018.016.518 001.011.000.511 001.076.305.575 001.058.050.558 101.042.000.542 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.058.056.558 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 001.018.014.514 Description /Account Amount PRECINCT JANITORIAL SERVICES Total : UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA Total : JANUARY 2014: 2223 JANUARY 2014: 2321 JANUARY 2014: 2784 JANUARY 2014: 4064 JANUARY 2014: 7511 Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total: BRIDAL FESTIVAL REGISTRATION: Total : PETTY CASH: 9981,82,83, 85,86,87, Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 2,386.87 2,386.87 28,159.85 8,905.27 37,065.12 338.00 1,161.90 1,873.34 1,137.01 1,305.00 5,815.25 298.29 40.10 38.75 84.38 13.75 84.38 559.65 1,920.00 1,920.00 27.15 27.15 28.56 28.56 323.70 323.70 14.00 14.00 Page: '1 vchlist 02/2812014 10 :40 :19AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 31679 2/28/2014 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT 31680 2/28/2014 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW February 2014 #CP P 2 -6 -14 31681 2/28/2014 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC March 2014 31682 2/28/2014 000997 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 31683 31684 31685 31686 2/28/2014 001860 PLATT SR04008314 8620154 8629810 6671350 6673283 B697427 B701453 8741461 B762656 2/28/2014 002475 POST FALLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 4559 2/28/2014 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER 2/28/2014 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. Fund /Dept Description /Account Amount 001.076.305.575 OPERATING SUPPLIES Total : 001.076.305.575 AGENCY PRODUCTION AND PLANE Total : 001.090.000.518 CITY HALL RENT Total : 001.076.305.575 ELEVATOR SERVICE CONTRACT A Total 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES AT PRECINCT SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE: CF Total : 001.076.305.575 BUSINESS FAIR REGULAR BOOTH Total : 681965 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR BRIDAL FAIR 5351078 5896234 5919809 5919810 5919811 31687 2/28/2014 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES February 2014 001.076.300.576 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 Total : CONTRACT MAINT: PARKS JAN 20' DE -ICING AT PRECINCT DE -ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL AT P SNOW REMOVAL AT GATEWAY PAF SNOW REMOVAL HERALD PROPEI Total : 001.076.300.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: FEI Total : 320.26 320.26 1,905.00 1,905.00 33,333.33 33,333.33 1,747.90 1,747.90 47.50 146.75 435.59 39.34 106.13 70.91 1,625.07 -97.97 2,373.32 175.00 175.00 25.14 25.14 58,057.77 190.23 1,032.66 147.84 208.71 59,637.21 1,530.30 1,530.30 Page: 2 vchlist 02/28/2014 10 :40:19AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code : apbank Voucher 31688 31689 31690 31691 31692 31693 31694 Date Vendor Invoice 2/28/2014 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 Feb 2014 Feb 2014 2/28/2014 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 51645 2/28/2014 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION, SOLUTI 140211173101 2/28/2014 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 1150 2/28/2014 001472 2/28/2014 001911 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES THE GLOVER MANSION 59008713 CP1056 -1 CP1147 2/28/2014 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0058889- 1518 -7 25 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 25 Vouchers in this report Fund /Dept 001.076.300.576 101.042.000.542 Description /Account WATER CHARGES FOR PARK RD WATER CHARGES: PW Total : 001.016.000.521 JANUARY 2014 MONTHLY MAINTEP Total : 001.076.305.575 ANSWERING SVC FOR CENTERPL Total : 001.076.000.576 BROWNS PARK MASTER PLAN Total : 001.076.300.576 TC/PA ANALYSIS: PARKS Total : 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 402.402.000.531 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAc EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAI Total : WASTE MANAGEMENT: PW VACTC Total : Amount 32.95 35.84 68.79 587.80 587.80 30.00 30.00 1,069.60 1,069.60 27.00 27.00 622.19 152.18 774.37 1,812.44 1,812.44 Bank total : 153,557.76 Total vouchers : 153,557.76 Page: 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 3 -11 -2014 Department Director Approval : ❑ Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending February 28, 2014 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 258,948.47 $ 5,475.00 $264,423.47 Benefits: $ 148,544.26 $ 10,497.68 $159,041.94 Total payroll $ 407,492.73 $ 15,972.68 $423,465.41 OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve Payroll STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT February 18, 2014 Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL City Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, Washington Staff 8:30 a.m. Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Others in Attendance: Dave Wasson, Spokesman Review Ron Schmidt, Fire Commissioner One or two occasional citizens Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mark Calhoun, Finance Director John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Eric Guth, Public Works Director Morgan Koudelka, Sr Administrative Analyst Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Michelle Rasmussen, Administrative Assistant John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Matt Lyons, Police Precinct Commander John Pietro, Administrative Analyst Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. 1. Welcome — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson explained that today's meeting is an opportunity to sit down in a workshop setting for a type of two -way communication, to discuss ideas and concepts, whether currently proposed, new, or old; that we will discuss the legislative agenda and the code enforcement lien issue, and converse about what we're hearing and what it means. Mr. Jackson said we might also get some further direction on our legislative agenda. Mr. Jackson said anything requiring formal action would return to Council at a future meeting. Mr. Jackson briefly discussed the material under Tabs A and B, which respectively included the Annual Work Plan for 2014, and the Legislative Agenda which is listed under item #5 as well. Mr. Jackson noted that the Business Plan, a copy of which is included with the agenda materials, gets updated every year about this time, that it changes as needed, and gets published each spring after the budget adoption the prior fall; and is also posted on our Website. Business Plan page 15 was mentioned by Mr. Jackson, who explained that this was prepared by Finance Director Calhoun, and that the chart shows our revenue trends; he said it is important to realize that we are still providing the same essential services as we did in 2007, the high mark of our revenues over the years, that we are doing so with less money but we have added programs and are compensating for inflation, and as noted on the chart, he said the line does not trend upward over the years. Mr. Jackson then invited Community Development Director Hohman to discuss economic development. 2. Economic Development Update, Certified Sites Program — John Hohman Director Hohman went over the background of the Economic Development program explaining that it is based on the five levels of Economic Development of the Washington Department of Commerce, and said his department's goal is to work more on level #4: Business Growth and Investment. Mr. Hohman explained the short-term goals and projects as noted from the Economic Development Ad -Hoc Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 1 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT Committee's report; and in conjunction with working more on Business Growth and Investment, explained some of Mr. Basinger's duties as the Economic Development Staff Coordinator, which position Mr. Hohman explained was created in 2013. Director Hohman briefed Council on the Department's Work Plan and Streamlined Permitting and mentioned that staff has received many citizen compliments on this process and of the overall friendly nature they experience. Mr. Hohman said staff has no desire to become complacent and they treat every interaction as if it is the most important one. Mr. Jackson added that now that permitting has been streamlined, they will begin to focus more on marketing. There was some discussion about the Washington State Department of Commerce and of the potential resources for our City with Mr. Hohman stating that we strive to be made aware of every opportunity to be at every regional table, and said a good example of that is Mr. Basinger working on a one -page city recruitment handout which summarizes our City; said Mr. Basinger is working with MDI (Marketing Directors, Inc.) and has sent a draft to GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) and Visit Spokane for detailed comments; he said our staff works collaboratively with others to make this the best product possible. Councilmember Hafner said there are times when he gets material for some committee meeting, but doesn't receive the material in ample time to digest the contents; and Mayor Grafos agreed and said we need to be more proactive and said it is very interesting to hear what's going on now that he is participating in the GSI meetings and suggested we need a plan of "talking points" of our City and our uniqueness. Deputy Mayor Woodard agreed and said we need to let those organizations know we want the information, and suggested it would be beneficial to know when to expect such committee or other materials. Mr. Jackson concurred and said staff is here to support Council and that we can work on those issues this year. Conversation moved to the idea of having a long -term marketing plan. Director Hohman confirmed that no formal plan exists yet, and Mr. Jackson said we do have a plan as we move forward; that this is only the second year of our major marketing efforts as we work to connect with the public's needs; and said those ads are still effective as we reach out to the community. Councilmember Pace suggested including the topic of a marketing plan on an advance agenda including having measurable, quantifiable goals to show for example, explicit examples of how GSI uses the funds we give them. Councilmember Wick agreed that would be beneficial to tie such plan to the goals of the Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Jackson added that granting funds to outside agencies was primarily a political aspect, but said we have made great progress to be able to see and measure what's happening. Mayor Grafos said that issues such as GSI's discussion about a port district are difficult to measure, with Councilmember Pace reiterating his idea of having quantifiable results concerning the funds we supply to these agencies. Councilmember Hafner acknowledged that our City's objectives are different from those of Spokane County or Spokane City and that sometimes we are not included as a partner, even though that is an important objective. Deputy Mayor Woodard said part of the economic plan was how do we let people know we've changed our permitting process; said he agrees with the need for a longer range plan and asked if there are other ads being considered, and Mr. Hohman said there is nothing in production at the moment. Concerning the Economic Development Coordinator position, Councilmember Pace asked what the performance measures are for that job and Mr. Hohman referenced slide #5 which explains the duties of the coordinator; he said the duties include internal as well as external projects, and either the task gets completed or it does not. Mr. Hohman gave as an example the permitted use matrix update which Council will see next week which was an internal activity that Mr. Basinger made sure met the desired timeframe. Mr. Hohman said measuring on a regional scale is more difficult to determine as we are trying to define where to participate and what is most effective. Mr. Hohman also spoke concerning the idea of staff being available to assist Council on some of the committee meetings, such as Visit Spokane or GSI; and said other than trying to forward our goals, this is not something that is particularly measurable. Councilmember Pace suggested the focus rest on setting expectations based on results and not just activities. Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 2 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT City Manager Jackson said this also fits in with the business philosophy; and said this is an emerging area; he said we run a very lean staff and instead of having a program and hiring people, we work to a point and if we hit a roadblock, we work on that; he said we can't say this position should result in x number of retail businesses. Councilmember Wick said he heard from representatives from GSI and Visit Spokane who indicated they appreciate our changes. Mayor Grafos said that now that staff is moving into economic development, he would like Mr. Hohman to look at the staff he has for example in the planning department; said there were about six planners in 2008 and 2009 and at that time we were working on a City Center and SARP (Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan) and now we have a lot less activities and maybe some of those people could be moved to the economic development side. Director Hohman said the department is evolving and changing with significant changes made over the past few years and that from a staffing viewpoint, a greater shift into economic development activities has not yet been determined; that he is getting to the point where the foundation is set and he is still working on the next steps. Mr. Jackson pointed out that the Economic Development Coordinator position is an example of a shift from planning to Economic Development, as Mike Basinger is a senior planner Councilmember Pace said that job changing has been a part of the work force forever, and as technology goes obsolete jobs go obsolete; and said it sounds like the big scale planning job is getting obsolete and economic development is what we need, and that people have to either adapt or look for opportunities elsewhere. Mr. Hohman suggested we need to do a better job at business recruitment; that we don't have large long range plans; and that one of the major projects coming up in the future is an overall comprehensive plan update which must be completed by 2017 and so a plan must be developed on how that will be accomplished. There was further discussion on comp plan specific docket amendments, private and city - initiated amendments, and the overall update of the comp plan; with Mr. Hohman adding that we will want to reach out to property owners and real estate brokers concerning land particularly along Sprague, to see what type of process should be initiated, and said all that will help staff prepare a plan to bring to Council; and that this will likely be part of the June budget workshop discussion. There was also mention of the increased number of new businesses which will include hopeful increased tax revenues. Mr. Hohman continued through his materials by discussing the development code review process; he explained that there are various components of the development code that don't work well, such as the permitted use matrix, which he said is scheduled for next week's council meeting; and he mentioned there are some small items that cause problems with businesses such as preventing loading docks across the fronts of all businesses, but said it is logical to have them in the industrial, and he said staff is working to change that. Director Hohman also noted that there have been significant changes across the country concerning big box stores as many are getting smaller as people increase their purchasing over the Internet, and said he feels that trend will continue. Mr. Hohman mentioned industrial land inventory and said we want to learn where these vacant properties are and what type of infrastructure it will take to bring them on line, and said staff will work with property owners to accomplish that; said they are also looking at street connectivity and are trying to promote that public infrastructure, as some infrastructure tends to foster development. Concerning marketing and the advertising campaign, Mr. Hohman said that the advertising campaign will focus less on permitting and more on general economic development principles such as highlighting the City's positive aspects of affordable living, abundant education offerings, and a trained and available workforce. Director Hohman said staff continues to coordinate with our economic development partners to participate in business recruitments and to market the key city attributes, as well as ensure a consistent theme and message in our marketing materials; and he said staff continues to work with MDI to consider different types of marketing materials. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested having Visit Spokane include our mobile app as they promote our City; and Mr. Jackson noted that the real power is getting businesses involved, and said we want more detail about their business on that mobile app; he said a major focus of marketing tourism is on dining and shopping, which is one of the objectives in having our mobile app. Director Hohman said that although Mike Basinger is the designated coordinator, many staff members are involved, including John Whitehead and Carolbelle Branch to ensure this will be our best product to put Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 3 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT forward. Mr. Hohman said there are other marketing ideas including refining our partnership with GSI; and said we have placed ads in the Choose Washington publication. Moving to the topic of the regional site selector, Mr. Hohman said the focus is to support and improve the website and see what other jurisdictions are doing; he said next steps include analyzing the retail sector, evaluating options for business recruitment and involving the real estate brokers, and implementing new initiatives as time allows; he said he has a lean staff and it is challenging to implement new initiatives but will do so as existing staff time allows, and said there might be some opportunity to shift some staff members to this focus. Mayor Grafos suggested getting more information to the people in the field who provide those services, such as the Trader's Club. Concerning the Certified Sites Program, Mr. Hohman explained what the Certified Sites Program includes, said this is another marketing effort to get into the details or attributes of a property, and we want our program as detailed as possible. Brief discussion followed concerning the 400+ acres in the Industrial Park and of the many areas waiting for sewer, with Mr. Hohman explaining that staff has contacted and is working with Centennial Properties, which is one of the largest land owners, and said they are focusing on the property near the new medical center. Mr. Hohman said we have extensive files from the County on properties and are working to scan those documents to make them available to the public; and in the meantime, he said staff is working to pull as much information together as possible so that we can determine the level of completion of properties; he said we need to identify the needs and put a plan together so a building could be completed as quickly as possible; said staff is working to expand the website to include the list of certified sites as well as having an additional opportunity for property owners to use that as a marketing tool. Mayor Grafos suggested adding another category to the site selector to include Certified Sites in Spokane Valley. A recess was called at 9:55 a.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:05 a.m. 3. Law Enforcement Analysis — Morgan Koudelka, Mike Jackson Mr. Jackson said we have had previous discussions about the size of our Police force and talk about adding resources; he said Senior Administrative Analyst Morgan Koudelka, Police Chief VanLeuven, and Precinct Commander Matt Lyons have been working with the budget in that regard to show the correlations with adding positions; and said if a decision is made later to add to the work force, staff will look harder at the budget figures, but that today's discussion will focus on the concept. Mr. Koudelka explained that they are examining and evaluating the staffing levels to make sure those levels are appropriate for our current needs; and that today he will be sharing some of the highlights of their analysis. Mr. Koudelka referenced page one of his background materials which explains the purpose and analysis of the components used for their research, then moved to page two and gave a brief history of our law enforcement services. Mr. Koudelka said our current Interlocal Agreement operates in four year terms, that a new four -year cycle started in 2014, and they wanted to look at this issue to see if everything is working well or for any potential modifications. He said the Sheriffs Office finance director came up with a new methodology which is easier to administer, has a potential for greater accuracy, is easier to understand and could better accommodate our needs, and said that will be brought forward to Council at a future Council meeting. Mr. Koudelka went over the charts and figures on the following pages; said page four shows the impact from the change in workload while page five describes reported crimes, and page six figures show that we have had the same number of patrol officers since our incorporation; said if all things remained constant, the red line would indicate patrol officers that would have been needed if we adjusted for population, and the green line shows the number of patrol officers that would have been adjusted based on the calls for service. Mr. Jackson added that this chart illustrates the level of our police department, and does not mean we would add officers each time the population increases; he said we are also working to improve efficiencies and in looking at the flat blue line, it is interesting and extraordinary to note that we have kept the same number of officers for all those years while most every other city in the United States has cut their police force. Mr. Koudelka said they looked at other cities' level of police officers over time, especially cities similar to our size, and said it is very Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 4 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT typical to see a reduction of officers, usually done during an economic downturn, which is the worst possible time; he said we don't want to make a temporary staffing change; we want to look at all the needs and the availability of funds over time and if a change is made, staff hopes it would be permanent so citizens can know what to expect, rather than add a few officers one year simply to remove them the following year. Chief VanLeuven said that the minimum staffing level is six, which represents one officer for each district; that normally the level is kept at ten or eleven to accommodate officers out for sick or vacation leave, or attending training; and said they are fairly successful in maintaining the desired staffing levels; said he looked at the annual overtime costs and they are not as significant for our City as they are for the unincorporated area. Mr. Koudelka said they looked at the construction of the cost methodology to come up with a per- officer cost, which means everything including overtime; and said this new methodology has some opportunities to segregate the Spokane Valley Costs, and he went over the figures on pages seven through nine of his materials; then explained the recommended change as noted on page ten, followed by additional explanation from Lt. Lyons on how the process works with the power shift schedule and that the new process would be a better and more efficient use of our resources as it matches the call loads. Mr. Koudelka said this is a first step recommendation and incorporates some efficiencies and some additional staff, and we would be able to measure our goals to determine if we are achieving the desired outcome. Mr. Jackson said that we have not reached a conclusion of how many deputies we really need, but today's discussion shows that we are trying to take a better approach to this, that this is a start, and most likely the number of additional deputies would be more than two, but we are not yet at the point to make a definitive determination. Chief VanLeuven added that for most of last year, he and Lt. Lyons have worked closely with Mr. Koudelka to perform a tremendous amount of analysis of crime data; and that they collectively agree this would be the best use of the resources. Mr. Koudelka added that staff feels this is a good measured approach and that they could measure the impact of this recommendation if approved by Council. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Jackson said he would look at our finances, but if all agreed, the proposal would be implemented in 2014. Councilmember Pace said he would like to see indicators or factors that affect morale, such as officers calling in sick and /or incidents between a supervisor and a deputy. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he also feels we are in a unique situation as we look at efficiencies as most cities are still laying off officers. Lt. Lyons said he appreciates that morale is a concern of Council and said that a big factor of morale exists in the officer initiated incidents as most officers feel it is beneficial to be able to take the pro- active step to stop crime as they want to see results of their labor; said the minimum staffing numbers versus the total staffing numbers is problematic in the unincorporated areas, but not so in Spokane Valley where other officers are attempting to bid to work. Mr. Jackson explained that legislatively, Council has given huge boosts of morale over the years by stating that we will not cut law enforcement. After Mr. Koudelka went over the material on page 12 and 13 concerning property crimes and cost and funding options, Mayor Grafos said he feels we should make those one -time expense repairs to the precinct as that would also help morale; and suggested Council have another tour of the precinct building. 11:30 a.m. Telephone Call Mr. Jackson noted we set the time of 11:30 a.m. today to call our Legislative Analyst Briahna Taylor, so the topic of law enforcement was briefly interrupted to move to this agenda's item #5: Legislative Update. Ms. Taylor explained that there have been some proposed changes to show how revenues or expenditures will change over the last few months; said there will be a supplemental operating budget, that this session is a short tone and the supplemental budget will be amending the budget adopted last session. She then went over our City's legislative agenda items: Appleway Trail Project: said this request was submitted this year to prepare the legislation to allocate funding in the 2015 session with the recognition that it would not likely be successful this year, but rather to lay the groundwork for next year; said this project was discussed with the legislation and they will see Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 5 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT if they can get funding in the supplemental capital budget, although that is not anticipated, and that she will continue to work with the delegation in preparing for 2015. Protect the Local -State Shared Revenues: she explained that the liquor revenues and potential marijuana revenues are the two types of revenues being discussed the most this session; that concerning the liquor revenues, the matter was not given a hearing as the legislators have no solution on how to fund education, as the Supreme Court said they must come up with a four -year plan, which she said is the goal before considering restoring any liquor revenues. Ms. Taylor acknowledged that was a disappointing response. Concerning being entitled to a portion of tax revenues generated by the sale of marijuana, Ms. Taylor said the Senate proposed allocating 10% to local jurisdictions, even though Cities were looking for 50% in order to mirror the same division with liquor; but she said the highest percentage made into a bill is 10 %. Ms. Taylor again said that legislators were resistant to include a higher number since it is not clear how much revenue will be generated, as some feel it will be higher and some feel it will be lower; and that they want to keep revenues to fund education. Additional Lien Authority to Recoup Code Enforcement Costs: Concerning the code enforcement lien for abatement purposes, Ms. Taylor said that a bill was introduced last year and it is still alive, but a replacement amendment was proposed to address concerns about the community banks' issues, including that they want the opportunity to clean up the property before the City steps in, or to at least be notified. Ms. Taylor said banks and legislators are working to come to an agreement on language but a few weeks ago it was clear they were not reaching an agreement. Ms. Taylor said the amendment draft didn't have the support of the bankers so it has moved forward to include notifying the mortgage holder and once the abatement has been completed, to notify the property owner as well. She said the legislators are also concerned about abatement costs on property tax statements that allows for the foreclosure process to begin if not paid within three years; and she said the current law requires anything to be paid in full. She indicated that Representative Christian is not a viable option; she said if the bill gets amended, it would include any nuisance cost to become a first priority lien with no recourse to recover when the property is sold; she said the bill will go to the Senate with an opportunity to amend, and then it moves to the floor. City Manager Jackson said the real issue is whether the higher lien authority meets the City's objective; said he understands legislators' hesitancy to put for example, a $2,000 lien on someone's property tax of $500; and said perhaps there is an opportunity to compromise and have an arranged payment plan; said he wants to move forward in the present form and said it was Council's intent to recoup a reasonable amount over time in the City's investment of the property; adding that this lien would only take place after the property owner refused to clean up the property and the matter taken to court for an order to clean up the property. City Attorney Driskell said the City gives people every opportunity to do this themselves; said the amended language would give us a higher priority if they filed bankruptcy, but that currently we don't have priority; and if passed, we would still be in the same position without any opportunity to enforce this and recover the public's funds; and gave a suggested alternative of only putting a certain percentage of the amount owed on any particular year and to divide out the cost over time; he said if it was serious enough to go to court, he also questioned how long we want public funds to just "sit out there." Councilmember Pace said he thinks we should pursue this as originally stated; said he felt Representative Christian backed away from supporting it and that Representative Shea followed him; said we need to seek Representative Shea and Senator Padden's encouragement in that regard. Mayor Grafos said he favors keeping the language the way it was presented and City Attorney Driskell said he agrees with putting it on the tax rolls as opposed to having a higher priority. Deputy Mayor Woodard also expressed disappointment in Representative Christian's position, and said we need the lien priority and agrees with an incremental payment plan as we need to know our taxpayers are being reimbursed, and said this has nothing to do with a scenario of someone's 90 -year aunt losing their home; and that perhaps we could eliminate the elderly or very poor from losing their property by means of a tax exemption. Mr. Driskell said if that were the concern, we'd have to look at income levels and make that determination, and he Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 6 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT asked if we can keep in place the ability to place the amount on tax rolls incrementally or have a payment plan, and Councilmember Pace and Deputy Mayor Woodard agreed, and Councilmember Wick said he would want to put it on the tax rolls. Mr. Jackson asked if we move forward and get the higher priority, and then come back next year to put it on as a property tax lien, is that stronger or weaker? Ms. Taylor recommended amending the bill this year in an attempt to remedy the situation and not lose the bill entirely. Mr. Jackson replied that it is important to understand this City's tendency not to tax, and he hesitates spreading this cost out to every property owner instead of just to the individual; he said we need to tell someone that if they don't clean up their property, we will and we will place a lien on the property when the property tax is due, and he suggested if we follow that process, the property owner will get the property cleaned up. Mr. Jackson said it is not effective to tell the property owner that some day if they sell the property, they'll have to pay us back. Ms. Taylor suggested trying for an amendment so as not to lose the bill. Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmember Pace said they agree from a strategic standpoint and Ms. Taylor said she will do the best she can. Mr. Jackson agreed to pursue that option and have her work out the details with City Attorney Driskell. Transportation Projects: Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation: Ms. Taylor said the proposed 11.5¢ gasoline tax increase is tied to several reforms and there is the reality of the transportation revenue negotiation package coming in very low and that the House and Senate are far from agreement; said if there were no new projects, there would be no new sales tax and the budget would remain the same; that the current forecast is not to account for any of those projects being funded; she said there aren't enough funds to provide liquor and marijuana revenues so an increase in sales tax would make the revenue more available; said if the funds all went to operating, it would be allocated to education; and again mentioned legislators are a long way from reaching agreement on that reform. The question of banking and marijuana was broached and Deputy City Attorney Lamb said federal guidelines for banks were issues directing them to look at funds in the businesses and be able to report that a reputable marijuana provider is complying with state law; and said this is not a change and the banks still feel they have a "red light" to proceed at their own risk; adding that none of the big banks would rely on this. Everyone thanked Ms. Taylor for her input and the telephone call ended at 12:10 p.m. Councilmember Hafner asked how much we lose annually on the code abatement issue. Mr. Driskell said he does not have exact numbers with him, and that the City doesn't do some abatements due to limited City funds. Mr. Jackson said we budgeted $20,000 but rarely spend that. Councilmember Wick asked about the Council of Governance meeting next week and the issue of marijuana, and Mr. Jackson said he has not heard back but has asked staff to be prepared to address the issue at that meeting. Councilmember Wick said Commissioner O'Quinn told him she would try to fit in the topic. The discussion returned to agenda item #3: Law Enforcement Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka went over the material contained on pages 14 and 15 of his material; said concerning staffing that they are facing some considerable challenges now with officers retiring and /or transferring elsewhere, and of the need to fill those positions before new officers are added; he mentioned academy training and that it takes at least a year to get new officers out on their own; he said that our Police Department has great things to say about our Community Development Department and feel there would be additional opportunities to have police involved in some land use decisions; that a while ago a big box store and a subsidized housing complex were added, both of which caused several hundred additional annual calls to the Police. Chief VanLeuven said that as our City grows we need to evaluate those issues as certain types of business will have a impact on call load and services and that early collaboration could be critical to the growth element of the City. Concerning police staffing, he also noted the hiring process takes two to three months and then the academy training; and said we will have some vacant positions that will have to be filled immediately; and mentioned that a lateral change comes in at a more accelerated pace. Chief VanLeuven said he will keep Council apprised. Concerning the changes involving corporals, Mr. Koudelka said the issue is still a work in progress as bargaining would be required, adding that some changes would occur over time through attrition. Mr. Jackson said the Chief will have further discussions with the Sheriffs Office, and that this issue will be Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 7 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT scheduled for a future Council for approval consideration; and in that connection, a budget amendment would be scheduled for later in the year. The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:30 p.m., and reconvened at 1:00 p.m. Mr. Jackson said any items that we don't have time to address today could be scheduled for a future meeting. 4. Criminal Justice Update —John Pietro, Morgan Koudelka, Cary Driskell Mr. Jackson said the documents included with this agenda item are excerpts from a large Criminal Justice Commission Report, and said we see these steps as a positive move forward Administrative Analyst John Pietro explained that the purpose of the report is to explore current operations and efficiencies, identify duplication of services, and develop a blue print for successful reform that better meets the needs of those processed through the criminal justice system; and said our goal is to monitor the process and make sure we are included in this endeavor to identify potential costs and service impacts. Mr. Pietro mentioned some of the history of Spokane County and City developing a memorandum of understanding to cooperate to a greater degree as it pertains to the criminal justice system, and how to make the system more offender centered instead of offense centered. He mentioned that there was also discussion in the report about whether the proposed $200 million jail facility is truly needed as they recognize there are effective known alternatives to incarceration; said the report includes 43 total recommendations; and said the report is more of a narrative instead of a list of cost items as that would have been beyond the scope of the group conducting the search. Mr. Pietro briefly discussed included section 5.5.3 on page 36 which addresses unnecessary duplication of efforts within the court system; then went on to discuss included section 5.6(2) on page 41, which addresses developing a true driving while license suspended (DWLS3) diversion and relicensing program, and said that DWLS3 is the most charged crime in Washington; and under the relicensing diversion programs, offenders are required to agree to a payment schedule and that upon full payment and other holds removed, the license would be reinstated. Mr. Pietro explained that the report states the programs have proven highly successful and in King County, 1,330 jail days were cut and they saw a $2.00 return on every dollar spent. Mr. Jackson said that we can encourage a diversion program and other recommendations in the study, and keeping in mind that the City of Spokane and Spokane County are primary providers of these services, we would work through them. Mr. Koudelka explained that even before this report was published, we realized we have an issue with these kind of cases and we met with the Prosecutor's office to discuss differences and obstacles, and asked if Spokane could consider the true diversion, which is to divert to the program before the offender gets into the system, and said it appeared Spokane was experiencing success, although there was some initial concerns about representations for the people or adding staff to go through the charges manually to segregate the Spokane Valley charges. Mr. Koudelka said we were told they were not able to make the additional investment to adopt a true diversion program at this point, but now that we have this report, Mr. Koudelka said staff are hopeful it will add weight and possibly give us a different outcome. Mr. Jackson said we have not looked at moving in this direction on our own although we could choose to; said these are recommendations and likely the City and County have not had time to decide how to approach this; said part of the recommendations includes hiring a director as an overseer over the entire system, which he said is something we have been encouraging for years; adding that it could likely get more costly at first, but over time the cost would decline. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked how many cases we have and Mr. Pietro replied that charges don't necessarily correspond to case load, but we could get further analysis. Mr. Koudelka said if an offender does any jail time, that includes work from the public defender and court docket which amounts to about $1 million each; he said the next steps are limited, but the hope is that these issues will be discussed and reviewed and an initial investment cost as well as potential long -term impact identified. Mr. Pietro said if we developed a program, we'd expect to see the statistics on the number of cases, reduced budgets, reduced contract costs, and reduced usage percentage; and said if we truly represent a greater portion of DWLS than anyone, we would expect to see fewer costs at the jail, fewer warrants, and decreased public defender costs. Mr. Pietro explained that the next steps include setting up a governance structure as addressed in the report; to leave it up to those on the law and Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 8 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT justice council to conduct a full analysis, and our next steps would be parallel to theirs, and that perhaps participate in the governance structure. Mr. Pietro said he visited with a representative from Spokane County and they are seriously anticipating a Spokane Valley presence on that Council; he said our goal is to get involved in the process, recommend priorities, and update Council on the progress, as well as assist with the performance measures, and to communicate our expectations to the County; and if an investment is made and performance and outcomes measured, to understand outcomes and make adjustments as needed. 5. Legislative Update — Mike Jackson See above discussion of 11:30 a.m. telephone call to Ms. Taylor. 6. Capital Project Priorities — Mike Jackson, Mark Calhoun City Manager Jackson explained that he previously met with Councilmembers Bates and Pace and a few others to go over this topic; that this is not new as it began two to three years ago; that he will put up a board and identify projects important to Council; said he wants to set the stage for the next discussion on city hall, and see if Council has some common priorities, and if so, at a regular Council session we would proceed to separate some of these funds. Starting at the top of the spreadsheet, Finance Director Calhoun explained the items included under capital projects, potential city sources, convert city hall lease to a bond payment, and potential recurring general fund expenditures; and said the figure of $8 7 million could be applied to a variety of projects shown in the top section. Mr. Jackson also noted the figures shown in Fund 310 of $1 1 million, which was the original fund set aside for a city hall and said that over the years, $2.5 million was spent on Balfour Park and other projects. Concerning the current lease of City Hall, Mr. Calhoun said the earliest date to get out of our current lease would be March or April, 2016. The future potential recurring general fund expenditures, Mr. Calhoun explained, shows funds that we would need as recurring costs once some of those top projects are actually completed, and includes additional police officers. In the discussion of the Appleway Trail project, Public Works Director Guth further clarified some of the expenses associated with that trail, as shown on his February 18, 2014 memorandum trail update. Mr. Jackson stated that at some point, these issues would come before Council to discuss which amenities, if any, Council would like to add, such as benches, or bike racks, or just keep the basic trail with the idea of adding amenities later. Mr. Calhoun continued his explanation of his spreadsheet and said that the transfer station, shown crossed off the list, was just a place holder as we work through the solid waste discussion; and that for the park acquisition, we do not have a particular site in mind Mr. Calhoun said if we were to move forward with all the project costs, we would be looking at between $78 and $82 million; and Mr. Jackson reminded everyone that these are projects the City is considering; that there is no shortfall, but we are merely looking at what it would cost to build all these projects. Council was asked if they had projects to consider adding, and Councilmember Wick suggested an additional Gateway Sign on the east side of the City, with shared expenses with the City of Liberty Lake. Mr. Jackson said we have funded a second gateway sign in the park budget. Councilmember Pace asked about parkland acquisition and sewer and roads at the industrial property east of Flora. Mr. Jackson said the idea is that we would construct the roads and the County would do the sewer system and spread the cost among the users; said that he and Director Hohman have discussed this and there is no hard evidence that expanding the industrial area is the most critical aspect now and what that return on investment would be; he said at some point we would likely bring someone in to help with those determinations as he'd like more confidence on such an investment as well as more evidence as to the economic impact on that expansion as opposed to investment of another part of our economy. Mr. Hohman added that staff has discussed doing a market analysis to get a better feel for such an endeavor, and Mr. Jackson said staff will continue working on that and bring the idea forward; he said our 2014 budget is tighter than some in the past and to take funds out for these projects would be a big hit out of our funds; said these are really Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 9 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT more of a "one -time money" project so it is important to choose the right one for investment. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like to see what the County is doing about hookups and feels we would be moving too soon to allocate funds now; and said for our priorities, the question Council should consider is what is the top priority for the next five years and where's the best place to spend one -time money. There was further discussion of project funding options with Mayor Grafos stating that he would like to see $1 million used for the Appleway Trail, University to Pines and to just fund the trail or possibly add some trees, lights, paving and cleaning up of the site and see what happens from there; then use $1 million for City Hall and hold the remainder until we see what happens with the library and with solid waste; he said with perhaps another $80,000 we should be able to extend the trail to Pines, or find another "pot of money" someplace. Councilmember Bates said he feels the trail is important to our citizens and that they expect more than a trail; and suggested maximizing the trail with our first installation to put in those items that will likely get us grants. Mr. Jackson replied that to do that, we would have to plan long term and wait four to five years; and asked if Council wants to do something immediately, what would that be and what would be deferred to another time, adding that he feels we could raise additional money over time. Public Works Director Guth said that they are also looking at an STA Call for Grants; said those are usually smaller but staff will likely put in for a grant in April and find out in late fall if we receive funding. Parks and Recreation Director Stone added that we could build a portion now and raise money for other amenities, but a Parks and Recreation grant is a lengthy process and it would be next July before we found out if we got any funds. Councilmember Hafner said he liked the idea of doing the trail University to Pines with just the basics, and to add extras later. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested having the City pay for the first part of the project, and using the 2012[3] ending fund balance to go toward a City Hall; and agreed that as we get close to the project, people will support us having our own building. Councilmember Wick said that the Appleway Trail is a good plan but feels we have a good opportunity to go after land acquisition or set aside funds for a City Hall, or even buy the land. Councilmember Hafner added that we need to do what is best for the citizens now; and that the Appleway Trail would be a refreshing situation for our citizens; that we can wait to build a city hall and prioritize so we can do all three — the Appleway Trail, then Balfour Park based on the outcome of the library issue, and then City Hall. Mr. Jackson reminded everyone that nothing we are proposing includes adding debt; and said even the purchase of a transfer station hasn't been discarded as the long -range plan has not yet been determined. List: of issues to bring back to council to define costs $1 million Appleway University to Pines — trail, lighting, etc and consider whether to include any options $1 million — City Hall [Mr. Guth mentioned $2 5 million for full distance to Evergreen with lights and benches] $1 million — approximately for law enforcement [next year's budget] It was suggested to leave the rest for the capital projects fund reserve Fund 312 Land acquisition, and Balfour Park — Councilmember Wick suggested spending $1 million for park land acquisition this year For a future meeting, City Manager Jackson said staff will bring a scope of the trail project from University to Pines as well as the trail amenities project proposal. Councilmember Higgins said that he feels such a scope should be constructed in such a way to accommodate easy add -ons; and Councilmember Bates said he would like to see a comparison of Phase 2, or just up to Evergreen, and would appreciate seeing that option. In response to a question concerning cost, Public Works Director Guth said that University to Pines would be about $1 3 million for just the trail, and for a "fat" version, simply double that amount; and to add in all the amenities if all were chosen, would be about $4.3 million Mayor Grafos said he feels there is plenty of time to add in those other amenities later, and Councilmember Wick stated he is not ready to spend funds until the issue has gone through at least one Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 10 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT legislative cycle. Mr. Jackson said we are not likely to secure grants for amenities and are more likely to secure grants for the trail; and said the question is whether to invest funds now to complete the trail from University to Pines. Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 3:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 3:10 p.m. Finance Director Calhoun then finished his explanation of the spreadsheet and future potential recurring expenditures. 7. City Hall — John Hohman, Mike Jackson, Mark Calhoun Community Development Director Hohman said his goal for this topic is to review some of the information brought to Council last July when the consultant was with us, then discuss some new information. Mr. Hohman said we have now been in our current building for eleven years and we occupy about 29,000 square feet, which includes space on the first and third floor, and some space in one of the side buildings. Mr. Hohman said a range of city hall options has been developed and is explained in both the 2008 study as well as the 2013 report, and said that the 2013 is an updated version of that 2008 report. Director Hohman went over his PowerPoint slides explaining a little about each of the studies and in particular, the needs and associated costs found in the 2013 study; he said that based on a two -story building, a minimum of two to two and one -half acres would be needed which would allow for enough parking; he went over the five specific sites, which was narrowed down from an original twenty -one sites, including the current site, which he explained would not include the Tire Rama area. City Manager Jackson invited Councilmembers to vote on their preferences for their expectations of a city hall, which showed the following results: Expectations: • Housing for Staff and Operations - 4 votes priority one (doesn't want a building without the option to expand) • Future cost savings: 2 votes priority one; 3 votes priority three • Spur Growth and Redevelopment: 3 votes priority two; 1 vote priority three • Convenient Access for Citizens /Customers: 2 votes priority two; 3 votes priority three • Community Identity: 1 vote priority one; 2 votes priority two • Community Gathering Point: no votes In response to a question about the police precinct, Mr. Hohman said the existing precinct works well and the City already owns it, and that there would be no distinct savings to combine a precinct with a city hall. Discussion ensued regarding the five sites, with Councilmember Wick expressing his desire to be closer to populations; Mayor Grafos said the building owners indicated to him that they would remove the old JC Penney building and would remodel the Crescent Building; and that with the Balfour Park and hopefully the library nearby, as well as the Appleway Trail and apartments across the street, that University City would be his preference. Councilmember Pace said there would be convenient access and easy parking and bus availability on either of the two Sprague locations. Councilmember Wick added that not only are the Sprague areas closer, but there is more of an identity in that area as it is symbolic of what our history has been, and said trees could be added in the future. Councilmember Hafner said that University is the center of the community, and agreed having the library near would be ideal. Councilmember Bates noted that Sprague Avenue is a primary spot, and that the center of our City has moved toward Sullivan; and if the library and park goes through, he said University City would be a logical spot; and Councilmember Higgins agreed and said it would be an anchoring point for a community center, and said he would have a problem with a City Center in Spokane Valley and said there Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 11 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT isn't really a city center in Spokane Valley and probably never will be, but this has the possibility of bringing in economic life into Sprague Avenue. City Manager Jackson said the remodel is not something the owners would do for us; he said they are talking about us and the Sheriffs Office and are looking at that old JC Penney building, and said we do not have anything in writing. Director Hohman said as part of the 2013 study, the Crescent building was examined; said it was built in the 1950's and there is a lot of deferred maintenance on that building, that it is about twice the size we need, needs a new HVAC system and update, and said the projected cost was upward to $16 million As part of the cost range, Mr. Hohman said staff met with the Finance Committee last November and they asked staff to contact property owners in December. Mr. Hohman said the property owners were not available, although staff met with a sales representative; said concerning their future plans, the building was discussed and the Sheriffs Office training center has some serious problems, such as a leaking roof, and the owners anticipate that the Sheriffs Office will need to move out and the building demolished; said the Crescent building has an existing tenant on the first floor as well as a new tenant on the second floor. Mr. Hohman said there was discussion about developing a pad site on Sprague on Dartmouth; said he received a telephone call from the sales representative on behalf of property owner Magnusson, and said the owners have commissioned a parking lot area on the southeast corner and he showed a drawing of the latest University City concept on slide 19; said the idea is to have a municipal building constructed in the parking lot, that with 2.5 acres there would be sufficient parking and it looks like it ties in nicely with development across the street; said the property owners are excited to work with us on this concept; and said there is also a concept for underground parking for securing city vehicles. Mayor Grafos said that the opportunity to buy 2.5 acres would make an ideal site for a city hall, and said he assumes we could get into discussions concerning price if Council concurs. Councilmember Hafner suggested staff get all the facts to determine what is best for the community; and Mr. Jackson said staff will continue to look at this and will bring forward additional materials for discussion. 8. Existing City Hall — John Hohman Director Hohman said as part of the "Roadmap for Enhanced Permitting" as discussed in the past, included the goal to consolidate the Community Development Department to improve efficiency and supervision of staff, and that with the vacating of the Wells Fargo office on the first floor, that area is being reevaluated for options for the permit center. Mr. Hohman went over the options listed in the agenda packet material; and after discussion of the options and costs, it appeared the preferred option was B, which is moving the Finance Department to the vacated Wells Fargo space, and moving the Permit Center back into the section of City Hall currently housing the Finance Department. There was also discussion about the need for carpet replacement, which had been previously discussed with the property manager who is willing to cooperate in that cost. It was noted we would likely remain in the current building for about five or more years. Mr. Jackson said staff will bring back additional details and that this will be discussed further at a future council meeting. 9. CARES Program Update — Michelle Rasmussen Administrative Assistant Michelle Rasmussen explained a little about the history of our CARES program, which came about as a result of the snow storm of 2009 when we realized we didn't have a process to handle and process customer service requests; she said that Carolbelle Branch gave us the title CARES, which stands for Citizen Action Request online Entry System, and under Mike Jackson's direction and the assistance of IT (Information Technology Department), the E -Gov system was implemented. She explained about the ease in reporting and tracking whether by staff or by the citizen, and said we have responded to over 3,500 requests since its inception. Councilmember Wick asked if this has the function of sending a survey, and Ms. Rasmussen replied she would need to research that question. Mr. Jackson said the Paladin Data Systems (Smart-Gov) has a survey function. 10. Miscellaneous Items: were not discussed or reported. Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 12 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT 11. Brainstorming session — open discussion City Manager Jackson said this is an opportunity for Council to share ideas, and the following topics were broached: Alternative Affordable Housing Options City's Self- Promotion: advertise who we are and what we do Coordinate the re- surfacing /paving of Sprague Avenue with the CarMax opening. Have some Councilmembers be part of a City Legislative Committee: in order to track items a little closer; Mr. Jackson said he would also be part of such a committee so he could communicate issues to Briahna Taylor. This topic could be discussed at a future Council meeting. Parkland acquisition: are there available properties. It was mentioned that Director Stone is aware there are properties, but needs authorization from Mr. Jackson to seek out any potential areas. It was mentioned that perhaps this would be a topic for a quick update during a study session. Hold a study session once a month with Councilmembers and Department Directors sitting around the table as they are today. Develop relationships with other agencies. Have a Spokane Valley appointed position on the PFD (Public Facilities District) Board. Report good ideas as you see them. Mr. Jackson reminded Councilmembers that they can send him an e- mail any time. Street Sweeping Schedules: have the area posted with signs of sweeping schedules, or if already signed, make sure signs are current. Expand existing parks. Inform public on regulations of animal keeping; compare our regulations with those of the City of Spokane; make sure we are urban farming friend. In response to a previous question about the amount of money due the City now on outstanding code enforcement, City Attorney Driskell said the amount is $40,000; and said we lost $10,000 because of trustee sales where our City didn't have priority; and said over the years, we received about $20,000 in cleanup reimbursement. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:44 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Workshop minutes: 02 -18 -2014 Page 13 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES Special Joint Meeting Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Spokane Valley City Council Monday, February 24, 2014 10:00 a.m. — 11:30 a.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Attendance: City of Spokane Valley Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Spokane Valley Staff: Spokane County Al French, Chair Todd Mielke, Vice -Chair Shelly O'Quinn, Commissioner Spokane County Staff Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Morgan Koudelka, St Administrative Analyst Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Marshall Famell, Chief Executive Officer Jim Emacio, DPA, Prosecutor's Office Bill Wedlake, Solid Waste Coordinator Bruce Rawls, Spokane County Div. of Utilities Kevin Cooke, Utilities Director John Dickson, Chief Operations Officer Bob Wrigley, Chief Financial Officer Others in Attendance: Steve Wulf, Sunshine Disposal Recycling Tami Yager, Waste Management Mike Huffman, Valley News Herald Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and welcomed the County Commissioners to the meeting. After self - introductions, Mayor Grafos turned the meeting over to Commissioner Chair French. Chair French also opened the meeting for the Board of County Commissioners, called to order at 10:00 a.m. Monday morning, said the full board is convened with all present, as well as senior staff members and legal counsel. Mayor Grafos acknowledged that since Council just received a copy of the draft interlocal agreement this morning, there was been little time for reviewing the document. Chair French explained that the City of Spokane has finalized their agreement from a legislative standpoint, in terms of selling the transfer stations to the County and turning over the regional operation to the County, and that they (the County) have now issued an RFP (Request for Funding Proposal) to find an operator for the transfer stations. He said they will be holding the Regional Solid Waste Meeting this Thursday night and have invited all jurisdictions so everyone will get a status update, and to give an opportunity for the County to answer any questions about the status of this project, as well as to see how many jurisdictions want to join the regional system or plan on going on their own. Mr. French said the City of Spokane is the only city firmly committed to the regional system. Mr. French explained that at this Friday's meeting, they will start the education process about costs, said work continues on refining the cost; that this is a dynamic process, there is nothing written in stone, but they are trying to pursue a Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT direction that is in the best interests of all rate payers. Mr. French said the interlocal is a starting point; he said various jurisdictions will have pros and/or cons to address from their standpoint; that it is always better to edit than create and he stressed this is a basic document. Chair French said that Spokane Valley is the second largest generator of waste from a municipal system, and they felt today's meeting would be appropriate, adding that of course Spokane Valley is invited to come and participate at the Thursday night meeting as well. Mr. French asked if there were any issues Council might have to help find a path forward. Commissioner Mielke said that this process has taken longer than anticipated as they had hoped to be where we are now, about six or eight months ago; he said that Thursday's meeting is a little about going into some details about how the system operates; and that today the Commissioners are interested to understand Spokane Valley's goals and philosophy concerning a solid waste system; that the Commissioners hope to ascertain what it is that Spokane Valley feels is most important. Commissioner Mielke said that first they went in with broad ideas to determine how to create the least amount of disruption for citizens and second is the notion of trying to handle solid waste in the lowest cost - responsible way, and said he realizes all jurisdictions have that as a common goal; he said they are trying to guarantee the lowest cost so they put this out for bid; and to secure the transfer stations they have to have a place to take the solid waste; he feels they have a unique charge and according to State statute, they are to write a solid waste plan; beyond that, he said they want to take the steps to make sure they have the lowest cost option to handle solid waste regionally; he said once they completed the purchase of the transfer stations, adding that they got them at a good cost, first would be to put it out to bid to operate those; and said that typically they would take the lowest bid, and said it will take some time before they have definitive numbers. Concerning building the transfer stations, he said they were looking at between $20 and $22 million to build two from scratch, and that a third transfer station would have been an additional cost; he mentioned the requirement to through the process to site a transfer station as it is an essential public facility; and said that is a long tedious process subject to a lot of public input as well as challenge and appeal at just about every step. He said they will have the transfer stations up and running by November of this year, and that it could easily be two to three years before they complete the essential public facility siting process; that the set price of $9 9 million would be amortized over seven years, and from a cost perspective, said they feel the purchase is about half of what it would cost to construct a new facility; and said there is certainty of knowing where they'll be and that they don't have to go through a separate siting facility process to get there. Chair French explained that they hired a consultant who said they would need three transfer stations to meet all the County's needs, and the cost of building the West Plains stations would be needed; he said they were able to negotiate with the City of Spokane to continue to use the Waste -to- Energy Plant site as a transfer station for the West Plains, so that eliminated the need to build that third transfer station, which he said has a significant cost impact.. Commissioner Mielke again stated that for the operational aspects, the goal is how to have a low cost system that responsibly takes care of solid waste in this area, and one which meets the legal obligations they have under State statute; said they are required to have the planning element, as well as public education element, and that does not mean a one -time publication, but rather an ongoing process; he said they also have to deal with household hazardous waste, recycling, and green waste, and said it costs a lot of money to deal with green waste; he said no jurisdiction can escape the notion that they have legacy landfills around the region that the citizens of this region contributed to; and that at some point it would need ongoing oversight to make sure those closures meet the statutes; again he said the goal is the lowest possible cost for the operation of the transfer stations and movement of solid waste to the disposal site from the transfer stations, which he said is out for bid and that bids are due March 31; he said he thinks this approach will get the lowest possible cost. Also, Mr. Mielke said, there is a seven -year agreement with the first three years moving solid waste to the Waste -to- Energy Plant; he said the City of Spokane worked very hard to project the costs and keep them set; and said the issue of the first three years probably gives us a guaranteed flow for those three years; said they have an Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT "out" clause starting after the third year, where a different disposal method can be chosen in order to have the ability to compare costs, whether by rail or truck, he said that ability is built into the contract and that guarantees the options for flexibility. The report from HDR Engineering, Inc., Chair French said, identified long haul rail as the lowest cost option except for dealing with the West Plains; he said this allows an opportunity to come back and challenge the numbers and be able to bid that out, but to do that, he said we have to quantify the amount of flow and therefore need to know whether or not Spokane Valley will be part of the system; and said he feels together this system will be of higher appeal and that they are incrementally advancing some of the recommendations from that HDR report. Commissioner O'Quinn said they did a great job of laying out the framework, and that the Board would like to hear Spokane Valley's concerns, whether moving regionally or in a different direction; and she asked, what hasn't the Board answered for Council. Mayor Grafos said his philosophy is that any long term agreement entered into should be competitively bid and result in the lowest cost; that Spokane Valley should retain a measure of control over future rates and policy for their citizens; he said they just received the interlocal today and he asked where do the costs come in; said he realized we don't know the costs until the bids come in but at that point, he would like to examine the cost then decide if they want to be part of it; while at the same time he said Spokane Valley does not want to disrupt the system. Mr. Rawls said that after the bids come in March 31, that Kevin Cooke and Bill Wedlake would do a rate study for all the costs, including the cost to close the landfill, recycling programs, planning, etc., and that they should be able to determine the rates in June or July. Commissioner O'Quinn said they anticipate keeping the rates the same as they are currently. Mr. Wedlake said the costs depend on volume and the number of jurisdictions that join the system, adding that economies of scale are very important as they are committed to a cost of service approach to the rate, and will examine all the cost elements and total volumes. Concerning the draft interlocal agreement, Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned Section 2 Duration/Termination, wherein it is stated that the parties may only terminate by mutual written agreement; he said he feels this should be re -written so that either party could escape with a year's written notice. Deputy Mayor Woodard also stated that he wanted to clear up a misunderstanding; that he met with Commissioner O'Quinn about two weeks ago and he mentioned this Council's upcoming February 18 workshop packet, and that although he hadn't seen it yet, assumed there might be something in those packet materials about solid waste; but that in fact, there was no solid waste discussion at the workshop meeting nor materials in that packet; and said that Council has not discussed the topic of solid waste since Council knew it was the focus of the upcoming February 27 meeting, and that it would come up again at the Council of Governance meeting the following day and he stressed that no decisions have been made; he also noted that the HDR report did not take into consideration all the options and therefore, Council asked staff to come up with additional information, but hasn't had a report yet; he said he is here to gather information and that Council will make decisions that are first in the best interests of Spokane Valley citizens; and second in the best interests of the County. Commissioner O'Quinn asked when that additional information might be available, and City Manager Jackson said we do not have a definite time line. hi response to a remark from Deputy Mayor Woodard concerning curb pickup, Commissioner Mielke said the question of where does the solid waste go once picked up, will have to be determined by each jurisdiction as they decide what is best for their individual constituents; he said curb -side pickup won't change. Concerning involvement in rate setting, Commissioner Mielke mentioned the previous Wastewater Agreement as a good example; said that agreement recognizes we have capital assets that have to be amortized over the long term; said the idea of having a one -year termination clause is very Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT difficult for any party as the party requesting termination is usually responsible for the unmet capital costs; he said Spokane Valley played a critical role in that wastewater agreement rate setting; said they identified criteria by which to set rates; prioritized obligations to be met, and that we have not ever deterred from those recommendations — one of which was to protect our general funds as you don't want to jeopardize or tap them for unmet obligations. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he recognizes the curb - pickup is a different topic, but said citizens don't recognize that and said it is his wish that governments would take that out of the newspapers as it is a scare tactic; concerning wastewater, he said that is an entirely different agreement; and he explained that he does not intend to have a one -year escape clause from the start of the contract, but a minimum one year's notice, and suggested perhaps some minimum number of years be determined. Chair French said perhaps the terms of the agreement could be shorter, with every fifth year having the ability to re- assess. Concerning policy setting, Chair French said when this conversation was started in January or February 2011, the Board came to all jurisdictions to discuss a regional system and wanted to create a governance model; said they spent over a year putting that together and once it was fmished, Spokane Valley said it gave too much control to other jurisdictions and that Spokane Valley would rather see control given to a body everyone elected, namely, the Board of County Commissioners; he said a lot of time was spent to see if there could be a different way to govern this regional asset, and since the Board is the body everyone votes for, that is how it ended up in the current situation; adding that they could not find a different governance model that everyone would accept. Commissioner Mielke added that small jurisdictions felt they were being railroaded by the larger jurisdictions, and the larger jurisdictions said several smaller jurisdictions could together have the ability to rule the majority. In terms of being railroaded, Chair French said that long haul by rail would be the cheapest alternative for us; he said the Waste -to- Energy Plant has done a great job in reducing rates; they were projecting a $143 cost per ton this year when we met, and they are looking at other options; said they have forced the City to look how they manage the system; said they've done a good job but overall, we don't know if all the rate payers are getting the best possible price until they go out for bid. Mayor Grafos said he wants to know that information before signing the agreement; he mentioned page 7 of the agreement concerning the Relationship of the Parties, and said we are giving up a lot of control; that according to this section: "The City is interested only in the results to be achieved and the right to control the particular manner, method and means in which County obligations are performed within the discretion of the County." Therefore, Mayor Grafos said, if in three years we look at the rates and come to the County to bid something out like long haul, since the County is in complete control, they say they'd like to stay the same. Chair French said he is willing to look at that section; and have it state they will be looking at long haul as an option; that if Spokane Valley wants to join within a twelve -month period, the County must go out for bid on a long -haul control; he said Spokane Valley staff can even be part of that; he said the change could be put in brackets, or even just included in the contract; and that he has no objection to include that in the contract, and that it was a great suggestion. Commissioner Mielke reminded everyone that this is an initial draft; that we were losing time and needed to get a dialogue going; and he asked if there are parts of the interlocal not yet addressed. Commissioner Mielke said it took more time in the wastewater agreement to identify by priority, the objectives to be met but that hasn't been done in this agreement; for example, that the rate will be obligated to do specific things, and said he feels that could be developed in this agreement; he said wastewater has an oversight committee to make recommendations on operation and rate setting and has the ability to make adjustments in the operational aspect; said these are things we are hoping to have in working with this language. Concerning rates, Commissioner Mielke said he recognizes the Waste -to- Energy Plant is an aging facility; that the City of Spokane has worked hard on the numbers and that the agreement with the City of Spokane states their rate to the County is a guaranteed set rate with a CPI (Consumer Price Index) inflator. Mayor Grafos asked if the cost of the service to the citizens reflects the cost of retrofitting that facility; and Commissioner Mielke said it does not; that it is a cost per tonnage, is a fixed rate with an annual CPI inflator. Mayor Grafos said he would Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT be more comfortable if it went out to bid for long haul to see what the rate would be for all those services versus using the Waste -to- Energy Plant for three years; and let Spokane Valley make the decision. Commissioner Mielke said they have those numbers; but if you don't look at capital facilities, there is a rate differential for long -haul or the Waste -to- Energy Plant; said if you add capital costs of transfer stations it tilts it upside down for the first three years; said the idea is, even if long -haul were used, we would still have to have transfer stations that people can take their solid waste to; that what you do with the solid waste after the transfer station, whether long -haul or the Waste -to- Energy Plant, that's where there's flexibility; and said they have been pushing for a long -haul plan for years. Chair French said he had conversations with Burlington Northern Railroad representatives about what would happen if we made significant changes in the volume going through the existing facilities, and they told him they would be choked out of business; he said the municipal solid waste is the lowest price commodity they (the railroad) moves; and with the volumes currently set, they end up with municipal solid waste containers sitting on the ground for two to three weeks as they can't get the trains to move them out; he said the County's efforts to create another rail facility on the West Plains, they feel, would be a positive outcome to Burlington; that they'd increase their profitability and that low cost solid waste could be diverted to the West Plains; said he is talking with Burlington to put that plan in, but it won't happen overnight, but they need to guarantee Burlington and the transfer contractor, the flow and that the facility can be built; said we need the lowest price possible which will help drive more economic vitality through the West Plains and the Valley; he said Burlington said their Valley facility would be enhanced by being able to move solid waste out of the valley. Councilmember Pace said it sounds as if Spokane Valley needs to sign the interlocal] before knowing the costs. Commissioner Mielke explained that unfortunately, we don't know all the costs, and by the time we wait for the RFP results and negotiate contracts, we won't have a specific number and that puts us in a difficult position; he said they are trying to guarantee a process that will end up with the lowest possible number. Councilmember Pace said he would like to see the process and the end result before signing the interlocal. Commissioner Mielke said we have the state deadline to be up and running by November as the County doesn't want to bear any potential for fines; that at some point we must define who is part of the plan so the rest can define who is in and work to meet the deadlines; he said every expert that came before the Board in the last two years said if you use the same model that has been in place for twenty years, they see no reason to see much deviation at all from current rates; but only when you start changing the look and feel of the system, it is harder to set those costs. Chair French said the drive is to get the lowest and best price; said if Spokane Valley moves out on its own, they will do that without knowing if those are the lowest and best as Spokane Valley won't have the County's numbers, and that either way we will be making a decision based on faith, which he said is a difficult situation. Councilmember Pace said the consumers also need to have confidence they are not getting "screwed." Commissioner Mielke said they will wait for the bids to come back; and if the tonnage deviates that price doesn't hold; and Councilmember Pace again said it seems someone will have to bend so Spokane Valley is not forced to sign an agreement without all the figures. Councilmember Hafner said Spokane Valley Council is the policy making group for this Valley and has to rely on facts supplied by the City Manager; and said Council has to have trust that the figures will be what they think they will be; that regarding the letter Council responded to last September, said he feels some of the concerns are not yet addressed; he also noted that this interlocal was just received today; said it is difficult to make a decision without all the facts; he said Spokane Valley plays an important role and he mentioned waiting until the figures come in after the March bid deadline; and asked about signing now and then modifying after the bids come in; he said we need some agreeable specifics, but we're not there yet. Chair French said the intent of today's meeting is not to solicit a decision as we are just starting the conversation; he said they know every interlocal agreement has to start with a draft and they expect Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT changes; but that they don't know Spokane Valley's needs; he said the Board needs to know Spokane Valley's "hot buttons" so they can be addressed and this can more forward; he said a lot of things will move forward without all the numbers, but we will have the parameters to minimize risk and make good decisions. Commissioner Mielke said there are three pieces moving at the same time: the need to develop the language for the interlocal; said they have the RFP to better define operations, and once the Board has those costs and see what the whole costs structure looks like, then they do the rate study; to meet this timeline they all have to be moving at the same time, and if any of those are put on the shelf, he said the Board won't meet the timeline; he said we do not have the luxury to wait sixty days; and at some point we have to take what we have and finish it. Commissioner Mielke said the current solid waste agreement ends this November and under state law, they must have a solid waste agreement in place, and have a plan and a program with no lapse. Mayor Grafos said he feels the County has made great strides with the City of Spokane agreement on the Waste -to- Energy Plant; said he is not in favor of delaying this; but said the point at issue at the old meeting was the City of Spokane being an independent vendor, and said we are still at that same point; he suggested the Board put together the numbers they have and if Spokane Valley joins the system, then change the numbers. Commissioner Mielke said they will have the costs regarding the operation of the transfer stations and the movement of those goods once the RFP is committed; but said they need input from potential partners; he said there were a couple ideas mentioned today, and perhaps they could compare the Wastewater agreement and incorporate similar language into this interlocal. Deputy Mayor Woodard also commented that to clarify, he said that we did not say we are in a contract with HDR to get more information; but rather we use the same information the County has to study things; and said he wants to make sure we are not being misquoted. Commissioner Mielke said he was under the impression Spokane Valley was seeking additional information, but wasn't sure of the timeline or the source. Chair French said an issue critical to elected officials is ensuring they have the ability to influence decisions that impact constituents, and said without that control, are uncomfortable with decisions made by other parties; so the issue of self - determination is a challenge; and compared that to the example of a regional road concept and when the snow fall hits, everyone wants their roads plowed first; and said that kind of a situation is always a challenge; the but the goal of regional programs is to eliminate regional costs. Referencing a distributed pie chart, Mr. Kevin Cooke explained that this slide is a preview of Thursday night's presentation and that the slide illustrates the relative amounts associated with a gate fee; and he went over the various colored aspects of the chart; and he mentioned that the County and the City of Spokane's agreement sets a monthly payment, which is the same payment amount for eighty -four months; and said that about 130,000 tons works out to about $11.00 per ton; he said the transfer station charges a fixed rate and that they look at things at a per -ton cost. Mr. Cooke said that there will be a ten -year contract with provisions to extend; and said they are still working on some of the components; but said the more tonnage they have, the more they keep the system together for better tonnage. There was brief discussion comparing our rates with Whitman County, with Chair French stating that one of the reasons they want to bid the long haul for disposal is to make sure they get the lowest rate. Councilmember Hafner said he realizes time is short and that is a concern; said Council wants to look at all the facts, but the invisible figures at this time are figures from the City of Spokane since they already negotiated many things with the County. Commissioner Mielke said their discussions with the City of Spokane focused on the transfer stations; that the City started with a much higher price for the transfer stations, so they moved to a seven year commitment and reduced the price of the transfer stations, and agreed it took a long time to negotiate 60 -70% of the contract with the City of Spokane; but said he feels that has been resolved; adding that the City of Spokane doesn't have any more leverage than anyone else in the remaining of the categories on the chart. Mr. Cooke estimated that the volume used by City of Spokane Valley residents is about 50,000 tons a year. In response to a question about timelines, Mr. Jackson said he is not looking at Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT a definite timeline; that we try to look at all options; and that the County's timeline will drive when Spokane Valley's decision must be made. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that tonnage is being reduced for everyone as recycling increases; and he mentioned the concept of paying for the transfer stations a second time. Chair French said that in the original interlocal, the elected officials designated that the Waste -to- Energy Plant would be the property of the City of Spokane when the agreement ended, as well as the two transfer stations; and he agreed we are paying for them twice; but we are also paying not to have to build a duplicate transfer station. Commissioner Mielke explained that in the past there were a couple landfills declared superfund sites which meant everyone was facing huge costs, in addition to the problem that the landfills were at capacity; and he said that's what drove the Waste -to- Energy Plant; that it was expensive but not as expensive as cleanup costs that come with the challenge of cleaning up a landfill. There was some discussion about past plans or conversations concerning transferring the transfer station to the City of Spokane Valley and of the cost associated the transfer, along with multiple years of hauling and tonnage rates. Chair French expressed appreciation for Council meeting today and asked if there were any suggested directions. Councilmember Hafner suggested continuing the move forward to Thursday night and said he is hopeful Spokane Valley is still in consideration. Chair French replied that the purpose of Thursday night is to educate everyone; that they are not expecting any kind of a vote; but this is just part of the process to let the community know the status, and to have an opportunity to have all jurisdictions hear the same information at the same time. Councilmember Pace asked about resolving the issue of signing an agreement without figures. Mayor Grafos replied that it depends on the agreement process and on Mr. Jackson's study, and that we would likely have an answer within the next thirty to sixty days. Commissioner Mielke said that this Thursday night's meeting is an opportunity to update everyone, and to get input, feedback and discussion on the draft agreement. Commissioner O'Quinn said she wanted to make sure Spokane Valley has an opportunity to share concerns, to have a "one -on -one" and that she realizes each jurisdiction has their own concerns and questions; that Thursday night is an opportunity to come together and focus on the big picture; said she realizes Spokane Valley represents 91,000 citizens, but said so does the Board and that their intent is not to "screw the Valley" but rather to look out for all citizens, adding that the Board wants an agreement beneficial to everyone, which she feels is a regional solution. Deputy Mayor Woodard stated that in the meantime prior to Thursday's meeting, Council has an opportunity to review the document and direct any questions to Mr. Jackson. Chair French replied that he is anxious to hear solutions and that this is not a win or lose kind of situation, as they all share constituents. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. Commission Chair French also closed the Board of County Commissioners meeting at 11:36 a.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, February 25, 2014 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff: Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney John Hohman, Community Dev Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Morgan Koudelka, Sr Administrative Analyst Gloria Mantz, Development Engineer John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Mike Graef of Valley United Methodist Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Grafos led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Awards —John Whitehead Human Resources Manager Whitehead said the CTR program was initiated in the early 1990's with the goal to reduce the amount of traffic congestion, pollution and use of petroleum fuels by working with employers to help employees find alternative means to commute to work. He said that through the efforts of Morgan Koudelka, Chris Thompson, and participating employees, and the City was presented with the Pinnacle Award for our consistent commitment to support the program; and said that Chris Thompson received the All Star Coach award. Sr. Administrative Analyst Koudelka, who first implemented the program with Spokane Valley, said he was responsible for our City's oversight of this program but it needed someone to "take us to that next level;" he said due to Ms. Thompson's outstanding efforts, drive alone trips from 2009 to 2013 were reduced 25 %, and we saw a 19% reduction in vehicles miles traveled. Ms. Thompson was given applause and accolades for her work. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Hafner: reported that he attended the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) board and executive committee meeting and said they are examining a tax increase for 2015 in order to continue with their present service and to move forward with plans for the next twenty years; said he also attended the Health Board meeting and that this year through the rotation process, he is Chair of that board and they are in the process of appointing different chairs to various health department committees, and said Council Regular Meeting 02 -25 -2014 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT they will have their first "really serious" board meeting this Thursday; said he also attended yesterday's Council joint meeting with Spokane County to discuss solid waste. Councilmember Pace: said he is on the same boards as Councilmember Hafner and attended the same meetings, and participated on the STA Planning and Development Committee meeting. Councilmember Higgins, Bates, and Wick had no report. Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he attended the "Way to Go" awards and expressed appreciation to the Mayor and Council for allowing him to present awards at that luncheon meeting; said he went to the Chamber of Commerce meeting where a coach from Eastern University talked about leadership and wining, and said the leadership as a coach model fits into many things we do in this City, said Mr. Jackson and his staff generally use that style where they take their positions seriously and that is how they lead the rest of the staff to move forward. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grafos commented on the day -long February 18 Council workshop and said there were excellent presentations by staff and department directors of the issues and challenges, and he thanked Council for their work in preparing for that workshop. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Mr. Dan Allison, Spokane Valley, Wa., spoke concerning the inability of large trucks to safely make especially left-hand turns on many of our roads; and via the City Clerk, distributed copies of a drawing showing some typical problems large trucks and trailers have in making some turns; and suggested having the set back moved so cars won't have to back up to give the trucks the space they need to safely navigate a turn; and said it would be easier if we cut the lane back; he spoke of the pending remodel in front of the Longhorn Restaurant and of the idea of having the concrete divider at least two feet further from where the turn lane stops. Mayor Grafos asked if Mr. Jackson would ask Public Works Director Guth to research this issue. There were no other public comments. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 02 -06 -2014 31472 -31494 $70,709.15 02 -07 -2014 4668, 4684 -4687, 4700, 31495 -31497 $273,616.53 02 -07 -2014 31498 -31503 $24,663.50 02 -07 -2014 31504- 31525, 131140012, 206140006 $1,884,263.24 02 -07 -2014 5706 -5707 $289.00 02 -13 -2014 31526- 31558, 213140015 $114,937.91 02 -14 -2014 31559 -31577 $37,210.18 02 -18 -2014 4, 4702, 4703, 4705, 4706, 31578 $72,147.25 GRAND TOTAL $2,477,836.76 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending February 15, 2014: $304,750.16 c. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 11, 2014 Regular Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Proposed Resolution 14 -003 Adopting Governance Manual — Chris Bainbridge It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Resolution 14 -003 amending the Governance Manual as proposed. City Clerk Bainbridge said the major changes made in the manual, which were discussed at least week's Council meeting, included ballot issues, voting for Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and Internet use; and asked if Council had any questions or areas for further discussion. Councilmember Wick suggesting changing page 8 verbiage from "Councilmembers will avoid accessing any electronic message during Council meeting" to "Councilmembers will avoid accessing any new Council Regular Meeting 02 -25 -2014 Approved by Council: Page 2 of 4 DRAFT electronic message during Council meetings." Councilmember Wick said there are times he would like to access a previous e-mail about a topic and this language would prohibit that, and that in his endeavor to remain "paperless" would prefer not to have to print out any e- mails. There was brief discussion on this including mention from Ms. Bainbridge that the key phrase in that sentence is "during Council meetings" and that she can make any change Council desires, or leave it as is, and said that the Manual can be amended at any time. Other members of Council voiced their preference to keep the verbiage as it is in order to remain as transparent as possible, and to not create a situation where only one Councilmember has access to a single e-mail. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner, Higgins, Pace, and Bates. Opposed: Councilmember Wick. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3. Permitted Use Matrix — John Hohman, Mike Basinger The topic of the permitted use matrix, Community Development Director Hohman explained, was discussed last week and last December; and he said that Mr. Basinger and Ms. Mantz were instrumental in development of this revision, and he encouraged Council to ask any questions; he also mentioned that Council's previous action adopting interim regulations, do not exactly match the Planning Commission draft, but assured Council that if Council wants this to move to a first reading, that the draft modified language will include those interim regulations passed last week. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Senior Planner Basinger explained the rationale for these changes, and said that the matrix wasn't user friendly, was difficult to navigate, and parts were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Basinger went over some of the new use categories, discussed the modification and /or addition of definitions, and said if Council agrees, the next step would be an ordinance first reading. Councilmember Pace said he feels the matrix is easy to understand, but had some questions concerning agriculture and animals and feels selling one's home -grown produce at a farmer's market or from their home should be encouraged, and he asked if those activities were allowed. Mr. Basinger said he would have to research that question; and in response to Councilmember Pace's suggestion of allowing pigs in residential, Mr. Basinger said pigs are not currently permitted as most cities try to prohibit swine in cities, mostly due to the odor that comes from raising pigs. Councilmember Pace also asked whether there would be any difference between a large and a small scale operation and suggested having this topic included on a future agenda. Director Hohman said that at this stage, staff is predominately looking at the formatting of the matrix; that they have tried to maintain all uses and add uses where possible; and said further discussion could be scheduled for later when staff and Council review the overall comprehensive plan update which must be completed by 2017. There was also brief discussion concerning compact housing and Mr. Basinger again mentioned that staff was careful not to remove any already allowed uses; but by changing these to broad use categories, it permits greater flexibility. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he could give specifics later concerning housing. There was Council consensus to proceed to a first ordinance reading. 4. Public Works Projects Update — Eric Guth Concerning the Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair Contract, Public Works Director Guth explained that we are in our final year of this multiyear contract and said staff is working on drafting an RFB (request for bids) to solicit new bids for the upcoming 2015 year; he said they are also proposing a shorter term, that of five years with four, optional one -year renewals. Mr. Guth said these maintenance activities include work on potholes, patching, asphalt repair, overlays, etc.; he also mentioned his work with our legal department as well as with a consultant as this type of work does not fit well with state bidding laws; and said he hopes to have a first draft completed March 1, and advertise the bid early May. Mayor Grafos asked if there is a maximum mount and Mr. Guth said there is; he said the current contract includes snow removal but that will be a separate contract moving forward; he said we handled snow removal differently in 2007 when this contract was initially written; but now it makes sense to remove that from the road maintenance contract, which gives us flexibility in using multiple drivers; he said there is $900,000 in the pavement preservation program for maintenance and that they try to use that amount Council Regular Meeting 02 -25 -2014 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT strictly for pavement preservation. Mr. Guth said he will keep Council informed on some of those projects dealing with surface treatments and chip sealings. Concerning the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement project, Mr. Guth explained that under the "Right -of -Way" paragraph that we are not exactly on the right -of -way; he said a submittal was given to WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) and through their review, found some policies and procedures that don't match with ours but were approved by WSDOT several years ago; he said they are working on those issues; he said they also learned that an easement is needed for the bridge; said they need some defined policies and procedures on how to negotiate with private property owners and on providing proper notice; he said there is a meeting tomorrow between FHWA (Federal highway Administration) and WSDOT to discuss the current proposal for the right -of -way and to determine where we go from here. Mr. Guth said ideally FHWA would accept our submittal, but additional work might be needed, and said it could be a timing issue; he said they are hopeful to bid the end of March, but if that gets bumped, it would move to the end of April or May; he said construction usually starts about mid June; and said all timeframes are estimates as at this time, we won't know the outcome of that review with FHWA and WSDOT until after tomorrow. 5. Advance Agenda Councilmember Pace suggested adding the topic of pigs and urban farming; and Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like staff to contact the Fire Chief to see about a presentation to Council concerning the Pulse Point program. 6. Department Monthly Reports Department reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Jackson said staff is reviewing the minutes from the February 18 workshop in order to schedule items for future council meetings. Mr. Jackson also mentioned the copy of a letter distributed to Council concerning AWC (Association of Washington Cities) asking for signatures from mayors to sent a letter to Washington legislators, asking that the state partner with cities to meet the commitment to provide communities with strong regulations, law enforcement and public safety protections expected by citizens when voters legalized marijuana, and that cities can't accommodate the increased needs without funding assistance, and that we feel cities should share in revenue generated from those activities. There was no objection from Council for Mayor Grafos to sign the letter, and to send it to our legislators. Mr. Jackson noted that Council's legislative agenda item concerning lien authority has changed based on feedback related to us by Ms. Briahna Taylor from various legislators' concerning the idea of placing a lien on the property; he said we feel we have a workable solution and Deputy Mayor Woodard and City Attorney Driskell will make this proposal this Thursday about the idea of contracting with the County Treasurer to collect a special assessment; and said the earlier proposed language wasn't successful because of the possible connection with property foreclosure. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m. Dean Grafos, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 02 -25 -2014 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES Special Regional Meeting Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Spokane Valley City Council Thursday, February 27, 2014 5:00 p.m. — 8:00 p.m. CenterPlace Regional Event Center, Great Room 2426 N Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, Wa. Attendance: City of Spokane Valley Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard Deputy Mayor [arrived 5:50] Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Staff: Spokane County Al French, Chair Todd Mielke, Vice -Chair Shelly O'Quinn, Commissioner Spokane County Staff Mike Jackson, City Manager Eric Guth, Public Works Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Morgan Koudelka, Sr Administrative Analyst Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer Kevin Cooke, Utilities Director Bill Wedlake, County Utilities Bruce Rawls, County Utilities Others in Attendance: Jim Wavada, Environmental Planner, DOE Ken Gimpel, Spokane City Regional Solid Waste Various Elected Officials and Staff Members Commission Chair French welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order at approximately 5:10 p.m., and noted all three Commissioners were present. Self- introductions were given among those seated at the tables. Noting a quorum of Councilmembers present, Mayor Grafos also called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. Commissioner French stated that tonight is an opportunity to bring everyone up -to -date and to go over the history of the issue. Per his PowerPoint slides, Mr. French gave a quick look back leading up to how we arrived at our present position; said the bonds were paid off in 2011 at which time they entered into an agreement with the City of Spokane to provide enough time to evaluate how to move forward; he said the current agreements expire mid November 2014; said that for the past three years they worked on various approaches to determine the best way to move forward as a region; at the two -day summit (February 2011) it was decided to pursue the Solid Waste Alliance option; he said they spent about a year putting together a governance structure which was a result of everyone's input on what they wanted to see in this Alliance; and said it was determined that more of the jurisdictions wanted to be in the decision - making role regarding the future of solid waste; that from the County's standpoint, state statute directs Spokane County as the jurisdiction for solid waste and they wanted to pursue a regional governance model; but since more jurisdictions wanted to be involved in decision making, the agreement was not signed on by a majority of jurisdictions; he said they heard a variety of different reasons, but one thing they heard most was jurisdictions didn't want a system controlled by members that they didn't vote for. Mr. French said there were fourteen different people on the board and only one from their own jurisdiction, so there was Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 1 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT no way to change the direction or have a meaningful impact if system was going in wrong direction; he said they also heard that they wanted the County to take the lead on this since the Board of County Commissioners are elected by all, and that this way gave people a greater level of comfort; so the County stepped back ; and but the question was, if the County is taking the lead, how to do that and still allow jurisdictions to participate. Mr. French said the County, Spokane Valley and the City of Spokane hired the engineering firm of HDR to study options; and a new opportunity for all in terms of determining if the current system regarding the Waste -to- Energy Plant (WTE) is the best overall; or if there were other models to look at; and he said all agreed with the need to have someone with greater expertise; so they partnered to provide that study; and he said there was good debate about the different options in the study. Mr. French said the County selected the option of purchasing the transfer stations and continuing to use the WTE facility for at least a seven year period; and the reason for the seven years was that the City wanted the County to continue to direct its flow to the WTE; he said the initial proposition was we'd give you the transfer stations for $1 but they wanted a long -term commitment from the County that the flow would continue to go to the City. Mr. French explained that the County was not comfortable with that and felt they wanted flexibility to examine other options; so through negotiations they ended up reducing the time period from the original twenty years to seven, with a three year option for an early out. He explained that since the time period shrank, instead of getting the transfer stations for $1, they negotiated and agreed to purchase the transfer stations for $9 9 million amortized over the seven -year period; so every year the pay down would be the same as they looked to retire the cost of buying the transfer stations. Mr. French pointed out that in response to the underlying question of doesn't it seem as if we are paying for those transfer stations twice, he said the answer is yes. He said as noted in the interlocal agreement, when the City of Spokane agreed to carry the bond for the debt of the facilities, that was at the end of the term of the bonds, and the assets would be the property of the City of Spokane; so the City ends up with the WTE and the two transfer stations; Commissioner French said from County's standpoint, was there was the option of engaging in the essential public facilities process and trying to find a new site for new facilities, which would have cost $22 to $25 million; or instead does the County agree to purchase the existing facilities for $9 9 million; and said that due to timing and keeping in mind the cost to ratepayers if the public facilities process were followed, the County agreed to purchase the transfer stations from the City of Spokane; so the new agreement would be effective November 17, 2014; and at that point the County would take over the operation of the transfer stations. Concerning the operation of the transfer stations, Mr. French said they have issued an RFP (request for proposal) to bid on the operation of the transfer stations. Commissioner O'Quinn went over some of the current activities; she mentioned the RFP is due the end of March, which will be followed by proposal review and then selection of a contractor, which is anticipated to occur about July; she said a draft interlocal agreement was sent to all jurisdictions and the Board is open to meetings with municipalities and suggested any that are interested in such a meeting to please contact her. She mentioned last Monday's meeting with the City of Spokane Valley; and said that last night she met with the five smaller jurisdictions in Southeast Spokane County, as well as with Mayor Rushing. Ms. O'Quinn said the process is underway for them to select a consultant to complete the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan which is required as part of this process; said they are looking at the development of the required programs to be included in this such as recycling and education, and along with all this, she said they will be conducting a rate study; she said they will be retaining a financial rate consultant who will examine alternative rates. Ms. O'Quinn went over the "pie chart" showing the different gate fee components (see attached). She mentioned the current gate fee is $103.00, and based on all their current estimates, they will be able to beat or meet that price; she said the gate fees at the transfer stations account for about 25 -30% of the cost of outside garbage service, so a $10.00 difference in the price for the gate fee would only result in about a 50¢ difference in a monthly bill. Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT In looking ahead at the next twenty years, Commissioner Mielke stated that we all share the same goals, which he explained are (1) to provide a seamless transition to the new system; (2) retain a region wide solution for the management of solid waste, which means keeping the cost down and maintaining predictable and consistent customer service; (3) in the future, other transport disposal options will become available (4) the agreement between the County and the City of Spokane has an early out provision giving an added measure of flexibility; i.e., it is a seven year agreement with the option of termination after three years; and (5) the City of Spokane will likely consider evaluating other disposal options in the future. Mr. Mielke said that there is great bargaining power with 300,000 tons per year; that it is a complex system and to his knowledge, the City of Seattle is the only city that has gone on its own. Mr. Mielke said he feels they can leverage more benefits as a group than alone. Mr. Mielke compared this draft interlocal with an interlocal between Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley concerning wastewater, whereby a committee was formed to study rate setting based on a set criteria, which is specifically designed to protect our general funds as no one can afford to tap those funds should miscalculations occur; and that both the County and Spokane Valley participated in rate setting. Mr. Mielke mentioned that a committee was formed specifically to address the rates for the community based upon set criteria; he said the objectives of the advisory committee for wastewater it to make sure that it sets rates to make sure there are sufficient funds to make all the bond payments, to have a bond reserve, and to meet the operational needs of the entity. Similarly, he said the state law mandates a SWAC (Solid Waste Advisory Council), and they talked about reconfiguring that committee so it shares some of the responsibilities of the wastewater advisory committee. Mr. Mielke said the goal is to see if there is philosophical alignment on how to move forward and to work out those details, and while working under a very tight deadline. Mr. Jim Wavada, Environmental Planner with the State Department of Ecology (DOE) Spokane Office, emphasized that collection and disposal is a very small part of this large system, and it is his job to ensure that every plan meets the very specific objectives, some of which deal with recycling, diversion of household hazardous waste into a separate system, and an on -going education program; he said that the Department of Ecology is required to direct the technical assistance; that according to RCW 70.95.010, "state, city and county governments must fully implement waste reduction and source separation strategies to dispose of remaining wastes in a manner that is environmentally safe and economically sound; and that County and City governments assume primary responsibility for solid waste management and to develop and implement aggressive and effective waste reduction and source separation strategies." Mr. Wavada said this is a challenge for anyone wishing to undertake their own solid waste system; and a typical plan could cost between $80,000 and $200,000 depending on the complexity of any one system. He stressed that none of these elements are inexpensive. He said the deadline for any jurisdiction to make a decision about going their own way is March, or right about now; he encouraged all jurisdictions to make a decision this month; and said he is available to meet with any jurisdiction should they like more information; and said if a jurisdiction is planning to do their own plan, that plan should be on his desk by now. At the request of Mr. French, Mr. Wavada went over the requirements of having one's own plan, and the prerequisites are for such a plan, and what a plan must include; including documentation in the plan of contracts with an entity that will be moving the waste; he said the plan must also cover a five year implementation plan as well as a twenty -year long term look; an entity must have adequate facilities, and the plan must be submitted to the Department of Ecology for a 120 -day review, after which he sends any question back for further clarification; and then he has another 90 days for further review to determine if it meets the state law minimum requirements, and if so, a letter is issued for approval or denial; so at the latest, said he needs a preliminary plan prior to November 17. Mayor Rushing said that he has a problem with the transfer stations and the purchase of them; and he asked what incentive does the City of Spokane have to be on this system because now they have the Waste to Energy Facility, they do their own collection and can set their own fees within the City of Spokane, plus they get $9.9 million for two facilities they really didn't need. Mr. Ken Gimpel explained that the City of Spokane is committed to a regional system; the City of Spokane has built this system and Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT has provided nationally- awarded service for 23 years; he said this system is probably the most sophisticated and has the nicest, largest, and most accommodating facilities between Seattle and Minnesota; he said they are committed and that's why they worked so hard to come up with a system that is seamless, and that they worked diligently with the County to make sure the system continues in the future; and in the interlocal agreement, he said they set a mandate to make sure they provide similar rate structures; he said they want the system to remain identical, and that on November 18, 2014 they don't want any citizen within the County to realize that anything has changed; he said the City of Spokane is fully on- board. Mayor Rushing asked if the commitment level is so high, why the $9 9 million to purchase a facility that the residents of Spokane County have already purchased; why didn't the City of Spokane simply maintain ownership and do what the County's going to do, and contract out for an operator; he said that would have saved the county residents $9.9 million Mr. Gimpel said that the City does not have that unilateral authority outside its jurisdiction; he said that authority that was granted to the County was delegated to the City of Spokane to the regional solid waste system, which he said is his department; which they accepted; and said when that interlocal agreement ends, that is no longer their decision; he said someone has to have their name on that title, that the City of Spokane owns those assets; he said that the City of Spokane equates to half of the County, and everyone is subsidizing everything to have a unified system. Again Mayor Rushing asked why not have the City of Spokane authorized to contract out for these services, and thereby save the citizens the $9.9 million purchase price. Mr. Mielke said that would be going against what was determined in this room in 2011, when all the jurisdictions got together and said they wanted to have a bigger role in the daily operational decisions and rate setting oversight of the solid waste system. Mayor Rushing said that was when the City of Spokane said that they owned everything Mr. Mielke said that was what the agreement of twenty years ago stated, that it's important to reflect on the history of the community at the time; the issue was there were landfills in this region declared a superfund site, and landfills that were being used were about to capacity; the public support for locating a new landfill was extremely low; so an alternative had to be found; so those electeds investigated waste to energy technology; and with that technology came a big price; and the City of Spokane was the only jurisdiction in this region with the financial ability to fund that technology. At that time, Mr. Mielke stated, those elected officials signed an interlocal agreement where the County was no longer the lead in solid waste management, but rather authorized the City of Spokane as that authority; he said the meeting that was held in 2011, jurisdictions loudly voiced their desire of having more involvement and say in these operational decisions. Mr. Mielke said the message the Board got was that the jurisdictions did not want to continue another twenty -year period under the same structure; he said they have been working for three years to devise a different structure; and that the deadline wouldn't allow starting over from scratch for another option, even if the Board wanted to. Mayor Rushing asked, which he said he asked three years ago, if we have paid off the assets, why aren't the tipping fees decreasing; so now we're going to justify keeping the same price or maybe a bit lower because now we have to pay another $9.9 million for something that was already paid for. Mr. French replied that at the two -day summit three years ago, a thorough presentation was given about the structure of the system, as well as a projection of what the cost would be; he said when he was with the City, he too heard that once the bonds were paid off, the tipping fees would be lowered; and he said that was what he expected but in fact, Mr. French said, they lost their renewable energy credit, and when that happens, the revenue they were making by selling that electricity, went away; and he said now the revenue is half of what it was; he said that cost had to be reflected in the tipping fee; he said that the projection three years ago was that we would be paying $143 a ton tipping fee; but through the City re- organizing its fees; it has been able to maintain a $103 a ton tipping fee at the transfer stations; and the County has entered into a seven year contract with the City of Spokane that provides for incremental increases based on the CPI (Consumer Price Index) over that period of time so it will be a long time before we hit that $143 a ton. Mayor Peterson asked what would be the benefit to the partners in seven years once the transfer stations are debt free. Mr. French acknowledged the benefit at that time would be a reduction in rates. Mayor Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Peterson asked if that reduction in rate of about $40 a ton would be included in the interlocal agreement, and Mr. French said yes; he said he understands the authority of the SWAC in setting fees; and said if there were ten or sixteen people on the board, and those partners in the minority said they wanted to pay $40 less while the others said they would collect the extra $40 and put it wherever they want to, then those in the minority are out and won't get the benefit; and said he doesn't want to find himself in the same situation as years ago with not owning anything Mr. Mielke said the objective for the SWAC is to achieve the lowest possible cost, provided that the bonds are paid for, there is a bond reserve, have sufficient maintenance and operation cost as well as a maintenance and operation reserve; and the purpose of those objectives is, if you ever come up short the partners do not want to have to access their general fund; and similarly, the current draft interlocal agreement is an opening discussion point; and said it needs more specificity concerning the role of the SWAC when it comes to rate setting, and make sure that the role of the SWAC is to achieve the lowest possible rate. There was a question if all the funds would be considered enterprise fund, and Mr. French replied that is correct; that it will not be part of the general fund of the County but would be a separate e enterprise fund, which is a completely stand -alone fund. A question was asked about how administration and overhead would be addressed. Mr. French said he would have to get back to the group regarding what is the most efficient way to structure the administrative side of this; and he gave human resources services as an example, and of the possibility of contracting out for those services; and said that philosophically, we all want to get the best service for the best price; and that is why they issued an RFP for the operation of the transfer station and will be putting out the RFP on several other elements in order to test the market and validate the pricing. In response to a question of why couldn't the City just continue to do this and contract out the work and thereby save money, Mr. Mielke said they can't because the Supreme Court rules that is not permissible; he said it was in response to a conflict with the Community College and janitorial work; and the Supreme Court ruling found that any work that has been traditionally done by the employees of that jurisdiction, cannot be contracted out; therefore, he said the City of Spokane doesn't have that option; but because Spokane County has never had employees engaged in this type of work, the County can contract out for these services. Mayor Rushing asked if the commitment was so great by the City of Spokane, knowing that the transfer stations were already paid for by all county residents, why didn't they just sell it to the County for $1 each, instead they are now putting a $9 9 million bill on the backs of county residents again. Mr. Mielke said he sat through some of the City of Spokane's meetings, and he feels they believe that in the last years, they took on the financial risk to finance the system on behalf of all the jurisdictions, and that the compensation for that risk is ownership of the asset; and he said that was the understanding 23 years ago when the interlocal agreement was signed by the elected officials; and was the understanding of all those elected officials who signed that agreement. Mayor Rushing said that the City of Spokane was taking on the risk and they therefore benefitted from the $3 million a year that they were getting from the renewed energy sources. Mr. Mielke said the issue is, at the end of the day, one jurisdiction has the assets that they didn't have to sell; from the County's perspective, the county's options according to law are to be the lead organization on a solid waste plan and have transfer stations in place; and said if they had to go through the essential facilities process, it would cost between $20 to $25 million to build two transfer stations. Mayor Grafos said he feels the $9 9 million is water over the bridge; that during the discussions held three years ago, everyone said if we want to continue this system, we want it to be competitively bid and that the City of Spokane's WTE plant would become a vendor; so now the County because of the stance of the City of Spokane insisting that they are a vendor as well as the exclusive agent and will control the system, the County has no options and had to buy the transfer stations; and said there really isn't any option for any of the other municipalities to give a lower cost; the HDR study had about five options; and the difference between using the WTE and long haul was about $30 million over ten years; and said that option is no longer available. Mr. French said that isn't correct. Mayor Grafos said that the County is not going to bid this because the only way the transfer stations were sold was if the system used the WTE Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT plant for three years. Mr. French said what the County did in negotiations with the City was that they negotiated for a three year period for an early out; so alternative disposal systems could be bid out and challenge the numbers for long haul to see if that would be cheaper; said they bought that three -year window of time in order to be collaborative and not rush to judgment; and said if long -haul is going to be the best, then at the end of three years, they'll have the ability to go long -haul; and the contract they have with the City is, that they fully expect to be able to go out with RFPs for long haul as an ultimate solution as well as the opportunity of maybe doing long -haul for the by -pass in a different configuration than the one used currently, which all that goes through the valley now. Mr. French said that the Burlington Northern Railroad informed them that if we tried to direct all the County's solid waste through the valley's facility, the railroad would get stressed and wouldn't be able to handle 135,000 tons; so how do we put in the necessary infrastructure to be able to handle 135,000 tons; and said that is what they are committed to and negotiated into the contract; said they don't differ regarding where they want to end up; just getting there incrementally. Mayor Grafos asked about options if the City did opt out after three years. Mr. French replied that we would be bidding out that 135,000 tons that come from the rest of the county; and that's what we'd be bidding out to go long haul; he said they'll test those numbers; and said he feels the City would be interested in testing those numbers as well and that the City told them that having the option, forces them to be competitive because they know the county will bid long haul, and if they can't be competitive with long haul, then the County deserves to go; and said that would then create another conversation with the City of Spokane and their rate payers; he said if they can prove that long - haul is the more financially cost - effective method, then the City rate payers would be questioning why they'd be paying more for a facility that they already retired the debt on. Mr. French said if partners want to include a timetable in the interlocal, to make sure it gets bid out, then he is open to that conversation; and said that's what they wanted to do anyway. Mr. French said the agreement the County has with the City is a public document, and that they will distribute copies to everyone tomorrow; and said he feels fundamentally they want to go in the same direction and end up at the same place. Mr. French said the goal is to have one uniform interlocal agreement; and hope there will be commonality in terms of concern which can be addressed; and if not, we'll deal with that as it appears; he said the City of Spokane Valley had some suggestions to add to that agreement; they hope to get further suggestions and have another rendition to distribute, and then get final agreement that everyone can embrace; with a reminder that time is critical, and he would need comments as soon as possible in order to distribute the next version; and in this way, allow jurisdictions time to determine whether or not they will participate. Councilmember Hafner stated that one of the things that came up at their joint meeting with the County, was that an operations contract wouldn't be in place until late summer; said he feels that should be addressed by the County as Spokane Valley was asked to sign a contract without knowing what that's going to be. Commissioner French said they spent a year debating and trying to create the governance structure for the alliance, and he said that everyone was excited until they got to the end; so they had to step forward and try to find a way to challenge the figures; he recalled they put out an RFP for someone to come in and give them an analysis of all the different options as identified as a group, but there were no responses to the original RFP; and he said they lost about six to eight months of time in that process. Mr. French said they had hoped to have the interlocal with the City of Spokane completed last summer; and now they are here to meet the Department of Ecology's deadline. Councilmember Hafner asked what the penalty would be should the November 17 deadline not be met. Mr. Wavada said there is no penalty amount set in the legislation, but the statute 70.95.010 simply states that the service must be provided, and the next step would be the Attorney General filing suit in Supreme Court to compel you to either join a plan or write your own. Councilmember Hafner asked if the operations contract isn't back and we don't know the price, could the whole thing be postponed knowing that we'll have that data at a particular date, as there are some who would be hesitant to sign without knowing those costs. Mr. Wavada replied that he feels those are the type of issues that get addressed in interlocal agreements. Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mayor Grafos stated that we have a wonderful working relationship with the County with numerous negotiated, fair contracts, but said Spokane Valley is hesitant because it was our understanding that in three years time the City of Spokane would be the vendor and that competitive bids were going to be sought; but now we're up against the clock, and we're being pushed and being asked to "trust us." Commissioner Mielke said he hopes people recognize that they negotiated the best deal available to them. Mr. Gimpel stated that the neither the County nor the City has any legal responsibility to provide services to any municipality which is not a participant of their plan; the City of Spokane has committed by interlocal agreement to provide service at the Waste -to- Energy plant as a third transfer station for the county, for any participating jurisdiction. Mr. Gimpel said he wanted the City of Spokane Valley to understand that according to a report, last year there were 58,000 self - hauled transactions from Spokane Valley citizens; so when you are considering it's not just about garbage trucks but about citizens as well; and said you don't want to have interruptions for those citizens and that's what we're trying to eliminate; that's the thing about the decisions you're going to make, or if no decisions are made, whether those citizens have someplace to take their garbage. Deputy Mayor Woodard said it doesn't help any of tonight's situations to hold a threat; and asked if we going to have citizens that self -haul be refused at the transfer station; he said those kind of intimidations or threats don't aid in getting to an agreement. Mr. Gimpel replied that he didn't mean that to be a threat; that the City of Spokane and Spokane County will make their own decisions; he said it is not a matter of "won't" but more a matter of "can't." Mr. Gimpel said the garbage trucks pay the bills and they subsidize all those other individual services; and if those trucks go elsewhere so will the revenue; and said the City can't afford to give free services to people who aren't paying into that system; and said this isn't a threat but more of a matter of economics and how the system is paid for. Deputy Mayor Woodard said the fee to take something to the transfer station in Spokane Valley is $103 a ton; which he said isn't subsidizing. Mr. Gimpel said there is a minimum fee; and for every transaction, which averages 300 pounds, they receive $15.00 for that transaction, which is no way near paying for that transaction; he said when an eight -ton garbage truck comes in, the City gets $800; he said it is cheaper to handle that professional garbage truck driver than it is for someone pulling a trailer or truck, and helping them off -load. He said there is a fixed cost to provide all those services; and mentioned that there is no cost to drop off household hazardous waste, so that service is subsidized and most of that is being borne by the garbage trucks that deliver the waste to the transfer stations. There was a comment about not allowing people to drop off waste at the transfer stations; and the question arose, why can't they drop off and be charged a fee for doing so. Mr. Gimpel said under the current model, they couldn't afford to let them in, but could do so with perhaps a surcharge or a higher rate for those services; adding that free drop -off of household hazardous waste would not be offered. Mayor Rushing mentioned the $9 9 million purchase price, and Mayor Grafos added that the City of Spokane Valley offered to buy the transfer station but was told it wasn't available. Mayor Peterson asked what would be the long -term benefit to them; said he likes the deal the County structured with the City of Spokane for the facilities, as those facilities will continue to be an asset in the future; said concerning the interlocal agreement, he asked: what's in it for the City. Mayor Peterson said he spoke with Kevin Cooke and said that the small cities represent 10% of the garbage that is going to the transfer stations; and said he believes those cities share within that benefit; but when we're talking about real money available and a 10% interest into the facility; he said they are more than happy to participate, but clarified that he is not making a decision today; but said he wants some cash benefit for the city, because something will be done with those facilities at some point. Mr. French replied that if they put the transfer stations in the enterprise fund, so that if they got sold in the future the revenue from that sale would benefit the ratepayers within the enterprise fund, that would address Mayor Peterson's issue in terms of making sure that the ratepayers participating in the system get the benefit; and Mayor Peterson agreed. Commissioner Mielke said it is not the County's desire to turn anyone away; but they recognize they are not in a position to delay their decisions and wait endlessly for others as there would be liability for them to do that; that they have to come up with a business model effective November 18; and that regardless of Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT who shows up at the transfer station, we will know how much to charge them; and that there will be people to weigh them in and take the fee; so they have to build a business model and an entity that is running by November 18; and said they cannot wait indefinitely. Commissioner Mielke said he recognizes that many times in the past the County has delayed important decisions waiting for someone else and has suffered because of that; he said there is no attempt to make any threats, but if anything, they are pleading for understanding of the County's position in trying to meet the deadline. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he understands the County's position; as noted in the County /City joint meeting last Monday, the City of Spokane Valley wants to know what the rates will be, but they know the rate is $103 per ton; but also suggested the County needs to continue moving forward while Spokane Valley gets the final answers to some questions they have been researching and are pursuing; and that they would like the County to supply the information on what the rate would be with Spokane Valley, and what it would be without Spokane Valley; and those figures will be combined with their other research to help in Spokane Valley make a decision; and he said they can't make a decision without all the facts. Concerning the outstanding RFP, Commissioner Mielke said one of the things they have proposed all along is that the committee that will review those RFPs and ultimately assist in negotiating an agreement should include Spokane Valley's utility director; but if Spokane Valley is not part of the coalition, then there would be no need to have that director on the selection committee. Mr. Mielke said they have "penciled in" key people who are very knowledgeable to help us go through the process and reach those philosophical goals. Mr. Mielke said he hasn't heard anyone here tonight disagree with those goals; and he said he believes everyone is working toward the common goal. Mr. Mielke also noted that the majority of jurisdictions in this region do not have mandatory garbage pickup; and have a significant number of their residents who self -haul; he said if those people went to the transfer station, they would not be turned away; but there are other components of the system which cost money, and he mentioned the free drop off of household hazardous waste, and recyclables; and said we can't continue to provide those for free and someone not in the coalition to simply drop off their garbage at no cost; as that could jeopardize the general fund, or create larger fees for everyone else who would be subsidizing those who didn't have to pay for dropping off their materials. Commissioner French also noted that jurisdictions have the right to decide to go with this system, or another direction that meets the needs of their citizens. Commissioner O'Quinn explained Kevin Cooke and staff will take another look at addressing these issues brought up and will create a second draft interlocal; and she asked if there were any additional comments, to please make sure to call or e -mail Mr. Cooke so the second draft can be circulated the week of March 10th Mr. French said the preference is to send an e-mail so the concern can be given in writing. There was some discussion about the various required elements of the plan, and of the ability to negotiate some prices; that just because all the elements are required, doesn't mean everyone must participate or use those elements; and there was additional discussion concerning the duties of the SWAC in recommending the minimum levels of service for the entire county; which costs gets defined in the planning process. Commissioner Mielke said they are now trying to edit the plan, to determine a minimum or base level, and to know how expansive the list of partners is; he also noted that each jurisdiction's relationship with their haulers and franchisers is not altered by this discussion as that remains under the authority of that legislative body. Concerning a previous comment about adjusting some of the elements, Commissioner French said that one of the cost factors is the independent hauler; said he knows that now the transfer stations are open a long time, and he said that we probably don't need them open that long so those hours can be adjusted to meet the needs of the patrons; and said that is just one example of something that can be discussed by members of the SWAC. Mayor Rushing asked who makes up that committee. It was noted that Councilmember Hafner left the meeting at about 7:20 p.m.] Mr. French said one of the things considered in the interlocal, is to change the composition of the SWAC to include more elected officials. Mayor Rushing noted that in the past, some of the small cities wanted more input and to do that by means Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT of being on the SWAC. Mr. French said there must be representatives from certain sectors, as well as elected officials; and Mr. Wavada added that the statutes indicate a minimum but not a maximum; and that those meetings are open to the public. Mr. French noted that the legislative body that will make the decisions will be the Board of County Commissioners; however, they clearly want to expand the role of the SWAC in order to get better input from the jurisdiction partners. Mr. French said for example, in looking at this from the perspective of being in the system if there are eight partners and the system has been ongoing for three years; and we bid out long haul and determined that this is the best method and so we move in that direction which will mean a cut in rates by 20 %; for those jurisdictions not in the system for this first three year period, if they decide then to join, out of fairness to those already in the system, those not in the system would need to buy -in because the others would have retired the debt on the purchase of the transfer stations, while those not in the system initially, would not have done anything to contribute to paying off that debt; and said he is contemplating adding this to the interlocal agreement. He continued by explaining that the new partner coming in after three years, would have to pay their proportionate share as a means of catching -up, much like a late- comer's agreement; and the money they paid would benefit the others in the system; so the money stays in the enterprise fund but benefits those ratepayers who have been paying for the last three years; and he asked everyone to think about that from both sides: those in the system initially, and those who might want to buy in later. The question arose that if, conversely, a member who is in the system initially decided after a few years to leave, would that member be compensated, i.e. "bought- out." Mr. French said he doesn't have an answer right now; that it would be something to discuss; and at the present, the number of jurisdictions joining is still unknown; the desire is to make sure everyone gets treated fairly initially and throughout the process. Commissioner Mielke said that the transfer stations are amortized equally monthly over a seven -year period; and if we choose to end the partnership, we would owe the City of Spokane the balance of the cost, much like a balloon payment. A question came up about the gate fee, and if at the last minute, several larger cities such as Spokane Valley and Cheney decided not to participate, what would that do to the gate fee. Mr. Mielke replied that there are fixed costs as well as variable costs, which are dependent upon the volume of the system; and that it is difficult to calculate the price until we know the volume coming into the system; and with smaller volumes, the fixed costs are more expensive. Mr. Gimpel mentioned another possible source of funds are coordinated prevention grants; he said in Spokane County this is a two -year grant cycle; and currently, they are receiving $1 8 million, a part of which includes a base fee that every County gets, and the remainder is based on per- capita; so whether grants or tipping fees, there are the funds that they use to provide the services in the County; so as an analogy, the more cities that drop out, the less grant money is available to the County. It was noted that Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember Wick left the meeting at approximately 7:40 p.m.] Again, Commissioner Mielke said that once they have an idea of who is interested in being a part of this coalition or partnership, so once the scope and scale is known, then figures can be determined more definitely. Mayor Rushing said he realizes all concerned want the best services for the least cost; and said we would start searching for who can give the best price, but if we don't know how much the tipping fee will be, how would we know what the best price would be without having that tipping fee to compare with; or how would we know the tipping fee from the County is the lowest fee which would encourage entities to go with the system. Mr. French said he would not characterize the County and the City as vendors but as partners; he said the City of Spokane has an asset they can market as a vendor; if we end up coming in with a $104 price instead of $103, they would have the ability and flexibility to change the level of service to decrease that price; but until that partnership is formed, they won't know what all the prospective partners would expect in terms of level of service; and if they can collectively determine some economies of scale through the SWAC and define the level of service, and take advantage of any cost savings that might be available; then he said owning those transfer station gives them that flexibility. Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Concerning the transfer stations price, that disposal component is a fixed established amount; and what the City of Spokane will charge at the Waste -to- Energy Plant, Mr. Gimpel said they are not anticipating any rate change whatsoever other than whatever annual escalation may be needed; and said again, this is a matter of trust. Commissioner Mielke said that every jurisdiction has the ability to issue their own RFP to see what the best price they can get; he said Spokane County issued an RFP, secured transfer stations, issued an RFP for the operation of those transfer stations; and the question that remains, if the City will issue its own RFP or join with the County; he's not sure why any jurisdiction would think their own RFP would result in any better price than what the County received; and said we tend to get a better price from the RFP with volume; and he said the process they followed under the law is supposed to get them the lowest possible price. Mr. French said as this new relationship develops, the question remains of what will we do with the ongoing liability of the landfill closures; that we all still have a share in that cost; so even if a jurisdiction pursued this individually, they would still have that ongoing liability to consider in any internal cost structure. Commissioner French said he has appreciated today's dialogue; and he thanked everyone for attending tonight as well as for attending the ongoing discussions over the last three years; and he asked for comments on the interlocal agreement as soon as possible in order to get everything wrapped up as soon as possible, and said if any entity wants to be part of the bid openings, or interviews, or any other part, to please let him know; and he closed the meeting. It was then moved by Mayor Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 10 of 10 Approved by Council: (Spokane County's New Regional Solid d waste System Gate Fee Components • Some Components have not yet been determined ❑ ®is �• osal ❑ Transfer Station Purchase El Transfer Station Operations ❑ AdrninistratQon ❑ Landfill COms�re ❑ System Programs r %� DRAFT MINUTES Special Regional Council of Governments Meeting Hosted by Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Friday, February 28, 2014 9:00 a.m. — 12:00 a.m. Spokane County Fair and Expo Center, Conference Facility 404 N Havana Street, Spokane Valley, Washington Attendance: Spokane Valley Council Mayor Dean Grafos Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard Councilmember Bill Bates Councilmember Chuck Hafner Councilmember Rod Higgins Councilmember Ed Pace Councilmember Ben Wick Staff Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Others in Attendance: Various elected officials and staff members 1. Welcome & Review of Meeting Agenda — Spokane Co. Commissioner Shelly O'Quinn Commission Chair O'Quinn welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave those in attendance the opportunity for self - introductions. 2. Transportation Update — Wayne Brokaw, Executive Dir, Inland NW Associated General Contractors Mr. Brokaw said there is still time to get a transportation package together; said legislators are working to come to a consensus, but that the House is not yet ready; said there have been meetings statewide with members of the Building Fund who started work to support a package that will put more jobs back into the system; he said there are many bills being discussed and that many are trying to get a meeting with the Governor; he said Congress is working on another Transportation Package for 2015. 3. Voter Registration — Spokane Co Auditor, Vicky Dalton; Elections Manager Mike McLaughlin Ms. Dalton reminded everyone that March 7 is the last day to file a resolution for the April ballot; briefly explained what they do; that they are involved with voter registration and elections, as well as petition verifications; and she went over the voter registration figures as well as projected 2015 figures. Ms. Dalton mentioned the on -line voter registration and update which has been popular with the public; said voter turnout by age shows that the younger voters are not returning their ballots, and that the majority of those who do return ballots are in the 50+ age group. 4. Updates from area Cities /Towns First to give an update was Ms. Micki Harnois, representing the South Spokane County Consortium; a group consisting of the five small towns /cities of Fairfield, Latah, Rockford, Spangle and Waverly; and she mentioned one of the projects they are working on is signage. Second, Cheney Mayor Trulove announced that Cheney recently lost their city administrator, who is now the City Manager of Mountlake Terrace; and he briefly mentioned Highway 904 and other transportation projects. Third, Ms. Katy Allen, Liberty Lake Administrator reported that Liberty Lake has seen a large residential boom; mentioned their round - about, the golf driving range, and that they are working on better access off I -90 into Liberty Lake. Special: Regional Council of Governments 02 -28 -2014 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT 5. Regional Solid Waste Issues — Spokane County Utilities Director, Kevin Cooke Mr. Cooke gave a quick re -cap of the previous night's Regional Solid Waste Meeting, said the timeline is short; that they have the agreement in place with Spokane City, and that draft interlocals were submitted to other jurisdictions for their review; said the RFP (request for proposal) for the operation of the transfer stations is due March 31, which will be followed by negotiation, with a contract in place hopefully by July; he mentioned that a comprehensive solid waste plan must be in place by mid - November; and he encouraged other municipalities to e-mail him comments concerning the draft interlocal agreement; and said he hopes to have a second version of the draft interlocal out by mid - March. 6. Fairchild Air Force Base and Spokane County — Colonel Brian Newberry, 92nd ARW Commander Colonel Newberry talked about the upcoming air show scheduled for May 31 and June 1; reported about a potential upset should the reduction in force occur, as was reported by the Joint Chiefs of Staffs remarks concerning possible budget cuts to reduce the size of the military to its smallest manpower since before World War II. 7. Protecting Fairchild Air Force Base — Helping Families — Spokane County Commissioner Al French Mr. French talked about last November's failed ballot measure and said he feels the difference between passing the measure and the measure failing, could be the number of under votes, which he said indicates a greater need for education and community outreach; and said the measure might be placed on the August ballot; he mentioned past BRAC's (Base Realignment and Closure Commission) around the Country, and said that since Fairchild was not affected before, that the likelihood of a BRAC is now higher. Mr. French mentioned the mobile home parks and residents and of their encroachment to Fairchild's air space; mentioned previous encroachments which were identified and handled, such as Solar World Estates, which he said, the County now owns; and said the mobile home parks are the last remaining encroachment. Mr. French said he wants to make sure we won't have any encroachments in the future; and mentioned the work of Community Frameworks, Habitat for Humanity, and the Catholic Charities, which are all working together on this challenge of moving those mobile homes residents. Mr. French also mentioned some of the political impacts if the Base closes; and said it could represent as many as 12,000 jobs lost, a drop in housing prices; and an abundance of homes, office, retail, schools, hospitals, etc.; said the Base closure would also affect sales tax revenue, and we would see reduced construction and loss of those associated jobs. Mr. French said if the next ballot measure were to pass, they would put deed restrictions back on the tax rolls to limit the uses in that area to light industrial. 8. Updates from area Cities /Towns First, Spokane Council Member Steve Salvatori mentioned his and other's commitment to work on the cleanup of the River; mentioned that Spokane is a participant with the Regional Animal Control; said they have finalized an agreement to sell the two transfer stations to the County; mentioned a retail marijuana implementation task force, and briefly spoke about revitalization within the next few years on the U- District and pedestrian bridge. Second, Airway Heights Mayor Rushing mentioned the upcoming air show; and briefly spoke of transportation projects such as part of Highway 2 resurfacing, and of the 1,000 acres undeveloped but developable, as well as many undeveloped but developable lots; and said they are also recruiting aero -space industry businesses. Third, Ms. Carol Evans, Spokane Tribe of Indians Vice Chair spoke about their connections with various cities; of the Tribal College and of the bridge to help; and mentioned the 100th celebration coming up Labor Day Weekend. 9. Emergency Management Update /Overview — Spokane Co Emergency Management Deputy Director Ed Lewis Mr. Lewis said he has been to twenty -six disasters including Katrina; he showed a video of how a community functions, specifically in connection with the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse in 1977, and all the various aspects of emergency management that went into handling that disaster. Mr. Lewis also mentioned an upcoming tabletop disaster exercise along Trent. Special: Regional Council of Governments 02 -28 -2014 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT 10. Regional Animal Control Update — Spokane Co. SCRAPS Director Nancy Hill Ms. Hill went over some of the history of the many functions of SCRAPS, including having all lost pets under one roof; and reminded everyone of their upcoming move to their new facility in May. 11. Roundtable Discussion of the following topics of regional Importance: • Marijuana issues and associated bills • Legislation related to code costs, i.e., major cleanup of nuisance properties, • Any other topics Spokane Valley City Manager Mike Jackson mentioned the recent Attorney General opinion concerning pre - empting marijuana legislation; and Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb went over some of the basics of our City's interim legislation and the rationale behind those interim regulations. In the interest of time, other topics were not discussed. Commissioner O'Quinn announced that the next Council of Governments meeting is scheduled for September 5, 2014. The meeting adjourned at 12:05. Dean Grafos, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special: Regional Council of Governments 02 -28 -2014 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington March 4, 2014 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Eric Guth, Public Works Director Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. ACTION ITEM: 1. Decant Facility Phase 2 Bid Award — Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility, Phase 2 Project to S &L Underground, Inc., in the amount of $841,619.53 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Public Works Director Guth explained the history and background of the Decant Facility, as noted in his March 4, 2014 Request for Council Action form; he went over the bidding process and explained the difference between the September bid and the January bid; he explained the magnitude of cost savings and said that as part of the funding recommendation, he will be asking that $41,000 be added to our contribution from our APA fund. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. NON - ACTION ITEMS: 2. Police Department 2013 Accomplishments Report — Rick VanLeuven Police Chief VanLeuven explained some of his Department's 2013 accomplishments, including their success with the Intelligence -Led Policing; mentioned the crime reduction unit and of the results of the Intelligence based emphasis conducted June through August; spoke of the Lethality Assessment Program, modeled after the program from Maryland, with the goal of preventing domestic violence homicides, serious injury, and re- assault by encouraging victims to use the support and shelter services of domestic violence programs; discussed the traffic unit and mentioned the two additional Drug Recognition Experts, and gave statistics on the number of DUI's and the age of the offenders, and spoke of the positive results connected with our city's amended towing ordinance; he spoke about the traffic school and of the number of positive attributes of those classes; he reported on the success of the False Alarm Program; of our participation with State and Federal agencies focus on regional crime problems; and talked about crime prevention and of the Active Shooter Exercise. 3. Legislative Agenda Update — Mike Jackson Mr. Jackson said that Deputy Mayor Woodard and City Attorney Driskell spoke before our legislators in Olympia last week about our legislative agenda item proposing additional lien authority to recoup code Council Study Session 03 -04 -2014 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT enforcement costs. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that he testified last Thursday on this topic; said that Spokane County Treasurer Chase was also there and they had an opportunity to briefly discuss the bill; said that this is the second of twelve bills the Senate Operations Committee was examining; he said that Senator Pam Roach chairs that committee and he met her previously in January; he said she helped sponsor the bill for us and for Tacoma. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he was only permitted to speak for about a minute but they appeared to understand the situation; he said it was somewhat of an uphill battle during the testimony, and overall proved to be a frustrating day. City Attorney Driskell said the bill was discussed and had changed a little over the weeks and isn't identical in the senate and house, but that each would characterize these issues as a special assessment, which he said is a term that allows them to be collected through the County Treasurer if we had a contract to do that; he said the house passed it by a wide margin; but in the senate, it passed out of committee with a 4 -2 -1 vote, (the 1 vote was an abstention); and is now in the rules committee, and he said it must get their approval to move to the floor and that it must move by Friday or the bill would be dead. Mr. Driskell explained that during discussion at the committee level, he was asked if he thought it appropriate to put a cap on how much could be included, or if all that is appropriate is to include it as a special assessment and have special higher priority, which he said would be the more critical part because then it couldn't be included in a bankruptcy. Mr. Driskell said the discussion about a cap passed out of the rules committee without including the cap; but that Ms. Taylor tells us it might be necessary to include that cap if we want to move it further. Mr. Driskell said they felt a $5,000 cap would be appropriate; that we have done several of these abatements in the past and only had one that cost more than that; he said he feels strongly that we should consider the $5,000 cap as it goes a long way to address these concerns and gives us tools to help deal with these situations. Deputy Mayor Woodard said the priority seems to be the biggest problem for the community bankers as they seem to be the only ones opposed to the legislation, as they don't want anyone to have the opportunity to collect money before the banks do, which Deputy Mayor Woodard said, seems greedy. He said these properties reduce property values, and he hopes this new cap will go through. Mr. Driskell explained that we are trying to have the same authority the County currently has; that this is about cities being self - sufficient and having the ability to recover funds already spent, as well as have the people who create these problems be responsible for paying to correct the problem. Mr. Jackson stated that the cap is in response to the bankers' protest; that we don't know when the rules committee met, and he asked Ms. Taylor that if it comes to the rules, to proceed and offer the cap, which was discussed at $5,000. Mr. Jackson reported that Ms. Taylor also mentioned the issue of restoring liquor funds to cities, and the idea is to work on restoring those funds and then work on gaining some of the marijuana revenues. 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos Councilmember Wick asked about the next TIGER grants and Mr. Guth said they are tracking that to see what it might take to put in an application; he said they are considering perhaps applying for those funds for the Barker overpass and Pines underpass, but are working to evaluate their best strategic application; he said WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) has some large projects that will be competing for those funds as well, and said he will bring back an update if we determine to proceed with that grant application. 5. Council Comments — Mayor Grafos Councilmember Bates said that he and Councilmember Hafner attended the annual SCOPE retreat last Saturday and their concentration this year is working on programs that will attract younger people. Mayor Grafos reported that he met with County Commissioner O'Quinn about solid waste, and that the topic was discussed at a regional meeting last Thursday, as well as at the Council of Governments meeting last Friday. Mayor Grafos also mentioned he went to the library last Saturday for the Dr. Seuss birthday celebration. Council Study Session 03 -04 -2014 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT 6. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said there were several meetings last week regarding solid waste; and that last Monday our Council met with the Commissioners and reviewed a draft interlocal agreement; he said it was reported that cities that are going to prepare their own plan need to let the County know by the end of March; and said he proposes bringing back material on this topic at next week's council meeting to discuss various options, the interlocal agreement, and a potential solid waste plan and about what we would like to see in an agreement; he said he anticipates we will move quickly and possibly come back for a vote; he said staff has been working on all options, that it would be good to begin those discussions and he suggested having this on next week's agenda. Councilmembers concurred. There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session 03 -04 -2014 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 11, 2014 Department Director Approval Fl Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 14 -003, Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120 Schedule of Permitted and Accessory Uses and Appendix A — Definitions. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On January 9, 2014, the Planning Commission was briefed on the proposed Code text amendment. At that meeting, the Planning Commission requested that staff provide information identifying the proposed changes they made to the permitted use matrix to assist in their recommendation. A working document that staff used to track the consolidation process was included to assist the Planning Commission. On January 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss the working document. On the same evening, following the study session, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the amendment. After detailed deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of the proposed Code text amendment with modifications to definitions in Appendix A. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley adopted SVMC Chapter 19.120 Permitted and Accessory Uses on October 28, 2007. Post adoption, staff found the permitted use matrix difficult to use because: Many of the uses are too specific and do not have corresponding definitions. If a use is not included in the matrix, it is difficult to determine how to permit the use. This created a delay in processing permits due to the need for an administrative determination. The matrix is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in some areas. The matrix is long and difficult to navigate. The matrix refers to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes and many of the uses do not correlate to the list of NAICS codes. It was suggested that the permitted use matrix needed to be revised for usability and consistency with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The methodology for reviewing and revising the permitted use matrix is provided below: 1. Review permitted use matrices from other jurisdictions to develop ideas for formatting and organizing a revised permitted use matrix. Through this research process, it was determined that the most user - friendly permitted use matrices were organized into categories and not structured on long lists identifying specific uses. 2. Determine broad use categories for the permitted uses. 3. Identify and group similar uses into the broad use categories. 4. Consolidate the uses into subcategories. 5. Add uses to the current permitted use matrix. 1 of 2 6. Remove the NAICS codes from the permitted use matrix. 7. Review, modify, and /or add definitions to eliminate inconsistencies or clarify proposed use categories and subcategories. 8. Ensure that the references to the SVMC sections identified in the matrix were accurate. The proposed Code text amendment resulted in the following: A consolidated matrix with broad use categories Regulations for marijuana productions /sales /manufacturing Incorporation of other pending Code text amendments: townhouses in garden office (GO) zones, office uses in multi - family (MF) zones and community gardens (CG) Modifications to definitions in Appendix A to include new definitions and references to the broad use categories Modifications to SVMC references OPTIONS: (1) Move to advance to a second reading with or without modification; or (2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to advance Ordinance 14 -003 amending SVMC chapter 19.120 and amending Appendix A Definitions to a second reading. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 14 -003 with Attachments A and B. 2 of 2 Code Text Amendment Schedule of Permitted & Accessory Uses First Reading March 11, 2014 Rationale for Review • The adopted matrix is difficult to use — Inconsistent with the Comp Plan • Uses do not correlate to the definitions • Supplemental conditions are missing in Code • NAICS codes are outdated • Economic Development Agricultural and Animal • RCW 36.71.090 peddling own produce exempt • Community Gardens Marijuana Integration Schedule of Permitted Uses 4 Next Steps • If determined appropriate, proceed to an ordinance second reading Questions Schedule of Permitted Uses 6 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 14 -003 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 19.120 AND APPENDIX A RELATING TO PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES AND ASSOCIATED DEFINITIONS THEREOF, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on September 25, 2007, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19.120 and Appendix A, pursuant to Ordinance 07 -015; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2007, SVMC Title 19 became effective; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, SVMC 19.120, and Appendix A, as amended, bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare, and protection of the environment; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2013, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, providing a 60 -day notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 03, 2014, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2014, the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation, then deliberated and provided a recommendation to the Council; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2014, the Planning Commission approved the written findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2014, City Council reviewed the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2014, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend SVMC chapter 19.120, and Appendix A Definitions. Section 2. Findings. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and recommended approval of the amendments. The City Council hereby adopts the findings of the Planning Commission, specifically that: Ordinance 14 -003 Page 1 of 2 DRAFT A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Planning Policies. Land Use Policy LUP -13.1: Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. Housing Policy HP -1.2: Streamline the development review process and strive to eliminate unnecessary time delays and expenses. Economic Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP -7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost - effective, and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP -7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. Section 3. Spokane Valley Municipal Code chapter 19.120 is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A. Section 4. Attachment B. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Appendix A is hereby amended as set forth in Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of March, 2014. ATTEST: Mayor, Dean Grafos City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 14 -003 Page 2 of 2 Attachment A: CTA- 2013 -0007 Introduction to the permitted use matrix (SVMC 19.120.010 through 19.120.040) and the proposed permitted use matrix (SVMC 19.120.150) 1 Chapter 19.120 PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES Sections: 19.120.010 General. 19.120.010 General. Uses are classified using the 2002 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) published by the U.S. Census Bureau based on category and subcategory. Subcategories include all uses not identified separately by specific number. Uses may be permitted, be subject to conditions, or require conditional or temporary use permits as shown in Appendix 19 A, the schedule of permitted and accessory uses. R- 1- R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 1- MF- 2 NAICS Schedule-of-Perrnittecl-Uses Appendix-19-A Mixed Use Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 14 Lig-ht Inch 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions 1- S S Chapter 18O SVMG 453 Adult retail use establishment S S Chapter 18O SVMG 311 Agricultural processing plant, warehouse- 481219 Airstrip, private 62191 Ambulance service p p p p 54194 Animal clinic/veterinary p S p SVMG 19.60.040(8)(1} 31431-3 Animal processing facility S S S S S S 112 Animal raising and/or keeping Excluding NAICS 1122, Swine. SVMC 19A0.150. 81291 Animal shelter S SVMG 1-9,60,080(3)(3) 2 4244 3 2 Schecl-ule-of-P-ermittecl-Uses Ap-peritlix49-A -Center useMixed mixectC°CfiGIQC Use Garden Office office- Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Rarket0Pen space 1-4 1 ,,,,,,.- --sr- 1-2 L,1 rn, -r--'''Y Reference Conditions 31161 Animal slaughtering and processing 12 45392 Antique store P P P P P 446 Apparel/tailor shop 12 P 12 P 12 12 12 443111 Appliance sales/service 12 P P 12 Only it manufactured/ assernnlecl-on premises. 45392 Art gallery/studio 12 P 12 P 12 P 12 333 Assembly heavy 12 334 Assembly light 12 P P 12 12 12 pp 12 62331-2 Assisted living facility 12 P 12 P 4533 Auction house -P F 4533 Auction yard (excluding livestock) P P 41-52 Auction yard, livestock 3364 Automobile assembly plant 922 Auteinobile-invound-yard 12 12 441- Automobile/light truck sales and service P 12 12 4853 Automobile/taxi rental 12 P P 811121 Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle painting, repair, body and fender works S F- Enclosed structure only. SVMG 19.60.050(B)(3). 3 R- 4244 R- R- 3 R- M-F- ME- 2 NAICS Schedule-of-P-ermittecl-Uses Ap-pendix49-A --Center Mixed tlse Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial ParksiOpen space 1-4 . Inch 1-2 1-n4 Reference Conditions 4413 Automotive parts, accessories tires p p p 12 p p and 445291 Bakery, retail 12 P S S P P P t Floor area limited to 10% of Gross Leasable Floor Area (GLFA) not to cxcccd 1,000 sf. 52211 Bank, savings/loan and other P P P p P p P P p financial institutions 8424 Barber/beauty shop PPP P 721191 Bed and breakfast P P P 11291 Beekeeping, commercial S S S 11291 Beekeeping,11e-bby S-V-MG 19.40.150(C} 4511 Bicycle sales/service 12 -12 12 -12 ' 12 12 P 336614 Boat building, repair and maintenance 12 12 441222 Boat sales/service p P 451-2 Book/stationery store P p . . . 3424 Bottling plant P P 71395 Bowling alley P P P 722 Brewery, micro 12 -12 12 -12 1- 3424 Brewery, winery and/or distillery 12 P 12 12 P 4444 Bui-lding-supply-ancl-hem-e improvement p P Floor area limited to 50,000 sq. ft. or less 4 R- 4244 R- R- 3 R- M-F-MF-NAICS 2 Schedule-of-P-ermittecl-Uses Appendix-1-9-A --Center Mixed tlse Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office office-Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial P.egional Commercial Parks/Open Space 14 . Inch 1-2 In4 -Reference Conditions 445292 Candy and confectionery 74399 Carnival, circus T T T T T T 324-9 Carpenter shop P P P P 561-7-40 Carpet and rug cleaning plants P P 811192 Carwash P -P S -P P P P S-V-MG 49,60,040(-B) Cacino 454113 Catalog and mail ordcr houses P P 72232 Catcring services P P P P P P PPPP 81-22 Cemetery P 451112 Ceramics shop P P P P P P PPPPP P 84-3 Church, temple, mosque, synagogue and parsonagc P P P P P P P 448-1- Clothes, retail sales 49312 Cold storage/food locker P P 6443 College or university 517 Communication service/sales S S S S S S 921 Community facilities S S S S See zoning districts for conditions. 922 12 P P 8134 Community hall, club, or lodge P -P 5 R- 4244 R- R- 3 R- M-F- MF- 2 NAICS Scheduleof-P-ermittecl-Lises Ap-penclix49-A -Center Mixed tlse Corridor Mixed hise Garden Office office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial ParksiOpen space 1-4 . Inch 1-2 In-ch Reference Conditions P P P 6232 Community residential facility (6 or less residents} P P P 6232 Community residential facility (greater than 6 residents, no morc than 25} 561-7-3 Composting storage/procescing, commercial 5,1151 Computer services, P P P P P P P f 2373 Contractor's yard 238 P P P 623 Convalescent home, nursing P 12 home 4,1512 GGIWER1eRGe-store P P A A P P P Crematories P P P P 12 12 1 2 1 2 P 12 12 6233 Day care, P P A P P P A A CGGG-P P 624414 Day care, child (13 children or P P A A P A A wrer-e} -12 12 12 P -12 12 624414 Day care, child (12 children or 12 P A A P P P A A fewer} 4524 Department/variety store P P 84-23 Dry P I A I P -12 F cleaners, 812332 Dry cleaning, laundry, linen supply plant, commercial 321111,1 Dry kiln S 6 6 84-4 Dwelling, accessory apartments SVMC 19A0.100 6 R- 4244 R- R- 3 R- M-F-MF-NAICS 2 SoheduIe-of-P-ermittecl-Uses Appendix-1-9-A -Center Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office office -Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial P.egional Commercial ParksiOpen Space 14 . Inch 1-2 Inch -Reference Conditions 8-14 Dwelling, caretaker's residence S S S S S S 5-VM-G 4-9,60,06003414 P P 7-21-3 Dwelling, congregate P P P P P P P 844 Dwelling, duplex P -P 84-4 Dwelling, multifamily P I S 5 5-VM-G 4-9,60,020(S) 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 12 12 8-14 Dwelling, single family P I S 5 S-V-M-G 4-9,60,020(S) P P P 84-4 gwelling,townheuse 33,1 Electrical/electronic/computer sempanent-ancl-system- manufacturing/assembly 335 713 Entertainment/recreation facilities, i-Rd-GGF P P P P P P G 7439 Entertainment/recreation facilities, outdoor P P P P P P 5323 Equipment-rental-shep P P P P P 8443 Equipment sales, repair, and maintenance P P P P 12 7222 Esprescollatte retail service 12 -P 12 -P 12 -P 12 12 12 R RRR-R R g2 Essential public facilities R l R R R R R gnapter---1-9,90 5-VM-G A A 7139,1 Exercise facility/gym/athletic club 12 -P A -P 12 -P 12 A A 493-1-99 Explosive storage 12 12 PPPPP l 84-4 Family home, adult P P P P P121212P 12 84-4 Family home, child 12 12 P P 7 R- 4244 R- R- 3 R- M-F-MF-NAICS 2 SoheduIe-of-P-ermittecl-Uses Appendix-1-9-A -Center Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office office -Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial P.egional Commercial Parks/Open Space 14 . Inch 1-2 Inch -Reference Conditions 441222 Farm machinery sales and repair 12 12 P 112112 Feed lot P 311211 Feed/cereal/flour mill 12 P 81292 Film developing 12 -P A A 12 12 44313 Film/camera sales/servicc 12 -12 A A 12 4531 Florist shop 12 -P A A 12 12 44521 Food sales, specialty/butcher shop/meat market/specialty foods 12 -P S S-V1k4G 19.60.0,10(B)(3} 484 Freight forwarding 447 Fueling station station 12 P P A 12 12 12 81221 Funeral home P P 453 Gift-shop P P A Pt i- P A SSSSS S 71391 Golf -course P S P P Chapter 22.60 SVM-G CGGGC G 71391 Golf driving range/training center P G S P P Chapter 22.60 SVM-G 49313 Grain elevator P P 44422 center, retail 12 -P 12 12 P P 1114 Greenhouse, nursery, commercial S S 12 P SVM-G 49,80,0500343) 4451 Gresery-store 12 P 5 P P S-V1k4G 19.60.010(B)(3} 8 R- 4244 -R- R- 3 R- M-F-MF-NAICS 2 Schedule-of-P-ermittecl-Uses Ap-pendix49-A -Center Mixed tlse Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open space 1-4 . Inch 1-2 1-n4 Reference Conditions 44413 Hardware store- P P S P P S-V-MC 19.60.040(13)(3} 562211 Hazardous waste treatment and storage 8 S-VMC-2-“0,060 4812 Heliport P P 4812 Hetistep C C G G P 45112 Hobby chop P P P P P P P 442 Home furnishings, retail sale P P P P P 6221- Hospital P P P P P -R RRRR R 622210 Hospital, psychiatric and substance abuse R -R R R R R 6223-1-G Hospital, specialty P P P P 12 7211 Hotel/motel P P P 12 f 312113 Ice I plant 45322 Jewelry, clock, musical instrument aocembly, sales/service 12 -12 A P P P 1 81291 care facility S S S S P P See zoning districts, for conditions. 541-38 Laboratories (Bio Safety Level 2) P P P 644-38 Laboratories (Bio Safety Level 3) -12 F 541-38 Laboratories (Bio Safety Level 4) P P 62151 Laboratories, medical and diagnostic P P P P R 9 R- 4244 R- R- 3 R- M-F- ME- 2 NAICS Schedule-of-P-errnittecl-Uses Ap-pendix49-A --Center Mixed tlse Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial ParksiOpen space 1-4 . Inch 1-2 In4 Reference Conditions 4441-9 Landscape 12 12 12 12 12 materials sales A A A 81-2314 Laundromat 12 -12 A P P P P 4,153 Liquor store P P A A P P 561-622 Locksmith P P A A P P P 3244 Lumbermill, sawmill, shingle mill, plywood mill 33271 Machine chop - P P 236145 Manufactured home fabrication P P SSSS S 81-4 Manufactured home park SVMC 19/10.130 453-93 Manufactured homc sales Manufacturing 336414 Aircraft manufacturing P 33522 Appliances manufacturing P P 32412 Asphalt plant/manufacturing P 31181 Bakery products manufacturing P P 3359- Battery rebuilding/manufacturing P 12 339994 Broom manufacturing P P 325 Chemical manufacturing P 3342 Communications-equipment P P P P manufacturing 10 FP, 2 FP, 3 FP, 4 M-F- 2 NAICS Scheduleof-Permitted-Uses Appendix-19-A Mixed Use -Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Slice Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/Open Space 14 Light Inch 1-2 Heavy In4 Reference Conditions 339 Cosmetic and miscellaneous manufacturing 12 12 322226 Emery cloth and sandpaper manufacturing 12 12 3252 Explosive manufacturing 12 3253 Fertilizer manufacturing 12 311 Food product manufacturing/storagc 12 -4-47 Furniture manufacturing 12 12 Garment manufacturing 12 12 32591 Ink manufacturing 12 Machine/machinery manufacturing 12 12 3391- Medical and laboratory instrument/apparat UG manufacturing 12 -407 Nonmetallic metal products manufacturing 12 12 Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing 12 32,111 Petroleum and coal products manufacturing 12 32511 Plastic and rubbcr products manufacturing 12 31,1991 Rope manufacturing 12 12 325212 Rubber reclamation, manufacturing/fabrication 12 33995 Sign manufacturing/repair 12 12 11 R- 4244 R- R- 3 R- ful-F- f4F- 2 NAICS Schectule-of-P-ermittecl-Lises Appenclix-I-9-A -Center useMixed mixectC4m4kaf Use Garden Office office -Neilehbor-hood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial ParkstOPeR Space Light fit Inch 1-2 Heavy ln-ch Ge Reference Conditions 32561 Seap-and-deaning-ennapnunct manufacturing 12 31,111 Textile manufacturing P P 56292 Tire, recap and retread P manufacturing 321 P P Marijuana processing S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Marijuana production s S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Marijuana S 8 Chapter 19.85 SVMC sales 453-993 Market outdoor , P P P f 621-49S Massage therapy 3116 Meat/fish F 3147 canning, cutting, curing and-sineking 423,15 Medical, dental, and hospital equipment supply/sales P P -12 12 621-4 Medical/dental clinic P P P P I/ F 621 Medical/dental officc P P P P I 332 Metal fabrication P P 332 Metal plating P 332 Metal processes, hot 212 Mining 12 R- 4244 R- R- 3 R- M-F-MF-NAICS 2 Schedule-of-P-ermittecl-Uses Appendix-1-9-A --Center Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office office -Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial P.egional Commercial Parks/Open Space 14 . Inch 1-2 Inch -Reference Conditions 7-223aG Mebile-feecWenders S S S S S S S S S S SVM-G 4-9,60,04004} i T T T T T 236445 Model-home-6141tS 71211 Museum P P P P n P 45114 Music store I P A A I P A A 564- GA-se I P I P I P 45321 Office and and computcr supplies P P ^ ^ P P P 999 Off P P road recreational vehicle use- 1113 Orchard, tree farming, commercial P 12 32211 Paper/pulp mills P 4859 Park and ride facility P P P P P P P 522298 Pawnshop P P P P 812 Personal service P P P P P P P 45391 Petshop P P A P " 44611 Pharmacy P P A P P I 5'1192 Photographic studio P P P P 326199 Plastic injection molding, thermGeet 12 326199 Plastic injection molding, thermoplastic P P P 12 13 1- 3 3 4 1 NAICS Sch oe..,,,..e.r � uses A,,,1 cl-ul f ,Center Use use mixed Use Office Office Go er-cial � l Commercial ial Space t Inch Heavy Y l D�a +ar g 326199 Plastic injection solvent molding Post office, center F! R F! R F! R F! F! F! postal 221 Power (excluding P plant public utility facilities} 56x-43 Print shop F! F! A F! F! F! F! F! F! 323 Printing, reprographics, F! F! Public pay parking garage /lot S S S S S S 221 Public utility distribution facility S S 12 F! 12 F! 12 12 12 12 See zoning districts for conditions. S S S S S S 237 Public utility transmission facility S S S S S S S S S S See zoning districts for conditions. 7-1-3.9g Racecourse R F! F! F! 711212 Racetrack F! F! 54 Radio/TV broadcasting studio F! R R R F! F! 4821 Railroad yard, repair shop and roundhouse 7212 Recreational vehicle mound G s 44121 Recreational vehicle sales and service F! F! F! F 56292 Recycling facility S S F P F! F! P P F! 51511 Repeater facility R 12 R F! F! F! 7222 Restaurant, drive in F! p R F! F! P 14 R- 4244 R- R- 3 R- M-F- ME- 2 NAICS Schedule-of-P-ermittecl-Uses Ap-pendix49-A -Center Mixed tlse Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial ParksiOpen space 1-4 . Inch 1-2 1-n4 Reference Conditions 7222 Restaurant, drive through) 12 P A G P P P P 722 Restaurant, full P P A P P P P 12 P service 452 Retail P P A P P P P Limited to items manufactured on the-arem-ises, 453 sales 7-1-399 Riding stablc G 12 P 33122 Rolling mill P -12 I 2 I 2 I 2 -12 12 61-14 Schools, public and private, K through 12 12 12 6144 Schools, professional, vocational and tradc schools 12 -12 12 ° 12 12 4533 sales P P S S-V-M-G 19.70.010(6)(9} Showroom P P 33995 Sign-painting-shap P P 56292 Solid waste recycling/transfer sitc S-V-M-G 1-9,60,060(S) 6146 Specialized training/learning schools or studioc, P P 12 P P Adaptive reuse of existing structures only. No allowcd. P P 493-1-9 Storage, self service facility P P P P f a Storage, general outdoors s s S P See zoning district, for conditions. Tank storage, LPG above S S S S S S S-NA46-2-140,060 ground 213112 Tank storage, critical materia[ above-groune) s s 64/4116-21,40,066 15 R- 4244 R- R- 3 R- M-F- ME- 2 NAICS Schedule-of-P-ermittecl-Uses Ap-pendix49-A -Center Mixed tlse Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial ParksiOpen space 1-4 . Inch 1-2 1-n4 Reference Conditions 213112 Tank storage, critical material below ground S S S S S-VMG-2-40,050 31-64 Tanning, curing of hides and skins, p 7-224 Tavern P P P P P Taxidermy -12 -12 P S S S S S S 54-7-2 Telecommunication wireless antenna array S S C S S S S Chapter 22.120 S-V-MG CGC-C-C G 51-7-2 Telecommunication wireless support tower S S C S S S S S Chapter 22.120 S-V-MG 711 Theater, indoor P P P P P 711 Theater, outdoor P P P S S S S S S 51-7-9 Tower, ham operator S S C S S S S S-V-MG 19.40.110(A) 221119 Tower, wind turbine support C S S S S S SVMC 19.40.110(B) 4851 Transit center P p p p P P P G 7-21-3 Transitional housing 441222 Truck 12 12 sales, rental, repair and maintenance 445 Truck stop I 447 811,12 Upholstery shop 49311 Warehousing A S P A 1 Adaptive reuse of existing structures. No-expanslen allowed. 16 2 3 4 2 NAICS Schedule-of-Perrnittecl-Uses Appendix-19-A Mixed Use -Center Corridor Mixed Use Garden Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Regional Commercial Parks/ Open Space 14 Light Inch 1-2 Heavy Inch Reference Conditions 56292 Wrecking, recycling, junk and salvage yards S SVM 19,60,060(g) P Permittcd Usc R Regional Siting S Conditions Apply A-Accessory-Only T Temporary Permit C-Candition al-Use Permit 17 Chapter 19.120 Permitted and Accessory uses. 19.120.010 General A. Uses allowed in each zone district are shown in SVMC 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix. B. Uses within the shoreline jurisdiction are also subject to additional use restrictions pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 21.50 Shoreline Regulations. 19.120.020 Use categories Uses are assigned to the category that describes most closely the nature of the use. Uses have been classified into general use categories and sub - categories. Definitions and examples are provided in SVMC Appendix A Definitions. 19.120.030 Uses Not Listed. If a use is not listed, the Community Development Director may determine based on the SVMC Appendix A Definitions of the use categories and sub - categories: A. That a proposed use is substantially similar to other uses permitted or not permitted in the respective zones, and B. Whether the use should be permitted or not permitted in the zoning district. 19.120.040 Explanation of Table Abbreviations. The following describe the abbreviations used in SVMC 19.120.050 permitted use matrix: A. Permitted uses are designated with a "P ". Permitted uses are allowable uses within a zone district. B. Conditional uses are designed with a "C ". Conditional uses are authorized pursuant to SVMC 19.150. C. Accessory uses are designated with an "A ". Accessory uses are allowed when they are subordinate to, or incidental to, to the primary use on the same lot. D. Temporary uses are designated with a "T ". Temporary uses are permitted for a limited period of time or pending the occurrence of an event pursuant to SVMC 19.160. E. Regional siting uses are designated with a "R" and applies to uses that are of statewide or regional /countywide significance. They are subject to the Spokane County regional siting process for Essential Public facilities. F. Uses subject to supplemental use regulations are designated with a "S ". The "Supplemental Condition" column in SVMC 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix provides a reference to the applicable supplemental use regulation. Other requirements may apply, including but not 18 limited to, parking, landscaping, stormwater, and engineering requirements. Where only one SVMC provision is cited fora given use, such provision shall apply to the use for all of the zoning districts designated with an "S" in the permitted use matrix. G. Prohibited uses, within a zone district, are designated with a blank cell. H. Explanation for the zoning district abbreviations is provided in SVMC 19.20.010 Zoning Districts. 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix. 19 Chapter 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix Use Category /Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions 7 a' a' a' LL LL 2 E 2 0 0 0 0 2 () 0 0 a 7 N Agriculture and Animal Animal processing /handling P Animal raising and /or keeping SS S SS S S S SVMC 19.40.150. Keeping of swine is prohibited Animal shelter S P P SVMC 19.60.080(B)(6) Beekeeping, commercial P Beekeeping, hobby S S S SVMC 19.40.150(C) Community garden SS S SS S SS S Produce may be sold pursuant to RCW 36.71.090 as adopted or amended Greenhouse /nursery, commercial P P P P Kennel S S S S S P P See zoning districts for conditions Marijuana production S S S S SVMC 19.85 Orchard, tree farming, commercial P P Riding stable C P P Communication Facilities Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P P P Repeater facility PP P PP P PP PP P P Telecommunication wireless antenna array SS S S S S S S CC S S S S S SVMC 22.120 Telecommunication wireless support tower CC C C C C S S CC SS S S S SVMC 22.120 Tower, ham operator SS S S S S S S CC S S S S S SVMC 19.40.110(A) Community Services Community hall, club, or lodge PP P PP PP PP P Church, temple, mosque, synagogue and house of worship P P P P P P P P P P P P P Crematory P P P P P Funeral home P P P Transitional housing C A = Accessory use, C = Conditional use, P = Permitted use Page 11 R = Regional Siting, S = Permitted with supplemental conditions T = Temporary use 20 Chapter 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix Use Category /Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions ' aa a a L LL 2 = 2 0 ° 0 2 0 0 L 7 N Day Care Day care, adult PP P PP P PP AP PP A A Day care, child (12 children or fewer) PP P P P P P P A A P PP A A Day care, child (13 children or more) CC C C P P P P A A P PP A A Education Schools, college or university P P P P P P Schools, K through 12 PP P PP P PP P P P Schools, professional, vocational and trade schools P P P P P P P P P Schools, specialized training /studios P P P P P PP Entertainment Adult entertainment and retail S S SVMC 19.80 Carnival, circus T T T T T T Casino P P P P Cultural facilities P P P P P PP Exercise facility A A PP A P P PP A A Off -road recreational vehicle use P P Major event entertainment P P P Racecourse P P P P Racetrack P P Recreation facility P P PP A P P Theater, indoor P P P P P A = Accessory use, C = Conditional use, P = Permitted use Page 12 R = Regional Siting, S = Permitted with supplemental conditions T = Temporary use 21 Chapter 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix Use Category /Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions 7 a' a' a' LL LL 2 E 2 0 0 o o 0 () 0 0 a 7 N Food and Beverage Service Espresso establishment P P P P P PP A PP Mobile food vendors S S S S S SS S S S SVMC 19.60.010(L),19.70.010(B)(2) Restaurant, full service P P A P P PP P P Restaurant, drive - through or drive in P P A C PP P P Tavern /night club P P P P P P P Group Living Assisted living /convalescent /nursing home P P P P P P P Community residential facilities (6 residents or less) PP P PP P PP Community residential facilities (greater than 6 residents under 25) PP P PP Dwelling, congregate P P PP P Industrial, Heavy Assembly, heavy P Explosive storage P P Hazardous waste treatment and storage S S SVMC 21.40.060 Manufacturing, heavy P Power plant (excluding public utility facilities) P Processing, heavy P Solid waste recycling /transfer site P P Wrecking, junk and salvage yard C P A = Accessory use, C = Conditional use, P = Permitted use Page 13 R = Regional Siting, S = Permitted with supplemental conditions T = Temporary use 22 Chapter 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix Use Category /Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions 7 a' a' a' LL LL 2 E 2 0 0 o o 0 () 0 cO 0 a 7 N Industrial, Light Assembly, light P P P P P P P Carpenter shop P P P P Machine shop or metal fabrication P P P Manufacturing, light P P P Marijuana processing S S SVMC 19.85 Plastic injection molding, thermoplastic P P P P P P Processing, light P P Industrial Service Carpet /rug cleaning, dry cleaning, laundry, linen supply plant, commercial P P Contractor's yard P P Laboratories (bio safety level 2) P P P P Laboratories (bio safety level 3) P P P Laboratories (bio safety level 4) P P Recycling facility S S S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(4), 19.60.050(B)(4), 19.60.080(B)(5) Lodging Bed and breakfast PP P PP P P P P Hotel /motel P P P P P P Recreational vehicle park/campground C S SVMC 19.60.010 Medical Ambulance service P P P P P P P Hospital P P P P P Hospital, psychiatric and substance abuse R R R R R R R R R R R R R R A = Accessory use, C = Conditional use, P = Permitted use Page 14 R = Regional Siting, S = Permitted with supplemental conditions T = Temporary use 23 Chapter 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix Use Category /Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions a' r N a a M a LL N LL i U 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 a 7 N Hospital, specialty P P P P P A A Laboratories, medical and diagnostic P P P P P Medical, dental, and hospital equipment supply /sales P P P P P P Medical /dental clinic P P P P P P P Office Animal clinic /veterinary P P P S P P P SVMC 19.60. See also supplemental conditions for kennels Office, professional P P P P P P P PP P P Parks and Open Space Cemetery P P P P P Golf course SS S SS S P S P P SVMC 22.60 Golf driving range CC C C C C P C S P P SVMC 22.60 Parks PP P P P P P P P P P PP P PubliclQuasi- Public Community facilities S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S See zoning districts for conditions Essential public facilities RR R R R R R R R RR R R SVMC 19.90 Public utility distribution facility S S S S S S S S P P P P P P P P See zoning districts for conditions Public utility transmission facility S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S See zoning districts for conditions Tower, wind turbine support CS SS S S SVMC 19.60.050(B)2 Residential Dwelling, accessory units S S S S SVMC 19.40.100 Dwelling, caretaker's residence S S S S S S SVMC 19.60.060(B)(1) Dwelling, duplex P PP P PP Dwelling, multifamily P P P P P S S SVMC 19.60.020(B)2 Dwelling, single - family PP P PP P P P S S SVMC 19.60.020(B)2 Dwelling, townhouse PP P P P P P Manufactured home park S S SS S SVMC 19.40.130 A = Accessory use, C = Conditional use, P = Permitted use Page 15 R = Regional Siting, S = Permitted with supplemental conditions T = Temporary use 24 Chapter 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix Use Category /Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions 7 a' a' ' u- u- 2 E 2 g o 0 0 0 0 0 cn 0 a 7 N Retail Sales Antique store P P P P P Appliance sales /service P P P P S S Retail sales may be accessory in industrial zones, only if manufactured /assembled on premises Bakery, retail P P P P P PP S S Floor area limited to 10% of Gross Leasable Floor Area (GLFA) not to exceed 1,000 sf. Building supply and home improvement and Hardware store P P S S P P P Floor area limited to 50,000 sq. ft. or less Candy and confectionery P P P P P PP P P Clothes retail sales P P P P P Convenience store P P 5 5 P PP P P SVMC 19.60.020 Department /variety store P P S P P Floor area limited to 50,000 sq. ft. or less Educational and hobby store P P P AP PP A A Equipment sales, repair, and maintenance P P P P P Florist shop P P A AP PP P Food sales, specialty /butcher shop /meat market /specialty foods P P S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(3) General sales /service P P A AP PP P P Gift shop PP A AP PP A Grocery store P P S P P SVMC 19.60.040(B)(3) Office supply and computer sales P P AP PP P P Landscape materials sales lot and greenhouse, nursery, garden center, retail P P P P P P Manufactured home sales P P P Marijuana sales S S S S SVMC 19.85 Market, outdoor P P PP PP Pawn shop P P P P Pharmacy PP AP P PP P Secondhand store, consignment sales P P P P P S SVMC 19.70.010(B)(9) A = Accessory use, C = Conditional use, P = Permitted use Page 16 R = Regional Siting, S = Permitted with supplemental conditions T = Temporary use 25 Chapter 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix Use Category /Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions ' r aa N M a a '- u_ N u_ 2 = 2 0 ° 0 2 U 0 0 a 7 N Showroom P P P P P P Specialty stores P P A AP PP Retail Services Bank, savings and loan, and other financial institutions P P P P P PP P P Barber /beauty shop P P P P P PP P Catering services P P PP P P P PP Equipment rental shop P P P P P Personal services P P P P P PP Post office, postal center P P P P P PP P P Print shop PP AP P PP P P Taxidermy P P P P P P Upholstery shop P P P P P Transportation Airstrip, private P P Heliport P P Helistop C C C C P Parking facility, controlled access P P P P P P P Railroad yard, repair shop and roundhouse P Transit center P P P P P P P Vehicle Services Automobile impound yard P P Automobile /taxi rental P P P P P P P Automobile parts, accessories and tires P P P P P P Automobile /truck/RV /motorcycle painting, repair, body and fender works S S P P P Enclosed structure only. SVMC 19.60.050(B)(3). A = Accessory use, C = Conditional use, P = Permitted use Page 17 R = Regional Siting, S = Permitted with supplemental conditions T = Temporary use 26 Chapter 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix Use Category /Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions aa ' a 1. a LL LL 2 = 2 2 0 ° 0 Z 0 u 0 L 7 N Carwash P P S P P P P SVMC 19.60.040(B) Farm machinery sales and repair P P P Fueling station P P P A PP P P Heavy truck and industrial vehicles sales, rental, repair and maintenance P P Passenger vehicle, boat, and RV sales, service and Repair P P P P Towing P P P P Truck stop P P Warehouse, Wholesale, and Freight Movement Auction house P P P P Auction yard (excluding livestock) P P Catalog and mail order houses P P P P P Cold storage /food locker P P Freight forwarding P P Grain elevator P P Storage, general indoors P P A A A PP P P Storage, general outdoors S S S S P See zoning districts for conditions Storage, self - service facility P P P P P P P P Tank storage, critical material above ground S S SVMC 21.40.060, 21.50 Tank storage, critical material below ground S S S S SVMC 19.60.040, 21.40.060, 21.50 Tank storage, LPG above ground S S S S S S S SVMC 21.40.060, 21.50 Warehouse P P P P P P Wholesale business P P P P P P A = Accessory use, C = Conditional use, P = Permitted use Page 18 R = Regional Siting, S = Permitted with supplemental conditions T = Temporary use 27 Attachment B: CTA- 2013 -0007 Modified version of Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (definitions) APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS A. General Provisions. 1. For the purpose of this code, certain words and terms are herein defined. The word "shall" is always mandatory. The word "may" is permissive, subject to the judgment of the person administering the code. 2. Words not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 3. The present tense includes the future, and the future the present. 4. The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular. 5. Use of male designations shall also include female. B. Definitions. AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Abandoned: Knowing relinquishment by the owner, of right or claim to the subject property or structure on that property, without any intention of transferring rights to the property or structure to another owner, tenant, or lessee, or of resuming the owner's use of the property. "Abandoned" shall include but not be limited to circumstances involving tax forfeiture, bankruptcy, or mortgage foreclosure. Accessory: A building, area, part of a building, structure or use which is subordinate to, and the use of which is incidental to, that of the main building, structure or use on the same lot. Accessory dwelling unit: A freestanding detached structure or an attached part of a structure that is subordinate and incidental to the principal dwelling unit located on the same property, providing complete, independent living facilities exclusively for a single housekeeping unit, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation. ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act. Adequate public facilities: Facilities which have the capacity to serve development without decreasing levels of service below locally established minima. 1 Page 1 1 Administrative exception: A minor deviation from standards pursuant to Chapter 19.140 SVMC. Adult entertainment: Includes the following: • Adult arcade device: Sometimes also known as "panoram," "preview," or "picture arcade." • Adult arcade or peep show: Any device which, for payment of a fee, membership fee, or other charge, is used to exhibit or display a graphic picture, view, film, videotape, or digital display of specified sexual activity, or live adult entertainment in a booth setting. All such devices are denominated under this chapter by the term "adult arcade device." The term "adult arcade device" as used in this code does not include other games which employ pictures, views, or video displays, or gambling devices which do not exhibit or display adult entertainment. • Adult arcade establishment: A commercial premises to which a member of the public is invited or admitted and where adult arcade stations, booths, or devices are used to exhibit or display a graphic picture, view, film, videotape, or digital display of specified sexual activity, or live adult entertainment in a booth setting to a member of the public on a regular basis or as a substantial part of the premises activity. • Adult arcade station or booth: An enclosure where a patron, member, or customer would ordinarily be positioned while using an adult arcade device or viewing a live adult entertainment performance, exhibition, or dance in a booth. "Adult arcade station" or "booth" refers to the area in which an adult arcade device is located and from which the graphic picture, view, film, videotape, digital display of specified sexual activity, or live adult entertainment is to be viewed. These terms do not mean such an enclosure that is a private office used by an owner, manager, or person employed on the premises for attending the tasks of his or her employment, if the enclosure is not held out to any member of the public for use, for hire, or for a fee for the purpose of viewing the entertainment provided by the arcade device or live adult entertainment, and not open to any person other than employees. • Adult entertainment establishment: Collectively refers to adult arcade establishments and live adult entertainment establishments licensed pursuant to Chapter 5.10 SVMC. • Applicant: An individual or entity seeking an adult entertainment establishment license. • Applicant control person: All partners, corporate officers and directors and other individuals in the applicant's business organization who hold a significant interest in the adult entertainment business, based on responsibility for management of the adult entertainment establishment. 1 Page 1 2 • Employee: Any person, including a manager, entertainer or an independent contractor, who works in or at or renders services directly related to the operation of an adult entertainment establishment. • Entertainer: Any person who provides live adult entertainment within an adult entertainment establishment as defined in this section, whether or not a fee is charged or accepted for entertainment. • Licensing administrator: The director of the community development department of the City of Spokane Valley and his /her designee and is the person designated to administer this code. • Liquor: All beverages defined in RCW 66.04.010(25). • Live adult entertainment: 1. An exhibition, performance or dance conducted in a commercial premises for a member of the public where the exhibition, performance, or dance involves a person who is nude or seminude. Adult entertainment shall include, but is not limited to, performances commonly known as "strip teases "; 2. An exhibition, performance or dance conducted in a commercial premises where the exhibition, performance or dance is distinguished or characterized by a predominant emphasis on the depiction, description, simulation or relation to the following "specified sexual activities ": a. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal; b. Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or bestiality; c. Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breasts; or 3. An exhibition, performance or dance that is intended to sexually stimulate a member of the public. This includes, but is not limited to, such an exhibition, performance, or dance performed for, arranged with, or engaged in with fewer than all members of the public on the premises at that time, whether conducted or viewed in an arcade booth or otherwise, with separate consideration paid, either directly or indirectly, for the performance, exhibition or dance and that is commonly referred to as table dancing, couch dancing, taxi dancing, lap dancing, private dancing, or straddle dancing. • Live adult entertainment establishment: A commercial premises to which a member of the public is invited or admitted and where an entertainer provides live adult entertainment, in a setting which does not 1 Page 1 3 include arcade booths or devices, to a member of the public on a regular basis or as a substantial part of the premises activity. • Manager: Any person who manages, directs, administers or is in charge of the affairs or conduct, or the affairs and conduct, or of a portion of the affairs or conduct occurring at an adult entertainment establishment. • Member of the public: A customer, patron, club member, or person, other than an employee, who is invited or admitted to an adult entertainment establishment. • Nude or seminude: A state of complete or partial undress in such costume, attire or clothing so as to expose any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva, or genitals, or human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered. • "Open to the public room so that the area inside is fully and completely visible to the manager ": Premises where there is no door, curtain, partition, or other device extending from the top of the door frame of an arcade booth or station, with the exception of a door which is completely transparent and constructed of safety glass as specified in the International Building Code, so that the activity and occupant inside the enclosure are fully and completely visible by direct line of sight to the manager located at the manager's station which shall be located at the main entrance way to the public room. • Operator: Any person operating, conducting or maintaining an adult entertainment establishment. • Person: Any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, incorporated or unincorporated association, marital community, joint venture, governmental entity, or other entity or group of persons however organized. • Premises: The land, structures, places, equipment and appurtenances connected or used in any business, and any personal property or fixtures used in connection with any adult entertainment establishment. • Sexual conduct: Acts of: 1. Sexual intercourse within its ordinary meaning, occurring upon any penetration, however slight; or 2. A penetration of the vagina or anus, however slight, by an object; or 3. A contact between persons involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another; or 1 Page 1 4 4. Masturbation, manual or instrumental, of oneself or of one person by another; or 5. Touching of the sex organs, anus, or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, of oneself or of one person by another. • Specified sexual activities: Refers to the following: 1. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal; 2. Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or bestiality; or 3. Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks or female breasts. • Transfer of ownership or control: Of an adult entertainment establishment means any of the following: 1. The sale, lease or sublease of the business; 2. The transfer of securities that constitute a controlling interest in the business, whether by sale, exchange, or similar means; 3. The establishment of a trust, gift, or other similar legal device that transfers the ownership or control of the business; or 4. Transfer by bequest or other operation of law upon the death of the person possessing the ownership or control. Adult entertainment and retail: An adult entertainment or adult retail use establishment. See "Entertainment, use category." Adult entertainment establishment: Collectively refers to adult arcade establishments and live adult entertainment establishments, as defined herein. Adult retail use establishment: A retail use establishment which, for money or any other form of consideration, devotes a significant or substantial portion of stock in trade to the sale, exchange, rental, loan, trade, or transferring of adult- oriented merchandise. The retail use establishment may permit patrons to view the adult- oriented merchandise for possible purchase or rental, but such on- premises viewing shall not be in exchange for money or any other form of consideration. 1 Page 1 5 Affordable housing: Where the term "affordable" is used, it refers to the federal definition of affordability stating that annual housing costs shall not exceed one -third of a family's annual income. When establishing affordability standards for moderate- to extremely low- income families and individuals, the median household income is the amount calculated and published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development each year for Spokane County. Agriculture and animal, use category: Activities wherein animals or plants are raised, produced or kept. It also includes establishments that process animals and agricultural products to make food or goods. Examples include beekeeping, animal shelters, kennels, doggie daycares, riding stables, community gardens, commercial greenhouses or nurseries, orchards, tree farms, feed lots, rendering yards, livestock auction yards, and slaughter houses. Agricultural: Relating to the science or art of cultivating soil or producing crops to be used or consumed directly or indirectly by man or livestock, or raising of livestock. Agricultural processing: The series of operations taken to change agricultural products into food and consumer products. Uses include creameries. See "Industrial, light use category." Aircraft manufacture: The manufacture or assembly of complete aircraft, aircraft prototypes, aircraft conversion, overhaul and rebuilding. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Airport: An area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any. Airport hazard: Any structure or object of natural growth located in the vicinity of the airport which obstructs the airspace required for the flight of aircraft or airport operations. Airport land use compatibility zone: Aircraft accident zones established by WSDOT, Division of Aviation and adopted by ordinance wherein certain land uses are restricted in order to protect the airport from encroachment from incompatible land uses. Airport obstruction: Any structure or object of natural growth or use of land which would exceed the federal obstruction standards established in 14 CFR Sections 77.21, 77.23, 77.25 and 77.28, or which obstructs the airspace required for flight of aircraft in landing or takeoff, or is otherwise hazardous to airport operations. Airstrip, private: An aircraft landing strip under private ownership which may provide specialty flying services without regular routes using general purpose aircraft. See "Transportation, use category." Page 1 6 Alley: A public right -of -way which provides access only to the rear and /or side of properties abutting and having access to a public road. Altered /alteration: Any change, addition or modification in construction or any change of occupancy from one use to another or from one division of a trade to another. Ambulance service: A facility used for the housing and dispatch of emergency medical personnel and paramedics using ground transportation. See "Medical, use category." Amendment: A change in the wording, context, or substance of this code, or a change in the zone boundaries. Animal clinic /veterinary: A facility dedicated to the care of animals, which may include grooming services and short -term boarding. See "Office, use category." Animal, large: Domesticated animals including, but not limited to, horses, donkeys, burros, llamas, bovines, goats, sheep, and other animals or livestock of similar size and type. Young of horses, mules, donkeys, burros, llamas, and alpaca, under one year in age, bovines, under 10 months in age, and sheep and goats under three months in age shall not be included when computing intensity of large animals. Animal, small: Domesticated animals or fowl other than a household pet, or large animals including, but not limited to, chickens, guinea hens, geese, ducks, turkeys, pigeons, emus, ostriches (struthious), kangaroos, rabbits, mink, chinchilla, and other animals or fowl of similar size and type. Young small animals or fowl under three months of age shall not be included when computing intensity of small animals or fowl. Young or miniature large animals are not included in this definition and are considered large animals. Animal processing /handling: The management or processing of animals for food preparation or goods manufacturing. Includes stockyards, feed lots, auction yards for livestock, slaughter houses meat packing facilities and the rendering of meat by product plants including the manufacturc of tallow, gclatin and gluc,. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." Animal raising or keeping: The keeping of large and small domesticated animals other than household pets. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." Animal shelter: A facility that houses and disposes of homeless, lost, or abandoned animals; mostly dogs and cats. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." 1 Page 1 7 Animal, wildlife rehabilitation or scientific research facility: A building, structure, pen or portion(s) thereof or an area of land where animals are housed, kept or maintained for the purpose of wildlife rehabilitation; or for the purpose of investigation, aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts or the collecting of information about a particular subject. Antique store: A retail establishment offering for sale glass, china, objets d'art art objects furniture or similar furnishings and decorations which have value and significance as a result of age and design. See "Retail sales, use category." AO: Is characterized as sheet flow and AH indicates ponding and includes a base flood elevation. Apparel /tailor shop: A service providing for the alteration and repair of clothing. See "Personal services." Appeal: A request for a review of the interpretation of any provision of this code or a request for a variance. Appliance manufacture: The manufacture, assembly and storage of household appliances. See "Industrial, light use category." Appliance sales /service: The sale, servicing and repair of home appliances including radios, televisions, washers, refrigerators and ranges. See "Retail sales, use category." Aquifer: The underground layer of rock and sand that contains usable quantities of water. Area of shallow flooding: A designated AO or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and which has the following characteristics: 1. The base flood depths range from one to three feet; 2. A clearly defined channel does not exist; 3. The path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and 4. Velocity flow may be evident. Area of special flood hazard: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designation on maps always includes the letters A or V. Art gallery /studio: The work areas of graphic artists, painters, sculptors, weavers, quilters and other artists with display and sales areas. See "Cultural facilities." Page 1 8 Arterial /road map: The official maps adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. As- graded: The extent of surface conditions on completion of grading. Asphalt plant/manufacturing: The manufacture of carbon -based paving and saturated materials compounds. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Assembly, heavy: The assemblage of materials and /or metals for commercial and industrial uses. For examples, see "Industrial, heavy use category." Assembly, light: The assemblage of metals and /or materials into products, including such aselectronic accembly. For examples, see "Industrial, light use category." Assisted living facility: _A residential facility that provides routine protective oversight or assistance for independent living to mentally and physically limited persons in a residential setting. Services include, but are not limited to, transportation, food service, pharmacy and limited nursing services. An assisted living center may be included as a part of a nursing home or convalescent center complex. See "Group living, use category." Attached: _Structurally dependent, sharing a common or party wall for not less than 50 percent of the length of the principal structure(s). A breezeway is not a common wall. Auction house: A building where sale items are stored or displayed where persons are permitted to attend sales and offer bids on such items. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Auction yard: An open area where sale items are stored or displayed for not more than seven conzecutivc days within any given 30 day period and where persons are permitted to attend sales and offer bids on such items. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Auction yard, livestock: Facilities designed for the sale of livestock at auction, including barns, holding pens, and loading facilities. See "Animal processing /handling." Automobile assembly plant: A manufacturing facility for new cars and trucks. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Automobile impound yard: A secure area used for the temporary impoundment of motor vehicles by law enforcement. See "Vehicle services, use category." 1 Page 1 9 Automobile /taxi rental: Facilities including parking, for vehicles available for rent or lease. Facilities for fueling, servicing and minor repair may be accessory to the rental use. See "Vehicle services, use category." Automobile /truck sales and service: An area located on private property used for the display and sale of more than two new or used passenger automobiles or light trucks, including sports utility vehicles, or any truck with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of less than one ton, including service. See "Vehicle services, use category." Automobile /truck /RV /motorcycle painting, repair, body and fender works: A facility providing for the repair and painting of a wide variety of motor vehicles, not including engine overhaul. See "Vehicle services, use category." Automotive parts, accessories and tires: A retail establishment engaged in the sale of new or refurbished automotive parts and accessories, including installation of tires, automotive accessories and the minor repair of passenger cars and light trucks. See "Vehicle services, use category." Available public facilities: Facilities or services are in place or a financial commitment is in place to provide the facilities or services within a specified time. In the case of transportation, the specified time is six years from the time of development. Awning: A roof -like cover that projects from the wall of a building for the purpose of identity, decoration or shielding a doorway or window from the elements. Bakery products manufacturing: A facility preparing baked goods for regional distribution with accessory retail sales. See "Industrial, light use category." Bakery, retail: A retail business offering baked goods including pies, doughnuts, cakes and breads for sale to the public. See "Retail sales, use category." Bankfull depth: The average vertical distance between the channel bed and the estimated water surface elevation required to completely fill the channel to a point above which water would enter the floodplain or intersect a terrace or hill slope. In cases where multiple channels exist, the bankfull depth is the average depth of all channels along the cross - section. Bankfull width: 1 Page 1 10 • For streams — the measurement of the lateral extent of the water surface elevation perpendicular to the channel at bankfull depth. In cases where multiple channels exist, bankfull width is the sum of the individual channel widths along the cross - section. • For lakes, ponds, and impoundments — line of mean high water. • For periodically inundated areas of associated wetlands — the line of periodic inundation, which will be found by examining the edge of inundation to ascertain where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland. Banks, savings and loan and other financial institutions: Offices and service facilities for banks, savings and loans, credit unions or other financial institutions, including drive - through windows. See "Retail services, use category." Barber /beauty shop: A facility offering haircuts, manicures and similar personal services. See "Retail services, use category." Base flood: The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Also referred to as the "100 -year flood." Designation on maps always includes the letters A or V. Basement: The portion of a building at least four feet below grade for more than 50 percent of the perimeter but not more than eight feet below grade at any point of the structure. Battery rebuilding /manufacture: A facility that specializes in retail, wholesale, OEM /manufacturing, custom battery rebuilding, and battery assembly for consumer and industrial use. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Bed and breakfast: A single - family dwelling which provides accommodations for one or more paying guests on a reservation basis. See "Lodging, use category." Bedrock: The more or less solid rock in place on or beneath the surface of the earth. It may be soft, medium, or hard and have a smooth or irregular surface. Beehive: A structure designed to contain one colony of honey bees (apis mellifera) and registered with the Washington State Department of Agriculture per Chapter 15.60 RCW or as hereafter amended. 1 Page 1 11 Beekeeping, commercial: An activity where more than 25 beehives are kept on a lot. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." Beekeeping, hobby: The keeping of 25 or fewer beehives on a lot. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." Bench: As referred to in grading, a relatively level step excavated into earth material on which fill is to be placed. Berm: A narrow ledge or shelf of land generally consisting of earth material that may be natural or artificial. Best management practices (BMP): Currently available, feasible and generally accepted techniques or practices that mitigate the adverse impact from the uncontrolled stormwater on the environment, surrounding properties and infrastructure. Bicycle: A vehicle having two tandem wheels propelled solely by human power, upon which any persons or person may ride. Bicycle lane: That portion of a paved roadway striped for use by bicycles. Bicycle path: A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right -of -way or within an independent right -of -way. Bicycle route: A segment of a system of bikeways designated with appropriate directional and informational markers with or without specific bicycle route number. Bicycle sales and service: A retail establishment offering for sale to the public nonmotorized vehicles, including bicycles, skateboards, roller blades, unicycles or similar equipment, and providing repairs. See "General sales /service." Bikeway: Any road, path, or way, which in some manner is specifically designated and which may legally be used by bicycles regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. Binding site plan: A division of land approved administratively by the department of community development, which legally obligates a person making a proposal to conditions, standards or requirements specified by this code. 1 Page 1 12 Block: A parcel of land surrounded by public streets, highways, railroad rights -of -way, public walks, parks, or green strips, rural land, drainage channels, or a combination thereof. Boat building: The construction, refurbishing and repair of recreational boats. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Book /stationery store: A retail establishment offering books, magazines, greeting cards, and similar items to the public. See "Educational and hobby store." Border easement: A dedicated easement on private property adjacent to public street right(s) -of -way established for the purposes of utility, drainage facilities, pedestrian access or other public purpose. Borrow: As referred to in grading, earth material acquired from either an on- or off -site location for use in grading on a site. Bottling plant: An industrial facility that provides for the packaging and distribution of liquid products, including the mixing of liquid components. See "Industrial, light use category." Boundary line adjustment: A land use action adjusting lot lines. Boundary line elimination: A land use action aggregating two or more lots or parcels of land. Bowling alley: Indoor entertainment facility that provides including rental and sale of bowling equipment and - as well as restaurant services. See "Recreation facilities." Breakaway wall: A wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading forces, without causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. Brewery, micro: An establishment brewing specialized beers for localized distribution, as well as local restaurant services. See "Tavern /night club." Brewery, winery or distillery: A facility engaged in the production of beer, wine or spirits for regional distribution, including fermentation, distillation and bottling. See "Tavern /night club." Broom manufacturing: The manufacture of brooms, brushes and mops. See "Industrial, light use category." 1 Page 1 13 Building height: The vertical distance from the average finished grade to the average height of the highest roof surface. , _. _ _ 7 ' 1 1 1 30': ' 30' : Eysking 5' p..� - (i_ {# Grade L_ . ._ Point of Lowest rest bleasurement Elevation Building official: The authority charged with the administration and enforcement of the adopted building codes pursuant to SVMC 18.40.010. Building setback line: A line established as the minimum distance a structure may be located from any property line or border easement. Building supply and home improvement: An establishment selling hardware, lumber, sheetrock, plumbing supplies, flooring, lighting fixtures, landscaping supplies, nursery stock, and appliances at retail and wholesale. See "Retail sales, use category." Bulkheads: Retaining wall structures erected to stabilize land at the water's edge and prevent erosion. Revetments are the same as bulkheads. Butcher shop /meat market: The retail sales of specialty meat and fish products, not otherwise classificd as a grocery store. See "Food sales, specialty /butcher shop /meat market." Caliper: The diameter of a deciduous tree measured at four and one -half feet above grade. C€ilm/camera sales and service: The retail sale of photographic equipment and supplies, and the repair of cameras, lenses, tripods, optical and related photographic accessories. See "Specialty stores." Camping units: A structure, shelter or vehicle designed and intended for temporary occupancy by persons engaged in camping or use of a camping unit for recreation. Camping units include, but are not limited to, recreational vehicles, recreational park trailers and campers, camping cabins, tents, tepees, yurts and other similar shelters. Candy and confectionery: The preparation and specialty retail sale of candy and confectionery, not otherwise classified as a grocery store. See "Retail sales, use category." Page 1 14 Carnival or circus: Temporary entertainment facilities providing rides, exhibits, games, musical productions, food and drink, and items for sale as part of a private commercial venture. See "Entertainment, use category." Carpenter shop: An establishment producing finished wooden products from raw materials. See "Industrial, light use category." Carpet and rug cleaning plants: A plant engaged in the cleaning and repair of carpets and textiles utilizing solvents and volatile organic compounds. It gdoes not include cleaning services provided on client premises. See "Industrial service, use category." Car wash: Facilities for the washing of passenger cars and light trucks as either a principal use or accessory to fueling stations, convenience stores or similar permitted uses. See "Vehicle, use category." Car wash, automated: A car wash using robotic tracks or systems to wash the exterior of passenger cars and light trucks. See "Vehicle, use category." Casino: A gaming establishment licensed pursuant to Chapter 9.46 RCW, including restaurant services. See "Entertainment, use category." Catalogue and mail -order houses: Merchandise warehouse and distribution center, including showroom. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Category: A land use classification established pursuant to the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Catering services: Food preparation intended for delivery to location(s) different from that where the preparation takes place. See "Retail services, use category." Cemetery: Land or facilities used or planned for use for the preparation for the disposition of human or animal remains including columbaria, crematories, mausoleums, and mortuaries when operated in conjunction with and within the boundary of such cemetery. See "Parks and open space, use category." Ceramics shop: A retail store which provides the supplies and equipment for molding, firing, glazing and enameling ceramic goods. See "Specialty stores." Certificate of occupancy: An official certificate issued by the building official that indicates conformance with building requirements and zoning regulations and authorizes legal use of the premises for which it is issued. 1 Page 1 15 Certificate of title: A letter, report, opinion, statement, policy, or certificate prepared and executed by a title describing all encumbrances of record which affect the property, together with all recorded deeds, including any part of the property included in the plat. Chemical manufacture: Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing chemicals using basic processes, such as thermal cracking and distillation. Chemicals manufactured in this industry group are usually separate chemical elements or separate chemically defined compounds, not including aluminum oxide manufacturing, primary metal manufacturing, ceramics, and beverage distilleries which are defined separately. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Church, temple, mosque, synagogue, house of worship: An establishment, the principal purpose of which is religious worship and for which the main building or other structure contains the sanctuary or principal place of worship, and including accessory uses in the main building or in separate buildings or structures, including Sunday school rooms and religious education classrooms, assembly rooms, a common kitchen, a library room or reading room, columbaria, recreation hall and on -site living quarters for members of religious orders and caretakers. See "Community services, use category." City: The City of Spokane Valley, Washington. City council: The governing body of the City. City property: Real property owned by the City which may include easements, dedications and rights -of -way. City standards: In reference to stormwater standards, the "Spokane County Guidelines for Regional Stormwater Manual agement" and other standards developed or recognized by the director that relate to best management practices, threshold requirements for a site drainage plan, exemptions, permitting processes forms and such other matters for the administration of stormwater control. Garment -Clothes manufacture: The manufacture of apparel, , for wholesale distribution. See "Industrial, light use category." Clothes, retail sales: A retail store offering clothing, footwear and accessories for sale to the general public. See "Retail sales, use category." Club: An association of persons for some common purpose, but not including groups organized primarily to render a service which is customarily carried on as a business. 1 Page 1 16 Clustered housing: Residential lots or building sites which reduce minimum yard requirements within a tract but provide compensating open space. Code: Spokane Valley Uniform novelopmentMunicipal Code (SVMC). Cold storage /food locker: A commercial building designed to prevent spoilage of food and to store food for retail food stores or persons buying in large quantities. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Collocation: Locating wireless communication equipment from more than one provider on one structure on one site. Commercial zones: Those zones permitting commercial uses including the business zones, office zones, Corridor Mixed Use, Mixed Use Center, and City Center. Commission: The Spokane Valley planning commission. Communication equipment manufacture: The manufacture, assembly and storage of communications equipment. See "Industrial, light use category." Communication facilities, use category: Any towers, poles, antennas, structures, or broadcasting studios intended for use in connection with transmission or receipt of telecommunication signals. Communication service /sales: Establishments providing for the sale and service of communications equipment including, but not limited to, telephones, satellite dishes, and radio equipment. See "General sales /service." Community garden: Facility or area for cultivation of fruits, flowers, vegetables, or ornamental plants by more than one person or family. This does not include collective gardens pursuant to RCW 69.51A.005. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." Community facilities: The facilities of local government, other public agencies or nonprofit organizations including, but not limited to, police stations, fire stations, government offices, court rooms, water /wastewater 1 Page 1 17 storage and treatment facilities, transmission lines, except transit stations, churches, and schools. See "Public /quasi - public, use category." Community hall, club, or lodge: A building and related grounds used for social, civic, or recreational purposes and owned and operated by a nonprofit group serving the area in which it is located and open to the general public. See "Community service, use category." Community residential facility: A dwelling licensed, certified or authorized by state authorities as a residence for children or adults with physical or developmental disabilities in need of supervision, support or assistance. See "Group living, use category." Community service, use category: Uses of a public, nonprofit, or charitable nature that provide a local service to the community. Examples include funeral service facilities, religious institutions, senior centers, community centers, youth club facilities, hospices, drug and alcohol centers, social service facilities, mass shelters or short -term housing when operated by a public or nonprofit agency, vocational training for the physically or mentally disabled, soup kitchens, and surplus food distribution centers. activities. Compaction: The densification of a fill by mechanical means. Composting storage /processing, commercial: A facility storing or composting organic material for commercial purposes. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan adopted by Spokane Valley, Washington, pursuant to Chapter 36.70 RCW. Computer manufacture and assembly: See "Electrical /electronic /computer component/system manufacturing and assembly." Computer services: Facilities used for the design and testing of computer systems and component parts, including software design and computer support services. See "Office, professional." Concurrency: Adequate public facilities required when the service demands of development occur. 1 Page 1 18 Conditional use: A use authorized subject to conditions and performance standards established by the hearing examiner. Contractor's yard: An area and /or building used to store, maintain and repair equipment, trucks and motor vehicles, construction supplies, building equipment and raw materials for an individual or for a contractor engaged in building or other construction businesses including, but not limited to, plumbing, electrical, structural, finish, demolition, transportation, masonry, excavating or other construction work. See "Industrial service, use category." Convalescent home /nursing home: A residential facility licensed by the state or county to provide long -term special care and supervision to convalescents, invalids, and /or aged persons, but where no persons are kept who suffer from mental sickness or disease or physical disorder or ailment which is normally treated within sanitariums or hospitals. Special care in such a facility includes, but is not limited to, nursing, feeding, recreation, boarding and other personal services. See "Group living, use category." Convenience store: A retail store of less than 10,000 square feet in size engaged in the sale of personal or household merchandise, packaged foods and beverages, which may include fueling stations as an accessory use where permitted. See "Retail sales, use category." Court: An open, unoccupied space, bounded on more than two sides by the walls of a building. An inner court is entirely surrounded by the exterior walls of a building. An outer court has one side open to a street, alley, yard or other permanent space. Cosmetic manufacture /distribution: The manufacture, storage and distribution of cosmetics, perfumes, and toiletries. See "Industrial, light use category." Crematory: A facility containing a furnace for cremating and providing cremation services. See "Community services, use category." Critical areas: Any of the following areas and ecosystems: wetlands, areas with a critical recharge effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. Critical facility: A facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, installations which produce, use or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. 1 Page 1 19 Critical material: A substance present in sufficient quantity that its accidental or intentional release would result in the impairment of one or more beneficial uses of soil, air and ground and surface water pursuant to Chapter 21.40 SVMC. • • • • by tke a larurirlrel4nrg. Aa erurtrerr €art b a-street, a#ley- Cultural facilities: Establishments that provide cultural opportunities to the public. Example includes performing art centers, exhibition halls, auditoriums, museums, art galleries and studios, dance, and music venues. See "Entertainment, use category." Cumulative substantial damage: Flood- related damages sustained by a structure on two separate occasions during a 10 -year period for which the cost of repairs at the time of each such flood event, on the average, equals or exceeds 25 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Day(s): A calendar day, unless otherwise specified, computed by excluding the first day and including the last day pursuant to RCW 1.12.040. When an act to be done requires a City business day, and the last day by which the act may be done is not a City business day, then the last day to act is the following business day. Day care, use category: A licensed or accredited place, program, or organization that regularly provides care for children or elderly or handicapped adults for periods of less than 24 hours per day. Day care, adult: A licensed or accredited facility that provides counseling, recreation, food, or any or all of these services to elderly or handicapped persons for a period of less than 24 hours a day. See "Day care, use category." Day care, child: A licensed or accredited facility which regularly provides care for a group of children for periods of less than 24 hours and includes pre- kindergarten, nursery schools, Montessori schools, mothers' day out and after school programs. See "Day care, use category." Deciduous: Plant materials which shed leaves during the fall and winter season. Density, gross: The total number of residential dwelling units per gross acre. Density, net: The number of dwelling units per acre of land, including parcels for common open space and associated recreational facilities within the area, stormwater drainage facilities and tax exempt open spaces, 1 Page 1 20 after deducting the area for roads, parks, churches and schools, public /private capital facilities, dedicated public lands, and any other nonresidential use. Department, community development: The City of Spokane Valley department of community development. Department, public works: The City of Spokane Valley public works department. Department/variety store: A store offering a variety of goods to the public at retail including, but not limited to, furniture, clothing, housewares, linens, toys, electronics, small appliances, sporting goods, and footwear. See "Retail sales, use category." Detention and post- detention facilities: See "Essential public facility." Development: Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of special flood hazard. Director: Director of community development, unless otherwise stated specifically in the code. Director of community development: The individual or designee, appointed by the city manager, responsible for the interpretation and enforcement of all or part of the provisions of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code. District: The area to which certain zoning regulations apply. Dormitory: See "Dwelling, congregate." Double plumbing: Plumbing installation required for properties for which conversion from on -site to public wastewater collection is necessary. Dredging: The removal of sediment, earth, or gravel from the bottom of a body of water, either for the deepening of navigational channels, to mine the sediment materials, to restore water bodies or for flood control. Driveway: Any area, improvement or facility between the roadway of a public or private street and private property, which provides ingress /egress for vehicles from the roadway to a lot(s) or parcel(s). Page 1 21 Dry cleaners: A retail business providing dry cleaning and laundry services to the public. See "Personal services." Dry cleaning, laundry, linen supply plant, commercial: An industrial facility providing laundry, dry cleaning, linen supply, and uniforms on a regional basis. See "Industrial service, use category." Dry kiln: An industrial process for curing timber. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Dry line sewer: A sewer line, constructed at the time of property development, which is not put into service until the public sewer system is extended to the development. Dwelling: A building or portion thereof designed exclusively for residential purposes. Dwelling, accessory apa nunit: A freestanding detached structure or an attached part of a structure that is subordinate and incidental to the main or primary dwelling unit located on the same property, providing complete, independent living facilities exclusively for a single housekeeping unit, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation. See "Residential, use category." Dwelling, caretaker's residence: A dwelling unit provided for the purpose of on -site supervision and security that is occupied by a bona fide employee of the property owner. See "Residential, use category." Dwelling, congregate: A residential facility under joint occupancy and single management arranged or used for lodging of unrelated individuals, with or without meals, including boarding or rooming houses, dormitories, fraternities and sororities, and convents and monasteries_, and convalescent care facilities. See "Group living, use category." Dwelling, duplex: An attached building designed exclusively for occupancy by two families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation, but sharing a common or party wall. See "Residential, use category." Dwelling, multifamily: A building designed for occupancy by three or more families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation. See "Residential, use category." Dwelling, single - family: A building, manufactured or modular home or portion thereof, designed exclusively for single - family residential purposes, with a separate entrance and facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation. See "Residential, use category." Page 1 22 Dwelling, townhouse: A single - family dwelling unit constructed in groups of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof, open on at least two sides. See "Residential, use category." Dwelling unit: One or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with an individual entrance, cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of one family maintaining a household. Earth material: Any rock, natural soil or fill or any combination thereof. Easement: A right to use the land of others. The right may be from the common law or may be acquired, usually by purchase or condemnation and occasionally by prescription or inverse condemnation. The right is not exclusive, but subject to rights of others in the same land, the lesser right being subservient to a prior right which is dominant. Ecological function, no net loss of: The aggregate impact of an improvement, disturbance or encroachment of a shoreline which does not result in an overall loss of ecological function. Any shoreline degradation is concurrently offset by an enhancement of ecological function on the same site or on property within 1,000 feet of the site which equals or exceeds the scope and ecological value (or function) of the degraded resource. Ecological functions or shoreline functions: The work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. See WAC 173- 26- 200(2)(d). Ecologist, qualified: A person who has obtained an undergraduate and /or graduate degree in one of the environmental sciences such as but not limited to biology, zoology, botany, wildlife management or bioengineering from an accredited college or university and has a minimum of two years of field experience evaluating the impacts of human encroachments on riparian fish and wildlife habitats and on riparian vegetation species. Education, use category: Uses that provide state mandated basic education, higher learning education, vocational or trade education, or specialized training. Preschools and pre - kindergarten facilities are included in the "Daycare, use category." Educational and hobby store: An establishment that sells educational and hobby oriented merchandise such as bookstores, stationary stores, games, arts and crafts stores. See "Retail sales, use category." 1 Page 1 23 Electrical /electronic /computer component/system manufacturing and assembly: The manufacture, assembly of light fixtures, computers or computer components including, but not limited to, relays, chips, routers, semiconductors and optical processing equipment. See "Industrial, light use category." Elevated building: For insurance purposes, a non - basement building which has its lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns. Elevation certificate: The official form (FEMA Form 81 -31) used to track development, provide elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with community floodplain management ordinances, and determine the proper insurance premium rate with Section B completed by community officials. Engineering geology: The application of geologic knowledge and principles in the investigation and evaluation of naturally occurring rock and soil for use in the design of civil works. Entertainment, use category: Uses that are entertainment or recreation oriented. Entertainment/recreation, commercial (indoor): A facility offering indoor entertainment such as a bowling alley, video arcade, dance hall, skating rink,— billiard parlor_. Also includco indoor archery, pistol orand gun range. See "Recreation facility." Entertainment/recreation, commercial (outdoor): A facility offering outdoor entertainment or games of skill to the general public for a fee or charge such as an golf driving range, archery range, or miniature golf course. See "Recreation facility." Equipment rental shop: A business establishment offering equipment for rental. See "Retail services, use category." Equipment sales, repair and maintenance: A business establishment offering equipment for sale, including repair and maintenance. See "Retail sales, use category." Erosion: The disturbance of land or transportation of soil or other native materials by running water, wind, ice or other geological agents. Espresso /latto establishment retail sales: An establishment with or without drive - through service offering coffee, tea and other nonalcoholic beverages for sale to the public, with only limited sale of food items incidental to the beverage service for take -out or consumption on the premises. See "Food and beverage service, use category." Page 1 24 Essential public facility: Facilities which are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling, inpatient facilities including substance abuse, mental health, and secure community transition facilities. See "Public /quasi public, use category." • Detention and post- detention facilities: Congregate residential facilities for the housing, training and supervision of individuals under judicial detention including, but not limited to, prisons, jails, probation centers, juvenile detention homes, halfway houses and related post- incarceration facilities. • Hospital, psychiatric and /or substance abuse: A licensed facility providing inpatient residential rehabilitation and supervision and outpatient care for individuals suffering from substance abuse, psychological or emotional disease or defect. • Secure community transition facility (SCTF): A licensed secure and supervised residential facility for convicted sex offenders. Excavation: The mechanical removal of earth material. Exercise facility/gym/athletic club: A facility providing physical fitness equipment and facilities, including weight rooms, running tracks, swimming pools, play courts and similar facilities, as well as counseling in exercise and nutrition. See "Entertainment, use category." Existing manufactured home park or subdivision: A manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the adopted floodplain management regulations. Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision: The preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). Explosive manufacturing: The manufacture and storage of substances causing a sudden release of pressure, gas and heat when subjected to sudden shock, pressure or high temperature including, but not limited to, dynamite, gun powder, plastic explosives, detonators, or fireworks. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Page 1 25 Explosive storage: Storage of explosive materials including, but not limited to, dynamite, gun powder, plastic explosives, detonators, or fireworks. See "Industrial, heavy use category." FAA: Federal Aviation Administration. Family: An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or a group of not more than five persons, excluding dependents, who are not related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a single housekeeping unit. Family home, adult: A licensed residential home in which a person or persons provide personal care, special care, room, and board to two, but not more than six, adults who are not related by blood or marriage to the person or persons providing the services. See "Community residential facilities." Family home, child: A licensed child care facility providing regular care for not more than 12 children in the family living quarters. See "Community residential facilities." Farm machinery sales and repair: A specialized retail facility catering exclusively to the sale and repair of farm machinery including tractors, farm implements, combines, loaders, applicators, and their accessories. See "Vehicle services, use category." FCC: Federal Communications Commission. Feed lot: A confined area or structure used for feeding, breeding or holding livestock for eventual sale or slaughter, including barns, pens or other structures. See "Animal processing /handling." Feed /cereal /flour mill: A structure or building used to store or grind grain for animal or human consumption. See "Industrial, light use category." Fence: A wall or a barrier composed of stone, brick or posts connected by lumber, rails, panels, or wire for the purpose of enclosing space, marking boundaries, serving as an obstruction or barrier or separating parcels of land. Fertilizer manufacture: The manufacture and storage of organic and chemical fertilizer, including manure and sludge processing. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Fill: A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means. 1 Page 1 26 Film developing: The commercial processing of photographic film, including x -rays. Fire lane: An access designed to accommodate emergency access to a parcel of land or its improvements. Flood or flooding: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: 1. The overflow of inland or tidal waters; and /or 2. The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. Flood Insurance Rate Map or FIRM: The official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the City. Flood Insurance Study (FIS): The official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary - Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. Floodplain, 100 -year: An area determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or by Spokane County to have a one percent chance of flooding in any given year. Flood storage area: Floodplain areas designated on the FIRM where the storage and infiltration of floodwater has been taken into account in reducing flood discharges. Storage areas may include floodwater conveyance or floodway characteristics. Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Florist shop: A retail sales of floral arrangements and accessories. See "Retail sales, use category." Food and Beverage Service, use category: Establishments that prepare and serve food and drinks in exchange of money. Examples include restaurants, coffee shops, establishments that sell alcoholic drinks such as taverns, breweries, wineries, lounges, and nightclubs. 1 Page 1 27 Food product manufacturing /storage: The commercial production or preservation of food products from agricultural products, and /or the packaging, repackaging or other preparation of food for wholesale distribution including, but not limited to, starch manufacture, sugar refining, pickling, tobacco and vegetable oil manufacture. See also "Meat/fish cutting, canning, curing and smoking." See "Industrial, heavy use category." Food sales, specialty /butcher shop /meat market/specialty foods: The retail sales of specialty meat and fish products; and specialty food, not otherwise classified as a grocery store. See "Retail sales, use category." Food vendor, mobile: An itinerant vendor of beverages, processed foodstuff and produce. Forest land: Land identified as of long -term significance for growing trees for commercial purposes (WAC 365- 190- 030(7)). Fraternity /sorority: An organization formed chiefly for social purposes which may function as a place for living and eating, especially for college students. See also "Dwelling, congregate." Freight forwarding: Land and facilities providing for the transport, storage and shipment of goods. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Frontage: The full length of a plot of land or a building measured alongside the road onto which the plot or building fronts. In the case of contiguous buildings, individual frontages are usually measured to the middle of any party wall. Interior lots which front on two streets are double frontage lots. Fueling station: An establishment engaged in the retail sale of gasoline and automotive fuels and lubricants. See "Vehicle services, use category." Funeral home: A facility licensed by the state engaged in preparing human remains for burial or cremation. Services may include, but are not limited to, embalming, transport, memorial services, and the sale of caskets. See "Community services, use category." Furniture manufacture: The manufacture of furniture and cabinetry for regional distribution. See "Industrial , light use category." Furniture sales /repair: Retail sales of household furniture and repairs not including re- upholstery. See "Department/variety store." 1 Page 1 28 Garage, public: A building or portion thereof, other than a private garage, used for the care, parking, repair, or storage of automobiles, boats, and /or recreational vehicles or where such vehicles are kept for remuneration or hire. General sales /service: Retail establishments that sell and service small electronics or consumer products such as bikes, computers, small electronics, communication equipment, jewelry, clocks, and musical instruments. Does not include appliance sales /service and equipment sales, repair, and maintenance. See "Retail sales, use category." Gift shop: Retail sales of miscellaneous gift items, including novelty merchandise, souvenirs, floral arrangements, stationery, statuary, ornaments and decorations. See "Retail sales, use category." Golf course: Outdoor course of nine or more holes, including driving range, cart rentals, pro -shop and restaurant services. See "Parks /open space, use category." Golf driving range: A tract of land for practicing long golf shots. See "Parks /open space, use category." Grade: The vertical location of the ground surface. • Existing grade is the grade prior to grading. • Finish grade is the final grade of the site that conforms to the approved plan. • Rough grade is the state at which the grade approximately conforms to the approved plan. • The average elevation of the finished ground level at the center of all exterior walls of a building. In case of any wall which is parallel to and within five feet of a lot line, elevation at the lot line adjacent to the center of the wall shall be considered the finished ground level. Grading: Any excavating or filling or combination thereof. Grain elevator: A facility for the storage of grain. See also "Feed /cereal /flour mill." See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Greenhouse /nursery, commercial: An establishment where flowers, shrubbery, vegetables, trees and other horticultural and floricultural products are grown both in the open and in an enclosed building for sale on a retail or wholesale basis. It does not include marijuana production. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." Page 1 29 Greenhouse, nursery, garden center, retail: An establishment where flowers, shrubbery, vegetables, trees and other horticultural and floricultural products are grown both in the open and in an enclosed building for sale on a retail basis. It does not include marijuana production. See "Retail sales, use category." Grocery store: A retail establishment offering a wide variety of comestibles, beverages and household supplies for sale. See "Retail sales, use category." Group living, use category: Living facilities for groups of unrelated individuals that include at least one person residing on the site who is responsible for supervising, managing, monitoring and /or providing care, training or treatment of residents characterized by shared facilities for eating, hygiene and /or recreation. Examples include dormitories, fraternities and sonorities, assisted living facilities, nursing and convalescent homes, aggregate dwellings, and community residential facilities. Excludes detention and post- detention facilities. See also "Dwelling, congregate." Gymnasium: A building containing space and equipment for various indoor sports activities (such as basketball or boxing) and usually including spectator accommodations, locker and shower rooms, offices, and swimming pools. See "Recreation facility." Halfway house: See "Essential public facility -" and "Public /quasi - public, use category." Hardware store: An establishment engaged in the retail sale and /or rental of hardware and small tools. See "Retail sales, use category." Hazardous waste: All dangerous or hazardous waste materials, including substances composed of, or contaminated by, radioactive and hazardous components as defined in RCW 70.105.010(11). Hazardous waste storage: The holding of hazardous waste for a temporary period, as regulated by Chapter 173 -303 WAC. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Hazardous waste treatment: The physical, chemical or biological processing of hazardous waste for the purpose of rendering these wastes non - dangerous or less dangerous, safer for transport, amenable for energy or material resource recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Hearing examiner: The individual designated by the city council to conduct public hearings and render decisions on amendments, special permits, conditional uses, appeals and other matters as set forth in Chapter 18.20 SVMC. Page 1 30 Heav ;truck and industrial vehicle sales rental re air and maintenance: Land and facilities offerin the sale, service and maintenance of motor vehicles and cargo trailers with a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight in excess of one ton. See "Vehicle services use cate.or Helicopter: A rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine- driven rotors. Heliport: A landing facility for rotary wing aircraft subject to regularly scheduled use and may include fueling or servicing facilities for such craft. See "Transportation, use category." Helistop: A landing pad for occasional and infrequent use by rotary wing aircraft. No on -site servicing or fueling, and not for regularly scheduled stops. See "Transportation, use category." High occupancy vehicle (HOV): A motorized vehicle carrying two or more passengers. Hobby shop: A retail establishment offering games, crafts and craft supplies, and art supplies to the public. See "Educational and hobby store." Home furnishings, retail sales: A retail establishment offering decorating services and materials. See "Department/variety store." Home occupation: An occupation, profession or craft incidental to the residential use. Horse boarding: A barn, stable, or other structure where owners or users of the property commercially bathe, train, house and /or feed more than three horses or other riding animals, any of which are not owned by the users or owners of the property for more than 24 consecutive hours. Hospital: An institution licensed by the state offering in- and outpatient medical services, but not including facilities treating exclusively psychiatric, substance or alcohol abuse. See "Medical, use category." Hospital, psychiatric and /or substance abuse: See "Essential public facility." See "Public /quasi - public, use category." Hospital, specialty: A facility providing specialized in- and /or outpatient medical care, including hospices, birthing centers, urgent and trauma care, but not including facilities treating psychiatric, substance or alcohol abuse. See "Medical, use category." 1 Page 1 31 Hotel /motel: A building in which there are six or more guest rooms where lodging with or without meals is provided for compensation, and where no provision is made for cooking in any individual room or suite. See "Lodging, use category." Household pet: Any animal or bird, other than livestock, large or small animals and animals or birds considered to be predatory or wild, which normally lives in or is kept in a residence. Ice plant: A facility manufacturing and distributing ice. See "Industrial, light use category." Incinerator: A vessel, device, apparatus, or structure designed to burn solid waste under controlled, nuisance - free conditions, and at a relatively high temperature, for the purpose of reducing the combustible components to a non_putrescible residue capable of ready disposal_ Industrial, heavy use category: Establishments that assemble, manufacture, package or process raw or semi - finished materials to produce goods. Heavy industry can require large amounts of raw materials, area, and power. Heavy industrial uses can have the potential to be dangerous or to have significant impacts to surrounding properties with noise, odor, nuisance or vibration. It includes uses that do heavy assembly, manufacturing, and processing: produce energy: and handle or store waste. All uses that are allowed in the industrial (light), use category are allowed in the industrial (heavy), use category. • Dangerous facilities examples include storage of explosives. • Heavy industrial assembly examples include assembly of motor vehicles and aircraft. • Heavy industrial manufacturing examples include the production of chemicals, stone, leather, explosives, non - metallic mineral, machinery, fertilizer, plastic, rubber, tires, soap, petroleum, coal, ink, food and roll forming and stamping metal. • Handling waste examples include hazardous solid or liquid waste treatment and storage facilities. • Heavy processing examples include rubber reclamation facilities, composting, processing and storage facilities (commercial), asphalt/concrete plants, dry kiln, rolling mills, lumber mills, paper mills, metal processing plants, dry kilns, rolling mills, wood preservation, woodworking, composting yards, and mines. It also includes plastic injection molding (thermoset), except that plastic injection molding (thermoplastic) is classified as light industrial use. Industrial, light use category: Establishments that assemble, manufacture, package or process semi- finished materials to produce goods. Light industry uses require small amounts of raw materials, area, and power. All processing, fabricating, assembly or disassembly of items takes place within an enclosed building. Many light industrial uses can utilize small spaces designed for general commercial use, often needing very Page 1 32 little renovation or adaptation. Light industry uses tend to be consumer oriented as the products are for end users and typically not to be used in an intermediate step by another industry. Uses that have the potential to impact the environment or adjacent properties are classified in the heavy industrial use category. Production of goods that are to be sold primarily on -site and to the general public are classified in the retail sales use category. • Light industrial assembly examples include establishments that assemble electronics, computer components and systems, communication equipment, precision tools, musical, medical and laboratory instruments and apparatus, and power hand tools. • Light industrial manufacturing examples include clothes, shoes, furniture, signs, medical and household appliances. • Light industrial processing examples include ice plants, bottling plants, machine shops, meat and fish processing plants (such as canning, curing, and smoking), feed, cereal, and flour mills, bakery product manufacturing, agricultural processing plants, -and marijuana processing facilities. Industrial Service, use category. Establishments that service equipment or products for or to support industrial, commercial, or medical uses, such as: • Commercial carpet rug cleaning, dry cleaning, laundry linen supply plants; • Contractors and building maintenance services that perform services off -site. Examples include janitorial and building maintenance services, heating and plumbing contractors, construction companies, or electrical contractors; • Industrial and commercial printing facilities; • Research, development or scientific laboratories; • Recycling facilities. and • Laundry, dry - cleaning and carpet cleaning plants. Industrial zoning districts: Those zones permitting various industrial and manufacturing uses. See also "Zone, zoning district." Infiltration: The infiltration of floodwater into the ground which may be taken into account in reducing flood discharges. Ink manufacture: A facility manufacturing printing ink, and inking supplies. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Page 1 33 Jewelry, clock, musical instrument, assembly, sales /service: Retail sale, assembly, service and repair of clocks, musical instruments and jewelry. See "General sales /service." Kennel: An establishment or place, other than an animal or veterinary hospital or clinic or animal shelter, where six or more dogs or six or more cats, or any combination thereof, over six months of age are housed, groomed, bred, boarded, trained or sold commercially or as pets. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." Key: A designated compacted fill placed in a trench excavated in earth material beneath the toe of a proposed fill slope. Laboratories, medical and diagnostic: A facility where samples are collected and /or tests are done to obtain information about the health of a patient to diagnose, treat, or prevent a disease. See "Medical, use category." Laboratories, Scientific (Bio Safety Level 2, OSHA Standards): A facility in which work is done with the broad spectrum of indigenous moderate -risk agents present in the community and associated with human disease of varying severity. See "Industrial service, use category." Laboratories, Scientific (Bio Safety Level 3, OSHA Standards): A facility in which work is done with indigenous or exotic agents where the potential for infection by aerosols is real and the disease may have serious or lethal consequences. See "Industrial service, use category." Laboratories, Scientific (Bio Safety Level 4, OSHA Standards): A facility in which work is done with dangerous and exotic agents which pose a high individual risk of life- threatening disease. See "Industrial service, use category." Landfill: A licensed facility for the sanitary disposal of solid waste. Landfill, shoreline: The placement of soil, excavated material or spoil within the shoreline jurisdiction. Landscape materials sales lot: The retail sale of organic and inorganic materials including, but not limited to, soil and soil amendment, bark, sod, gravel, pea gravel, hardscape products, crushed rock, river rock and landscape boulders primarily used for landscaping and site preparation purposes. The exclusive sale of horticultural or floricultural stock that is permitted in a commercial greenhouse or nursery - wholesale shall not be considered landscape materials. See "Retail sales, use category." Laundromat: A self - service facility providing machines for the washing and drying of clothes and personal items. See "Personal services." Page 1 34 Library: An establishment for the sole purpose of loaning and circulating books or providing a reading room and reference service to the public whether conducted by a public or private agency or whether the service is with or without direct cost to the user. See "Community facilities." Liquor store: A retail establishment that sells prepackaged alcoholic beverages intended to be consumed off premise.The retail sale of off premises distilled spirits, beer and wine. See "Specialty stores." Livestock: Animals including, but not limited to, horses, cattle, llamas, sheep, goats, swine, reindeer, donkeys and mules. Loading zone: An off - street space or designated area or loading dock located on the same lot or site as the buildings or use served, which provides for the temporary parking of a commercial vehicle while loading or unloading merchandise, materials, or passengers. Locksmith: The sale, service and repair of locks and other security devices. See "Personal services." Lodging, Use Category: Establishments that provide a person, typically a traveler, a place to stay for a short period of time. Examples include bed and breakfasts, hotels, and motels. Transitional housing and mass shelters are included in the "Community services, use category." Lot: An undivided tract or parcel of land having frontage on a public street and designated as a distinct tract. • Lot aggregation: The consolidation of one or more lots into a single parcel through the elimination of lot lines. • Lot area: The area of a horizontal plane intercepted by the vertical projections of the front, side, and rear lot lines of a building lot. • Lot, corner: A building lot situated at the intersection of two public streets. • Lot coverage: The percentage of the total area of a lot occupied by the base (first story or floor) of buildings located on the lot. • Lot depth: The mean horizontal distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line of a building lot measured at the respective midpoints of the front lot line and rear lot line within the lot boundary. • Lot, double frontage: An interior lot with frontage on more than one street. 1 Page 1 35 • Lot, flag: A lot of irregular shape with reduced frontage on a public or private street with dimensions which are otherwise adequate at the building line. • Lot, interior: A lot within a subdivision that is not located at the intersection of any adjacent public or private street. • Lot line: A boundary of a building lot. • Lot line, front: The boundary of a building lot that is the line of an existing or dedicated street. Upon corner lots either street line may be selected as the front lot line providing a front and rear yard are provided adjacent and opposite, respectively, to the front lot line. • Lot line, rear: A boundary of a lot which is most distant from and is, or is most nearly, parallel to the front lot line. • Lot line, side: A boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. • Lot of record: An area of land designated as a residential lot on the plat or subdivision recorded or registered, pursuant to statute, with the auditor for Spokane County. • Lot, radial: Lots adjacent to curved streets or circular cul -de -sacs with side lot lines running roughly perpendicular to the street right -of -way. • Lot, reverse flag: A lot of irregular shape with reduced access to a rear alley, amenity or natural feature. • Lot segregation: The re- establishment of lot lines within parcels aggregated for tax purposes. • Lot width: The width of a lot at the front building line. Measurements on irregularly shaped lots to be taken in a straight line from a point where the front building line crosses the side property lines. Lowest floor: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood - resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is equipped with adequate flood - ventilation openings specified in SVMC 21.30.090(C)(1)(b). Lumber mill, sawmill, shingle mill, plywood mill: The manufacture of wood products, including cutting, planning, preservation and veneering, match manufacture and millwork. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Page 1 36 Machine /machinery manufacturing: The fabrication of machines and machinery. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Machine shop: See "Metal fabrication." See "Industrial, light use category." Major event entertainment: Uses that draw lame number of people to special events or shows on a periodic basis. Activities are generally of spectator nature. Examples include stadiums, sports arenas, coliseums, and fairgrounds. See "Entertainment, use category." Manufactured home fabrication: The construction and assembly of manufactured housing units. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Manufactured home sales: A sales lot for manufactured housing units with display models. See "Retail sales, use category." Manufactured home subdivision: A subdivision designed exclusively for manufactured housing. Manufactured (mobile) home: A pre - assembled dwelling unit transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities certified by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle." Manufactured (mobile) home park: A site having as its principal use the rental of space for occupancy by two or more manufactured (mobile) homes, and the accessory buildings, structures, and uses customarily incidental to such homes. See "Residential, use category." Manufacturing: The production or fabrication of goods using labor, tools, or machinery. For examples see the "Industrial, heavy use category" and "Industrial, light use category." Manufacturing, nonmetallic metal products: The manufacture of clay, earthenware, brick, vitreous, cement and concrete, including readi -mix, concrete block, lime, gypsum, stone and stone product. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Manufacturing, petroleum and coal products: The manufacture of asphalt paving, roofing and coating and petroleum refining. See "Industrial, heavy use category." 1 Page 1 37 Marijuana processing: Processing marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana- infused products, packaging and labeling useable marijuana and marijuana- infused products for sale in retail outlets, and sale of useable marijuana, and marijuana- infused products at wholesale by a marijuana processor licensed by the State liquor control board and in accordance with the provisions of chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Industrial, light use category." Marijuana production: Production and sale of marijuana at wholesale by a marijuana producer licensed by the State liquor control board and in accordance with the provisions of chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." Marijuana sales: Selling useable marijuana and marijuana- infused products in a retail outlet by a marijuana retailer licensed by the State liquor control board and in accordance with the provisions of chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Retail sales, use category." Market, outdoor: A temporary or seasonal location where produce and agricultural products including, but not limited to, pumpkins, Christmas trees and firewood, as well as crafts and other items are offered for sale to the public. See "Retail sales, use category." Massage therapy: An establishment providing the therapeutic massage services of a licensed massage therapist. See "Personal services." Meat/fish cutting, canning, curing and smoking: The processing and packaging of meat and fish for wholesale distribution; does not include the slaughter of animals. See "Industrial, light use category." Meat packing: The slaughter of live animals and the inspection and processing of animal carcasses. See Animal processing /handling." Medical and laboratory instrument/apparatus manufacture: The manufacture of medical and dental equipment, supplies, and instruments. See "Industrial, light use category." Medical, use category: Includes uses that pertain to the science or practice of medicine, such as hospitals and medical and dental clinics. It also includes incidental uses such as ambulance services, medical and diagnostic laboratories, and medical supplies. See "Retail sales, use category" for pharmacies. Medical /dental clinic: A facility where three or more medical or dental professionals or paraprofessionals, including physicians, dentists, endodontists, chiropractors, physical therapists, dental hygienists, physician assistants, or osteopaths, provide outpatient services on a regular basis. See "Medical, use category." Page 1 38 Medical /dental office: A facility housing less than three medical or dental professionals or paraprofessionals. Medical, dental and hospital equipment supplies and sales: The sale of medical /dental equipment and supplies including, but not limited to, uniforms, prosthetics, pharmacy, optics, and corrective appliances. See "Medical, use category." Metal fabrication: The fabrication of metal products including chain and cable manufacture, sheet metal fabrication, machining, welding and punching. See "Industrial, light use category." Metal plating: The electroplating, galvanizing and dip plating of various kinds of metal. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Metal processes, hot: Metal processes including blast furnace, coke oven, die casting, drop hammer or forge, metal reduction, reclamation, and refining. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Mineral product manufacturing, nonmetallic: The manufacture of brick, cement, gypsum, lime, plaster of paris, tile, stoneware, earthenware and terra cotta. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Mineral resource lands: Lands primarily devoted to the extraction of minerals with potential for long -term commercial significance (WAC 365- 190 - 030(13)). Mining: Mineral extraction, not including oil and gas. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Mobile food vendors: Itinerant vendors of prepared foods and beverages. See "Food and beverage service, use category." Model home: The temporary use of one or more single - family residential units for the marketing and promotion of residential subdivisions. Multiple building complex: A group of structures, or a single structure, with dividing walls and separate entrances for each business, housing retail businesses, offices, commercial ventures or independent or separate parts of a business which share the same lot, access and /or parking facilities. Museum: A premises housing the display of antiquities or artifacts of historical or artistic significance. See "Cultural facilities." Music store: The specialty retail sale of recorded music, musical instruments, sheet music and similar items. See "Specialty stores." Page 1 39 MUTCD: The U.S. Department of Transportation Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. NAICS: North American Industry Classification System. Neighborhood: A geographic area or subarea bounded by distinct physical boundaries, such as major or minor arterials, geologic formations, broad open spaces and similar features, centered around common interests or facilities. New construction: Structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this appendix. New manufactured home park or subdivision: A manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of adopted floodplain management regulations. Nonconforming: A lot, use, building, or structure, which was legal when commenced or built, but which does not conform to subsequently enacted or amended regulations pursuant to SVMC 19.20.060. Nonconforming use, shoreline: A use located within the shoreline jurisdiction which does not conform to the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). Nursing home: See "Convalescent home /nursing home." See "Group living, use category." Occupancy: The type of construction required based on the use of the structure as established by adopted building codes. Office, professional: A business office maintained as a principal use including, but not limited to, insurance, sales that do not include a tangible commodity consulting services (accounting, legal, financial, engineering, architectural, real estate), studios, legal, data entry, computer related, or other professional office. ; Contractors and others who perform services off -site are included if the equipment, materials, and vehicles used in conjunction with the business are not stored on the site and fabrication, services or similar work is not carried on at the site. Professional office does but does not include animal, medical or dental clinics.. See also "Medical /dental clinic." See "Office, use category." Office, use category: Uses conducted in an office setting and that generally provide business, government, professional, veterinary, or financial services. Page 140 Office supply and computer sales: The retail sale of office supplies and office equipment, including computers, copiers and communication equipment. See "Retail sales, use category." Off -road recreational vehicle use: The operation of any gas - powered motorized vehicle including, but not limited to, motorcycles and /or all- terrain vehicles, on private property for recreational purposes. This definition does not include vehicles used for yard or garden work in residential areas. See "Entertainment, use category." Off - street parking: The amount of vehicular parking to be provided on private property for a specified use. Open space: An area accessible to and permanently reserved for the common use and enjoyment of the occupants of residential uses for landscaping, leisure and recreational purposes. Open space does not include area devoted to parking, accessory uses, landscaping required pursuant to this code, drainage easements, border easements or building separation required under adopted building codes. Opponent of record: A person who has provided verbal or written testimony in opposition to a proposal /project before or during the public testimony portion of a hearing, or filled out and submitted a party of record notice indicating opposition prior to the close of the public hearing. Orchard, tree farming, commercial: A planting of trees producing fruit and /or nuts and the cultivation of trees for the purpose of sale. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." Ordinary high -water mark (OHWM): A mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland. In any area where the ordinary high -water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high -water mark adjoining freshwater shall be the line of mean high water. Overlay zone: A zoning designation that supplements the provisions of the underlying zone within a specified geographic area. Owner(s): Any person, partnership, corporation, association, unincorporated organization, trust or any other legal commercial entity having sufficient proprietary interest to authorize development of land. Owner's agent: Any person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of real property. Paper product manufacturing: The manufacture of paper products. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Page 1 41 Paper /pulp mills: Manufacturing plants producing paper and paper pulp from timber. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Park - and -ride facility: A parking area or structure used for the temporary storage of motor vehicles for individuals using public transit or car /van pools. See "Transit center." Park, public: A site designated or developed for recreational use by the public including, but not limited to, indoor facilities such as museums, swimming pools and skating rinks, and outdoor facilities such as athletic fields, community gardens, playgrounds, fishing areas, and areas and trails for hikers, equestrians, bicyclists, or off -road recreational vehicle users. Accessory uses include concessions, maintenance facilities, caretakers' dwellings, and parking facilities. See "Parks and open space, use category." Parks and open space, use category: Land uses that focus on natural areas, lame areas consisting mostly of vegetative landscaping or outdoor recreation. Uses tend to have few structures. Examples include trails, botanical gardens, nature preserves, golf courses, cemeteries, plazas, and parks. Parking area, satellite: A parking area more than 300 feet away from the establishment, building, structure, or use which it is designed to serve. Parking facility: A parking area, building, or structure used for the specific purpose of parking or storage of motor vehicles. Parking facility, controlled access: A parking garage or surface lot controlling patron access using attendants or ticket dispensers. See "Transportation, use category." Party of record: A person who has provided verbal or written testimony in or regarding a public hearing on a land use action. Paved surface: A paved surface shall consist of asphalt, Portland cement, concrete or equivalent material laid to City specifications. Pawn shop: An establishment where money is loaned on the security of personal property pledged in the keeping of the owner or proprietor. Also includes the retail sales of used items. See "Retail sales, use category." Performance surety: A financial guarantee that infrastructure required for a project will be constructed and certified according to the accepted plans and specifications and all applicable standards. 1 Page 1 42 Permitted use: _An allowable activity or use within a zoning district. Person: A corporation, company, association, society, firm, partnership or joint stock company, as well as an individual, a state, and all political subdivisions of a state or any agency or instrumentality thereof. Person or party having standing: Any party of record. Personal services: Services including, but not limited to, barber shops /beauty salons, nail salons, tanning salons, specialty boutiques, day spas, locksmith services, apparel and tailor shops, massage parlors, tattoo parlors, permanent makeup salons, massage therapy, dry cleaning, Laundromat, and - photographic studios. and similar services. See "Retail services, use category." Pet shop: The specialty retail sale of household pets and pet supplies and equipment. See "Specialty stores." Petroleum and coal products manufacture: The manufacture of petroleum and coal products including lubricating oil and oil compounding. See "Industrial, heavy use category." zPharmacy_aA retail facilit authorized to dis.ense .rescri.tion dru.s .rescribed b licensed professionals. See "Retail sales, use category." Photographic studio: A retail establishment that provides portrait and other photographic services. See "Personal services." Pipeline: Gravity or pressurized pipelines for the long- distance transmission of water, petroleum products, natural gas, and other commodities such as ores in the form of slurries. Planned residential development (PRD): A residential development project meeting the requirements of Chapter 19.50 SVMC characterized by flexibility in the regulations of a residential zoning district. Planning agency: The Spokane Valley community development department, together with its planning commission. Planning commission: See "Commission." Plastic and rubber product manufacture: A chemical manufacturing process utilizing resin and synthetic compounds for plastics and rubber. See "Industrial, heavy use category." 1 Page 1 43 Plastic molding (thermoplastic): A process of converting pelletized plastic into molds using heat, without the use of solvents or volatile organic compounds (VOC). Thermoplastic resins can be melted, formed and resolidified. Thermoplastic processes include injection molding, blow molding, injection blow molding, rotational molding, roto - molding, and extrusion molding. Does not include solvent molding. See "Industrial, light use category." Plastic molding (thermoset): An injection molding process which uses heat, industrial processes and solvents to create plastic forms which cannot be reformed. Thermoset processes include bag molding, cold molding, jet molding, pulp molding, transfer molding and compression molding. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Plastic solvent molding: Also known as dip molding, forms thermoplastic articles by dipping a male mold and drawing off the solvent to leave a plastic film adhering to the mold. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS): Surfaces that are subject to vehicular use, industrial activities, or storage of erodible or leachable materials that receive direct rainfall, or run -on or blow -in rainfall. Metal roofs are PGIS unless coated with an inert, nonleachable material. Roofs that are subject to venting of commercial or industrial pollutants are also considered PGIS. A surface, whether paved or not, shall be considered PGIS if it is regularly used by motor vehicles. The following are considered regularly used surfaces: roads, graveled and /or paved road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unfenced fire lanes, vehicular storage yards, and airport runways. Post office, postal center: A facility owned or operated under contract with the U.S. Postal Service for the delivery of mail and packages. See "Retail services, use category." Power plant: aA heavy industrial facility that generates electric power. It excludes public utility facilities. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Precision instrument runway: An existing or planned runway with instrument approach utilizing an instrument landing system (ILS), or precision approach radar (PAR) as prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration. Principal dwelling unit: The principal structure on a lot that is the main residence to which the property is devoted. Principal structure: The principal building or other structure on a lot or building site designed or used to accommodate the primary use to which the premises are devoted. 1 Page 1 44 Principal use: The predominant use to which the lot or property is or may be devoted and to which all other uses are accessory. Print shop: Retail print services, including blueprinting, photostat copies, copier and other business support services. See "Retail services, use category." Printing, reprographics and bookbinding: Commercial printing including engraving, manifold form printing and book binding.. See "Retail services, use category." Processing: To convert raw or semi -raw materials into a marketable form through a series of mechanical or chemical operations. For examples see "Industrial, heavy use category" and "Industrial, light use category." Professional civil engineering geologist: A geologist experienced and knowledgeable in engineering geology and licensed by the state of Washington to practice. Professional engineer: A civil engineer licensed in Washington under Chapter 18.43 RCW who is qualified by examination and /or experience to practice in the fields of civil, geotechnical and /or soils engineering. Professional inspection: The observation and testing to determine conformance with project plans and specifications required by this code performed by a professional civil engineer and /or professional civil engineering geologist. Such inspection includes that performed by persons supervised by such engineers or geologists and shall be sufficient to form an opinion relating to the conduct of the work. Prohibited use: A use not specifically enumerated as a permitted use, accessory use, a conditional use, a temporary use, or a legal nonconforming use. Project permit: Any land use or environmental permit or license required for development or construction including, but not limited to, building permits, short plats, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, variances, shoreline permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by Chapter 21.40 SVMC, Critical Areas, site - specific zone reclassifications, manufactured home parks, and change of condition request. Proper functioning condition (PFC): A methodology for assessing the physical functioning of riparian and wetland areas, which describes both the assessment process and a defined on- the - ground condition of a riparian or wetland area. 1 Page 1 45 Public /quasi - public, use category: Uses related to, paid for by, or working for a government or which are essentially public (as in services rendered) although may be under private ownership or control. Examples include community facilities, essential public facilities, and public utility facilities. Public utility: A regulated public or private enterprise with an exclusive franchise for providing a public service paid for directly by the recipient of that service. Public utility local distribution facility: Any building, structure, or device which transfers directly to the public the service or supply provided by a public utility, including telephone, electric, gas, cable television, water and sewer, and all other facilities, equipment and structures necessary for conducting a local distribution service by a government or public utility. See "Public /quasi - public, use category." Public utility transmission facility: Any building, structure, or device which does not directly transfer to the public the service or supply provided by a public utility, including telephone, electric (greater than 55 KV), gas, cable television, water and sewer, and all other facilities, equipment, and structures, including substations, switching stations, and reservoirs. See "Public /quasi - public, use category." Racecourse: An outdoor track or course laid out for competition, testing, practice or use by motorized vehicles including, but not limited to, automobiles, go- carts, all- terrain vehicles, mopeds, scooters, snowmobiles, motorcycles, remote - controlled cars and airplanes. See also "Entertainment /recreation, commercial (outdoor)." See "Entertainment, use category." Racetrack: A state - licensed facility permitting competitive racing of vehicles, horses and dogs. See "Entertainment, use category." Radio /TV broadcasting studio: Facilities serving the broadcast media. See "Communication facilities, use category." Railroad yard, repair shop and roundhouse: Facilities serving railroad operations. See "Transportation, use category." Record: The official file, exhibits, maps and slides including the tape recorded proceedings or transcription thereof. Record of survey: A survey prepared and sealed by a registered Washington surveyor identifying the boundaries of land and real property, and the location or placement of other improvements. 1 Page 1 46 Recreational facility oor: An indoor or outdoor facility used, on a continuous basis for sports, games of skills and leisure -time activities within an cncloccd spacc. Examples include gymnasiums, amusement arcades, health and fitness clubs, indoor tennis and racquetball courts, bowling alleys, video arcades, dance halls, skating rinks, billiard parlors, archery, miniature golf course, gun ranges, and indoor swimming pools. This definition excludes indoor theaters, golf driving ranges, gymnastic facilities.This definition cxcludcc, indoor sports arenas, auditoriums; and exhibition halls. See "Entertainment, use category." Recreational vehicle (RV): A vehicular -type built on a single chassis designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use, with or without motor power including, but not limited to, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers and self - propelled motor homes. Recreational vehicle park /campground: An area where facilities are provided for recreational or camping vehicles or travel trailers, tents or other portable habitation, utilized by the public as a place for camping, vacationing, or temporary usage, which are in place for not more than 30 days. The park may include certain recreational or service facilities for the use of the residents of the park. See "Lodging, use category." Recreational vehicle sales and service: An area for the display, sales and service of recreational vehicles. See "Vehicle services, use category." Recycling facility: A facility that accepts recyclable materials and may perform some processing activities. The principal function is to separate and store materials that are ready for shipment to end -use markets, such as paper mills, aluminum smelters or plastic manufacturing plants. Processing activities may include baling, compacting, flattening, grinding, crushing, mechanical sorting, or cleaning. See "Industrial service, use category." Rendering Plant: A facility that converts waste animal tissue into stable, value -added materials. Rendering can refer to any processing of animal products into more useful materials, or more narrowly to the rendering of whole animal fatty tissue into purified fats like lard or tallow. See "Animal processing /handling." Repeater facility: A facility for the noncommercial reception and retransmission of radio signals. See "Communication facilities, use category." Residential, use category: Uses for residential purpose. Page 1 47 Restaurant, drive -in: An establishment designed and constructed to serve food and beverages for consumption on the premises, in an automobile or for carry -out for off - premises consumption and which establishment may or may not have on- premises dining room or counter. See "Food and beverage service, use category." Restaurant, drive - through: An establishment serving food to the general public with designated dining areas and allowing carry -out window(s) serving a single lane of automobiles for the purpose of serving food to go where food consumption is not allowed in automobiles on the premises. See "Food and beverage service, use category." Restaurant, full service: An establishment serving food and beverages to the general public in specific designated dining areas. See "Food and beverage service, use category." Retail sales, use category: An establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. Retail services, use category: An establishment that provides miscellaneous services to the general public and that may provide items for sale that are incidental to the service such as mailing centers, personal services facilities, lodging, catering services, equipment rental, print shops, barber /beauty shops, taxidermy services, upholstery shops. Retaining wall: Any wall not an integral part of a building, used to resist the lateral displacement of earth material. Riding stable: A commercial enterprise renting horses and providing equestrian instruction. See "Agricultural and animal, use category." Right -of -way: The land area provided by dedication for public use for streets, utilities, walks, and other uses, also providing access to adjoining properties. Riparian management zone (RMZ): A fish and wildlife conservation buffer established pursuant to Chapter 21.40 SVMC. Roadway: The paved or improved portion of a street/road, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel including shoulders, auxiliary lanes, curbs, sidewalks, etc. Rolling mill: Primary metal manufacturing including the rolling and drawing of purchased metals. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Page 148 Roof: A structural covering over any portion of a building or structure, including the projections beyond the walls or supports of the building or structure. Runway: Any existing or planned paved surface or turf - covered area of an airport which is specifically designed and used, or planned to be used, for the landing and /or taking off of aircraft. Schools (K through 12): Public and private institutions of learning offering instruction from kindergarten to grade 12 required by the Education Code of the State of Washington. See "Education, use category." Schools, c -Gollege or university: A public or private institution -of higher learning, which offer courses of general or specialized study leading to a degree. They are certified by the State Board of Higher Education or by a recognized accrediting agency. Examples include universities, liberal art colleges, community colleges, nursing and medical schools not accessory to a hospital. ffori n. inn +n in #inn in lihorn1 nr +n nr rnf000innn See "Education use cateaor Schools, professional, vocational and trade schools: Post - secondary professional and training education schools at which students are trained in a trade or skill to be pursued as a career- These schools focus on job skill training rather than academics in the liberal arts. Training periods are typically shorter than in a traditional college or university. Examples include institutions providing training to drafters, carpenters, electricians, HVAC technicians, aviation mechanics, plumbers, pipefitters, and welders. See "Education, use category." Schools, sSoecialized trainina/ - - - - - • - - - studios: A facilit .rovidin. specialized classes to .ersons of all ages including, but not limited to, gymnastics, fitness, martial arts and dance. See "Education use category." Secondhand store /consignment sales: The sale and resale of used merchandise including thrift shops and consignment shops. See "Retail sales, use category." Secure residential treatment facility: See "Essential public facility." SEPA: The Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, and administrative codes developed pursuant thereto or any amendments thereto . Shared access: A common point of vehicle and pedestrian access from a right -of -way, or a vehicular access easement or tract for more than one lot or use. 1 Page 1 49 Shorelands or shoreland areas: Those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high -water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes (RCW 98.58.030(2)(d)). Shoreline environment: The classification of shorelines based on the existing use pattern, the biological and physical character of the shoreline, consistent with WAC 173 -26- 211(4) and (5). Shoreline master program: Locally adopted plans and regulations governing uses and activities within the shorelines of the state and shorelines of statewide significance identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Shoreline of statewide significance: A natural river or segment thereof east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream of a point where the mean annual flow is measured at 200 cubic feet per second or more and lakes or impoundments of 1,000 or more acres (RCW 98.58.030(2)(f)). Shoreline of the state: All of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them; except: 1. Shorelines of statewide significance; 2. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and 3. Shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. (RCW 98.58.030(2)(e).) Shorelines of statewide significance are shorelines of the state. Shoreline protection: Structural and nonstructural methods to control flooding or address erosion impacts to property and dwellings or other structures caused by natural processes, such as current, flood, wind, or wave action. Shoreline restoration: The revegetation of a shoreline site cleared of vegetation and not covered by structures or occupied by other improvements following completion of a project. Shoreline substantial development: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds the dollar amount set forth in Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173 -26 WAC for any improvement of property in the shoreline of the state. 1 Page 1 50 Showroom: Space for buyers to view merchandise for sale in their retail stores or to showcase high value specialty items such as cabinetry, pianos and luxury vehicles. See "Retail sales, use category." Sign: A visual communication device, structure, or fixture which is visible from any right -of -way and is intended to aid in promoting the sale of products, goods, services, events or to identify a building using graphics, letters, figures, symbols, trademarks or written copies. Sign types include: • Abandoned structure: A sign support structure upon which a sign is located when the advertised business is no longer conducted on the premises. • Banner: A temporary sign of lightweight material mounted to a pole or building. • Mural: A work of art applied directly to an exterior surface where forms and /or figures are the dominant elements and not containing any copy. • Name plate: A sign showing only the name and address of the owner or occupant of the premises. • Reader board: A sign face consisting of tracks to hold readily changeable letters allowing frequent changes of copy. • Sign: Any board, poster, placard, banner, flag, pennant, streamer, or similar structure, electronic or otherwise which is constructed, placed, attached, painted or fastened in any manner for the purpose of attracting attention of the public to any place, person, entity, or business. • Sign, abandoned: A copy sign that advertises a product or service no longer available or a business no longer in operation; a sign which is illegible, in disrepair, or a safety hazard as a result of lack of maintenance; or a nonconforming sign that has lost its nonconforming rights. • Sign area: The gross surface area of the sign. • Sign, billboard: A structure for the purpose of leasing advertising space to promote an interest other than that of an individual, business, product or service available on the premises on which the structure is located. • Sign, copy: Letters, characters, illustrations, logos, graphics, symbols, writing or any combination thereof designed to communicate information of any kind, or to advertise, announce or identify a person, entity, business, business product, or to advertise the sale, rental or lease of premises. • Sign, copy area: The area of the sign containing any copy, symbol, sign, logo or graphic. 1 Page 1 51 • Sign, decorative emblem (or standard): A one- or two -sided sign with or without copy that is securely attached by grommets to the top and bottom of a mounting bracket attached to a permanently installed lighting fixture. • Sign, directional: Any sign relating solely to internal pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation within a complex or project. • Sign, electronic: A sign that can be changed by electrical, electronic or computerized process; inclusive of video boards. • Sign, flashing: An electrical sign or portion thereof which changes light intensity in a brief, brilliant, or sudden and transient outburst of light causing a steady on and off, glittering, sparkling, or oscillating pattern. • Sign, freestanding: A permanent sign not attached to or forming part of a building. • Sign, freeway: A permanent freestanding on- premises sign or billboard located on a parcel adjacent and contiguous to Interstate Highway 90. • Sign, inflatable: Any temporary hollow item or character expanded or enlarged by the use of air or gas. • Sign, menu board: An on -site display of menu items at a restaurant; not meant to be viewed from the street. • Sign, monument: A sign and supporting structure constructed as a solid structure or one that gives the appearance of a continuous, non - hollow, unbroken mass. • Sign, multi- business complex: A sign with a primary facility name and a list of the individual stores or businesses mounted on one structural element. Such a sign type includes signage describing a mall arrangement, a strip- center development, an industrial park complex, or a multi- business structure or complex of buildings with a unifying name and a listing of businesses contained within the grouping. • Sign, nonconforming: Any sign which was lawfully erected and maintained on private property which now, as a result of code amendments, does not conform to all applicable regulations and restrictions of this code. • Sign, notice: A sign intended to safeguard the premises (e.g., "No Parking," "No Trespassing," "Watch Dog on Duty "); or which identifies emergency telephone number, hours, and security information. 1 Page 1 52 • Sign, official: A sign erected by a governmental agency within its territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of carrying out an official duty or responsibility and including, but not limited to, traffic signs and signals, zoning signs, and street signs. Special lighting or banners celebrating seasonal or civic events sponsored and /or endorsed by the city council may be official signs. • Sign, off - premises: A sign which advertises or directs attention to a business, person, organization, activity, event, place, service, or product not principally located or primarily manufactured or sold on the premises on which the sign is located. • Sign, on- premises: A sign which advertises or directs attention to a business, person, organization, activity, event, place, service, or product which is manufactured and /or available on the premises where the sign is located. • Sign, permanent: Signs permanently affixed to a pole, monument, or building. Including decorative emblems (or standards) affixed by rope, cords, wires, or mechanical devices. • Sign, pole: A permanent freestanding sign supported wholly by a pole or poles permanently affixed to the ground and not attached to a building or structure. • Sign, POP — Point of purchase: A sign relating to the place, such as a supermarket aisle or soda machine, where a decision to purchase is made. • Sign, portable: A sign not permanently attached or affixed to the ground or other permanent structure, or a sign designed to be transported or moved from place to place including, but not limited to, signs designed to be transported by means of skids, or wheels, and including reader boards, and A -frame signs. • Sign, roof: A sign supported by and erected on or above a roof that does not meet the requirements of a wall sign. • Sign, support structure(s): Posts or columns and the anchors and bolts that structurally support the sign attached to it. • Sign, temporary: Banners, pennants, flags, streamers, searchlights, inflatables, special event signage or temporary on- premises commercial signs posted in conjunction with the alteration, construction, sale or lease of real property. • Sign, three - sided: A sign with three faces. 1 Page 1 53 • Sign, two - sided: A sign with two faces. • Sign, wall (attached): A permanent sign attached or erected parallel to and extending not more than 15 inches from the facade or face of any building to which it is attached and supported throughout its entire length, with the exposed face of the sign parallel to the plane of said wall or facade. Signs incorporated into mansard roofs, marquees or canopies are wall signs. • Wall area: The two - dimensional representation of a building elevation, including windows and doors, excluding eaves. Sign manufacturing /repair: The manufacture of commercial signs and sign support structures. See "Industrial, light use category." Sign painting shop: The painting, etching or printing of sign copy. See "Industrial, light use category. " - Site: Any lot or parcel of land or contiguous combination thereof, under a single ownership or control, proposed for development, where grading is performed or permitted. Site development plan: A plan drawn to scale for one or more lots, parcels or tracts on which is shown the existing and proposed conditions of the lot, tract or parcel. Site drainage plan: A plan prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington that identifies the stormwater control area, stormwater facilities and other measures reasonably required by the director. The plan shall contain analysis and recommendations based upon the City standards. Slope: An inclined ground surface the inclination of which is a ratio of vertical distance to horizontal distance, expressed as a percentage. Soap and cleaning compound manufacturing: The manufacture of soaps, detergents and cleaning chemicals and solvents. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Soil: A natural aggregate of mineral grains that can be separated by such gentle mechanical means as agitation in water. Solid waste: All putrescible biodegradable and non - biodegradable essible -solid and semisolid material including, but not limited to, garbage, refuse, bulky wastes, inert waste, agricultural solid waste, sewage sludge and demolition and construction wastes. 1 Page 1 54 Solid waste recycling /transfer site: A site storing solid waste or recyclable materials, prior to transport to a central disposal or collection location. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Special flood hazard areas (SFHA): The land area covered by the flood waters of the base flood is the SFHA on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maps. The SFHA is the area where the NFIP's floodplain management regulations must be enforced and the area where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies. Specialty stores: Small establishments that focus on the sale of a particular product and associated items. Examples include pet shops, specialty boutiques, music stores, ceramics shops, and liquor stores. It does not include stores selling specialty food such as butcher shop, meat market and specialty foods. See "Retail sales, use category." Spoil: Any material removed from an excavation. Standard soils: Soils comprised of the Natural Resources Conservation District groups: Garrison, Springdale, Bonner, and Hagen. Start of construction: Includes substantial improvement, and the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and /or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. Storage, general indoor: The storage of equipment, merchandise and supplies within an enclosed structure. The storage area occupies 50 percent or less of the ground floor area of the structure. See "Warehouse," for 1 Page 1 55 storage areas that exceed 50 percent of the ground floor area. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Storage, general outdoor: The storage of any equipment, machinery, commodities, raw, semi - finished materials, and building materials, which is visible from any point on the building lot line when viewed from ground level to six feet above ground level. The outdoor display of motor vehicles, equipment for sale or lease, manufactured housing or landscaping and nursery stock available for sale to the public is not general outdoor storage. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Storage, self - service facility: A facility including buildings and /or structures containing spaces of varying sizes leased, rented or sold on an individual basis and used exclusively for the storage of excess property and outdoor storage of vehicles and boats. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Stormwater: That portion of precipitation or snow melt that has not naturally percolated into the ground or otherwise evaporated, but is contained, transported or flowing above ground through streets, swales, channels, pipes, artificial or natural surfaces. Stormwater drainage facility: Constructed and natural features which function together as a system to collect, convey, channel, hold, inhibit, retain, detain, infiltrate, evaporate, divert, treat or filter stormwater. Stormwater facilities include, but are not limited to, pipes, ditches, culverts, street gutters, detention ponds, retention ponds, evaporation ponds, constructed wetlands, infiltration devices, catch basins, oil /water separators and swales. Stormwater facility: The drainage system including, but not limited to, drywell, channel, inlet, curb drop, swale, ditch, detention, retention, and /or infiltration facility designed to contain and control stormwater. Street, arterial, minor: Roadways identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan providing for interconnection with and augmentation of the principal arterial system and providing local mobility. Street, arterial, principal: Roadways identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan providing for regional mobility. Street, collector: Roadways identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan providing for both land access and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas. Street, flanking: One of the two streets abutting a corner lot which is not parallel with the lot front line. Street, local access: A street providing access to abutting property. 1 Page 1 56 Structure: Any construction, including a building or any portion thereof, erected for the purposes of support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind, including swimming pools, decks in excess of 30 inches in height, and roof overhangs exceeding three feet. A fence of six feet or less in height is not a structure, nor a masonry, brick, concrete, or cinder block wall of less than four feet in height. Subdivision: The subdivision of land into two or more parts for the purpose of establishing building sites, and including both short subdivisions and long subdivisions. Substantial damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before - damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Substantial improvement: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either: 1. Before the improvement or repair is started; or 2. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition, "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either: 1. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or 2. Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a state inventory of historic places. Swale: A constructed depression for the treatment and disposal of stormwater runoff. The swale shall be designed by an engineer licensed in the state of Washington. Tailor shop: A personal service providing alterations and fittings for apparel. See "Personal services." Tank storage (LPG): The storage of liquefied petroleum gas or its component gases. 1 Page 1 57 Tank storage, critical materials: The storage of critical materials identified in Appendix 21 -G (SVMC 21.40.060) including but not limited to gasoline, kerosene, diesel, lubricating oils, and solvents. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Tanning and curing of hides: The preparation of animal hides and skins for the manufacture of leather products. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Tavern /night club: A retail establishment serving alcoholic beverages with incidental food service. Examples are lounges, bars, nightclubs, wineries, micro - breweries, and distilleries. See "Food and beverage service, use category." Taxidermy: The operation of preserving, stuffing and mounting the skins of dead birds and animals for exhibition. See "Retail services, use category." Telecommunications: The transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of audio and /or visual information and data of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received. • Alternative mounting structure: A water tower, manmade tree, clock tower, church steeple, bell tower, utility pole, light standard, freestanding sign, flagpole, or similar structure designed to support and camouflage or conceal the presence of telecommunications antennas. • Antenna: A structure or device used to collect or radiate radio, television, or microwave electromagnetic waves, including directional antennas, such as panels, wireless cable and satellite dishes, and omni - directional antennas, such as whips, but not including satellite earth stations or noncommercial antennas installations for home use of radio or television. • Array: An arrangement of antennas and their supporting structure. • Collocation: A single telecommunications tower and /or site used by more than one telecommunications service provider. • Dish: A parabolic or bowl shaped device that receives and /or transmits signals in a specific directional pattern. • EIA -222: Electronics Industries Association Standard 222, "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antennas Support Structures." 1 Page 1 58 • Electric transmission: A self- supporting structure in excess of 50 feet in height designed to support high voltage electric lines. This does not include local utility or distribution poles (with or without transformers) designed to provide electric service to individual customers. • Guyed, tower: Any telecommunications tower supported in whole or in part by cables anchored to the ground .• Height: The distance measured from grade to the highest point of any and all components of the structure, including antennas, hazard lighting, and other appurtenances, if any. • Monopole: A self - supporting telecommunications tower, which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the ground and /or attached to a foundation. • Panel: An antenna which receives and /or transmits signals in a directional pattern. • Self- supporting lattice tower: A telecommunications tower that consists of an open network of metal braces, usually triangular or square in cross - section. • Service: The offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used. • Stealth: A telecommunications antenna that is effectively camouflaged or concealed from view. • Telecommunications antenna: An antenna used to provide a telecommunications service. This excludes lightning rods, private mobile radio systems, amateur radio antennas less than 35 feet in height in residential districts and 50 feet in height in nonresidential districts, and whip antennas less than four inches (10 cm) in diameter and less than 10 feet in height. • Tower: A self- supporting or guyed structure more than 20 feet in height, built primarily to support one or more telecommunications antennas. Does not include ham operator or wind turbine support towers. • Wireless: Having no wire or wires, operating by means of transmitted electromagnetic waves. • Whip antenna: An omni - directional dipole antenna of cylindrical shape which is no more than six inches in diameter. Temporary use: A use permitted for a limited period of time or pending the occurrence of an event. 1 Page 1 59 Textile manufacture: The manufacture of textiles, carpet, canvas and cordage, including knitting. See "Industrial, light use category." Theater, indoor: An establishment for the indoor viewing of motion pictures by patrons.A structure or area See "Entertainment, use category." Threshold requirements: The level of development, volume, or peak flow of stormwater that must be controlled. Tire recap and retread manufacture: The process of refurbishing and retreading used vehicle tires. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Title notice: A document recorded with the county auditor for the purpose of disclosure to a prospective purchaser, lender or other interested party of important information, special conditions, restrictions, and /or circumstances that affect real property. Tower, ham operator: A structure less than 75 feet in height above grade used for two -way communication for hobby or emergency service purposes by private individuals. See "Communication facilities, use category." Tower, wind turbine support: A structure not enclosed with exterior walls used for the production of energy such as a wind turbine tower- (Public utility towers used for the distribution or transmission of electricity and wireless communication support towers are not included in this definition -)_ Towing: Facilities that provide towing services. Towed vehicle storage is permitted under impound yard or junk and salvage yards. See "Vehicle services, use category." Transportation, use category: - Facilities that provide public or private transportation services and /or transfer points between modes of transportation. Examples include private airstrips, heliports, park and ride stations, private parking garages, transit centers. being tranccported Transit center: A facility serving transit patrons which may serve as a transfer point between different transportation modes and routes, and providing parking. See "Transportation, use category." Transitional housing: Congregate living facilities for temporarily displaced individuals and families with an on- site resident manager including, but not limited to, homeless and protective shelters. Detention and post- 1 Page 1 60 detention facilities, hospital, psychiatric and /or substance abuse and secure community transition facilities are not transitional housing. See "Community services, use category." Truck stop: A facility providing parking, fueling, and restaurant services for large trucks, and may include truck washing facilities, sleeping accommodations and showers for drivers. See "Vehicle services, use category." Underground injection control (UIC) well: A manmade subsurface fluid distribution system designed to discharge fluids into the ground and consists of an assemblage of perforated pipes, drain tiles, or other similar mechanisms, or a dug hole that is deeper than the largest surface dimension (WAC 173 - 218 -030). Subsurface infiltration systems include drywells, pipe or French drains, drain fields, and other similar devices that are used to discharge stormwater directly into the ground. Upholstery shop: A retail service for the upholstery and re- upholstery of furniture. See "Retail services, use category." Variance: An adjustment to the strict application of regulations to a particular piece of real property which, because of special circumstances, is deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and similar zone classification. The adjustment remedies the disparity in privileges; provided, that a variance granted shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the zone classification in which the property is located. Vehicle service, use category: Establishments that sell, service, repair, or rent passenger vehicles, boats, recreation vehicles, heavy trucks, and industrial vehicles. It also includes other uses that provide relate to vehicles such as truck stops, impound yards, and towing establishments. Veterinary hospital or clinic, large animal: An establishment providing veterinary medical services and similar services to livestock, such as horses, cows, donkeys, sheep, pigs, and similar animals, and may include outdoor pens. See "Animal clinic /veterinary." Veterinary hospital or clinic, small animal: An establishment other than a kennel in which veterinary medical services, clipping, bathing, boarding and similar services are rendered to dogs, cats and other small animals and domestic pets. See "Animal clinic /veterinary." 1 Page 1 61 Warehouse: A structure in which more than 50 percent of the ground floor area is utilized for the storage of products, which is not the office or showroom area of the building. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category: Wholesale businesses and establishments that store or transport goods for themselves or other firms. Warranty surety: A financial guarantee against defects in the construction of all required infrastructure for a project. Water- dependent: A use or activity dependent on a waterfront location including, but not limited to, bridges, marinas, dams for domestic /industrial water supply, flood control, and /or hydroelectric production; water diversion structures and facilities for water supply, irrigation and /or fisheries enhancement; flood water and drainage pumping plants and facilities; hydroelectric generating facilities and appurtenant structures; structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction facilities, and stream bank stabilization structures and practices. Water - related: A use or activity not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location including, but not limited to, facilities that provide water sports equipment and services, restaurants providing water views, recreational vehicle parks, and public parks. Water - related industry: Water - related industries are those requiring water transportation or those which seek the advantage of water transportation as an alternative to other modes, and those which use or recycle large quantities of water. Welding: The process of uniting metal parts through heat and /or pressure. Wetland: An area characterized by saturated or nearly saturated soils most of the year that forms an interface between terrestrial (land- based) and aquatic environments. Wetlands include marshes around lakes or ponds and along river or stream channels. Wholesale business: Those businesses which sell, broker, transfer, receive or otherwise handle volume commodities for fabrication, resale or internal institutional, commercial or industrial consumption. Examples include sale of building materials, special trade tools, welding supplies, major wholesale distribution centers, major postal services, machine parts, electrical supplies, janitorial supplies, restaurant equipment and store fixtures, mail order houses, and wholesalers of food, clothing, auto parts, and building hardware. See "Warehouse, wholesale and freight movement, use category." Page 1 62 Wood product manufacturing: The manufacture of wood products, such as lumber, plywood, veneers, wood containers, wood flooring, wood trusses, and prefabricated wood buildings. The production processes include sawing, planning, shaping, laminating, and assembling of wood products starting from logs that are cut into bolts, or lumber that then may be further cut, or shaped by lathes or other shaping tools. See "Industrial, heavy use category." Wrecking, junk and salvage yards: Any area, lot, land, parcel, building, structure or part thereof where waste or discarded or salvaged materials are exchanged, handled, bought, sold, baled, packed, stripped, stored, dumped or disassembled including, but not limited to, inoperable vehicles, tires, machines or remnants thereof, and /or metals, paper, rags, tires and bottles. See "Industrial, heavy use category." WRIA: Water resources inventory area. Xeriscaping: A planting practice that relies on minimal or no irrigation, eliminating heavily watered landscaping in favor of those that combine low water requirements with plants adapted to the region. Yard: An open space, other than a court, on a lot, unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward. • Flanking street yard: That unoccupied area of a lot which is coterminous with a flanking street bounded by the front yard and rear yard and the flanking street yard depth. • Front yard: An area extending across the full width of a lot and lying in between the front lot line and building setback line. The front yard is usually the location of the main entrance to the building and /or its orientation to the primary street. • Rear yard: An area extending across the full width of the lot and lying between the lot rear line and that portion of a proposed or existing building or structure closest to the lot rear line or between the lot rear line and the required rear yard depth in each classification when no building or structure exists or is proposed. • Side yard: That area of a lot that is unoccupied and which is not a front yard, a rear yard nor a flanking street yard. Zero lot line development: A residential development for single - family detached where each dwelling is located in close proximity to an interior side property line, with a minimum side yard maintained between each adjacent residence. 1 Page 1 63 Zone, zoning district: A use classification established for the purpose of promoting orderly and efficient development of land compatible with surrounding areas implementing the Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 12 -022 § 4 (Att. B), 2012; Ord. 12 -009 §§ 1 — 8, 2012; Ord. 11 -021 § 2, 2011; Ord. 11 -005 § 2, 2011; Ord. 09 -036 § 7, 2009; Ord. 09 -032 § 2, 2009; Ord. 09 -017 § 1, 2009; Ord. 08 -006 § 1, 2008; Ord. 08 -005 § 2, 2008; Ord. 07- 015 § 4, 2007). 1 Page 1 64 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 11, 2014 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Pulse Point Citizen Responder GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Fire Chief Bryan Collins will give a presentation concerning the PulsePoint Citizen Responder CPR /AED Mobile App OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: PulsePoint Citizen Responder CPR /AED Mobile App When Minutes Matter" Spokane County, Washington December 9, 2013 Richard Price • President, PulsePoint Foundation • Tenet Hospital Governing Board Member • Ret. Fire Chief of San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District • CFAI Accredited • ALS Transport • 9 -1 -1 Center of Excellence • HeartSafe Community 1 Sudden Cardiac Arrest 1,000 people a day die from Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SCA) in the U.S. More than one a day in Spokane County Many of these deaths occur needlessly 50% might survive if CPR and an AED were used within the first In 2012, the American Heart Association reported there are more than 10,235 cases of SCA annually in youth under the age of 18 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Chance of Cardiac Arrest Survival S/1/FD :54 SOC 3Q, 2 MEM. MOM Chances of success are reduced 7% to 10% eac minute 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 • Time to intervention (Minutes) 8 9 2 Chain of Survival According to the American Heart Association bystander CPR is only performed 32% of the time Y According to tie CARES Registry a public access , CARES AED is used only 4% of the hf toga,,'A Su 5`" time How does PulsePoint make a difference? PulsePoint connects to the local 9 -1 -1 system and alerts CPR - trained citizens to someone nearby having a Sudden Cardiac Arrest PulsePoint further directs these citizen rescuers, with a live map, to the nearest publicly available defibrillator (AED) 3 How does PulsePoint make a difference? PulsePoint looks to replace "good luck" with groundbreaking technology and a true paradigm shift to citizens as the first, first responder 4 11:30 Tuesday. Ssaterntw 10 .PulsePo nt CPR LEERED VALLEY GARCEN CENTER 100OLO MILL RD ®. slice to +iit��: • F1,0 711.1 CPR NEEDED! Laca:im: VALLEY CARDER SUPPLY CI z1 History of CPR • In 1966, the first CPR guidelines were published, encouraging practice with mannequins but disapproving of teaching resuscitation to laypersons out of concern for iatrogenic complications.1.2 • Training of laypersons was formally sanctioned in 1974.3 5 Examples of latrogenesis • Risk associated with medical interventions • Adverse effects of prescription drugs • Over -use of drugs, (causing - for example - antibiotic resistance in bacteria) • Prescription drug interaction • Wrong prescription, perhaps due to illegible handwriting, typos on computer. • Nosocomial infections Potential AED Issues rroblems that can occur, especially after years of nonuse, include: • Electrodes drying out if not maintained and regularly replaced • Issues with battery management, recharging or accidental discharge • Issues arising from humid conditions • Shocks (especially in wet environments), burns 6 Resource Efficiency and Effectiveness What if firefighters and paramedics didn't have radios and just responded to events they personally observed? 8 Resource Efficiency and Effectiveness The PulsePoint app has forever changed this inefficiency making far more effective use of CPR - trained citizens and public access AEDs 1481.0 II 0SCA rioter' Inneed 0911operator-sends 0 Signal reeereed by PoisePoint alert 0 Users rush to help victim before nearby PulsePei nt users professional help arrives Video 9 1711I: >:1 /i .youti L,( I:0t1 1`911 -1/f' Saving Lives! • App coverage in over 400+ communities across 16 states and two countries • 75,000+ Users, adding 200+ users /per day • Approaching 2,000 actual cardiac arrest incident app activations to date 10 Recognition • IAFC Fire Service Award For Excellen • Webby Nominee for Best Use of GPS �r Location Technology • American Heart Association Heart of Gold Award • Computerworld Honors Laureate Medal for Innovation • Journal of Emergency Medicine EMS Innovator of the Year Award L White House Invitation F:li3T1 I;FSits _.C,aL LLr. it' ue Hor, • aru, ezrfrnsc tOose sure Z- • ,,wosun.s,u-noN &MWMrrz•m sz •,.eosf+r 7 home • Moms & Videos • Video 0 White House Safety Datapalooia:. Pulse Point ar,. „ e � pars chr ...iv. SW Rn,.Wl, Gas., Leo Mo.! ht2 Netorlra rain es; wgrs, wreas eESe. Cnaartr slats. bbe bbe corAd f e > n t e n r mot, if In made erzyss7>retia 4Do mcad r p4(4.x B)I4+1A7. (EZMa) 11 Clinical Trial City of Toronto ueen's tiI UN1VBRSITY • Principal Investigator is Steven C. Brooks, MD MHSc • Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario funded • Ranked 2nd out of 273 applications • Article; Study Detail 12 Foundation Board [ aiented and diverse board drawn from broad market cross section. • Dave Duffield, Co- Founder /Co -CEO Workday • Dr. Ben Bobrow, Medical Director for the State of Arizona; Chair of the American Heart Association Basic Life Support Subcommittee • Tim O'Reilly, CEO O'Reilly Media, Gov 2.0 Thought - leader • Jack Parow, Past President and Chairman of the Board of the International Association of Fire Chiefs 13 R1 [1 f • 1.2 CJ FA1 -- ---- Survey ((cPulsePo°nt))) PulsePoint Responder Survey *S. Plans a Identify width or the folic king describe You (Mk ail that aPP71 F, F.4-* n Fre>asc o 1,1"- ,rsl:C.a{WlaS j ns dl **dins neat rncae,) o PGs■rla+Aasaara G Msaa Retzrrg aarso PaaWa) DhUssussaus G Orm nonce. Franhaarr racaraa ran Q overt**. *sushi Survey 12.1 fAl / i]'. rJ Survey ism ((cPuulsePdaint)i) PulsePoint Responder Survey *7. Hon long ego dd you last receive CPR Mining? o tease*, rye* O ryes, Q z]e.s G31m. 0 a see-* o S)^as G sia rose O we r,ti »p as p 16nT renNriamt .,. AIM r 12l}IFM Survey was ((cPulsePont))) PursePent Responder Survey * 10. PIA you perform any kind of CPR (Chess compressions, meulh-to. mouth breathing) on the person You round? G Yea O na frry ATST E 12.Cd PM -V 23'.. M ..Survey Mose (((PulsePoint))) PulsePoInt Responder Survey * 5. Please identity which of the following describe you (click all that apply) Q Fro Fgtdx 0 Pa anv.Sc D Phy- oe n (1n oI g necrual such -§ and re*homs) [� Ploycias As surd O arse Oncludrg arse Prectt;onerf O Nursing SYdery O Other roam ere profess:Orel not ester here d Orr (Please sPeo?yl e tint n_ A761 E 1201 PM 1 21?]— Survey arse (((PulsePoint))) PutsePoinl Responder Survey *7. How long ago did you Iasi receive CPR training? O Less can 1 year Q Iyea' o 2)�n O 0 years D 4 sears Q spa-. Q 610 yeen Q ?tore than 10 years Q l ant mrcmbr Pecs, ' + tlrq .e_ eau 5 1204 PM Survey 1 • 21'.. (((PulsePd nt))) PulsePoint Responder Survey * 15. Old you perform any kind of CPR (Chest compressions, mouth-to- mouth breathing) on the person you found? O Yes hus Prcr 1.k-A 14 PhysoControO • Allow the PulsePoint Foundation to meet growing demand without incurring many of the overhead costs associated with marketing, implementing and supporting the PulsePoint app on a worldwide basis • Broad and comprehensive services of a leading developer of emergency response tools Key Partnerships • American Red Cross o American Heart Association 9 Cleveland Clinic o CTIA / Wireless Foundation o FirstNet Ihidonsdaus not Pulsepoint American Red Cross {b PufsePo5n1t11 The American Red Cross and PulsePelnt are partnering to empower indivduaas with the ability to provide 610- saving assistance to victims of cardiac arrest and become CPR Heroes using chat they've Learned in the Red Cross First Aid app and the Pulsepo:nt app. Visit Pulsepoint's wets site to laam more and become a CPA Hero today! Related first aid... 15 OK, How? uryanize Stakeholders; Build Consensus • Establish CAD -to- PulsePoint Interface • Document Public AED Locations • Develop Community Outreach Plan • Everyone knows to call 9-1-1... • Launch Event 16 Conclusion • Improve cardiac arrest survival rate through improved bystander performance • Foster good will through a unique and valuable community collaboration • Improve situational awareness through increased incident and resource visibility Additional Information • The app is available for download from the Apple App Store and Google Play • Visit the website at PulsePoint.org • Visit facebook.com /PulsePoint • Follow @PulsePoint for general news and @1000livesaday for real -time activations 17 18 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 11, 2014 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Solid Waste Transfer Station /Transport /Disposal GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.03 — Non - charter code city; RCW 70.95 — Solid Waste Management — Reduction & Recycling; RCW 70.105 — Hazardous Waste Management; Interlocal Agreement between the City of Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley — RE: Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System, expires November 16, 2014. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council has adopted goals related to solid waste in the 2012, 2013 and 2014 budgets. The 2014 goal adopted by Council is to "Implement solid waste alternatives for collection, transport and disposal in the best interest of the City of Spokane Valley." Council has been briefed on a number of occasions: Most recently, on January 22, 2013, Council approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Spokane, and Spokane County, to jointly conduct the Solid Waste Analysis; on February 6, 2013, Council participated in a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss alternatives; on February 26, 2013, Council discussed solid waste in detail at the Council Workshop; on August, 28, 2013, Council attended the presentation of an analysis of solid waste alternatives completed by HDR; On September 3, 2013, Council discussed the draft solid waste study completed by HDR; on September 4, 2013, Council hosted a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss alternatives and make a specific proposal to the County; on October 3, 2013, Council discussed solid waste alternatives and approved sending Spokane County Commissioners a letter re- emphasizing Spokane Valley's position to reconsider the specific option offered by Spokane Valley at the joint meeting; on February 24, 2014, Council hosted a joint meeting with Spokane County Commissioners to continue discussions on solid waste alternatives and to review /discuss the newest draft of the Interlocal Agreement; on February 27, 2014, Council attended the Regional Solid Waste meeting at CenterPlace; and on February 28, 2014, Council attended the Council of Government where Solid Waste was one of many topics. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley received a draft Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Services from Spokane County on Monday, February 24, 2014. On that same day the City met in joint session with Spokane County Commissioners to discuss solid waste. This was followed by a meeting of County Commissioners, Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Airway Heights, Deer Park and others on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at CenterPlace to further discuss the proposed Spokane County solid waste system and Interlocal agreement. The City of Spokane Valley has been actively pursuing options for solid waste disposal since the extension of the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane and Spokane County was approved by our City Council on October 25, 2011. The purpose of the extension was to allow time for the various cities and Spokane County to determine solid waste alternatives. The various alternatives have evolved over the last 3 years from the possible continuation of the existing solid waste system, to Spokane being a vendor only, to the current status where an Interlocal Agreement was signed between the City of Spokane and Spokane County. Spokane Valley had formally offered to partner with Spokane County (September 4 and October 3, 2013) prior to Spokane County moving independently to negotiate with the City of Spokane and making a decision to purchase the (Spokane owned) Colbert and Spokane Valley transfer stations and continue to send waste to the City of Spokane's waste to energy incinerator. The City of Spokane Valley is now faced with decisions regarding solid waste. As highlighted by the Department of Ecology at the February 27, 2014 meeting, the November 16, 2014 termination creates some very time sensitive decisions: 1. Selection of an option regarding development of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan. The City's options per RCW 70.95.080 are a. Prepare and deliver to the county auditor of the county in which it is located its plan for its own solid waste management for integration into the county plan; b. Enter into an agreement with the county pursuant to which the city shall participate in preparing a joint city- county plan for solid waste management, or c. Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city's solid waste management for inclusion in the comprehensive county plan. 2. Discuss and develop terms and conditions that the City of Spokane Valley would like to see in a theoretical Interlocal Agreement if the City should choose to sign an agreement with Spokane County. 3. Continue to investigate public /private partnerships if found to provide adequate service levels and reduce the cost of services to Spokane Valley residents. OPTIONS: Discussion /provide feedback on these issues to City Manager. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: At this time no formal motion is requested. Formal motion consideration would come when a contract is presented to City Council for approval. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City currently does not have a revenue source for solid waste other than the general fund. Costs to date include the HDR study developed through an MOU with Spokane County and the City of Spokane, follow -up work by City Manager with solid waste consultants Shaw Environmental and Green Solutions. The City potentially could recover administrative or other costs through various means in its final solid waste system. This would be a topic for future discussion. The reduction in rates, if any, would directly benefit the residents and businesses of Spokane Valley. The City itself would not benefit directly because we would not pay directly for transfer, transport and disposal of solid waste services. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: Solid Waste PowerPoint presentation Spokane County Interlocal for Solid Waste February 24, 2014, Council minutes - Spokane County /City of Spokane Valley joint meeting; February 27, 2014, minutes — Regional Solid Waste meeting at CenterPlace. Sii:Olf ane ,•110‘b1 ley Solid Waste Transfer Station /Transport /Disposal Council Update March 11, 2014 Council Budget Goals • 2012 - Solid Waste to include identifying the issue and researching alternatives of joining the consortium or handling it ourselves and examining the consequences of each alternative. • 2013 - Pursue the topic of Solid Waste to include identifying the issue and obtaining alternatives of joining the consortium or handling it ourselves and the consequences of each alternative. • 2014 - Implement solid waste alternatives for collection, transport and disposal in the best interest of the City of Spokane Valley. Spokane Options for the City of Spokane Valley • RCW 70.95.080 (3), a) "Prepare and deliver to the county auditor of the county in which it is located its plan for its own solid waste management for integration into the county plan; Sp"`` �.000 � I l, Options for the City of Spokane VaIIey, pant. • RCW 70.95.080 (3), b) Enter into an agreement with the county pursuant to which the city shall participate in preparing a joint city - county plan for solid waste management; or Sp"`` �.000 � I l, Options for the City of Spokane VaIIey, pant. • RCW 70.95.080 (3), c) Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city's solid waste management for inclusion in the comprehensive county plan:' a) City of Spokane Valley prepares its own Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan Spokane County Keep City Open to Future Options Public /Private Partnerships 6 City Clerk File No. County Clerk File No. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE AND SPOKANE COUNTY REGARDING TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard, Spokane, Washington 99201, hereinafter referred to as "CITY ", jointly hereinafter referred to as the "PARTIES." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6), the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act), authorizes counties and cities to contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform; and WHEREAS, chapter 39.33 RCW authorizes the intergovernmental transfer of any property, real or personal, or property rights, including but not limited to the title to real property, subject to certain notice and hearing requirements; and WHEREAS, the CITY and the COUNTY formed the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System ( "System ") in 1989 through an Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement ( "1989 Agreement "); and WHEREAS, Section 5.2 (b) of the 1989 Agreement provides for a term of twenty five (25) years, or such longer term as the Series 1988 Bonds, or any Additional Bonds remain outstanding; and WHEREAS, Section 5.2 (d) of the 1989 Agreement provides that it shall be renewed automatically for successive twenty (20) -year terms unless the CITY and COUNTY agree not to renew it; and Page'{ of 24 WHEREAS, all bonds issued for the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System have been retired; and WHEREAS, the 1989 Agreement has been amended by the PARTIES to extend the initial term of agreement until November 16, 2014, at which time it will expire; and WHEREAS, Section 5.2 (e) of the 1989 Agreement provides that "(f)ollowing termination of this Agreement, the City shall own the System and all of its assets.. "; and WHEREAS, Section 1.1 (qq) of the 1989 Agreement defines the terminology "System" to include two (2) transfer stations commonly referred to as the North County Transfer Station and the Valley Transfer Station ( "Transfer Stations "); and WHEREAS, the PARTIES have been discussing long term planning associated with solid waste disposal; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES agree to not renew the 1989 Agreement and that this Agreement shall replace the 1989 Agreement, effective November 17, 2014; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees to pay Nine Million Nine Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($9,900,000.00) to the CITY for the purchase of the Transfer Stations, including equipment listed in Exhibit "B ". Of the total, $2,700,000.00 represents the value of the North County Transfer Station, and $7,200,000.00 represents the value of the Valley Transfer Station; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees to deliver all solid waste received at the Transfer Stations to the Waste To Energy Facility for final disposal during the term of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth hereinafter and the recitals referenced above, the PARTIES do mutually agree as follows: SECTION NO. 1: PURPOSE The purposes of this Agreement are to: A. Formally terminate the 1989 Agreement as of November 16, 2014. Effective November 17, 2014, this Agreement will replace all terms and conditions contained in the 1989 Agreement; and B. Provide that the CITY will continue to operate the System in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 1989 Agreement including subsequent amendments as mutually agreed to by the PARTIES, through November 16, 2014; and Page 2 of 24 C. Provide that ownership of the Transfer Stations will transfer from the CITY to the COUNTY on November 17, 2014, including associated equipment and vehicles as agreed to in Exhibit "B "; and D. Establish the terms and conditions between the CITY and the COUNTY for the transfer and disposal of all solid waste collected through the Transfer Stations, which is to be delivered to the CITY's Waste To Energy Facility; and E. Establish flow control requirements to be maintained by the COUNTY to ensure the proper disposal of solid waste; and F. Establish the terms and conditions for continued service to non -City of Spokane customers who are part of the County's Regional Solid Waste System and deliver solid waste and yard waste to the CITY's Waste To Energy Facility. SECTION NO. 2: DEFINITIONS As used in this Agreement, the following words, unless the context otherwise dictates, shall have the following meanings: A. CITY - means the City of Spokane, or any vendor contracted with by the CITY for services related to the management of solid waste. B. COUNTY - means Spokane County, or any vendor contracted with by the COUNTY for services related to the management of solid waste. C. County Disposal Rate - means the rate charged to the COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement for solid waste delivered by the COUNTY to the CITY Waste To Energy Facility from the Transfer Stations. The rate shall be inclusive of all costs, including applicable taxes. The CITY agrees not to exceed authority granted under state or local law, including taxing authority. D. County Regional Solid Waste System - includes (1) transfer and disposal of all solid waste collected at the Transfer Stations for all of unincorporated Spokane County as well as transfer and disposal of all solid waste collected at the Transfer Stations for incorporated municipalities in Spokane County who have executed an interlocal agreement with Spokane County to participate in the County Regional Solid Waste System, (2) ancillary services related to solid waste management as required under chapters 70. 95 and 70.105 RCW as well as litter control, and (3) all facilities associated with the performance of the activities addressed in (1) and (2) above. E. Dangerous Wastes - means any discarded, useless, unwanted, or abandoned substances, including but not limited to certain pesticides, or any residues or containers of such substances which are disposed of In such quantity or concentration as to pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, wildlife, or the environment because such wastes or constituents or combinations of such wastes: Page 3 of 24 a. Have short- lived, toxic properties that may cause death, injury, or illness or have mutagenlc, teratogenic, or carcinogenic properties; or b. Are corrosive, explosive, flammable, or may generate pressure through decomposition or other means. F. Extremely Hazardous Waste —means any dangerous waste which: a. Will persist in a hazardous form for several years or more at a disposal site and which in its persistent form: i. Presents a significant environmental hazard and may be concentrated by living organisms through a food chain or may affect the genetic make -up of human beings or wildlife, and ii. Is highly toxic to human beings or wildlife. b. if disposed of at a disposal site in such quantities as would present an extreme hazard to human beings or the environment. G. Flow Control Ordinance - means Ordinance No. 85 -0398 of the COUNTY, adopted on May 14, 1985, as amended under Resolution No. 88 -1268 of the COUNTY adopted on December 20, 1988 and Resolution No. 92 -1500 of the COUNTY adopted on October 20, 1992 and as may be further amended from time to time. H. Gate Fee - means the amounts charged per ton of Solid Waste by the CITY or the COUNTY for the disposal of solid waste by customers at the Waste To Energy Facility and at the Transfer Stations. Customers include private self - haulers and commercial haulers who bring solid waste to the facilities. Provided, however, the gate fee charged by either the CITY or the COUNTY shall be inclusive of all costs, including applicable taxes. I. Hazardous Waste - means and includes all dangerous and extremely hazardous waste, including substances composed of both radioactive and hazardous components. J. Moderate -Risk Waste – means a. any waste that exhibits any of the properties of hazardous waste but is exempt from regulation under chapter 70.105 RCW solely because the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold for regulation; and b. any household wastes which are generated from the disposal of substances identified by the department as hazardous household substances. K. Nonprocessible Waste - means any solid waste that the CITY deems to be unacceptable at the Waste To Energy Facility. L. Solid Waste or Wastes - means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, Page 4 of 24 abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, contaminated soils and contaminated dredged material, and recyclable materials. M. Transfer Stations —means the solid waste facility known as the North County Transfer Station, located at 22123 North Elk - Chattaroy Road, Colbert, WA 99005, Spokane County Assessor Parcel No. 37036.9060, and the solid waste facility known as the Valley Transfer Station, located at 3941 North Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, Spokane County Assessor Parcel No. 45024.9027 including all structures and site improvements. N. Waste To Energy Facility or Facility - means that solid waste facility located at 2900 South Geiger Boulevard, Spokane, WA 99224, including the solid waste incinerator and the portion of the facility that serves the general public for disposal of household hazardous waste, recyclables, solid waste, yard debris, and other waste products. SECTION NO. 3: DURATION This Agreement shall be effective at 12:00 A.M. on November 17, 2014 ( "Commencement Date ") and run through 11:59 P.M. on November 16, 2021, unless the COUNTY provides written notice of termination as provided for in Section No. 4(M) of this Agreement. Under no circumstances shall this Agreement be terminated prior to the end of three (3) years or before November 16, 2017. Any notice of termination shall be provided in writing and not later than twelve (12) months prior to the effective date. Notwithstanding the above provisions, this Agreement may be extended in one (1) year increments for a period of five (5) years, or terms otherwise agreed upon, by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES. SECTION NO. 4: TERMS A. Termination of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System: The 1989 Agreement shall be mutually terminated by the CITY and COUNTY at 11:59 P.M. on November 16, 2014. On the Commencement Date of this Agreement, the Spokane Regional Solid Waste Management System as defined in the 1989 Agreement will be terminated and cease to exist. B. Transfer of Ownership of the Transfer Stations, Associated Equipment, and Vehicles: Page 5 of 24 1. Transfer of Property. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the CITY agrees to sell, transfer, and deliver to the COUNTY and the COUNTY agrees to purchase from the CITY the Transfer Stations, which are legally described in Exhibit "A ", and all personal property (including vehicles) associated with the Transfer Stations (the "Personal Property'), as listed in Exhibit "B ". 2. Purchase Price and Additional Consideration. The Purchase Price for the Transfer Stations and Personal Property is NINE MILLION NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100 DOLLARS ($9,900,000.00). The Purchase Price will be paid to the CITY in accordance with Section 4(C) herein below. As additional consideration, the COUNTY shall deliver to the CITY's Waste To Energy Facility all solid waste received by the Transfer Stations from November 17, 2014 through the term of this Agreement. 3. Title. At closing, as defined herein below, the CITY shall convey to the COUNTY fee simple title to the Transfer Stations by a duly executed and acknowledged statutory warranty deed (the "Deed "), subject to matters of record. 4. Closing Date. Closing will be held at the Office of the City Attorney on the Closing Date, which shall be November 17, 2014, no later than 3:30 p.m., Pacific Time. 5. Closing. a. CITY's Closing Documents. i. The duly executed and acknowledged Deed; ii. A duly executed and acknowledged Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit; iii. A bill of sale to the Personal Property; and iv. Any other documents required by the provisions of this Agreement or required in order to consummate the transactions set forth in this Agreement. b. COUNTY's Closing Documents. i. A Deed of Trust to the Transfer Stations, or other similar instrument reasonably satisfactory to the CITY, granting the CITY a security interest in the Transfer Stations until such time as the COUNTY has fully satisfied its obligations to the CITY under this Agreement, including without limitation its obligation to pay the CITY the Purchase Price; ii. A duly executed and acknowledged Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit; and iii. Any other documents required by the provisions of this Agreement or required in order to consummate the transactions set forth in this Agreement. Page 6 of 24 6. Closing Costs. Taxes and assessments, if any, shall be prorated between the CITY and COUNTY as of the Closing Date. COUNTY shall pay all recording fees, sales and use taxes, to the extent applicable to this transaction, title insurance premiums, and similar closing costs. 7. Utilities. All gas, electric, and other utility charges will be prorated as of the Closing Date. 8. Representations and Warranties. The COUNTY hereby agrees and acknowledges that, except as expressly provided in this Agreement: (a) The CITY has made no warranty or representation, express or implied, with respect to the condition of the Transfer Stations or the suitability of the same for any particular purpose, and neither has the CITY made any representations or warranties whatsoever with regards to any personal property, including without limitation vehicles, to be transferred to the COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement; and (b) The COUNTY is taking the Transfer Stations and all associated personal property on an "as -is" basis; and (c) The COUNTY will conduct its own investigations and inspections of the Transfer Stations, including without limitation, the physical condition of the Transfer Stations and the Transfer Stations' compliance with all laws applicable to the Transfer Stations' current or intended use or development; and (d) The COUNTY is relying solely on such reports and its own investigations as to the Transfer Stations, their condition, and any other characteristics and compliance with laws; and (e) Except for the express representations and warranties set forth in this Agreement, the COUNTY is taking ownership of the Transfer Stations without reliance upon any statements or representations, express or implied, made by the CITY or any of its representatives, as to the condition or characteristics of the Transfer Stations, their fitness for use for any particular purpose, the Transfer Stations' compliance with any zoning or other rules, regulations, laws or statutes applicable to the Transfer Stations, or the uses permitted on, or the development requirements for, or any other matters relating to the Transfer Stations. (f) The CITY, to include all its current staff, to the best of its knowledge has not used, generated, manufactured, produced, treated, stored, released, discharged or disposed of any Hazardous Substance on, under, or about the Transfer Stations in violation of any Environmental Law. Page7of24 As used in the Agreement, the terminology Environmental Law means all federal, state or local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations now or hereafter in force, as amended from time to time, in any way relating to or regulation human health or safety, or industrial hygiene or environmental conditions, or protection of the environment, or pollution of contamination of the air, soil, surface water or groundwater, and includes without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq., ( "CERCLA "); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901, et seq.; the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section1251 et. seq., and the Hazardous Substance Account Act. As used in this Agreement the terminology "Hazardous Substance" means any substance or material that is described as a toxic or hazardous substance waste or material or a pollutant or contaminate, or words of similar import, in any of the Environmental Laws, and includes without limitation asbestos, petroleum, (including crude oil or any faction thereof, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel, or any mixture thereof), petroleum products, polychlorinated biphenyls, urea formaldehyde, radon gas, radioactive matter, medical waste, and chemicals which may cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The provisions of Section No. 8 shall apply to any breach of this warranty. (h)The CITY shall operate and maintain all structures, equipment and vehicles to be transferred to COUNTY under the terms of this Agreement in good working order, and in strict accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations and maintenance schedules through November 16, 2014. In conjunction with the transfer of the Transfer Stations, the CITY will provide the COUNTY with any and all operational manuals for any equipment therein as well as any warranties applicable to the equipment. C. Transfer and Disposal of Solid Waste delivered to the Transfer Stations and Pa ment of Purchase Price for Transfer Stations: 1. Delivery of Solid Waste to City Waste To Energy Facility. As additional consideration for the CITY's sale and conveyance of the Transfer Stations to the COUNTY, the COUNTY shall deliver to the CITY's Waste To Energy Facility all solid waste received by the Transfer Stations from November 17, 2014 through the term of this Agreement. The COUNTY shall pay the County Disposal Rate as provided for in Section 4(H) of this Agreement. 2. Payment of Purchase Price. The COUNTY shall pay the Transfer Stations Purchase Price to the CITY in eighty-four (84) equal monthly installments of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN and 14/100 DOLLARS ($117,857.14), in accordance with Section 4(1) below. Page 8 of 24 3. Early Termination Buy Out: If this Agreement is terminated for any reason prior to November 16, 2021, the COUNTY shall pay the remaining balance of the Purchase Price to the CITY in a lump sum payment. Such payment shall be made by the COUNTY within twelve (12) months of the written notice of Early Termination, unless a different payment deadline is agreed to in writing by both the CITY and COUNTY. D. County Flow Corttr ©I: The COUNTY shall maintain, and enforce within its jurisdiction, its Flow Control Ordinance for the duration of this Agreement, so long as the Flow Control Ordinance is legally enforceable. During the term of this Agreement, subject to the exceptions currently in effect contained in its Flow Control Ordinance, the COUNTY designates the Waste To Energy Facility to be the sole final disposal site for solid waste at all times the Facility is in operation. The COUNTY shall not, directly or indirectly, site or permit to be sited any solid waste disposal site other than the Waste To Energy Facility, and shall enforce the Flow Control Ordinance continuously; provided, however, that this requirement shall not apply to hazardous waste. The designation of the Waste To Energy Facility as the sole final disposal site for solid waste shall be made by the COUNTY concurrently with the effective date of this Agreement, but in no event later than November 17, 2014. This clause shall not apply to any municipality within Spokane County that does not execute an interlocal agreement with the COUNTY to participate in the County Regional Solid Waste System. E. Otter Jurisdictions Flow Control Reguirements: The COUNTY will require other jurisdictions within Spokane County participating in the County Regional Solid Waste System to enter into an interlocal agreement with the COUNTY, to uphold the COUNTY's Flow Control Ordinance, and to deliver solid waste from their jurisdictions to the Waste To Energy Facility, or to a County owned Transfer Station. F. County Flow Commitment to the Waste To Ener_ct_Y Facility: The COUNTY agrees to deliver to the Waste To Energy Facility all of the solid waste delivered to the Transfer Stations during the term of this Agreement. G. Municipal Flow Control Interference: Moth the CITY and the COUNTY recognize flow control to the Transfer Stations and to the City Waste To Energy Facility provides consistency to the CITY and the COUNTY and should not be intentionally disrupted by either the CITY or the COUNTY. The CITY and the COUNTY agree not to intentionally interfere with the other's attempt to meet all solid waste flow control requirements established within this Agreement. Specifically, neither party will intentionally interfere with interlocal Agreements executed with other jurisdictions both within Spokane County and Page 9 of 24 outside Spokane County during the term of this Agreement. The CITY and the COUNTY further agree to continue to cause the solid waste delivered to the Transfer Stations and to the Waste To Energy Facility respectively by the PARTIES to remain at historical volumes to the extent practicable through the term of this Agreement. H. County Disposal Rate: For the period from November 17, 2014 through December 31, 2015, the COUNTY will pay to the CITY Fifty Four and 12/100 Dollars ($54.12) per ton for each ton of solid waste delivered from the Transfer Stations to the Waste To Energy Facility by the COUNTY. On January 1st of each year following 2015, the CITY will adjust the County Disposal Rate to reflect increases in the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, West -Size Class B /C, Consumer Price Index, All Items for All Urban Consumers (CPI -U) (the "Index "). The adjustment factor for computing annual rate adjustments shall be computed by dividing the Index number for October of the just - completed year by the Index number for October of the previous year. In the event the Index number stays the same or decreases, no rate adjustment will be made, and the next rate adjustment shall not occur until the Index number increases to a number exceeding the highest previous Index number, and shall be computed using the previous highest Index number. Example Calculation of Annual Rate Adjustments: The CITY will be responsible for all of the costs associated with disposal of the Solid Waste once delivered to the Waste To Energy Facility, including but not limited to incineration, ash disposal, by -pass of unburned material, and all maintenance, operation, repairs and ordinary renewals and replacements necessary for the operation of the Waste To Energy Facility. I. Billing: Page 10 of 24 INDEX ADJUST FACTOR COUNTY DISPOSAL RATE Base Yr.N 125 $54.12 N+1 128.844 1.030752 $55.78 N+2 133.315 1.034710 $57.72 N+3* 132.474 No change $57.72 N +4 *`' 133 No change $57.72 N +5 137.748 1.033252 $59.64 N+6 140.054 1.016741 $60.64 * No change -Index decreased ** No charge -index did not exceed highest previous Index The CITY will be responsible for all of the costs associated with disposal of the Solid Waste once delivered to the Waste To Energy Facility, including but not limited to incineration, ash disposal, by -pass of unburned material, and all maintenance, operation, repairs and ordinary renewals and replacements necessary for the operation of the Waste To Energy Facility. I. Billing: Page 10 of 24 The CITY shall bill the COUNTY monthly on or before the 20th of the month for the previous month. However, the first monthly bill shall be prepared in January 2015 for the period November 17, 2014 through December 31, 2014. The monthly bill shall consist of two components. The first component shall be determined by multiplying the Solid Waste tonnage delivered by the COUNTY from the Transfer Stations to the Waste To Energy Facility by the County Disposal rate, The second component shall be the monthly installment for the purchase of the Transfer Stations ($117,857.14), subject to the terms provided in Section No. 4(C). The CITY shall be responsible for weighing Solid Waste as it enters the Waste To Energy Facility. The COUNTY shall advise the CITY in writing within ten (10) business days of invoice receipt if it has any questions, needs further information, or disputes the bill. The COUNTY will reimburse the CITY for the monthly billing within sixty (60) calendar days of invoice receipt for all portions of the bill which are not disputed. Any dispute between the PARTIES as to any billing shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Section. If a billing not subject to dispute is outstanding for more than three (3) months, it shall, at the sole discretion of the CITY, accrue interest at the current local government investment pool rate until paid. I. Utility Taxes: In the event either the CITY or the COUNTY imposes any additional new utility tax, after the effective date of this Agreement, on the revenues generated from Solid Waste delivered to either the Transfer Stations or the Waste To Energy Facility the PARTIES agree to share such utility tax revenues which are generated from the increase in the Gate Fee, based on the proportion of Solid Waste received from the other party's jurisdiction. For the purpose of this provision, the CITY's jurisdiction shall mean the CITY's Solid Waste Service Areas and the COUNTY's jurisdiction shall mean unincorporated Spokane County and all incorporated municipalities in Spokane County who have executed an interlocal agreement with Spokane County to participate in the County Regional Solid Waste System. J. Ancillary Serviees: The CITY shall be responsible for providing to its citizens and businesses within its jurisdictional boundaries only - the following ancillary services: (a) Programs to educate and promote the concepts of waste reduction and recycling; pursuant to RCW 70.95.090 (7) (b) (iv); and Page 11 of 24 (b) City of Spokane Litter Control Program; and (c) Moderate -risk waste management pursuant to chapter 70.105 RCW. The COUNTY shall be responsible to comply with all requirements for providing citizens and businesses outside the City of Spokane's boundaries who are part of the County Regional Solid Waste System the above referenced ancillary services. K. Service to Non.CI T Y S • okane Count Solid Waste 5 stern customers at the CITY's Waste To Energy Facility; The CITY will allow non -city customers from jurisdictions participating in the County Regional Solid Waste System who self -haul and commercial haulers who collect solid waste from customers within jurisdictions participating in the County Regional Solid Waste System to dispose of household hazardous waste, recyclables, solid waste, yard debris, and other waste products to the Waste To Energy Facility for the duration of this Agreement. The non -city public access will be during the same hours that the Facility is open to city residents, provided that the Facility shall be open to the public a minimum of eight (8) hours per day on Saturday and Sunday and a minimum of forty (40) hours per week. The gate fee for the non -city customers from within Spokane County participating in the County Regional Solid Waste System who self -haul shall be the same rate as for city residents who self -haul to the Waste To Energy Facility. L. Non- processible Vllaste;_ The CITY shall be responsible for identifying and disposing of any non - processible waste delivered to the Waste To Energy Facility. M. Early Termination: This Agreement shall be in effect for seven (7) years. After two (2) years, the COUNTY shall have the option to provide to the CITY twelve (12) months prior written notice ( "Early Termination ") of its intent to terminate this Agreement. Should the COUNTY exercise this Early Termination option, it will be effective no earlier than the end of three (3) years (November 16, 2017), or any other later time prior to the seven (7) year term of this Agreement. The COUNTY will then pay to the CITY a lump sum representing the remaining unpaid amount of the purchase price of the Transfer Stations owed to the CITY. Said amount shall be paid within twelve (12) months of written notice of Early Termination, or at such time(s) as the PARTIES may mutually agree in writing. Upon payment of purchase price of the Transfer Station by the COUNTY, the CITY shall execute and file a Full Reconveyance of the Deed of Trust addressed in Section No. 4B(5)(b)(i). Page 12 of 24 Upon Early Termination, the COUNTY shall have no further obligation to deliver any Solid Waste received at the Transfer Stations to the Waste To Energy Facility for final disposal pursuant to this Agreement. N. Collaborative Efforts: The CITY and COUNTY intend to collaboratively work together during the term of this Agreement as follows: a. Continue to investigate existing and/or emerging alternative disposal technologies and options, including but not limited to: long haul landfill disposal, plasma gasification, refuse derived fuel, etc, b. Continue to investigate opportunities to increase rail capacity in the region, in an effort to promote and accommodate increased economic development, including the possibility of future long haul disposal by rail. c. To Develop a mutually acceptable approach for the Tong -term use of the CITY's Waste To Energy Facility site as the COUNTY's West Plains regional transfer station beyond the term of this Agreement to avoid an unnecessary duplication of public facilities on the West Plains for the transfer of Solid Waste. d. The COUNTY plans to further investigate the cost - effectiveness of various long -term alternatives for Solid Waste disposal during the term of this Agreement through the issuance of Requests for Proposals. The CITY agrees that options presented for response within the Requests for Proposals may include the CITY's Solid Waste volume for the CITY's consideration, but such inclusion shall not obligate the CITY in any way. Any costs incurred in the issuance of Request for Proposals or any investigations associated with this subsection shall be the sole responsibility of the COUNTY. O. Gate Fees: For the purpose of transparency to the citizens of Spokane County, it is the intent of the CITY and the COUNTY to charge similar gate fees at the Transfer Stations and the Waste To Energy Facility throughout the term of this Agreement; however, both PARTIES understand that this subsection is not binding on either Party. The PARTIES shall give each other at least sixty (60) calendar days advance written notice in the event either determines to charge a gate fee which is not similar to the gate fee of the other party. Page 13 of 24 SECTION NO. 5: AUDIT / RECORDS The COUNTY shall maintain for a minimum of three (3) years following final payment all records related to its performance of the Agreement. The COUNTY shall provide access to authorized CITY representatives at reasonable times and In a reasonable manner to inspect and copy any such record. In the event of conflict between this provision and related auditing provisions required under federal law applicable to the Agreement, the federal law shall prevail. The CITY shall maintain for a minimum of three (3) years following final payment all records related to its performance of the Agreement. The CITY shall provide access to authorized COUNTY representatives at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner to inspect and copy any such record. In the event of conflict between this provision and related auditing provisions required under federal law applicable to the Agreement, the federal law shall prevail. SECTION NO. 6: NOTICES All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed served on: (1) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third day following the day on which the same have been mailed by certified mail delivery, receipt requested and postage prepaid addressed to PARTIES at the address set forth below, or at such other address as the PARTIES shall from time -to -time designate by notice in writing to the other PARTIES: CITY: With Copy to: COUNTY: With Copy to: Page 14 of 24 Mayor or designee City of Spokane Seventh Floor, City Hall 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard Spokane, Washington 99201 City Attorney Fifth Floor, City Hall 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard Spokane, Washington 99201 Board of County Commissioners Spokane County Courthouse 1116 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260 -0100 Spokane County Utilities Director 1026 W. Broadway Avenue Public Works Bldg. Spokane, Washington 99260 -0430 SECTION NO. 7: ASSIGNMENT This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES, their successors and assigns. No Party may assign, in whole or in part, its interest in this Agreement without the prior written approval of the other Party which shall not be unreasonably withheld. SECTION NO. 8: LIABILITY The COUNTY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the CITY, its officers and employees from all claims, demands, or suits in law or equity arising from the COUNTY's intentional or negligent acts or breach of its obligations under the Agreement. The COUNTY's duty to indemnify shall not apply to loss or liability caused by the intentional or negligent acts of the CITY, its officers and employees. The CITY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officers and employees from all claims, demands, or suits in law or equity arising from the CITY's intentional or negligent acts or breach of its obligations under the Agreement. The CITY's duty to indemnify shall not apply to loss or liability caused by the intentional or negligent acts of the COUNTY, its officers and employees. If the comparative negligence of the PARTIES and their officers and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the Parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion. Where an officer or employee of a Party is acting under the direction and control of the other Party, the Party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity and/or omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other Party's officer or employee's negligence. Each Party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. Each Party waives, with respect to the other Party only, its immunity under RCW Title 51, Industrial Insurance. The Parties have specifically negotiated this provision. SECTION NO. 9: INSURANCE During the term of the Agreement, the COUNTY and CITY shall each maintain in force at its own expense, the following insurance coverage or self - insurance: a. Worker's Compensation Insurance in compliance with RCW 51.12.020, which requires subject employers to provide workers' compensation Page 15 of 24 coverage for all their subject workers and Employer's Liability or Stop Gap Insurance in the amount of $5,000,000; and b. General Liability Insurance on an occurrence basis, with a combined single limit of not less than $10,000,000 each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. It shall include contractual liability coverage for the indemnity provided under this Agreement. It shall provide that the CITY, its officers and employees are additional insureds but only with respect to the COUNTY's services to be provided under this Agreement; and c. Automobile Liability Insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent of not Tess than $5,000,000 each accident for bodily injury and property damage, including coverage for owned, hired and non -owned vehicles; and d. Professional Liability Insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $5,000,000 each claim, incident or occurrence. This is to cover damages caused by the error, omission, or negligent acts related to the professional services to be provided under this Agreement. The coverage must remain in effect for two (2) years after the Agreement is completed. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without thirty (30) days written notice from a Party or its insurer(s) to the other Party. Verification of insurance shall be provided upon request. SECTION NO. 10: ANTI - KICKBACK No officer or employee of either PARTY, having the power or duty to perform an official act or action related to this Agreement shall have or acquire any interest in the Agreement, or have solicited, accepted or granted a present or future gift, favor, service or other thing of value from or to any person involved in the Agreement. SECTION NO. 11: VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each party that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION NO. 12: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The PARTIES shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. Page 16 of 24 SECTION NO. 13: NON - DISCRIMINATION No individual shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration of or in connection with this Agreement because of age, sex, race, color, religion, creed, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, national origin, honorably discharged veteran or military status, the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability, or use of a service animal by a person with disabilities. SECTION NO. 14: DISPUTE RESOLUTION Any dispute between the PARTIES which cannot be resolved between the PARTIES shall be subject to binding arbitration. Such dispute shall first be reduced to writing. If the COUNTY CEO and the CITY Administrator cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of chapter 7.04A RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding. SECTION NO. 15: MISCELLANEOUS A. Non- Waiver: No waiver by any Party of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the same or other rights of that Party in the future. B. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains all terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the PARTIES unless such change or addition is in writing, executed with the same formalities as this Agreement by the PARTIES. C. Modification: No modification or amendment to this Agreement shall be valid until put in writing and signed with the same formalities as this Agreement. D. Heading The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. E. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. Page 17 of 24 F. Severability: If any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision. G. Relationship of the Parties: The PARTIES intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee, servant or representative of the COUNTY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the CITY for any purpose. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or representative of the CITY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the COUNTY for any purpose. SECTION NO. 16: RCW 39.34 REQUIRED CLAUSES A. Purpose: See Section No. 1 above. B. Duration: See Section No. 3 above. C. Or anization of Se. crate Entit and Its Powers: No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this Agreement. D. Responsibilities of the Parties: See provisions above. E. Agreement to be Filed: The CITY shall file this Agreement with its City Clerk and place it on its web site or other electronically retrievable public source. The COUNTY shall file this Agreement with its County Auditor or place it on its web site or other electronically retrievable public source. F. Financing: Each party shall be responsible for the financing of its contractual obligations under its normal budgetary process. G. Termination: This Agreement can be terminated early in accordance with Section 4 (M). Page 18 of 24 H. Propertr� Upoij Termination: Title to all property acquired by any party in the performance of this Agreement shall remain with the acquiring party upon termination of the Agreement. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date and year opposite their respective signature blocks. DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: Daniela Erickson Clerk of the Board DATED: AL FRENCH , Chair TODD MIELKE, Vice -Chair SHELLY O'QUINN, Commissioner APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy Civil Prosecuting Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE By: Mayor Attest: Approved as to form: City Clerk Assistant City Attomey Page 19 of 24 EXHIBIT A Legal ,:)escripliortQf Transfer Stations Colbert Legal Description Recorded on Vol 1218 Page 288 The Southwest Quarter (SW1 /4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE %) of Section 3, Township 27 North, Range 43 East, W.M., Spokane County, Washington, Tying Easterly of SR -2; EXCEPT the North 20', AND ALSO EXCEPT the East 60 feet; TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress and egress and utilities over, under and across the East 60 feet of said Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); thence continuing as an access easement over and across the East 60 feet of Parcel "A" to Elk Chattaroy Road: PARCEL "A" comprises that portion of the Northwest Quarter (NW'/) of the Northeast Quarter (NE %) of Section 10, Township 27 North, Range 43 East, W.M., lying East of SR -2 and Northerly of Elk Chattaroy Road. Said easement over Parcel "A ", to be mutually exclusive to the County, the Purchaser and the abutting property owners to the North of said Southeast Quarter; Subject to those exceptions and reservations reserved to the Glacier Park Company, stated in that Quit Claim Deed to Spokane County recorded under Auditor's File Number 9011280263 in Volume 1156, Page 1759, official records of Spokane County; and Spokane County reserves the right to access and operate those three (3) existing monitor wells identified as CD -46, CD -47 and CS -12 on site, which will be used by the County as long as needed in the Colbert Groundwater Treatment Program (see map). In addition, the County with the approval of the City, may locate and access additional monitor and/or extraction wells and associated utilities on the Premises. The exact location(s) of said possible future wells and associated utilities to be by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. Access to all wells on the premises for the purposes of sampling and maintenance shall require prior notification and approval by the City. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Located in the Southeast Quarter (SE '/) of Sections 3 and 10, Township 27 North, Range 43 East, W.M., Spokane County, Washington. Page 20 of 24 Recorded on Vol. 1368 Page 261. That portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 27 North, Range 43 East Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 10; Thence South 89 03'53" West along the North line of said Northwest Quarter 60.00 feet; Thence South 1 07' 28" East parallel with the East line of said Northwest Quarter 225.87 feet; Thence South 19 07' 12" West 142 feet, more or less, to the North line of Elk - Chattaroy Road; Thence North 65 56' 51" East along the said North line of Elk - Chattaroy Road 119 feet, more or Tess, to the East line of said Northwest Quarter; Thence North 1 07' 28" West along the said East line of said Northwest Quarter 313 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 10 and the Point of Beginning. Containing 22,320.60 square feet, more or less. Recorded on Vol. 1368 Page 262 That portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10. Township 27 North, Range 43 East W.M., Spokane County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 10; thence South 89 deg 03 min 53 sec West along the north line of said Northwest Quarter 60.00 feet; thence South 1 deg 07 min 28 sec East parallel with the east line of said Northwest Quarter 225.87 feet to the True Point of Beginning of this description; thence continuing South 1 deg 07 min 28 sec East 112.69 feet to the north line of Elk - Chattaroy Road; thence South 65 deg 56 min 51 sec West along the said north line 53.46 feet; thence North 19 deg 07 min 12 sec East 142.31 feet to the True Point of Beginning of this description. Containing 2774.4 square feet more or less. Valley Transfer Station Legal Description Recorded on Vol. 1173 Page 186 A parcel of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 25 North, Range 44 E.W.M., Spokane County, Spokane Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the East Quarter corner of said Section 2; thence along the North line of saki Southeast Quarter N 89 °47'53" W 80.01 feet to the West right of way line of Sullivan road; thence continuing along said West right of way line S 00 °36'39" E 1.13 Page 21 of 24 feet; thence S 00 °35'56" E 49.12 feet to a point on said West right of way line and the South right of way line to the Inland Empire Paper Company Canal as recorded in Survey Book 19, page 35, at Spokane County Court House and the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing along said West right of way line the following three (3) courses (1) S 00 °35'56" E 515.99 feet, (2) N 89 °24'04 "E 30.00 feet, (3) S 00 °35'56" E 84.04 feet to a point in the North right of way line of Kiernan Ave. as recorded at Spokane County Court House in Book of (Deeds, Vol. 558, page 1959. Thence along said North right of way line the following four (4) courses (1) N 89 °50'00" W 1162.16 feet to the beginning of a curve concaved to the Northeast having a radius of 15.00 feet and a central angle of 67 °31'08" (2) thence Northwesterly through said curve 17.68 feet, to the point of a reverse curve concaved to the South having a radius 50.00 feet and a central angle of 146 °09'07" (3) thence West through said curve 127.54 feet (4) thence N 89 °50'00" W 1.30 feet to a point on said North right of way line and the West line of said Northeast Quarter of said Southeast Quarter. Thence along said West line N 00 °32'45" W 532.02 feet to the South right of way line of said Inland Empire Paper Company Canal. Thence along said South right of way line the following three (3) courses (1) N 78 °52'51" E 69.28 feet to the beginning of a curve concaved to the South having a radius of 2715.47 feet and a central angle of 11°09,' (2) thence Easterly through said curve 528.44 feet, (3) thence S 89 °58'09" E 648.21 feet to the True Point of Beginning containing 16.75 acres. Page 22 of 24 EXHIBIT B - Asset List in addition to the asset list below, the CITY agrees to transfer to the COUNTY all existing office furniture, lockers, conference tables and chairs, etc. as part of this Agreement. No. Fleet Yr. Make/Model Type Lic. /Reg. No/ VIN# Site 6872 426872 07 Volvo L110E Wheel Loader 4 yd. Bucket L110EV61283 CTS 6873 426873 07 Volvo L110E Wheel Loader 4 yd. Bucket L110EV61286 VTS 7802 428018 12 FORD F250 F250SCAB4X4 32011D CTS 7818 428017 12 FORD F250 F250SCAB4X4 54611D VTS 7827 407827 Master Space Heater, kerosene CTS 7828 407828 Master Space Heater, propane VTS 7830 426529 07 Capacity- TJ7000 Yard Tractor /Mule 4LMCF21177L017920 CTS 7831 426530 07 Capacity- TJ7000 Yard Tractor /Mule 4LMCF21197L017921 VTS 7832 426534 06 American - Lincoln MPV -60 Sweeper 1937999 VTS 7833 424566 03 Manac 36348020 Transfer Trailer walking floor 2M533146536090054 ALL 7834 67 03 Manac 36348020 Transfer Trailer walking floor 55 ALL 78.35 68 03 Manac 36348020 Transfer Trailer walking floor 56 ALL 7836 69 03 Manac 36348020 Transfer Trailer walking floor 57 ALL 7837 70 03 Manac 36348020 Transfer Trailer walking floor 2M533146536090058 ALL 7850 92 Robinair Freon Recovery 01841 0292 VTS 7851 92 Robinair Freon Recovery 00723 0990 CTS 7856 424326 02 Bobcat - Melrose A300 Utility Tractor 5211 -11248 CTS 7878 407878 94 Eagle Utility Trailer, Van Box 17329D VTS 7886 426197 05 North Shore 2100 SE Stationary Topload Tamper SN: NS2894 VTS 7887 425403 04 North Shore Builtrite Stationary Topload Tamper SN:NS2766 CTS 7888 425578 03 SSI 4500 Pre -load Compactor, Stationary SN 91458 -4500 VTS 7890 407890 99 Cat 436C /Bucket 4x4 TractorlBackhoe (85HP) 2AR01644 CTS 7891, 407891 99 Dayton Standby Generator 3142438 CTS 7896 407896 92 Landa Northstar Pres.Washer PGNW4- 25221 P0492 -2561 CTS 7897 407897 92 Landa Northstar Pres.Washer PGNW4- 25221 P0492 -2562 VTS 7899 Echo SRM260S Line Trimmer 301 VTS 7900 07 Echo HC 150 Hedge Trimmer SN# 09096360 CTS 7908 91 Fire Sup. Air Compressor VTS 7909 Speedaire32425G1 Fire Sup. Air Compressor SN #051293L CTS 7912 Master Heater 50k BTU, SN 1569438 CTS Page 23 of 24 Page 24 of 24 kerosene 7913 04 Speedaire3JR77A Air Compressor SN #L6/28/0400021 CTS 7914 Speedaire Air Compressor, SSI VTS 7915 02 Hustler Super Z 60" Riding Lawn Mower, zero turn S# 01082073 VTS 7919 02 Hustler Super Z 60" Riding Lawn Mower, zero turn S# 02022100 CTS 7920 407920 07 Echo - SRM261T Line Trimmer S #06064653 CTS 7921 407921 99 DESA 155 -AT Propane Heater S #5823115 CTS 7922 05 RN Model #H624 Battery Charger S #HC1190 VTS 7923 407923 97 Ariens- 924082 ST824 Sno Thro SN- 052867 VTS 7924 407924 97 Ariens- 924082 ST824 Sno Thro SN- 052245 CTS 7931 07 Honda 5.5hp 21" Walk Behind Mower SN:121806M-000314 VTS 7932 98 Stihl BG -75 Leaf Blower SN- 238584292 7940 407940 98 Wilkens Load Runner Transfer Trailer Walking Floor 27608D ALL 7941 407941 98 Wilkens Load Runner - Transfer Trailer Walking Floor 27609D ALL 7948 407948 98 Wilkens Load Runner Transfer Trailer Walking Floor 27616D ALL 7951 427307 09 Reliance ATSLT- 48 -3 Transfer Trailer Walking Floor 48458D ALL 7952 427308 09 Reliance ATSLT- 48 -3 Transfer Trailer Walking Floor 48459D ALL 7953 427309 09 Reliance ATSLT- 48 -3 Transfer Trailer Walking Floor 48460D ALL 7955 11 09 Reliance ATSLT- 48 -3 Transfer Trailer Walking Floor 48462D ALL 7956 12 09 Reliance ATSLT- 48 -3 Transfer Trailer Walking Floor 48463D ALL 7957 13 09 Reliance ATSLT- 48 -3 Transfer Trailer Walking Floor 48464D ALL 7958 14 09 Reliance ATSLT- 48 -3 Transfer Trailer Walking Floor 48475D ALL 7962 12 SALTDOG (on 428017) Sand Spreader P/U mount VTS 7963 12 SALTDOG (on 428018) Sand Spreader P/U mount CTS 7968 428086 13 Freightliner Transfer Truck 54646D CTS 7969 428087 13 Freightliner Transfer Truck 54647D VTS 7972 6 00 Freightliner Transfer Truck 28666D REF 7973 7 00 Freightliner Transfer Truck 35590D REF 7974 8 00 Freightliner Transfer Truck 286570 REF 7975 9 00 Freightliner Transfer Truck 28670D REF 7976 10 00 Freightliner Transfer Truck 28658D REF 7977 11 00 Freightliner Transfer Truck 28664D REF 7978 12 00 Freightliner Transfer Truck 32001D REF 7979 423013 00 Freightliner Transfer Truck 28659D REF Page 24 of 24 DRAFT MINUTES Special Joint Meeting Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Spokane Valley City Council Monday, February 24, 2014 10:00 a.m. — 11:30 a.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue Attendance: City of Spokane Valley Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Spokane Valley Staff: Spokane County Al French, Chair Todd Mielke, Vice -Chair Shelly O'Quunn, Commissioner Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Erik Lanib, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Morgan Koudelka, St. Administrative Analyst Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Spokane County Staff Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer Jim Emacio, DPA, Prosecutor's Office Bill Wedlake, Solid Waste Coordinator Bruce Rawls, Spokane County Div. of Utilities Kevin Cooke, Utilities Director John Dickson, Chief Operations Officer Bob Wrigley, Chief Financial Officer Others in Attendance: Steve Wulf, Sunshine Disposal Recycling Tami Yager, Waste Management Mike Huffman, Valley News Herald Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and welcomed the County Commissioners to the meeting. After self - introductions, Mayor Grafos turned the meeting over to Commissioner Chair French. Chair French also opened the meeting for the Board of County Commissioners, called to order at 10:00 a.m. Monday morning, said the full board is convened with all present, as well as senior staff members and legal counsel. Mayor Grafos acknowledged that since Council just received a copy of the draft interlocal agreement this morning, there was been little time for reviewing the document. Chair French explained that the City of Spokane has finalized their agreement from a legislative standpoint, in terms of selling the transfer stations to the County and turning over the regional operation to the County, and that they (the County) have now issued an RFP (Request for Funding Proposal) to find an operator for the transfer stations. He said they will be holding the Regional Solid Waste Meeting this Thursday night and have invited all jurisdictions so everyone will get a status update, and to give an opportunity for the County to answer any questions about the status of this project, as well as to see how many jurisdictions want to join the regional system or plan on going on their own. Mr. French said the City of Spokane is the only city firmly committed to the regional system. Mr. French explained that at this Friday's meeting, they will start the education process about costs, said work continues on refining the cost; that this is a dynamic process, there is nothing written in stone, but they are trying to pursue a Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT direction that is in the best interests of all rate payers. Mr. French said the interlocal is a starting point; he said various jurisdictions will have pros and/or cons to address from their standpoint; that it is always better to edit than create and he stressed this is a basic document. Chair French said that Spokane Valley is the second largest generator of waste from a municipal system, and they felt today's meeting would be appropriate, adding that of course Spokane Valley is invited to come and participate at the Thursday night meeting as well. Mr. French asked if there were any issues Council might have to help find a path forward. Commissioner Mielke said that this process has taken longer than anticipated as they had hoped to be where we are now, about six or eight months ago; he said that Thursday's meeting is a little about going into some details about how the system operates; and that today the Commissioners are interested to understand Spokane Valley's goals and philosophy concerning a solid waste system; that the Commissioners hope to ascertain what it is that Spokane Valley feels is most important. Commissioner Mielke said that first they went in with broad ideas to determine how to create the least amount of disruption for citizens and second is the notion of trying to handle solid waste in the lowest cost - responsible way, and said he realizes all jurisdictions have that as a common goal; he said they are trying to guarantee the lowest cost so they put this out for bid; and to secure the transfer stations they have to have a place to take the solid waste; he feels they have a unique charge and according to State statute, they are to write a solid waste plan; beyond that, he said they want to take the steps to make sure they have the lowest cost option to handle solid waste regionally; he said once they completed the purchase of the transfer stations, adding that they got them at a good cost, first would be to put it out to bid to operate those; and said that typically they would take the lowest bid, and said it will take some time before they have definitive numbers. Concerning building the transfer stations, he said they were looking at between $20 and $22 million to build two from scratch, and that a third transfer station would have been an additional cost; he mentioned the requirement to through the process to site a transfer station as it is an essential public facility; and said that is a long tedious process subject to a lot of public input as well as challenge and appeal at just about every step. He said they will have the transfer stations up and running by November of this year, and that it could easily be two to three years before they complete the essential public facility siting process; that the set price of $99 million would be amortized over seven years, and from a cost perspective, said they feel the purchase is about half of what it would cost to construct a new facility; and said there is certainty of knowing where they'll be and that they don't have to go through a separate siting facility process to get there. Chair French explained that they hired a consultant who said they would need three transfer stations to meet all the County's needs, and the cost of building the West Plains stations would be needed; he said they were able to negotiate with the City of Spokane to continue to use the Waste -to- Energy Plant site as a transfer station for the West Plains, so that eliminated the need to build that third transfer station, which he said has a significant cost impact.. Commissioner Mielke again stated that for the operational aspects, the goal is how to have a low cost system that responsibly takes care of solid waste in this area, and one which meets the legal obligations they have under State statute; said they are required to have the planning element, as well as public education element, and that does not mean a one -time publication, but rather an ongoing process; he said they also have to deal with household hazardous waste, recycling, and green waste, and said it costs a lot of money to deal with green waste; he said no jurisdiction can escape the notion that they have legacy landfills around the region that the citizens of this region contributed to; and that at some point it would need ongoing oversight to make sure those closures meet the statutes; again he said the goal is the lowest possible cost for the operation of the transfer stations and movement of solid waste to the disposal site from the transfer stations, which he said is out for bid and that bids are due March 31; he said he thinks this approach will get the lowest possible cost. Also, Mr. Mielke said, there is a seven -year agreement with the first three years moving solid waste to the Waste -to- Energy Plant; he said the City of Spokane worked very hard to project the costs and keep them set; and said the issue of the first three years probably gives us a guaranteed flow for those three years; said they have an Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT "out" clause starting after the third year, where a different disposal method can be chosen in order to have the ability to compare costs, whether by rail or truck, he said that ability is built into the contract and that guarantees the options for flexibility, The report from HDR Engineering, Inc., Chair French said, identified long haul rail as the lowest cost option except for dealing with the West Plains; he said this allows an opportunity to come back and challenge the numbers and be able to bid that out, but to do that, he said we have to quantify the amount of flow and therefore need to know whether or not Spokane Valley will be part of the system; and said he feels together this system will be of higher appeal and that they are incrementally advancing some of the recommendations from that HDR report. Commissioner O'Quinn said they did a great job of laying out the framework, and that the Board would like to hear Spokane Valley's concerns, whether moving regionally or in a different direction; and she asked, what hasn't the Board answered for Council. Mayor Grafos said his philosophy is that any long term agreement entered into should be competitively bid and result in the lowest cost; that Spokane Valley should retain a measure of control over future rates and policy for their citizens; he said they just received the interlocal today and he asked where do the costs come in; said he realized we don't know the costs until the bids come in but at that point, he would like to exarnine the cost then decide if they want to be part of it; while at the same time he said Spokane Valley does not want to disrupt the system. Mr. Rawls said that after the bids come in March 31, that Kevin Cooke and Bill Wedlake would do a rate study for all the costs, including the cost to close the landfill, recycling programs, planning, etc., and that they should be able to determine the rates in June or July. Commissioner O'Quinn said they anticipate keeping the rates the same as they are currently. Mr, Wedlake said the costs depend on volume and the number of jurisdictions that join the system, adding that economies of scale are very important as they are committed to a cost of service approach to the rate, and will examine all the cost elements and total volumes. Concerning the draft interlocal agreement, Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned Section 2 Duration/Termination, wherein it is stated that the parties may only terminate by mutual written agreement; he said he feels this should be re- written so that either party could escape with a year's written notice. Deputy Mayor Woodard also stated that he wanted to clear up a misunderstanding; that he met with Commissioner O'Quinn about two weeks ago and he mentioned this Council's upcoming February, 18 workshop packet, and that although he hadn't seen it yet, assumed there might be something in those packet materials about solid waste; but that in fact, there was no solid waste discussion at the workshop meeting nor materials in that packet; and said that Council has not discussed the topic of solid waste since Council knew it was the focus of the upcoming February 27 meeting, and that it would come up again at the Council of Governance meeting the following day and he stressed that no decisions have been made; he also noted that the HDR report did not take into consideration all the options and therefore, Council asked staff to come up with additional information, but hasn't had a report yet; he said he is here to gather information and that Council will make decisions that are first in the best interests of Spokane Valley citizens; and second in the best interests of the County. Commissioner O'Quinn asked when that additional information might be available, and City Manager Jackson said we do not have a definite time line. In response to a remark from Deputy Mayor Woodard concerning curb pickup, Commissioner Mielke said the question of where does the solid waste go once picked up, will have to be determined by each jurisdiction as they decide what is best for their individual constituents; he said curb -side pickup won't change. Concerning involvement in rate setting, Commissioner Mielke mentioned the previous Wastewater Agreement as a good example; said that agreement recognizes we have capital assets that have to be amortized over the long term; said the idea of having a one -year termination clause is very Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT difficult for any party as the party requesting termination is usually responsible for the unmet capital costs; he said Spokane Valley played a critical role in that wastewater agreement rate setting; said they identified criteria by which to set rates; prioritized obligations to be met, and that we have not ever deterred from those recommendations — one of which was to protect our general funds as you don't want to jeopardize or tap them for unmet obligations. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he recognizes the curb - pickup is a different topic, but said citizens don't recognize that and said it is his wish that governments would take that out of the newspapers as it is a scare tactic; concerning wastewater, he said that is an entirely different agreement; and he explained that he does not intend to have a one -year escape clause from the start of the contract, but a minimum one year's notice, and suggested perhaps some minimum number of years be determined. Chair French said perhaps the terms of the agreement could be shorter, with every fifth year having the ability to re- assess. Concerning policy setting, Chair French said when this conversation was started in January or February 2011, the Board came to all jurisdictions to discuss a regional system and wanted to create a governance model; said they spent over a year putting that together and once it was finished, Spokane Valley said it gave too much control to other jurisdictions and that Spokane Valley would rather see control given to a body eveiyone elected, naively, the Board of County Commissioners; he said a lot of time was spent to see if there could be a different way to govern this regional asset, and since the Board is the body everyone votes for, that is how it ended up in the current situation; adding that they could not find a different governance model that eveiyone would accept. Commissioner Mielke added that small jurisdictions felt they were being railroaded by the larger jurisdictions, and the larger jurisdictions said several smaller jurisdictions could together have the ability to rule the majority. In terms of being railroaded, Chair French said that long haul by rail would be the cheapest alternative for us; he said the Waste -to- Energy Plant has done a great job in reducing rates; they were projecting a $143 cost per ton this year when we meet, and they are looking at other options; said they have forced the City to look how they manage the system; said they've done a good job but overall, we don't know if all the rate payers are getting the best possible price until they go out for bid. Mayor Grafos said he wants to know that information before signing the agreement; he mentioned page 7 of the agreement concerning the Relationship of the Parties, and said we are giving up a lot of control; that according to this section: "The City is interested only in the results to be achieved and the right to control the particular manner, method and means in which County obligations are performed within the discretion of the County." Therefore, Mayor Grafos said, if in three years we look at the rates and come to the County to bid something out like long haul, since the County is in complete control, they say they'd like to stay the sane. Chair French said he is willing to Iook at that section; and have it state they will be looking at long haul as an option; that if' Spokane Valley wants to join within a twelve -month period, the County must go out for bid on a long -haul control; he said Spokane Valley staff can even be part of that; he said the change could be put in brackets, or even just included in the contract; and that he has no objection to include that in the contract, and that it was a great suggestion. Commissioner Mielke reminded everyone that this is an initial draft; that we were losing time and needed to get a dialogue going; and he asked if there are parts of the interlocal not yet addressed. Commissioner Mielke said it took more time in the wastewater agreement to identify by priority, the objectives to be met but that hasn't been done in this agreement; for example, that the rate will be obligated to do specific things, and said he feels that could be developed in this agreement; he said wastewater has an oversight committee to make recommendations on operation and rate setting and has the ability to make adjustments in the operational aspect; said these are things we are hoping to have in working with this language. Concerning rates, Commissioner Mielke said he recognizes the Waste -to- Energy Plant is an aging facility; that the City of Spokane has worked hard on the numbers and that the agreement with the City of Spokane states their rate to the County is a guaranteed set rate with a CPI (Consumer Price Index) inflator. Mayor Grafos asked if the cost of the service to the citizens reflects the cost of retrofitting that facility; and Commissioner Mielke said it does not; that it is a cost per tonnage, is a fixed rate with an annual CPI inflator. Mayor Grafos said he would Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT be more comfortable if it went out to bid for long haul to see what the rate would be for all those services versus using the Waste -to- Energy Plant for three years; and let Spokane Valley make the decision. Commissioner Mielke said they have those numbers; but if you don't look at capital facilities, there is a rate differential for long -haul or the Waste -to- Energy Plant; said if you add capital costs of transfer stations it tilts it upside down for the first three years; said the idea is, even if long -haul were used, we would still have to have transfer stations that people can take their solid waste to; that what you do with the solid waste after the transfer station, whether long -haul or the Waste -to- Energy Plant, that's where there's flexibility; and said they have been pushing for a long -haul plan for years. Chair French said he had conversations with Burlington Northern Railroad representatives about what would happen if we made significant changes in the volume going through the existing facilities, and they told him they would be choked out of business; he said the municipal solid waste is tine lowest price commodity they (the railroad) moves; and with the volumes currently set, they end up with municipal solid waste containers sitting on the ground for two to three weeks as they can't get the trains to move them out; he said the County's efforts to create another rail facility on the West Plains, they feel, would be a positive outcome to Burlington; that they'd increase their profitability and that low cost solid waste could be diverted to the West Plains; said he is talking with Burlington to put that plan in, but it won't happen overnight, but they need to guarantee Burlington and the transfer contractor, the flow and that the facility can be built; said we need the lowest price possible which will help drive more economic vitality through the West Plains and the Valley; he said Burlington said their Valley facility would be enhanced by being able to move solid waste out of the valley. Councilmember Pace said it sounds as if Spokane Valley needs to sign [the interlocal] before knowing the costs. Commissioner Mielke explained that unfortunately, we don't know all the costs, and by the time we wait for the RFP results and negotiate contracts, we won't have a specific number and that puts us in a difficult position; he said they are trying to guarantee a process that will end up with the lowest possible number. Councilmember Pace said he would like to see the process and the end result before signing the interlocal. Commissioner Mielke said we have the state deadline to be up and running by November as the County doesn't want to bear any potential for fines; that at some point we must define who is part of the plan so the rest can define who is in and work to meet the deadlines; he said every expert that came before the Board in the last two years said if you use the same model that has been in place for twenty years, they see no reason to see much deviation at all from current rates; but only when you start changing the look and feel of the system, it is harder to set those costs. Chair French said the drive is to get the lowest and best price; said if Spokane Valley moves out on its own, they will do that without knowing if those are the lowest and best as Spokane Valley won't have the County's numbers, and that either way we will be making a decision based on faith, which he said is a difficult situation. Councilmember Pace said the consumers also need to have confidence they are not getting "screwed." Commissioner Mielke said they will wait for the bids to come back; and if the tonnage deviates that price doesn't hold; and Councilmember Pace again said it seems someone will have to bend so Spokane Valley is not forced to sign an agreement without all the figures. Councilmember Hafner said Spokane Valley Council is the policy making group for this Valley and has to rely on facts supplied by the City Manager; and said Council has to have trust that the figures will be what they think they will be; that regarding the letter Council responded to last September, said he feels some of the concerns are not yet addressed; he also noted that this interlocal was just received today; said it is difficult to make a decision without all the facts; he said Spokane Valley plays an important role and he mentioned waiting until the figures come in after the March bid deadline; and asked about signing now and then modifying after the bids come in; he said we need some agreeable specifics, but we're not there yet. Chair French said the intent of today's meeting is not to solicit a decision as we are just starting the conversation; he said they know every interlocal agreement has to start with a draft and they expect Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT changes; but that they don't know Spokane Valley's needs; he said the Board needs to know Spokane Valley's "hot buttons" so they can be addressed and this can more forward; he said a lot of things will move forward without all the numbers, but we will have the parameters to minimize risk and make good decisions. Commissioner Mielke said there are three pieces moving at the same time: the need to develop the language for the interlocal; said they have the RFP to better define operations, and once the Board has those costs and see what the whole costs structure looks like, then they do the rate study; to meet this timeline they all have to be moving at the same time, and if any of those are put on the shelf, he said the Board won't meet the timeline; he said we do not have the luxury to wait sixty days; and at some point we have to take what we have and finish it. Commissioner Mielke said the current solid waste agreement ends this November and under state law, they must have a solid waste agreement in place, and have a plan and a program with no lapse. Mayor Grafos said he feels the County has made great strides with the City of Spokane agreement on the Waste -to- Energy Plant; said he is not in favor of delaying this; but said the point at issue at the old meeting was the City of Spokane being an independent vendor, and said we are still at that same point; he suggested the Board put together the numbers they have and if Spokane Valley joins the system, then change the numbers. Commissioner Mielke said they will have the costs regarding the operation of the transfer stations and the movement of those goods once the RFP is committed; but said they need input from potential partners; he said there were a couple ideas mentioned today, and perhaps they could compare the Wastewater agreement and incorporate similar language into this interlocal. Deputy Mayor Woodard also commented that to clarify, he said that we did not say we are in a contract with HDR to get more information; but rather we use the same information the County has to study things; and said he wants to make sure we are not being misquoted. Commissioner Mielke said he was under the impression Spokane Valley was seeking additional information, but wasn't sure of the timeline or the source. Chair French said an issue critical to elected officials is ensuring they have the ability to influence decisions that impact constituents, and said without that control, are uncomfortable with decisions made by other parties; so the issue of self- detennination is a challenge; and compared that to the example of a regional road concept and when the snow fall hits, everyone wants their roads plowed first; and said that kind of a situation is always a challenge; the but the goal of regional programs is to eliminate regional costs. Referencing a distributed pie chart, Mr, Kevin Cooke explained that this slide is a preview of Thursday night's presentation and that the slide illustrates the relative amounts associated with a gate fee; and he went over the various colored aspects of the chart; and he mentioned that the County and the City of Spokane's agreement sets a monthly payment, which is the same payment amount for eighty -four months; and said that about 130,000 tons works out to about $11.00 per ton; he said the transfer station charges a fixed rate and that they look at things at a per -ton cost. Mr. Cooke said that there will be a ten -year contract with provisions to extend; and said they are still working on some of the components; but said the more tonnage they have, the more they keep the system together for better tonnage. There was brief discussion comparing our rates with Whitman County, with Chair French stating that one of the reasons they want to bid the long haul for disposal is to make sure they get the lowest rate. Councilmember Hafner said he realizes time is short and that is a concern; said Council wants to look at all the facts, but the invisible figures at this time are figures from the City of Spokane since they already negotiated many things with the County. Commissioner Mielke said their discussions with the City of Spokane focused on the transfer stations; that the City started with a much higher price for the transfer stations, so they moved to a seven year commitment and reduced the price of the transfer stations, and agreed it took a long time to negotiate 60 -70% of the contract with the City of Spokane; but said he feels that has been resolved; adding that the City of Spokane doesn't have any more leverage than anyone else in the remaining of the categories on the chart, Mr. Cooke estimated that the volume used by City of Spokane Valley residents is about 50,000 tons a year. In response to a question about timelines, Mr. Jackson said he is not looking at Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council; DRAFT a definite timeline; that we try to look at all options; and that the County's timeline will drive when Spokane Valley's decision must be made, Deputy Mayor Woodard said that tonnage is being reduced for everyone as recycling increases; and he mentioned the concept of paying for the transfer stations a second time. Chair French said that in the original interlocal, the elected officials designated that the Waste -to- Energy Plant would be the property of the City of Spokane when the agreement ended, as well as the two transfer stations; and he agreed we are paying for them twice; but we are also paying not to have to build a duplicate transfer station. Commissioner Mielke explained that in the past there were a couple landfills declared superfund sites which meant everyone was facing huge costs, in addition to the problem that the landfills were at capacity; and he said that's what drove the Waste -to- Energy Plant; that it was expensive but not as expensive as cleanup costs that come with the challenge of cleaning up a landfill. There was some discussion about past plans or conversations concerning transferring the transfer station to the City of Spokane Valley and of the cost associated the transfer, along with multiple years of hauling and tonnage rates. Chair French expressed appreciation for Council meeting today and asked if there were any suggested directions. Councilmember Hafner suggested continuing the move forward to Thursday night and said he is hopeful Spokane Valley is still in consideration. Chair French replied that the purpose of Thursday night is to educate eveiyone; that they are not expecting any kind of a vote; but this is just part of the process to let the community know the status, and to have an opportunity to have all jurisdictions hear the same information at the same time. Councilmember Pace asked about resolving the issue of signing an agreement without figures. Mayor Grafos replied that it depends on the agreement process and on Mr. Jackson's study, and that we would likely have an answer within the next thirty to sixty days. Commissioner Mielke said that this Thursday night's meeting is an opportunity to update everyone, and to get input, feedback and discussion on the draft agreement. Commissioner O'Quinn said she wanted to make sure Spokane Valley has an opportunity to share concerns, to have a "one -on -one" and that she realizes each jurisdiction has their own concerns and questions; that Thursday night is an opportunity to come together and focus on the big picture; said she realizes Spokane Valley represents 91,000 citizens, but said so does the Board and that their intent is not to "screw the Valley" but rather to look out for all citizens, adding that the Board wants an agreement beneficial to eveiyone, which she feels is a regional solution. Deputy Mayor Woodard stated that in the meantime prior to Thursday's meeting, Council has an opportunity to review the document and direct any questions to Mr. Jackson. Chair French replied that he is anxious to hear solutions and that this is not a win or lose kind of situation, as they all share constituents. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. Commission Chair French also closed the Board of County Commissioners meeting at 11:36 a.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Joint Spokane Valley /Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02 -24 -2014 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES Special Regional Meeting Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Spokane Valley City Council Thursday, February 27, 2014 5:00 p.m. — 8:00 p.m. CenterPlace Regional Event Center, Great Room 2426 N Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, Wa. Attendance: City of Spokane Valley Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard Deputy Mayor [arrived 5:50] Bill Bates, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Staff: Mike Jackson, City Manager Eric Guth, Public Works Director Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Spokane County Al French, Chair Todd Mielke, Vice - Chair Shelly O'Quinn, Commissioner Spokane County Staff Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer Kevin Cooke, Utilities Director Bill Wedlake, County Utilities Bruce Rawls, County Utilities Others in Attendance: Jim Wavada, Environmental Planner, DOE Ken Gimpel, Spokane City Regional Solid Waste Various Elected Officials and Staff Members Commission Chair French welcomed eveiyone to the meeting and called the meeting to order at approximately 5:10 p.m., and noted all three Commissioners were present. Self-introductions were given among those seated at the tables. Noting a quorum of Councilmernbers present, Mayor Grafos also called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. Commissioner French stated that tonight is an opportunity to bring eveiyone up -to -date and to go over the history of the issue, Per his PowerPoint slides, Mr. French gave a quick Iook back leading up to how we arrived at our present position; said the bonds were paid off in 2011 at which time they entered into an agreement with the City of Spokane to provide enough time to evaluate how to move forward; he said the current agreements expire mid November 2014; said that for the past three years they worked on various approaches to determine the best way to move forward as a region; at the two -day summit (February 2011) it was decided to pursue the Solid Waste Alliance option; he said they spent about a year putting together a governance structure which was a result of everyone's input on what they wanted to see in this Alliance; and said it was determined that more of the jurisdictions wanted to be in the decision- making role regarding the future of solid waste; that from the County's standpoint, state statute directs Spokane County as the jurisdiction for solid waste and they wanted to pursue a regional governance model; but since more jurisdictions wanted to be involved in decision making, the agreement was not signed on by a majority of jurisdictions; he said they heard a variety of different reasons, but one thing they heard most was jurisdictions didn't want a system controlled by members that they didn't vote for. Mr. French said there were fourteen different people on the board and only one from their own jurisdiction, so there was Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Approved by Council: Page 1 of 10 DRAFT no way to change the direction or have a meaningful impact if system was going in wrong direction; he said they also heard that they wanted the County to take the lead on this since the Board of County Cotmnissioners are elected by all, and that this way gave people a greater level of comfort; so the County stepped back ; and but the question was, if the County is taking the lead, how to do that and still allow jurisdictions to participate. Mr. French said the County, Spokane Valley and the City of Spokane hired the engineering firm of HDR to study options; and a new opportunity for all in terms of determining if the current system regarding the 'Waste-to-Energy Plant (WTE) is the best overall; or if there were other models to look at; and he said all agreed with the need to have someone with greater expertise; so they partnered to provide that study; and he said there was good debate about the different options in the study. Mr. French said the County selected the option of purchasing the transfer stations and continuing to use the WTE facility for at least a seven year period; and the reason for the seven years was that the City wanted the County to continue to direct its flow to the WTE; he said the initial proposition was we'd give you the transfer stations for $1 but they wanted a long -term commitment from the County that the flow would continue to go to the City. Mr. French explained that the County was not comfortable with that and felt they wanted flexibility to examine other options; so through negotiations they ended up reducing the time period from the original twenty years to seven, with a three year option for an early out. He explained that since the time period shrank, instead of getting the transfer stations for $1, they negotiated and agreed to purchase the transfer stations for $9.9 million amortized over the seven -year period; so every year the pay down would be the same as they looked to retire the cost of buying the transfer stations. Mr. French pointed out that in response to the underlying question of doesn't it seem as if we are paying for those transfer stations twice, he said the answer is yes. He said as noted in the interlocal agreement, when the City of Spokane agreed to carry the bond for the debt of the facilities, that was at the end of the term of the bonds, and the assets would be the property of the City of Spokane; so the City ends up with the WTE and the two transfer stations; Commissioner French said from County's standpoint, was there was the option of engaging in the essential public facilities process and tying to find a new site for new facilities, which would have cost $22 to $25 million; or instead does the County agree to purchase the existing facilities for $9.9 million; and said that due to timing and keeping in mind the cost to ratepayers if the public facilities process were followed, the County agreed to purchase the transfer stations from the City of Spokane; so the new agreement would be effective November 17, 2014; and at that point the County would take over the operation of the transfer stations. Concerning the operation of the transfer stations, Mr. French said they have issued an RFP (request for proposal) to bid on the operation of the transfer stations. Commissioner O'Quitni went over some of the current activities; she mentioned the RFP is due the end of March, which will be followed by proposal review and then selection of a contractor, which is anticipated to occur about July; she said a draft interlocal agreement was sent to all jurisdictions and the Board is open to meetings with municipalities and suggested any that are interested in such a meeting to please contact her. She mentioned last Monday's meeting with the City of Spokane Valley; and said that last night she niet with the five smaller jurisdictions in Southeast Spokane County, as well as with Mayor Rushing. Ms. O'Quinn said the process is underway for them to select a consultant to complete the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan which is required as part of this process; said they are looking at the development of the required programs to be included in this such as recycling and education, and along with all this, she said they will be conducting a rate study; she said they will be retaining a financial rate consultant who will examine alternative rates. Ms. O'Quitm went over the "pie chart" showing the different gate fee components (see attached). She mentioned the current gate fee is $103.00, and based on all their current estimates, they will be able to beat or meet that price; she said the gate fees at the transfer stations account for about 25 -30% of the cost of outside garbage service, so a $10.00 difference in the price for the gate fee would only result in about a 50¢ difference in a monthly bill. Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT In looking ahead at the next twenty years, Commissioner Mielke stated that we all share the same goals, which he explained are (1) to provide a seamless transition to the new system; (2) retain a region wide solution for the management of solid waste, which means keeping the cost down and maintaining predictable and consistent customer service; (3) in the fixture, other transport disposal options will become available (4) the agreement between the County and the City of Spokane has an early out provision giving an added measure of flexibility; i.e., it is a seven year agreement with the option of termination after three years; and (5) the City of Spokane will likely consider evaluating other disposal options in the future. Mr. Mielke said that there is great bargaining power with 300,000 tons per year; that it is a complex system and to his knowledge, the City of Seattle is the only city that has gone on its own. Mr. Mielke said he feels they can Ieverage more benefits as a group than alone. Mr. Mielke compared this draft interloeal with an interlocal between Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley concerning wastewater, whereby a committee was formed to study rate setting based on a set criteria, which is specifically designed to protect our general funds as no one can afford to tap those funds should miscalculations occur; and that both the County and Spokane Valley participated in rate setting. Mr. Mielke mentioned that a committee was formed specifically to address the rates for the community based upon set criteria; he said the objectives of the advisory committee for wastewater it to make sure that it sets rates to make sure there are sufficient funds to make all the bond payments, to have a bond reserve, and to meet the operational needs of the entity. Similarly, he said the state law mandates a SWAC (Solid Waste Advisory Council), and they talked about reconfiguring that committee so it shares some of the responsibilities of the wastewater advisory committee. Mr. Mielke said the goal is to see if there is philosophical alignment on how to move forward and to work out those details, and while working under a very tight deadline. Mr. Jim Wavada, Environmental Planner with the State Department of Ecology (DOE) Spokane Office, emphasized that collection and disposal is a very small part of this large system, and it is his job to ensure that every plan meets the very specific objectives, some of which deal with recycling, diversion of household hazardous waste into a separate system, and an on -going education program; he said that the Department of Ecology is required to direct the technical assistance; that according to RCW 70.95.010, "state, city and county governments must fully implement waste reduction and source separation strategies to dispose of remaining wastes in a manner that is environmentally safe and economically sound; and that County and City governments assume primary responsibility for solid waste management and to develop and implement aggressive and effective waste reduction and source separation strategies." Mr. Wavada said this is a challenge for anyone wishing to undertake their own solid waste system; and a typical plan could cost between $80,000 and $200,000 depending on the complexity of any one system. He stressed that none of these elements are inexpensive. He said the deadline for any jurisdiction to make a decision about going their own way is March, or right about now; he encouraged all jurisdictions to make a decision this month; and said he is available to meet with any jurisdiction should they like more information; and said if a jurisdiction is planning to do their own plan, that plan should be on his desk by now. At the request of Mr. French, Mr. Wavada went over the requirements of having one's own plan, and the prerequisites are for such a plan, and what a plan must include; including documentation in the plan of contracts with an entity that will be moving the waste; he said the plan must also cover a five year implementation plan as well as a twenty-year long term look; an entity must have adequate facilities, and the plan must be submitted to the Department of Ecology for a 120 -day review, after which he sends any question back for further clarification; and then he has another 90 days for further review to determine if it meets the state law minimum requirements, and if so, a letter is issued for approval or denial; so at the latest, said he needs a preliminary plan prior to November 17. Mayor Rushing said that he has a problem with the transfer stations and the purchase of them; and he asked what incentive does the City of Spokane have to be on this system because now they have the Waste to Energy Facility, they do their own collection and can set their own fees within the City of Spokane, plus they get $9.9 million for two facilities they really didn't need. Mr. Ken Gimpel explained that the City of Spokane is committed to a regional system; the City of Spokane has built this system and Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Approved by Council: Page 3 of 10 DRAFT has provided nationally- awarded service for 23 years; he said this system is probably the most sophisticated and has the nicest, largest, and most accommodating facilities between Seattle and Minnesota; he said they are committed and that's why they worked so hard to come up with a system that is seamless, and that they worked diligently with the County to make sure the system continues in the future; and in the interlocal agreement, he said they set a mandate to make sure they provide similar rate structures; he said they want the system to remain identical, and that on November 18, 2014 they don't want any citizen within the County to realize that anything has changed; he said the City of Spokane is fully on- board. Mayor Rushing asked if the commitment level is so high, why the $9.9 million to purchase a facility that the residents of Spokane County have already purchased; why didn't the City of Spokane simply maintain ownership and do what the County's going to do, and contract out for an operator; he said that would have saved the county residents $9.9 million. Mr. Gimpel said that the City does not have that unilateral authority outside its jurisdiction; he said that authority that was granted to the County was delegated to the City of Spokane to the regional solid waste system, which he said is his department; which they accepted; and said when that interlocal agreement ends, that is no longer their decision; he said someone has to have their name on that title, that the City of Spokane owns those assets; he said that the City of Spokane equates to half of the County, and everyone is subsidizing everything to have a unified system. Again Mayor Rushing asked why not have the City of Spokane authorized to contract out for these services, and thereby save the citizens the $9.9 million purchase price. Mr. Mielke said that would be going against what was determined in this room in 2011, when all the jurisdictions got together and said they wanted to have a bigger role in the daily operational decisions and rate setting oversight of the solid waste system. Mayor Rushing said that was when the City of Spokane said that they owned everything. Mr. Mielke said that was what the agreement of twenty years ago stated, that it's important to reflect on the history of the community at the time; the issue was there were landfills in this region declared a superfund site, and landfills that were being used were about to capacity; the public support for locating a new landfill was extremely low; so an alternative had to be found; so those electeds investigated waste to energy technology; and with that technology carne a big price; and the City of Spokane was the only jurisdiction in this region with the financial ability to fund that technology. At that time, Mr. Mielke stated, those elected officials signed an interlocal agreement where the County was no longer the lead in solid waste management, but rather authorized the City of Spokane as that authority; he said the meeting that was held in 2011, jurisdictions loudly voiced their desire of having more involvement and say in these operational decisions. Mr. Mielke said the message the Board got was that the jurisdictions did not want to continue another twenty-year period under the same structure; he said they have been working for three years to devise a different structure; and that the deadline wouldn't allow starting over from scratch for another option, even if the Board wanted to. Mayor Rushing asked, which he said he asked three years ago, if we have paid off the assets, why aren't the tipping fees decreasing; so now we're going to justify keeping the same price or maybe a bit lower because now we have to pay another $9.9 million for something that was already paid for. Mr. French replied that at the two -day summit three years ago, a thorough presentation was given about the structure of the system, as well as a projection of what the cost would be; he said when he was with the City, he too heard that once the bonds were paid off, the tipping fees would be lowered; and he said that was what he expected but in fact, Mr. French said, they lost their renewable energy credit, and when that happens, the revenue they were making by selling that electricity, went away; and he said now the revenue is half of what it was; he said that cost had to be reflected in the tipping fee; he said that the projection three years ago was that we would be paying $143 a ton tipping fee; but through the City re- organizing its fees; it has been able to maintain a $103 a ton tipping fee at the transfer stations; and the County has entered into a seven year contract with the City of Spokane that provides for incremental increases based on the CPI (Consumer Price Index) over that period of time so it will be a long time before we hit that $143 a ton. Mayor Peterson asked what would be the benefit to the partners in seven years once the transfer stations are debt free. Mr. French acknowledged the benefit at that time would be a reduction in rates. Mayor Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Peterson asked if that reduction in rate of about $40 a ton would be included in the interlocal agreement, and Mr. French said yes; he said he understands the authority of the SWAC in setting fees; and said W there were ten or sixteen people on the board, and those partners in the minority said they wanted to pay $40 less while the others said they would collect the extra $40 and put it wherever they want to, then those in the minority are out and won't get the benefit; and said he doesn't want to find himself in the same situation as years ago with not owning anything. Mr. Mielke said the objective for the SWAC is to achieve the lowest possible cost, provided that the bonds are paid for, there is a bond reserve, have sufficient maintenance and operation cost as well as a maintenance and operation reserve; and the purpose of those objectives is, if you ever come up short the partners do not want to have to access their general fined; and similarly, the current draft interlocal agreement is an opening discussion point; and said it needs more specificity concerning the role of the SWAG when it comes to rate setting, and make sure that the role of the SWAC is to achieve the lowest possible rate. There was a question if all the funds would be considered enterprise fund, and Mr. French replied that is correct; that it will not be part of the general fund of the County but would be a separate e enterprise fund, which is a completely stand -alone fiord. A question was asked about how administration and overhead would be addressed. Mr. French said he would have to get back to the group regarding what is the most efficient way to structure the administrative side of this; and he gave human resources services as an example, and of the possibility of contracting out for those services; and said that philosophically, we all want to get the best service for the best price; and that is why they issued an RFP for the operation of the transfer station and will be putting out the RFP on several other elements in order to test the market and validate the pricing. In response to a question of why couldn't the City just continue to do this and contract out the work and thereby save money, Mr. Mielke said they can't because the Supreme Court rules that is not permissible; he said it was in response to a conflict with the Community College and janitorial work; and the Supreme Court ruling found that any work that has been traditionally done by the employees of that jurisdiction, cannot be contracted out; therefore, he said the City of Spokane doesn't have that option; but because Spokane County has never had employees engaged in this type of work, the County can contract out for these services. Mayor Rushing asked if the commitment was so great by the City of Spokane, knowing that the transfer stations were already paid for by all county residents, why didn't they just sell it to the County for $1 each, instead they are now putting a $9.9 million bill on the backs of county residents again. Mr. Mielke said he sat through some of the City of Spokane's meetings, and he feels they believe that in the last years, they took on the financial risk to finance the system on behalf of all the jurisdictions, and that the compensation for that risk is ownership of the asset; and he said that was the understanding 23 years ago when the interlocal agreement was signed by the elected officials; and was the understanding of all those elected officials who signed that agreement. Mayor Rushing said that the City of Spokane was taking on the risk and they therefore benefitted from the $3 million a year that they were getting from the renewed energy sources. Mr. Mielke said the issue is, at the end of the day, one jurisdiction has the assets that they didn't have to sell; from the County's perspective, the county's options according to law are to be the lead organization on a solid waste plan and have transfer stations in place; and said if they had to go through the essential facilities process, it would cost between $20 to $25 million to build two transfer stations. Mayor Grafos said he feels the $9.9 million is water over the bridge; that during the discussions held three years ago, everyone said if we want to continue this system, we want it to be competitively bid and that the City of Spokane's WTE plant would become a vendor; so now the County because of the stance of the City of Spokane insisting that they are a vendor as well as the exclusive agent and will control the system, the County has no options and had to buy the transfer stations; and said there really isn't any option for any of the other municipalities to give a lower cost; the HDR study had about five options; and the difference between using the WTE and long haul was about $30 million over ten years; and said that option is no longer available. Mr. French said that isn't correct. Mayor Grafos said that the County is not going to bid this because the only way the transfer stations were sold was if the system used the WTE Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT plant for three years. Mr. French said what the County did in negotiations with the City was that they negotiated for a three year period for an early out; so alternative disposal systems could be bid out and challenge the numbers for long haul to see if that would be cheaper; said they bought that three -year window of time in order to be collaborative and not rush to judgment; and said if long -haul is going to be the best, then at the end of three years, they'll have the ability to go long -haul; and the contract they have with the City is, that they fully expect to be able to go out with RFPs for long haul as an ultimate solution as well as the opportunity of maybe doing Tong -haul for the by -pass in a different configuration than the one used currently, which all that goes through the valley now. Mr, French said that the Burlington Northern Railroad informed them that if we tried to direct all the County's solid waste through the valley's facility, the railroad would get stressed and wouldn't be able to handle 135,000 tons; so how do we put in the necessary infrastructure to be able to handle 135,000 tons; and said that is what they are committed to and negotiated into the contract; said they don't differ regarding where they want to end up; just getting there incrementally. Mayor Grafos asked about options if the City did opt out after three years. Mr. French replied that we would be bidding out that 135,000 tons that come from the rest of the county; and that's what we'd be bidding out to go long haul; he said they'Il test those numbers; and said he feels the City would be interested in testing those numbers as well and that the City told then that having the option, forces them to be competitive because they know the county will bid long haul, and if they can't be competitive with long haul, then the County deserves to go; and said that would then create another conversation with the City of Spokane and their rate payers; he said if they can prove that long - haul is the more financially cost - effective method, then the City rate payers would be questioning why they'd be paying more for a facility that they already retired the debt on. Mr. French said if partners want to include a timetable in the interlocal, to make sure it gets bid out, then he is open to that conversation; and said that's what they wanted to do anyway. Mr. French said the agreement the County has with the City is a public document, and that they will distribute copies to everyone tomorrow; and said he feels fundamentally they want to go in the same direction and end up at the same place. Mr. French said the goal is to have one uniform interlocal agreement; and hope there will be commonality in terms of concern which can be addressed; and if not, we'll deal with that as it appears; he said the City of Spokane Valley had some suggestions to add to that agreement; they hope to get further suggestions and have another rendition to distribute, and then get final agreement that everyone can embrace; with a reminder that time is critical, and he would need comments as soon as possible in order to distribute the next version; and in this way, allow jurisdictions time to determine whether or not they will participate. Councilmember Hafner stated that one of the things that came up at their joint meeting with the County, was that an operations contract wouldn't be in place until late summer; said he feels that should be addressed by the County as Spokane Valley was asked to sign a contract without knowing what that's going to be. Commissioner French said they spent a year debating and trying to create the governance structure for the alliance, and he said that everyone was excited until they got to the end; so they had to step forward and try to find a way to challenge the figures; he recalled they put out an RFP for someone to come in and give them an analysis of all the different options as identified as a group, but there were no responses to the original RFP; and he said they lost about six to eight months of time in that process. Mr. French said they had hoped to have the interlocal with the City of Spokane completed last summer; and now they are here to meet the Department of Ecology's deadline. Councihnember Hafner asked what the penalty would be should the November 17 deadline not be met. Mr. Wavada said there is no penalty amount set in the legislation, but the statute 70.95.010 simply states that the service must be provided, and the next step would be the Attorney General filing suit in Supreme Court to compel you to either join a plan or write your own. Councilmenrber Hafner asked if the operations contract isn't back and we don't know the price, could the whole thing be postponed knowing that we'll have that data at a particular date, as there are some who would be hesitant to sign without knowing those costs. Mr. Wavada replied that he feels those are the type of issues that get addressed in interlocal agreements. Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council; DRAFT Mayor Grafos stated that we have a wonderful working relationship with the County with nunerous negotiated, fair contracts, but said Spokane Valley is hesitant because it was our understanding that in three years time the City of Spokane would be the vendor and that competitive bids were going to be sought; but now we're up against the clock, and we're being pushed and being asked to "trust us." Commissioner Mielke said he hopes people recognize that they negotiated the best deal available to them. Mr. Gimpel stated that the neither the County nor the City has any legal responsibility to provide services to any municipality which is not a participant of their plan; the City of Spokane has committed by interlocal agreement to provide service at the Waste -to- Energy plant as a third transfer station for the county, for any participating jurisdiction. Mr. Gimpel said he wanted the City of Spokane Valley to understand that according to a report, last year there were 58,000 self - hauled transactions from Spokane Valley citizens; so when you are considering it's not just about garbage trucks but about citizens as well; and said you don't want to have interruptions for those citizens and that's what we're trying to eliminate; that's the thing about the decisions you're going to make, or if no decisions are made, whether those citizens have someplace to take their garbage. Deputy Mayor Woodard said it doesn't help any of tonight's situations to hold a threat; and asked if we going to have citizens that self -haul be refused at the transfer station; he said those kind of intimidations or threats don't aid in getting to an agreement. Mr. Gimpel replied that he didn't mean that to be a threat; that the City of Spokane and Spokane County will make their own decisions; he said it is not a matter of "won't" but more a matter of "can't." Mr. Gimpel said the garbage trucks pay the bills and they subsidize all those other individual services; and if those trucks go elsewhere so will the revenue; and said the City can't afford to give free services to people who aren't paying into that system; and said this isn't a threat but more of a matter of economics and how the system is paid for. Deputy Mayor Woodard said the fee to take something to the transfer station in Spokane Valley is $103 a ton; which he said isn't subsidizing. Mr. Gimpel said there is a minimum fee; and for every transaction, which averages 300 pounds, they receive $15.00 for that transaction, which is no way near paying for that transaction; he said when an eight -ton garbage truck comes in, the City gets $800; he said it is cheaper to handle that professional garbage truck driver than it is for someone pulling a trailer or truck, and helping them off -load. He said there is a fixed cost to provide all those services; and mentioned that there is no cost to drop off household hazardous waste, so that service is subsidized and most of that is being borne by the garbage trucks that deliver the waste to the transfer stations. There was a comment about not allowing people to drop off waste at the transfer stations; and the question arose, why can't they drop off and be charged a fee for doing so. Mr. Gimpel said under the current model, they couldn't afford to let them in, but could do so with perhaps a surcharge or a higher rate for those services; adding that free drop -off of household hazardous waste would not be offered. Mayor Rushing mentioned the $9.9 million purchase price, and Mayor Grafos added that the City of Spokane Valley offered to buy the transfer station but was told it wasn't available. Mayor Peterson asked what would be the long -term benefit to them; said he likes the deal the County structured with the City of Spokane for the facilities, as those facilities will continue to be an asset in the future; said concerning the interlocal agreement, he asked: what's in it for the City. Mayor Peterson said he spoke with Kevin Cooke and said that the small cities represent 10% of the garbage that is going to the transfer stations; and said he believes those cities share within that benefit; but when we're talking about real money available and a 10% interest into the facility; he said they are more than happy to participate, but clarified that he is not making a decision today; but said he wants some cash benefit for the city, because something will be done with those facilities at some point. Mr. French replied that if they put the transfer stations in the enterprise fund, so that if they got sold in the future the revenue from that sale would benefit the ratepayers within the enterprise fund, that would address Mayor Peterson's issue in terms of making sure that the ratepayers participating in the system get the benefit; and Mayor Peterson agreed. Commissioner Mielke said it is not the County's desire to turn anyone away; but they recognize they are not in a position to delay their decisions and wait endlessly for others as there would be liability for them to do that; that they have to cone up with a business model effective November 18; and that regardless of Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT who shows up at the transfer station, we will know how much to charge them; and that there will be people to weigh them in and take the fee; so they have to build a business model and an entity that is running by November 18; and said they cannot wait indefinitely. Commissioner Mielke said he recognizes that many tines in the past the County has delayed important decisions waiting for someone else and has suffered because of that; he said there is no attempt to make any threats, but if anything, they are pleading for understanding of the County's position in trying to meet the deadline. Deputy Mayor Woodard said. he understands the County's position; as noted in the County/City joint meeting last Monday, the City of Spokane Val ley wants to know what the rates will be, but they know the rate is $103 per ton; but also suggested the County needs to continue moving forward while Spokane Valley gets the final answers to some questions they have been researching and are pursuing; and that they would like the County to supply the information on what the rate would be with Spokane Valley, and what it would be without Spokane Valley; and those figures will be combined with their other research to help in Spokane Valley make a decision; and he said they can't snake a decision without all the facts. Concerning the outstanding RFP, Commissioner Mielke said one of the things they have proposed all along is that the committee that will review those RFPs and ultimately assist in negotiating an agreement should include Spokane Valley's utility director; but if Spokane Valley is not part of the coalition, then there would be no need to have that director on the selection committee. Mr. Mielke said they have "penciled in" key people who are very knowledgeable to help us go through the process and reach those philosophical goals. Mr. Mielke said he hasn't heard anyone here tonight disagree with those goals; and he said he believes everyone is working toward the common goal. Mr. Mielke also noted that the majority of jurisdictions in this region do not have mandatory garbage pickup; and have a significant number of their residents who self -haul; he said if those people went to the transfer station, they would not be turned away; but there are other components of the system which cost money, and he mentioned the free drop off of household hazardous waste, and recyclables; and said we can't continue to provide those for free and someone not in the coalition to simply drop off their garbage at no cost; as that could jeopardize the general fund, or create larger fees for everyone else who would be subsidizing those who didn't have to pay for dropping off their materials. Commissioner French also noted that jurisdictions have the right to decide to go with this system, or another direction that meets the needs of their citizens. Commissioner O'Quimm explained Kevin Cooke and staff will take another look at addressing these issues brought up and will create a second draft interlocal; and she asked if there were any additional comments, to please make sure to call or e -mail Mr. Cooke so the second draft can be circulated the week of March 10th. Mr. French said the preference is to send an e -mail so the concern can be given in writing. There was some discussion about the various required elements of the plan, and of the ability to negotiate some prices; that just because all the elements are required, doesn't mean everyone must participate or use those elements; and there was additional discussion concerning the duties of the SWAC in recommending the minimum levels of service for the entire county; which costs gets defined in the planning process. Commissioner Mielke said they are now trying to edit the plan, to determine a minimum or base Ievel, and to know how expansive the list of partners is; he also noted that each jurisdiction's relationship with their haulers and franchisers is not altered by this discussion as that remains under the authority of that legislative body. Concerning a previous comment about adjusting some of the elements, Commissioner French said that one of the cost factors is the independent hauler; said he knows that now the transfer stations are open a long tine, and he said that we probably don't need them open that long so those hours can be adjusted to meet the needs of the patrons; and said that is just one example of something that can be discussed by members of the SWAC. Mayor Rushing asked who makes up that committee. [It was noted that Councilmember Hafner left the meeting at about 7:20 p.m.} Mr. French said one of the things considered in the interlocal, is to change the composition of the SWAC to include more elected officials. Mayor Rushing noted that in the past, some of the small cities wanted more input and to do that by means Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT of being on the SWAC. Mr. French said there must be representatives from certain sectors, as well as elected officials; and Mr. Wavada added that the statutes indicate a minimum but not a maximum; and that those meetings are open to the public. Mr. French noted that the legislative body that will make the decisions will be the Board of County Commissioners; however, they clearly want to expand the role of the SWAC in order to get better input from the jurisdiction partners. Mr. French said for example, in looking at this from the perspective of being in the system if there are eight partners and the system has been ongoing for three years; and we bid out Iong haul and determined that this is the best method and so we move in that direction which will mean a cut in rates by 20 %; for those jurisdictions not in the system for this first three year period, if they decide then to join, out of fairness to those already in the system, those not in the system would need to buy -in because the others would have retired the debt on the purchase of the transfer stations, while those not in the system initially, would not have done anything to contribute to paying off that debt; and said he is contemplating adding this to the interlocal agreement. He continued by explaining that the new partner coming in after three years, would have to pay their proportionate share as a means of catching -up, much like a late - comer's agreement; and the money they paid would benefit the others in the system; so the money stays in the enterprise fund but benefits those ratepayers who have been paying for the last three years; and he asked everyone to think about that from both sides: those in the system initially, and those who might want to buy in later. The question arose that if, conversely, a member who is in the system initially decided after a few years to leave, would that member be compensated, i.e. "bought- out." Mr. French said he doesn't have an answer right now; that it would be something to discuss; and at the present, the number of jurisdictions joining is still unknown; the desire is to make sure everyone gets treated fairly initially and throughout the process. Commissioner Mielke said that the transfer stations are amortized equally monthly over a seven -year period; and if we choose to end the partnership, we would owe the City of Spokane the balance of the cost, much like a balloon payment. A question came up about the gate fee, and if at the last minute, several Iarger cities such as Spokane Valley and Cheney decided not to participate, what would that do to the gate fee. Mr. Mielke replied that there are fixed costs as well as variable costs, which are dependent upon the volume of the system; and that it is difficult to calculate the price until we know the volume coming into the system; and with smaller volumes, the fixed costs are more expensive. Mr. Gimpel mentioned another possible source of funds are coordinated prevention grants; he said in Spokane County this is a two -year grant cycle; and currently, they are receiving $1.8 million, a part of which includes a base fee that every County gets, and the remainder is based on per - capita; so whether grants or tipping fees, there are the funds that they use to provide the services in the County; so as an analogy, the more cities that drop out, the less grant money is available to the County. [It was noted that Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember Wick left the meeting at approximately 7:40 p.m.] Again, Commissioner Mielke said that once they have an idea of who is interested in being a part of this coalition or partnership, so once the scope and scale is known, then figures can be determined more definitely. Mayor Rushing said he realizes all concerned want the best services for the least cost; and said we would start searching for who can give the best price, but if we don't know how much the tipping fee will be, how would we know what the best price would be without having that tipping fee to compare with; or how would we know the tipping fee from the County is the lowest fee which would encourage entities to go with the system. Mr. French said he would not characterize the County and the City as vendors but as partners; he said the City of Spokane has an asset they can market as a vendor; if we end up corning in with a $104 price instead of $103, they would have the ability and flexibility to change the level of service to decrease that price; but until that partnership is formed, they won't know what all the prospective partners would expect in terms of level of service; and if they can collectively determine some economies of scale through the SWAC and define the level of service, and take advantage of any cost savings that might be available; then he said owning those transfer station gives them that flexibility. Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting; 02 -27 -2014 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: DRAFT Concerning the transfer stations price, that disposal component is a fixed established amount; and what the City of Spokane will charge at the Waste -to- Energy Plant, Mr. Gimpel said they are not anticipating any rate change whatsoever other than whatever annual escalation may be needed; and said again, this is a matter of trust. Commissioner Mielke said that every jurisdiction has the ability to issue their own RFP to see what the best price they can get; he said Spokane County issued an RFP, secured transfer stations, issued an RFP for the operation of those transfer stations; and the question that remains, if the City will issue its own RFP or join with the County; he's not sure why any jurisdiction would think their own RFP would result in any better price than what the County received; and said we tend to get a better price from the RFP with volume; and he said the process they followed under the law is supposed to get them the lowest possible price. Mr. French said as this new relationship develops, the question remains of what will we do with the ongoing liability of the landfill closures; that we all still have a share in that cost; so even if a jurisdiction pursued this individually, they would still have that ongoing liability to consider in any internal cost structure. Commissioner French said he has appreciated today's dialogue; and he thanked everyone for attending tonight as well as for attending the ongoing discussions over the last three years; and he asked for comments on the interlocal agreement as soon as possible in order to get everything wrapped up as soon as possible, and said if any entity wants to be part of the bid openings, or interviews, or any other part, to please let him know; and he closed the meeting. It was then moved by Mayor Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Regional County Solid Waste Meeting: 02 -27 -2014 Page 10 of 10 Approved by Council: 1 Spokane County's New Regional Solid Was System Sate Fec components - Some Components have not yet been determines O Disposal ❑ Transfer Statioio Purchase • Transfer Station Operations ❑ Administration ❑ Landfill Closure ▪ System Programs DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of March 6, 2014; 10:45 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings March 18, 2014, Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Sports Commission Update — Eric Sawyer 2. Community Preparedness — Deputy Chief Hail 3. SRTC Call for Projects (STP Funding) — Eric Guth 4. Ecology /Stormwater Grant Information — Eric Guth 5. Resource Allocation for Law Enforcement — Mike Jackson, Morgan Koudelka 6. Training- Public Records Act — Cary Driskell 7. Advance Agenda [due Mon, March 10] (20 minutes) (45 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (30 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 145 minutes] March 25, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, March 17] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Interim Marijuana Regulations — Erik Lamb (10 minute) 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 14 -003 Amending Permitted Use Matrix — John Hohman, Mike Basinger (15 min) 4. Motion Consideration: SRTC Call for Projects — Eric Guth (10 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Contract Amendment, Law Enforcement — Mike Jackson, Morgan Koudelka (15 min) 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 7. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [ *estimated meeting: 60 minutes] April 1, 2014, Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Comp Plan Amendments (CPA 2014) Admin Report — Lori Barlow 2. Proposed Findings of Fact, Interim Marijuana Regulations — Erik Lamb 3. Advance Agenda [due Mon, March 24] (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 40 minutes] April 8, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, March 31] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Proposed Ordinance Adopting Findings of Fact, Interim Marijuana Regulations — Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Comp Plan Amendments — Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Comp Plan Map — Lori Barlow (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: 50 minutes] April 15, 2014, Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda [ *estimated April 22, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Comp Plan Amendments — Lori Barlow 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Comp Plan Map — Lori Barlow 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 5. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports Draft Advance Agenda 3/7/2014 9:26:18 AM [ *estimated [due Mon, April 7] (5 minutes) meeting: minutes] [due Mon, April 14] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 30 minutes] Page 1 of 2 April 29, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda May 6, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda May 13, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda May 20, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda May 27, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports June 3, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda June 10, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda [due Mon, April 21] (5 minutes) [due Mon, April 28] (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 5] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 12] (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] [due Mon, May 19] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 26] (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 2] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) June 17, 2014, tentative date: Budget Workshop, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. [due Mon, June 9] No evening meeting June 17, 2014 June 24, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: ADA Transition Plan Avista Electrical Franchise AWC June 2014 conference CDBG (Comm Dev Block Grants) Coal /Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Fire and Life Safety Code Future Acquisition Areas Historic Preservation Interim Marijuana Regulations expire Aug 11, 2014 Draft Advance Agenda 3/7/2014 9:26:18 AM [due Mon, June 16] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Public Safety Contract, Proposed Amendment STA Bus Shelters /sidewalks/benches Stormwater Swales, care of Street Vacation/Connectivity Process Urban Agriculture (animals, bees, etc.) *time for public or Council comments not included Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 11, 2014 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2014 SRTC Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Resolution 13 -006 adopting the 2014 -2019 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) on June 11, 2013. BACKGROUND: The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) issued a 2014 Call for Projects on March 3, 2014 for allocation of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding for the years 2017 -2019. Approximately $20 million in STP funding is expected to be available for the Spokane region. However, because of funding for SRTC programs, the amount available for the actual Call for Projects is $18.0 million. Project applications are due Wednesday, April 30th, 2014. The available funds will be divided into three regional categories as described below. Spokane Valley is eliqible for Urbanized Area and Flexible Funds only. % Funds Minimum Amount of Area Size Available Funds Available Urbanized Areas >200,000 73% $13.14 Million Urban Areas >5,000 and <200,000 2% Rural Areas <5,000 Flexible Funds 13.5% 11.5% $360,000 $2.43 Million $2.07 Million The federal STP(U) funds will be further divided into three project categories as shown below. These numbers are based on the most recent information from SRTC. These dollar amounts are subject to change due to the urban /rural split being program wide and not specific to each project type. Category OA Approx. Funds Available (Urban) ** Improvement 20 % $2.63 -$3.04 Million Reconstruction/ Preservation Non - Roadway* Total 70% $9.20 - $10.65 Million 10% $1.31 -$1.52 Million $13.14 -15.21 Million * 'Non- Roadway' includes Bike /Ped, ITS, and Transit projects * *The range Includes potential Flexible Funds Staff has begun evaluating the proposed STP grant criteria and has identified a draft list of projects to review with council. Information used to develop this draft list of projects includes: • The adopted 2014 -2019 Six Year TIP • The adopted Pavement Management Program (PMP) • Private developments and improvements affecting the City's street network • Council's expressed priorities 1. IMPROVEMENT CATEGORY: The first two projects listed below have been in previous Six Year TIPs and currently have federal STP(U) funds for the design phase. The need for the second two projects listed below has developed due to the recent extension of Chapman Road to Barker Road and to accommodate plans by WSDOT to upgrade the I -90 /Barker Interchange. 1. Mission Ave Improvements - Flora to Barker (PE Funded) 2. Park Rd Improvements - Broadway to Indiana (PE Funded) 3. Barker Rd Improvements - Appleway to 1 -90 4. Sprague /Barker Roundabout 2. RECONSTRUCTION /PRESERVATION CATEGORY: The first two projects listed below have been in previous Six Year TIPs and currently have federal STP(U) funds for the design phase. Having federal funds for the design phase on these projects increases the potential to receive federal funds for the construction phase. The remaining projects in this category come directly from the PMP. 1. Broadway /Argonne /Mullan PCC intersection (PE Funded) 2. Sullivan /Euclid PCC Intersection (PE Funded) 3. 32nd Resurfacing (Dishman Mica to SR -27) 4. Argonne Resurfacing (Broadway to Mission) 5. Argonne /Mullan Resurfacing @ 1 -90 (Mission to Indiana) 6. Broadway Resurfacing (Havana to Fancher) 7. Dishman -Mica Resurfacing (Appleway to 8th) 8. Indiana Resurfacing @ Spokane Valley Mall 9. Mission Resurfacing (Pines to McDonald) 10. Montgomery Resurfacing (Woodruff to University) 3. NON - ROADWAY CATEGORY: This category includes ITS, Bike /Pedestrian and Transit projects. Due to the wide availability of other funding sources for ITS and Transit type projects, staff focused attention on potential Bike /Pedestrian projects. 1. Appleway Trail Phase 2 - Pines to Evergreen (Construction partially funded) 2. Appleway Trail Phase 3 - Evergreen to Corbin OPTIONS: Info Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Info Only BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Project costs are currently being developed in more detail for each project. The City's match on federally funded projects is typically 13.5% of the total project cost. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, P.E. — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric Guth, P.E. — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 2014 SRTC Call for Projects — Grant Applications 2017 -2019 Surface Transportation Program Application - Improvement PROJECT TITLE: SRTC GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Agency or Organization Contact Person Phone Number Email Address Project Information Project Location ❑ Urbanized Area ['Urban Small [Aural Federal Functional Classification Project Description Include the project scope, length, purpose, and brief comparison of existing and proposed conditions. Will the project improve traffic flow and congestion? If so, please describe and include the LOS, methodology used, and duration. Proposed Timeline PE Estimated obligation date (mldlyy) Estimated completion date (mldlyy) RW CN Other Attachments Please provide a vicinity map, signed Project Endorsement Form, and Complete Streets Checklist. SRTC Staff ['Vicinity map ['Endorsement ❑ Complete Streets Checklist or Exempt Cost Summary A. Previous obligations (all fund sources, all phases) $ STP funding is requested for the B. Requested STP Funds $ following phases (check all that apply). C. Other secured federal funds, source: $ ❑ Preliminary Engineering /Design D. Secured state funds, source: $ • Right -of -way ❑ Construction E. Secured local funds (13.5% match), source: $ F. Secured private funds, source: $ ❑ Other (planning, etc.) G. Total Estimated Cost of Project (All Phases) [A through F] $ Cost summary notes (optional, if additional information is needed). 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Improvement Application Page 1 Describe the commitment of secured matching funds or other funds and the status of obtaining any unsecured funds. Note: matching funds must be available at the time of fund obligation. 1. ECONOMIC VITALITY 15 PTS 1 a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 1: Economic Vitality. 3 Employment and Destination Accessibility 3 1 b. Please describe how the project enhances connections, both direct and indirect, to existing key destinations, (Le, regional employment centers, city /regional centers and attractions, schools, or parks) or major transportation routes and/or transportation hubs (including transit). Include the distance from the project location to any referenced key destinations. Consistency with Economic Development Plans 3 1 c. Is the project consistent with an adopted local economic development/revitalization plan, or other plans /initiatives with an economic development component? If so, please cite the plan and the page number that indicates the project is consistent with the plan. Existing and Future Development 3 1d, Project is located within an area of significant existing or future employment. Please refer to the 2010 and 2040 employment density maps to identify the employment density of the project location. Check all densities that apply to the project location (if it traverses more than one density type, an average score will be given). 2010 Employment: ❑ Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 2040 Employment: ❑ Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 Freight Network 3 1 e. Is this project located on the regional freight priority network identified in Horizon 2040? ❑ Yes ❑ No Please explain. 3 2. COOPERATION AND LEADERSHIP 10 PTS 2a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 2: Cooperation and Leadership. 2 Agency Coordination 4 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Improvement Application Page 2 2b. Is the project a joint venture between multiple jurisdictions and/or agencies (including public /private partnerships)? If so, please describe: 2 2c. Has this project been coordinated with STA or other transit operators? if so, please describe. 2 Public Involvement 4 2d. Please describe the extent to which the project has been reviewed by the public or other agencies (public meetings, environmental review, legislative actions, capital improvement programs, etc), 4 3. STEWARDSHIP 20 PTS 3a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 3: Stewardship (Please note if this project uses innovative design, materials, and /or funding sources, integrates multiple infrastructure needs, utilizes economy of scale, or completes a missing Zink). 2 Regional Priority Networks 4 3b. Is this project located on the Horizon 2040 Regional Vehicular Priority Network (NHS system)? If so, please describe. What is the average daily traffic (ADT) of the existing facility? Provide the ADT and the year of the latest traffic count. ADT Year ❑ Urban — 15,000+ ADT ❑ Urban —7500 to 15,000 ADT ['Urban — below 7500 ADT ❑ Rural — 2,000+ ADT ❑ Rural —1,000 to 2,000 ADT ❑ Rural -- 500 to 1,000 ADT 2 2 1 0 Environmental Mitigations 2 3c. Does the project improve the environment or minimize the environmental impact of the facility above and beyond current 2 design standards (i.e. use of recycled materials, innovative storm water treatment, use of drought tolerant vegetation, air quality benefit, smaller footprint, etc.)? If so, please describe. Ability to Advance 6 3d, Describe the status of the project: ❑ Environmental documentation (NEPA) is complete & approved, or categorically excluded (CE) ❑ Right -of -way plans approved, or not needed ❑ Right -of -way acquisition is complete, or not needed ❑ Design is 30% complete El Design is 60% complete ❑ Design is 90% complete 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Improvement Application Page 3 3e. Project status notes. Please indicate if there are any circumstances that could delay the project and/or if there are any critical timelines associated with this application (e.g. right of way acquisition, environmental documentation, other funds needed for full funding). Funding 6 3f. Has the project received partial federal funding through SRTC in the past? Please explain how the project receiving these funds has performed (i.e. on schedule, on budget, etc.) and the other grant opportunities that have been sought since (list). 3g. Does this project have additional local/state match funds above the required 13.5 %? If so, please describe: ❑ 5% over the required local/state match ❑ 10% over the required local/state match ❑ 15% over the required local/state match ❑ 20% over the required local/state match 1 2 3 4 2 4. SYSTEMS OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PRESERVATION 10 PTS 4a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 4: System Operations, Maintenance and Preservation. 4b. What is the design life of the project? ❑ The project sponsor must indicate that the project, once completed, will be maintained for the life of the project 4c. Please describe the plan and funding source to maintain this project. 2 8 5. SAFETY AND SECURITY 20 PTS 5a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 5: Safety and Security. 4 Addresses Existing Safety Concern 8 5b. Does the project address an existing safety concem(s)? If yes, please indicate the existing safety concern(s). ❑ Unsignalized intersection collisions ❑ Head -on collisions ❑ Collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists ❑ Other safety concern (describe): ❑ Signalized intersection collisions ❑ Run- off -road collisions ❑ Collisions involving horizontal curves, utility poles, trees Does the project address the existing safety concern(s) via the one or more of the following strategies? ❑ Improve visibility /sight dist. of intersections, signals, signs ❑ Improve geometry, approaches of complex intersections ❑ Provide/improve turn channelization ❑ Add rumble strips, barriers /rails, raised pavement markers ❑ Add center turn lane /pocket ❑ Improve geometry of horizontal curves ❑ Restrict or eliminate turns (including right turns on red, driveway access) ❑ Restrict cross - median access near intersections ❑ Provide appropriate intersection traffic control (all -way stop, signalizing, roundabouts) to reduce collisions and severity ❑ Add non - traversable median 8 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Improvement Application Page 4 ❑ Provide enhanced pavement markings ❑ Eliminate at -grade crossings ❑ Provides sidewalks/walkways and curb ramps ❑ Provides bike lanes, markings, signage ❑ Add traffic calming improvements ❑ Other safety improvements consistent with NCHRP 500 ❑ Provide skid - resistant pavement surfaces ❑ Remove, move utility poles /trees in high -crash or high -risk locations ❑ Add signage directed to improve safety concern ❑ Install /improve traffic and pedestrian signals ❑ Provide crosswalk enhancements (including striping, refuge islands, raised medians) (describe): Please explain how these safety concerns (from above) will be addressed by this project. 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Improvement Application Page 5 Annual Benefit Calculator 8 5c. Provide the location and details for correctable collisions (Le. not random, unpreventable incidences) on the project facility for the three most current years available. This information can be obtained from the Transportation Data & GIS Office (TDGO). Fill out a separate row for each collision. Provide information on the location, collision type, severity, number of vehicles involved, and the primary countermeasure to eliminate or mitigate the collision (countermeasure must be consistent with project scope). SRTC staff will use this information to assign points on a sliding scale. Collision Location (provide location details or milepost) Collision Type (head -on, broad -side, right angle, etc.) Number of Property Damage Only (PDOs) Number of Injuries Number of Fatalities Number of Vehicles Involved Primary Countermeasure (must be consistent with project scope) ex. Driveway East of Myrtle St. Side swipe 0 1 0 2 improved visibility. Fatalities $4,400,000 TOTAL (Sum of Column A) TOTAL (Sum of Column B) TOTAL (Sum of Column C) Collision Involving A. Total Number B. Factor C. Accident Cost (A x B) Annual Benefit (Sum of Column C 120 years) Property Damage Only (PDO) $6,700 Injuries $375,000 Fatalities $4,400,000 TOTAL (Sum of Column A) TOTAL (Sum of Column B) TOTAL (Sum of Column C) 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Improvement Application Page 6 6. CHOICE AND MOBILITY 15 PT 6a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 6: Choice and Mobility. 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 6 6b. Will the project add or improve pedestrian facilities (ADA requirements, crossings, completes a gap, extends connection, eliminates barriers, vegetated buffers, width >5 ft, pedestrian islands, etc.)? If so, please describe. 6c. Is the facility on the regional priority bicycle network? Will the project add or improve bicycle facilities (lanes, pavement markings, signage, completes a gap, extends connection, eliminates barriers, etc.)? If so, please describe. 2 1 6d. Is this project on a local bicycle system that provides access to the regional bicycle network? If so, please describe. 1 6e. Project is located within an area of significant existing or future population. Please refer to the 2010 and 2040 population density maps to identify the population density of the project location. Check all densities that apply to the project location (if it traverses more than one density type, an average score will be given). 2010 Population: ❑ Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 2040 Population: ❑ Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 Transit Access 4 6f. Is the project located along the High Performance Transit Network and does it propose to improve transit access and/or amenities? If so, please describe. 1 6g. Is the project located along a local transit route and does it propose to improve transit access and /or amenities? if so, please describe. 6h. If the project proposes to improve transit access and /or amenities, what is the frequency (during the busiest hour of the day) of the transit buses that traverse the facility? ❑ frequency of less than 15 minutes ❑ frequency of 15 minutes or better 1 2 Shared. Use of Infrastructure 1 6i. Project encourages or allows for the shared use of infrastructure for multiple users (i.e, new shared use path, or the addition of facilities for a new user group on an existing facility). If so, please describe. 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Improvement Application Page 7 Transportation Choices 1 6j. Project serves low income andlor minority communities or establishes a new or enhances an existing transportation choice to the transportation disadvantaged. Please refer to the 2010 environmental justice maps to determine whether the project is located in an area of disproportionately high percentages of low income and/or minority residents. Please check all classifications that apply to the project location (if it traverses more than one classification, an average score will be given). ❑ Low proportion of low income ❑ Low proportion of minorities ❑ Medium proportion of low income ❑ Medium proportion of minorities ❑ High proportion of low income ❑ High proportion of minorities 1 point max 0 0 .5 .5 1 1 7. QUALITY OF LIFE 10 PTS 7a. Please describe how this project is consistent with the Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 7; Quality of Life. 2 7b. Does the project support health - promoting transportation options for people of all abilities and ages (walking, biking, transit, 6 safe routes to school, etc.)? If so, please describe. 7c. Does the project include design elements that contribute to quality place making? if so, please check all that apply: ❑ Lighting ❑ Unusual or unique surfaces (pavers or stamped) ❑ Bicycle parking ❑ Public art ❑ Benches, bus shelters ❑ Garbage /recycling receptacles ❑ Traffic calming measures ❑ Bollards ❑ Landscaping, pots /planters, tree grates ❑ Other design elements, please describe: ❑ Raised or uniquely treated crosswalks 3 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Improvement Application Page 8 .fw(P»c. l'(.rinn('Tm,ifwrl,(,w,Gnm, ( 2017 -2019 STP Application — Preservation & Reconstruction PROJECT TITLE: SRTC GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Agency or Organization Contact Person Phone Number Email Address Project Information Project Location ❑ Urbanized Area ['Urban Small ['Rural Federal Functional Classification Project Description Include the project scope, length, purpose, and brief comparison of existing and proposed conditions. Proposed Timeline PE Estimated obligation date (mldlyy) Estimated completion date (m/d/yy) RW CN Other Attachments Please provide a vicinity map and a signed Project Endorsement Form. SRTC Staff ❑ Vicinity map ❑ Endorsement Cost Summary A. Previous obligations (all fund sources, all phases) $ STP funding is requested for the B. Requested STP Funds $ following phases (check all that apply): C. Other secured federal funds, source: $ • Preliminary Engineering /Design D. Secured state funds, source: $ ❑ Right -of -way E. Secured local funds (13.5% match), source: $ El Construction F. Secured private funds, source: $ ❑ Other (planning, etc.) G. Total Estimated Cost of Project (All Phases) [A through F] $ Cost summary notes (optional, if additional information is needed). Describe the commitment of secured matching funds or other funds and the status of obtaining any unsecured funds. Note: matching funds must be available at the time of fund obligation. 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Preservation & Reconstruction Application Page 1 1. ECONOMIC VITALITY 15 PTS 1 a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 1: Economic Vitality, 3 Employment and Destination Accessibility 3 1 b. Please describe how the project enhances connections, both direct and indirect, to existing key destinations, (i.e. regional employment centers, city /regional centers and attractions, schools, or parks) or major transportation routes and/or transportation hubs (including transit). Include the distance from the project location to any referenced key destinations. Consistency with Economic Development Plans 3 1 c. Is the project consistent with an adopted local economic development/revitalization plan, or other plans /initiatives with an economic development component? If so, please cite the plan and the page number that indicates the project is consistent with the plan. Existing and Future Development 3 1 d. Project is located within an area of significant existing or future employment. Please refer to the 2010 and 2040 employment density maps to identify the employment density of the project location. Check all densities that apply to the project location (if it traverses more than one density type, an average score will be given). 2010 Employment: ❑ Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 2040 Employment: ❑ Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 Freight Network 3 1 e. Is this project located on the regional freight priority network identified in Horizon 2040? ❑ Yes ❑ No Please explain. 2. COOPERATION AND LEADERSHIP 5 PTS 2a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 2: Cooperation and Leadership. 2 Agency Coordination 2 2b. Is the project a joint venture between multiple jurisdictions and/or agencies (including public /private partnerships)? If so, please describe: 1 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Preservation & Reconstruction Application Page 2 2c. Has this project been coordinated with STA or other transit operators? If so, please describe. 1 Public Involvement 1 2d. Please describe the extent to which the project has been reviewed by the public or other agencies (public meetings, environmental review, legislative actions, capital improvement programs, etc). 3. STEWARDSHIP 15 PTS 3a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 3: Stewardship (Please note if this project uses innovative design, materials, and/or funding sources, Integrates multiple infrastructure needs, utilizes economy of scale, or completes a missing link). 2 Regional Priority Networks 4 3b. Is this project located on the Horizon 2040 Regional Vehicular Priority Network (NHS system)? If so, please describe. What is the average daily traffic (ADT) of the existing facility? Provide the ADT and the year of the latest traffic count. ADT Year ❑ Urban — 15,000+ ADT ['Urban — 7500 to 15,000 ADT ['Urban — below 7500 ADT ❑ Rural — 2,000+ ADT ❑ Rural —1,000 to 2,000 ADT ❑ Rural — 500 to 1,000 ADT 2 2 1 0 Environmental Mitigations 2 3c. Does the project improve the environment or minimize the environmental impact of the facility above and beyond current 2 design standards (i.e. use of recycled materials, innovative storm water treatment, use of drought tolerant vegetation, air quality benefit, smaller footprint, etc.)? If so, please describe. Ability to Advance 3 3d. Describe the status of the project: ❑ Environmental documentation (NEPA) is complete & approved, or categorically excluded (CE) ❑ Right -of -way plans approved, or not needed ❑ Right -of -way acquisition is complete, or not needed ❑ Design is 30% complete ❑ Design is 60% complete P Design is 90% complete 3e. Project status notes. Please indicate if there are any circumstances that could delay the project and/or if there are any critical timelines associated with this application (e.g. right of way acquisition, environmental documentation, other funds needed for full funding). .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Preservation & Reconstruction Application Page 3 Funding 4 3f. Has the project received partial federal funding through SRTC in the past? Please explain how the project receiving these funds has performed (Le. on schedule, on budget, etc.) and the other grant opportunities that have been sought since (list). 3g. Does this project have additional local/state match funds above the required 13.5%? If so, please describe: ❑ 5% over the required local/state match ❑ 10% over the required local/state match ❑ 15% over the required local/state match ❑ 20% over the required local/state match 2 0.5 1 1.5 2 4. SYSTEMS OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PRESERVATION 40 PTS 4a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 4: System Operations, Maintenance and Preservation. 2 Structural Condition 30 4b. What is the structural condition of the existing facility? Rate the Overall Condition Index (OCI) rating, using the TIC Pavement Condition Rating Standards (attached to application packet) and the year of last inspection. Note: OCI will be reviewed by a team of representatives from Spokane, Spokane Valley, Spokane County and WSDOT prior to project scoring. OCI Year Preservation ❑ OCI: 41 -55 20 ❑ OCI: 56 -65 10 ❑ OCI: 66-85 30 Reconstruction ❑ OCI: 0 -30 30 ❑ OCI: 31 -40 20 ❑ OCI: 41 -55 10 Please explain. 4c, What is the design life of the project? ❑ The project sponsor must indicate that the project, once completed, will be maintained for the life of the project 4d. Please describe the plan and funding source to maintain this project. 8 5. SAFETY AND SECURITY 5 PTS 5a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 5: Safety and Security. Page 4 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Preservation & Reconstruction Application 6. CHOICE AND MOBILITY 15 PTS 6a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 6: Choice and Mobility. 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 6 6b. Will the project add or improve pedestrian facilities (ADA requirements, crossings, completes a gap, extends connection, eliminates barriers, vegetated buffers, width >5 ft, pedestrian islands, etc.)? If so, please describe. 6c. Is the facility on the regional priority bicycle network? Will the project add or improve bicycle facilities (lanes, pavement markings, signage, completes a gap, extends connection, eliminates barriers, etc.)? If so, please describe. 2 1 6d. Is this project on a local bicycle system that provides access to the regional bicycle network? If so, please describe. 1 6e. Project is located within an area of significant existing or future population. Please refer to the 2010 and 2040 population density maps to identify the population density of the project location. Check all densities that apply to the project location (if it traverses more than one density type, an average score will be given). 2010 Population: ❑ Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 2040 Population: ❑ Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 Transit Access 5 6f. Is the project located along the High Performance Transit Network and does it propose to improve transit access and/or amenities? If so, please describe. 2 6g. Is the project located along a local transit route and does it propose to improve transit access and/or amenities? 2 If so, please describe. 6h. If the project proposes to improve transit access and/or amenities, what is the frequency (during the busiest hour of the day) of the transit buses that traverse the facility? ❑ frequency of less than 15 minutes ❑ frequency of 15 minutes or better .5 1 Shared Use of Infrastructure 1 6i. Project encourages or allows for the shared use of infrastructure for multiple users (i.e. new shared use path, or the addition of facilities for a new user group on an existing facility). If so, please describe. 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Preservation & Reconstruction Application Page 5 Transportation Choices 1 6j. Project serves low income and/or minority communities or establishes a new or enhances an existing transportation choice to the transportation disadvantaged. Please refer to the 2010 environmental justice maps to determine whether the project is located in an area of disproportionately high percentages of low income and/or minority residents. Please check all classifications that apply to the project location {if it traverses more than one classification, an average score will be given). ❑ Low proportion of low income ❑ Low proportion of minorities ❑ Medium proportion of low income ❑ Medium proportion of minorities ❑ High proportion of low income ❑ High proportion of minorities 1 point max 0 0 .5 .5 1 1 7. QUALITY OF LIFE 5 PTS 7a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 7: Quality of Life. 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Preservation & Reconstruction Application Page 6 2017 -2019 SRTC Surface Transportation Program Application — Non - Roadway PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Agency or Organization Contact Person Phone Number Email Address Project Information Project Location ❑ Urbanized Area ❑Urban Small ['Rural Federal Functional Classification Project Description Include the project scope, length, purpose, and brief comparison of existing and proposed conditions. Proposed Timeline PE Estimated obligation date (m/d/yy) Estimated completion date (mldlyy) RW CN Other Attachments Please provide a vicinity map, signed Project Endorsement Form, and Complete Streets Checklist. SRTC Staff ❑ Vicinity map ❑ Endorsement ❑ Comp!ete Streets Checklist or Exempt Cost Summary A. Previous obligations (all fund sources, all phases) $ STP funding is requested for the following phases (check all that apply); ❑ Preliminary Engineering /Design ❑ Right -of -way ❑ Construction ❑ Other (planning, etc.) B. Requested STP Funds $ C. Other secured federal funds, source: $ D. Secured state funds, source: $ E. Secured local funds (13.5% match), source: $ F. Secured private funds, source: $ G. Total Estimated Cost of Project (All Phases) [A through F] $ Cost summary notes (optional, if additional information is needed). Describe the commitment of secured matching funds or other funds and the status of obtaining any unsecured funds. Note: matching funds must be available at the time of fund obligation. 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Non - Roadway Application Page 1 1. ECONOMIC VITALITY 15 PTS 1 a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 1: Economic Vitality. 3 Employment and Destination Accessibility 3 1 b. Please describe how the project enhances connections, both direct and indirect, to existing key destinations, (i.e. regional employment centers, city /regional centers and attractions, schools, or parks) or major transportation routes and/or transportation hubs (including transit). Include the distance from the project location to any referenced key destinations. Consistency with Economic Development Plans 3 lc. Is the project consistent with an adopted local economic development/revitalization plan, or other plans /initiatives with an economic development component? If so, please cite the plan and the page number that indicates the project is consistent with the plan. Existing and Future Development 3 1 d. Project is located within an area of significant existing or future employment. Please refer to the 2010 and 2040 employment density maps to identify the employment density of the project location. Check all densities that apply to the project location (if it traverses more than one density type, an average score will be given). 2010 Employment: ['Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 2040 Employment: ❑ Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 Freight Network 3 1 e. Is this project located on or does it support the regional freight priority network identified in Horizon 2040? ❑ Yes ❑ No Please explain. 3 2. COOPERATION AND LEADERSHIP 10 PTS 2a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 2: Cooperation and Leadership. 2 Agency Coordination 4 2b. Is the project a joint venture between multiple jurisdictions and /or agencies (including public /private partnerships)? If so, please describe: 2 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Non - Roadway Application Page 2 2c. Has this project been coordinated with STA or other transit operators? If so, please describe. 2 Public Involvement 4 2d. Please describe the extent to which the project has been reviewed by the public or other agencies (public meetings, environmental review, legislative actions, capital improvement programs, etc). 4 3. STEWARDSHIP 20 PTS 3a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 3: Stewardship (Please note if this project uses innovative design, materials, andlor funding sources, integrates multiple infrastructure needs, utilizes economy of scale, or completes a missing link). 2 Regional Priority Networks 2 3b. Is this project located on or does it support the Horizon 2040 Regional Vehicular Priority Network (NHS system)? If so, please describe. 2 Environmental Mitigations 4 3c, Does the project improve the environment or minimize the environmental impact of the facility above and beyond current 4 design standards (i.e. use of recycled materials, innovative storm water treatment, use of drought tolerant vegetation, air quality benefit, smaller footprint, etc.)? If so, please describe. Ability to Advance 6 3d. Describe the status of the project: ❑ Environmental documentation (NEPA) is complete & approved, or categorically excluded (CE) ❑ Right -of -way plans approved, or not needed ❑ Right -of -way acquisition is complete, or not needed ❑ Design is 30% complete ❑ Design is 60% complete ❑ Design is 90% complete 3e. Project status notes. Please indicate if there are any circumstances that could delay the project andlor if there are any critical timelines associated with this application (e.g. right of way acquisition, environmental documentation, other funds needed for full funding). 1 1 1 1 1 1 Funding 6 3f. Has the project received partial federal funding through SRTC in the past? Please explain how the project receiving these 2 funds has performed (Le. on schedule, on budget, etc,) and the other grant opportunities that have been sought since (list). 3g. Does this project have additional local /state match funds above the required 13.5 %. if so, please describe: 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Non - Roadway Application Page 3 ❑ 5% over the required local/state match ❑ 10% over the required local/state match ❑ 15% over the required local/state match ❑ 20% over the required local/state match 1 2 3 4 4. SYSTEMS OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PRESERVATION 5 PTS 4a, Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 4: System Operations, Maintenance and Preservation. 4b. What is the design life of the project? ❑ The project sponsor must indicate that the project, once completed, will be maintained for the life of the project 4c. Please describe the plan and funding source to maintain this project. 2 3 5. SAFETY AND SECURITY 20 PTS 5a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 5: Safety and Security. 4 Addresses Existing Safety Concern 16 5b. Does the project address an existing safety concern(s)? if yes, please indicate the existing safety concern(s). ['Collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists ❑ Lack of separated facilities for user groups ❑ Lack of safe pedestrian crossing ❑ High volumes /speeds on facility ❑ Signalized intersection collisions ❑ Other safety concern (please describe): Please explain how these safety concerns (from above) will be addressed by this project. 6. CHOICE AND MOBILITY 20 PTS 6a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 6: Choice and Mobility. 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 7 6b. Will the project add or improve pedestrian facilities (ADA requirements, crossings, completes a gap, extends connection, eliminates barriers, vegetated buffers, width >5 ft, pedestrian islands, etc.)? If so, please describe. 6c. Is the facility on the regional priority bicycle network? Will the project add or improve bicycle facilities (lanes, pavement markings, signage, completes a gap, extends connection, eliminates barriers, etc.)? If so, please describe. 2 2 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Non - Roadway Application Page 4 6d. Is this project on a local bicycle system that provides access to the regional bicycle network? If so, please describe. 1 6e. Project is located within an area of significant existing or future population. Please refer to the 2010 and 2040 population density maps to identify the population density of the project location. Check all densities that apply to the project location (if it traverses more than one density type, an average score will be given). 2010 Population: ❑ Low density ['Medium density ❑ High density 2040 Population: ❑ Low density ❑ Medium density ❑ High density 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 Transit Access 5 6f. Is the project located along the High Performance Transit Network and does it propose to improve transit access and/or amenities? If so, please describe. 2 6g. Is the project located along a local transit route and does it propose to improve transit access and /or amenities? If so, please describe. 1 6h. If the project proposes to improve transit access and /or amenities, what is the frequency (during the busiest hour of the day) of the transit buses that traverse the facility? ['frequency of less than 15 minutes ['frequency of 15 minutes or better 1 2 Shared Use of Infrastructure 2 61. Project encourages or allows for the shared use of infrastructure for multiple users (i.e. new shared use path, or the addition of facilities for a new user group on an existing facility). If so, please describe. Transportation Choices 3 6j. Project serves low income and /or minority communities or establishes a new or enhances an existing transportation choice to the transportation disadvantaged. Please refer to the 2010 environmental justice maps to determine whether the project is located in an area of disproportionately high percentages of [ow income and /or minority residents. Please check all classifications that apply to the project location (if it traverses more than one classification, an average score will be given). El Low proportion of low income ❑ Low proportion of minorities ❑ Medium proportion of low income ❑ Medium proportion of minorities ❑ High proportion of low income ❑ High proportion of minorities .5 .5 1 1 1.5 1.5 7. QUALITY OF LIFE 10 PTS 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Non-Roadway Application Page 5 7a. Please describe how this project is consistent with Horizon 2040 Guiding Principle 7: Quality of Life. 2 7b. Does the project support health- promoting transportation options for people of all abilities and ages (walking, biking, transit, 4 safe routes to school, etc.)? If so, please describe. 7c. Does the project include design elements that contribute to quality place making? If so, please check all that apply: ❑ Lighting ❑ Unusual or unique surfaces (pavers or stamped) ❑ Bicycle parking ❑ Raised or uniquely treated crosswalks ❑ Benches, bus shelters ❑ Garbage /recycling receptacles ❑ Traffic calming measures ❑ Bollards ❑ Landscaping, pots /planters, tree grates ❑ Other design elements, please describe: 4 2017 -2019 SRTC STP Non - Roadway Application Page 6