Loading...
2014, 04-15 Study Session Minutes MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington April 15,2014 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Dean Grafos,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Bill Bates, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Chuck Hafner, Councihnember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Rod Higgins, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Ed Pace, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Ben Wick, Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Marty Palaniuk,Planner 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. Mayor Grafos explained that tonight is a study session and that there would be no public testimony, but that a public hearing is set for May 6 for the comprehensive plan proposed amendments. He also announced that an Executive Session would be held at the end of tonight's meeting. 1. 2014 Legislative Update-Briahna Taylor Ms. Briahna Taylor and Mr. Alex Soldano of Gordon Thomas Honeywell gave a report on legislative issues. Ms. Taylor said that for the first time in the last five years, legislators completed their session on time; she said the legislators' purpose was to amend the biennium budget adopted in June. Ms. Taylor explained that the State has three budgets: Operating, Capital, and Transportation; and that they chose to adopt an operating budget with minor changes, chose not to make any amendments to the previously adopted budget on the capital side, and for the transportation budget, they only adopted maintenance and operation expenses. She said of all the bills introduced, this session had the lowest percentage passage rate since prior to 1975. Concerning our City's nuisance abatement proposal, Ms. Taylor explained that last minute concerns raised by the Community Bankers Association prevented the bill from passing; and after not being acted on in 2013, the bill was automatically carried over to 2014; she said that the Community Banks Association opposed cities having a first priority lien for any purpose, even though the Counties already have that ability; said although the bill did not pass,they are looking at steps for the next session, and suggested engaging the Community Banks Association so as not to have them at odds with our proposal. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if it would be helpful to gather signatures from banks,realtors and citizens for the next time and Ms. Taylor replied that the local banks don't have the concern, but collectively, a majority of the members of that Association chose to vote that the association should oppose the bill. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he was told Columbia Bank had applied a lot of pressure against the bill, but he said they don't do residential so he's not sure what their issue is as they appear to be influencing the Association. Ms. Taylor said she feels they would never agree to anything having a first priority lien,but Council Study Session 04-15-2014 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council:05-13-2014 we can explore how to go about doing that, Mr. Soldano discussed our capital funding request for Appleway Trail and said ultimately it was not included in the House or the Senate's capital budget, adding that no capital budget was passed out of either the House or Senate, so this simply helps us move forward for the 2015 session to refine the request and collect Ietters of support and submit the request to the Governor's budget in early fall. Ms. Taylor explained about the state shared revenues for liquor profits, liquor taxes, and marijuana revenues; said the liquor profits were capped at 2011 dollar amounts so whatever we received in 2011 and whatever growth that account might get, cities will not see any of it; she said the budget leadership prevented any hearings from occurring on the bills, that this is a supplemental budget year and they didn't want to commit to any changes for future years. Concerning liquor taxes, she said the legislators eliminated all cities' receipts in 2011, meaning there was a 100% cut; she said in 2013 there was a 50% restoration so we only got half of what we got in 2011; she said there was a request to restore the full amount of funding but the legislators selected not to; and the Senate suggested reducing the revenue even further. For marijuana revenues, Ms. Taylor said that each session included several bills, some of which would provide some level of revenue sharing, but not more than 15%, which she said is very limited and very disappointing. She mentioned that neither House Bill 2149 nor Senate Bill 5887 relating to merging medical and recreational marijuana, passed and said they will be taken up again next session, Ms. Taylor said the State is responding to the Supreme Court decision that requires them to invest in education, and one of the areas to address that is to reduce revenues; said she has doubts marijuana revenues or liquor profits would change, but part of future conversations about aligning medical and recreational marijuana will include revenue sharing. There was brief discussion about revenues, impact of the Affordable Care Act, the Appleway Trail support from legislators, and ongoing legislative discussion on the transportation revenue package, and mention that some issues won't be addressed until after next November's election. 2. Draft 2015-2020 Six Year Transportation PIan(TIP)—Steve Worley Engineer Worley explained that tonight is an opportunity to discuss the annual upcoming update of the six-year TIP and get ideas for different projects Council would like staff to consider to add to the TIP. Mr. Worley said state law requires we have a six-year plan and that it must be fiscally constrained,which means all desired projects must fit into revenue sources. Mr. Worley explained that the projects listed in the agenda materials represent projects from last year's Six-Year TIP; that completed projects have been removed and recently funded projects added, and he briefly described the added projects listed on the April 15,2014 Request for Council Action form. There was discussion about project #6 Sprague/Barker Roundabout, and whether this was something the neighborhood wants, and what the rationale is for using roundabouts compared to traffic signals. Mr. Worley explained that roundabouts are not new to many areas and there has been extensive study done on the effectiveness in terms of reducing collisions or the severity of collisions as opposed to those collisions that occur when people run red lights, typically at higher speeds. Mr. Worley said it is easier to get sideswiped or T-boned coming through a signaled intersection, but that roundabouts force people to slow down as they enter.He also noted that sometimes the amount of right-of-way needed to build roundabouts is much less than what is needed for full signalized intersections. Mr. Worley acknowledged that there is confusion sometimes when people are learning how to drive through roundabouts, and that collisions do occur, but they generally occur at lower speeds; and he talked about the history of our City's roundabouts. Other general comments included notice of a typographical error under project 10 where it states that FY09 federal earmark is for $720K million(which is actually not in millions); question about that project receiving up to $10 million from FMSIB, with Mr. Worley explaining that the FMSIB commitment is based on total price, that more details will be forthcoming, but the amount FMSIB will contribute is 20% up to $10 million. Council Study Session 04-15-2014 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council:05-13-2014 Discussion returned to the Sprague/Barker roundabout and the issue of pedestrian safety, especially in such a high traffic area. Mr. Worley said there have been studies conducted showing that roundabouts are safer than traffic signals; that the roundabouts have splitter islands on each leg which creates a refuge for pedestrians so they cross one leg at a time,waiting in the middle protected area until it is safe to proceed; and said with full signals, pedestrians have to cross all lanes at once. To clarify, Mr. Jackson asked if Council would like more information on roundabouts and if the preference is to leave the project in the TIP or have it removed. Several Councilmembers expressed their opinion to leave it in, but to have staff bring back more information for future discussion. Concerning traffic backing up on Barker,Mr. Worley said the current configuration is a four-way stop and said any improvement would be good, and said that future discussion would include possible improvements to include. There was some discussion about adding to the TIP, improvements to Barker to the south of Sprague, or improving the entire corridor, but that there are many projects and not enough money to fund them all and perhaps other projects would be a higher priority. Mr. Worley asked Council what they think are the City's highest priorities in terms of transportation network or areas upon which to focus. Councilmember Wick said the Barker area is one to examine, and then asked about the Sullivan Road extension and whether that is part of the County's Bigelow project. Mr. Worley said our City limit is north of Wellesley, so this was our portion of working with the County to pay for our part of the Bigelow project up to our north City limit line;which project he said is on the unfunded list (Sullivan Road North Extension [Bigelow Gulch]); and said he will research that project further and check the County's plan so the projects (ours and the County's) can be coordinated. Councilmember Higgins asked about the south boundary on Barker Road and some large developments further south and Mr. Worley said that years ago the County considered straightening out the south Barker Road to make it safer and that they were pursuing funding; he said we had agreed to partner with them but they haven't been successful in obtaining grant funds; he said lie would check with the County on the status of that project. Councilmember Hafner said since staff has already looked at prioritizing these projects, perhaps it would be beneficial for Council to know what criteria were used in that process. Mr. Worley replied that he would prepare that information for the next discussion on the TIP, and explained that staff looks at all the accident data from previous years, capacity of streets, and traffic volumes and tries to identify areas that are having problems or areas where we see future growth; he said specific criteria would come with individual grants. Councilmember Wick mentioned that we have been working with the County on severing the northeast corner of Barker, and suggested looking at road improvements at the same time; and Councilmembers agreed with that suggestion that Mr. Worley look at that NE section. Mayor Grafos said he feels this is a starting point for this TIP, thinks the priorities are correct, and realizes we are constrained by the amount of money we have or anticipate receiving in grants, and that lie feels the plan is realistic. 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Lori Barlow Senior Planner Barlow and Planner Palaniuk gave a report on the proposed 2014 comprehensive plan amendments; said they are not seeking action tonight, but tonight's process is to allow Council to become more familiar with the proposals and to ask questions in preparation for Council's May 6 public hearing. Ms. Barlow explained that there are nine proposal amendments, six of which are City-initiated text amendments.Planners Barlow and Palaniuk then went over the proposals as shown in their accompanying PowerPoint presentation. In response to Council question, Mr. Palaniuk explained that the impetus of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-14, Mirabeau Park, carne about when Pinecroft LLC contacted the City stating their desire to acquire the property; that they own some property north of the Parkway; that they wanted to acquire this parcel and that they owned a piece of property along Pines that the City was wishing to acquire, and they were hoping for some kind of agreement. City Manager Jackson stressed that Mr. Palaniuk's explanation is to show the impetus for this proposal, and that it doesn't mean we are Council Study Session 04-15-2014 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council:05-13-2014 contemplating a trade, but this is merely how this proposal came about; and said if we want to acquire property,we would simply acquire it, and if we wanted to sell property,we would sell it at the fair market value. Mr. Jackson again stressed that there would be no swap of property; and said the first question for Council consideration is, does Council want to re-zone it,and said the purpose of the explanation is in full disclosure of how this came about. Discussion turned to Comprehensive Plan Amendment 02-14, the SCRAPS proposal, and ideas of requiring an eight-foot brick wall along with landscaping to act as a buffer and noise-blocker, and whether those requirements could be part of an agreement, or as a condition of the change to Corridor Mixed Use. City Attorney Driskell said staff will research those ideas and bring back further information for the next discussion. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-14, Ms. Barlow explained, is the most controversial as it deals with changing five acres from low density residential to high density residential. As the map was being explained and discussed, the question came up concerning whether the property owner lives on parcel 55173.1018, which borders the acreage in question on one side, and high density residential on the other and which high density would allow up to twenty-two units per acre. Ms. Barlow said she was not certain who owned that parcel, but would verify whether it is the property owner. Ms. Barlow explained that the Planning Commission took public testimony for four hours on this proposal, and many questions/concerns were voiced from the public at that time about over-crowing schools, and increases in traffic and crime. Ms. Barlow said the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of this proposal. Mayor Grafos called for a short recess at 7:50 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m., after which Ms. Barlow briefly explained the remaining proposed amendments, adding that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of all the City initiated text amendments. 4.Public Notification Process—Scott Kuhta,Erik Lamb Planning Manager Kuhta explained that Council asked for a review of the City's adopted Public Participation Guidelines and notice requirements for Comprehensive Plan changes and applications; and he went over the procedures involved in notifying citizens concerning Comprehensive Plan updates and annual amendments, and Land Use Applications such as zone amendments, explaining that some of the processes include state noticing requirements. He explained that a question also came up about notifying property owners within 400 feet of a subject property when it concerns land use application permits that require a public hearing; and said that 400 foot requirement was as a result of past Council discussions when the initial notice requirement was changed from the idea of using 300 feet to increase that to 400 feet. Mr. Kuhta also explained the four different types of permit applications and associated notice requirements. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained the notification process from a state law perspective and noted that there is no specific foot limit under state law but the law does call for a reasonably calculated method to provide notice to property owners and other interested parties, such as posting notice on the property and publishing notice in the local newspapers, which we currently do. PIanning Manager Kuhta said the intent of tonight's discussion is to present these issues to Council, and seek feedback if Council feels there is a need to do more; and said that staff also uses the SmartGov public portal as a means of notifying the public. Councilmember Hafner said he feel our process is reasonable, and no matter what methods we use, there will always be some people who will say that they didn't get notice. The idea of running display ads as opposed to only legal ads was also discussed; and Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned that he feels the best way to get the message out about a particular area is to post the notice on the property. City Attorney Driskell stated that staff looks for balance because if we "set the bar" too high, we will also be looking at increased workloads and cost; that state law doesn't mandate a 400 foot noticing requirement,but we do that. Council Study Session 04-15-2014 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council:05-13-2014 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Grafos There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 6. Council Comments—Mayor Grafos There were no Council Comments. 7. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson Concerning our bond rating and our 2003 bonds, City Manager Jackson said that Finance Director Mark Calhoun was approached by Moody's Investment Service to complete a survey and subsequent interview, and as a result, our bonds have been upgraded from Al to AA3, which Mr. Jackson explained, is very good news; and said that is moving from an upper medium grade to high grade bonds; he said Moody's noted our low debt burden and moderately sized tax base with potential for growth; and our large general fund balance as well as our reserve were all positive indicators lending to the higher rating. Mr. Jackson said the initial bond of $7 million was for CenterPlace, and get reimbursed from the Public Facilities District, and said the additional $2.4 million was for road improvements; he said we have an extremely low debt ratio, sound management practices, and a service level stabilization fund, all positive factors. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately sixty minutes to discuss potential litigation and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:50 p.m. At 9:50 p.m., City Attorney Driskell returned to Council Chambers and announced that the Executive Session would be extended to 10:15 p.m. At 10:14 p.m., Mayor Grafos declared Council out of Executive Session, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. A S : Dean Grams, Mayor / f Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk - Council Study Session 04-15-2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council:05-13-2014 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS City of Spokane Valley Government Relations Report 2014 Legislative Session Recap Dear Spokane Valley Council & Staff- It was a pleasure representing the City of Spokane Valley in Olympia this past legislative session. On behalf of the city, our advocacy focused on passing legislation designed to help the city recover the costs of completing nuisance abatements. Only 10.3% of those bills introduced this session passed the Legislature—this is the smallest passage rate since before 1975. Because of opposition from community banks, our legislation was not one of the few bills that passed the Legislature. We also began talking to our legislative delegation about a state funding request for Appleway Trail, and laying the groundwork for the 2015 legislative session. The Legislature chose not to adopt a Supplemental Capital Budget in 2014, meaning there were no funding opportunities this year. However, discussing the Appleway Trail project with our legislative delegation positioned us for moving forward with a request in 2015. Like most cities, this session was disappointing for the City of Spokane Valley with regard to state-shared revenues. The Legislature failed to restore the full local share of liquor tax and fee revenues, or implement local revenue sharing for marijuana tax receipts. This inaction presents a challenge to cities as a whole. The attached report outlines our efforts, and the various issues that emerged throughout the 2014 legislative session. We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Spokane Valley on advancing the City's legislative agenda. Thank you! Briahna Taylor Alex Soldano 1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 2100 203 Maryland Ave.,NE Tacoma,WA 98401 www.gth-gov.com Washington,DC 20002 Phone: (253)620-6500 Phone: (202)544-2681 Fax: (253)620-6565 Fax: (202)544-5763 t/-/37 K2() ��i' Overview of the 2014 Legislative Session The 2014 legislative session was a session to not want anything. When the session began in January, legislators expressed a strong goal to complete session on time, within the short 60-day session. Goal accomplished. Little else was accomplished. As the second year of the legislative biennium,the Legislature's primary task was to adopt Supplemental Operating, Transportation, and Capital Budgets (these are budgets that amend the budgets adopted in June 2013). The Supplemental Operating Budget increased funding in basic education, and otherwise made few changes. The Supplemental Transportation Budget was a maintenance-only budget that did not fund any new projects and made only minor policy adjustments. Finally, for the first time since 1993, the Legislature chose not to adopt a Supplemental Capital Budget. Collectively these budgets, or lack thereof, made minimal changes. Click here to view the final budgets. Beyond the primary task of budget writing,the Legislature passed very few policy bills. Only 10.3% of those bills introduced this session passed the Legislature—this is the smallest passage rate since before 1975. There were a number of bills that passed House, but not the Senate and vice versa. Many of these bills were"message bills," introduced and advanced to outline each party's political platform going into the November 2014 elections. Role of McCleary and Education Funding As you likely know, the 2012 McCleary Supreme Court decision dictated that the Legislature must increase funding to basic education. The 2013 Legislature put an additional $1 billion in K-12 education. Immediately prior to the 2014 session, the Washington Supreme Court indicated that the Legislature must develop a plan by April 30th on how to provide $3.35 billion to the K-12 Education in the 2015-17, and$4.48 billion in 2017-19. This looming task influenced a number of the budget decisions, and will impact how the Legislature approaches the 2015-17 Operating Budget next session. What about a transportation revenue package? When negotiations on a Transportation Revenue Package ended unsuccessfully on December 18, 2013, the Governor, Senate, and the House each committed to continuing negotiations in the 2014 legislative session. At the beginning of the legislative session, the Majority Coalition Caucus indicated that a revised transportation revenue package proposal would be released "soon"to re-start the negotiations. A proposal was released half-way through the legislative session. A short series of negotiation meetings that ensued amongst key transportation Senators (notably, House members did not participate in the negotiations). No agreement was reached in these negotiations. The Majority Coalition Caucus proceeded forward with introducing bills containing the proposal, and requested a public hearing on the bills. This hearing was not granted. At the end of the day, there was not a willingness amongst the House, Senate, Republicans, or Democrats to vote on a gas tax increase. Click here to view an interview between Sen. Tracey Fide(D- Federal Way) and Sen. Curtis King(R-Yakima), the Co-Chairs of the Senate Transportation Committee. 2 Spokane Valley's Legislative Priorities Recovering Costs of Nuisance Abatement Last session, the City pursued legislation that allows the City to better recover costs nuisance abatement by allowing the city to put a first priority lien against properties where nuisance abatement costs are owed. House Bill 1367, sponsored by Rep. Steve Kirby (D-Tacoma), and Senate Bill 5323, sponsored by Sen. Pam Roach(R-Auburn), were introduced last legislative session. However, last minute concerns raised by the Community Bankers Association prevented these bills from passing in 2013. After not being acted on in 2013,both bills were automatically carried over to 2014-the second year of this legislative biennium. During the interim before session,we met with Sen. Mike Padden(R- Spokane Valley) and Rep. Matt Shea(R- Spokane Valley)to express the City's desire to move forward with this bill once again in 2014. We also worked closely with the Community Bankers Association throughout interim to work toward a compromise. While there were many members of the Community Bankers Association who supported the compromise, there were some who did not, and the association as a whole inevitably ended up opposing the legislation. In the first weeks of session, we met with Rep. Leonard Christian(R-Spokane Valley). He expressed concerns with the legislation, but was willing to work with us. His concern was that putting a first priority lien on the property could then result in a foreclosure on the home,pushing people out of their homes. After working on amendments to the bill,we were able to get the bill to the House Floor and passed. In the Senate, Deputy Mayor Woodard and I testified in support of the bill in the Senate Government Operations Committee. At this hearing, the Community Banks testified against the bill, stating that they oppose any local government having a lien priority higher than them. Additionally, some committee members had concerns about contractor liens not being honored if the City got a first priority lien. Despite this opposition and a contentious vote, we were still able to get the bill voted out of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee. The bill was also amended in the committee to state that the lien against the property also counts as a"special assessment"—with that designation, the city can work with the county to have the costs collected when property taxes are collected. The Majority Coalition Caucus discussed or"caucused" on the legislation when it came up on the Senate Floor for a final vote. A vocal group of Senate MCC members raised the concerns that the community bankers had brought forward during the committee. These concerns prevented the bill from being brought up for a vote. Capital Budget Request:Appleway Trail During legislative agenda development last interim, the City expressed interest in a long-term goal of funding the completion of the Appleway Trail Corridor. We suggested that a good starting point for discussion of project funding at the State level would be to introduce a Capital Budget request this session. While the odds of success in any supplemental budget year are low, 3 developing a proposal would begin a conversation that might develop a long term partnership on this issue. Prior to the beginning of the legislative session,the city council met with Sen. Mike Padden(R- Spokane Valley) and Rep. Matt Shea(R- Spokane Valley) to discuss this funding request and the City's other legislative priorities, During the first couple weeks of the legislative session,we also met with newly appointed Rep. Leonard Christian(R- Spokane Valley) who shared some very insightful possibilities for the trail proposal. We followed up on these meetings by submitting the formal paperwork for the funding request in the House. The Senate proposed Supplemental Capital Budget did not utilize any of the state's bonding capacity, and only funded a handful of projects with cash revenues that had increased— this substantially limited the ability for inclusion in a project list, and we were not included. The House proposed Supplemental Capital Budget was released shortly after the Senate proposal. The House proposal utilized $90 million in bonding capacity and funded a modest list of capital projects, but did not include funding for Appleway Trail. While we would have hoped to be included in one of the proposals, it was not unexpected, but our goal of beginning a discussion on this issue was successful. As mentioned in the Session Overview(above), the House and Senate were unable to reach an agreement on the Supplemental Capital Budget, and the Legislature inevitably chose not to adopt a budget. Protecting StateShared Revenues The City receives state-shared revenues from a number of accounts. The three shared revenues that have been under the most discussion are liquor taxes, liquor licenses/fees, and marijuana revenues. Liquor Tax Distributions The 2013 Legislature reduced liquor tax distributions to cities by 50% in the Operating Budget. The Supplemental Operating Budget makes amendments to the previously adopted budget. We received feedback over the interim that restoring the 50% reduction would not be possible until the next biennium (starting in 2015). No changes were made to liquor tax distributions. Liquor License/Fee Distributions In 2012, the Legislature abandoned an over 70-year-old history of 50/50 revenue sharing, and capped liquor license/fee distributions at 2011 levels. Over the interim, we worked on this proposal with a group of lobbyists representing cities and counties across Washington as well as Rep. Steve Tharinger(D-Dungeness) to refine the proposal that we worked on during the 2013 session. House Bill 2314, introduced by Rep. Tharinger and Senate Bill 6361 by Sen. Jan Angel (R- Port Orchard) were proposals to incrementally restore the 50/50 sharing relationship over multiple biennia. The bills did not impact the 2013-15 Operating Budget. Unfortunately,these bills were not event scheduled for public hearings. 4 State-Shared Marijuana Revenues With the legalization of marijuana, cities and counties will have increased regulatory and law enforcement responsibilities. Given this, we have been working to establishing a revenue sharing arrangement where a portion of marijuana tax receipts would be allocated to local governments. A number of legislators introduced bills that sought to establish this revenue- sharing relationship, however two bills emerged as the main"vehicles" for carrying forward the policy discussion on marijuana. House Bill 2149, sponsored by Rep. Eileen Cody(D-Seattle), and Senate Bill 5887, sponsored by Sen. Ann Rivers (R-Vancouver), aligned statutes for medical and recreational marijuana and was amended multiple times to add/remove provisions that would give various percentages of the marijuana revenue to local jurisdictions. Both bills inevitably did not pass. These bills are likely to come forward next session. As the bills worked their way through the legislative process, a number of policy issues were raised that are worth more discussion over the legislative interim: - How to handle cities that have imposed moratoria/bans? Multiple times over the legislative session bills or amendments were brought forward that preempted local authority to regulate marijuana. As an alternative to preemption, an issue was raised that marijuana revenues could be used as an incentive for jurisdictions to not ban—i.e. if a jurisdiction bans marijuana, it also does not receive a portion of the marijuana tax revenue collected by the state. - How to distribute marijuana revenues? When language was included that would distribute marijuana revenues,there was some question on how to distribute the funds: per capita basis?Based on number of licenses/jurisdiction? This is an item that needs continued discussion. Additional Legislative Items While the legislative agenda contains the City's top priorities, each session a number of bills are introduced that impact the City—some positively, some negatively. Click here to view a final bill tracking list of all legislation impacting the City. The bills in bold below have passed the Legislature. House Bill 1090, sponsored by Rep. Matt Shea (R- Spokane Valley)was carried over from 2013, and increases the dollar threshold for dock construction projects before they have to apply for permits as "substantial developments" under the Shoreline Master Program. The intent of this bill is to modernize this law, as the previous threshold did not account for interest-based increases over the years. SHB 1090 was quickly passed by both the House and Senate, and signed into law. House Bill 1287,sponsored by Rep. Sherry Appleton (D-_Poulsbo),was introduced in 2013 and was carried over into this session. The legislation states that land owned by federally recognized tribes for economic development is exempted for property tax and is instead subject to a state leasehold excise tax. Both cities and counties across Washington State have had concerns about this bill. This year,House Bill 1287 passed out of the House after being amended to add a tax preference performance statement and to specify that local 5 governments are entitled to receive a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes. The Senate amended the bill again to require tribes to provide proof of agreement on payment-in-lieu-of-taxes before receiving a property tax exemption. If the tribe and the county cannot come to an agreement on the rate of payment, the Department of Revenue is ordered to create a fair rate. With these amendments,the bill passed the Legislature and will likely be signed into law. House Bill 1367, sponsored by Rep. Steve Kirby(D- Tacoma), and Senate Bill 5323, sponsored by Sen. Pam Roach(R- Auburn), allows cities to impose a first-priority lien against a property to recover nuisance abatement costs (current law only allows a summary judgment/mechanics lien). Counties currently have the authority to impose a first priority lien to recover nuisance abatement costs. The bill harmonizes the law between cities and counties. The bill was supported by the Association of Washington Cities, but opposed by the Community Bank Association. The House version of this legislation passed out of the House, and the Senate Government Operations Committee. House Bill 1413, sponsored by Rep. Luis Moscoso (D-Mountlake Terrace), also known as the Washington State Voting Rights Act, applies to cities with a population over 1,000, all counties, and other special purpose districts. The bill prohibits at-large and district-based elections that deny a protected class an equal opportunity to elect candidates of its choice. A violation of the state act can be brought forward by any voter who is a member of a protected class. In determining whether there is a violation, the county will analyze elections for members of the governing body, examine results of elections in which one candidate is a member of a protected class, elections involving ballot measures, or electoral choices that affect the rights and privileges of members of a protected class who are voters. It also allows the court to mandate the re-drawing of districts not in compliance. The Association of Washington Cities expressed concerns about this bill, both in the 2013 and 2014 sessions. The bill passed the House on a party-line vote. The bill died in the Senate Rules Committee. House Bill 2105, sponsored by Rep. Brad Hawkins CR- East Wenatchee), requires public agencies and local governments to post notice of regular meetings online 24 hours in advance. This bill was amended during session to only apply to governmental entities with 10 or more full time employees. Once amended, this bill passed both the House and Senate and was sent to the Governor to be signed into law. HB 2151, introduced by Rep. Brian Blake(D- Aberdeen) as originally written would have prevented local jurisdictions from designing or operating recreational trails or even classifying trail systems as permanent features. GTHGA and a small team of lobbyists representing cities in Washington were able to amend the bill in a way that would eliminate all language that hurt the City's authority to design and operate trails, and revise the bill to simply advise the Department of Natural Resources to create a standard for developing state-owned recreational trails across the State and to work with local jurisdictions to find efficiencies in gaining local government permits for trails that are encountering barriers to development. Once amended, cities took a neutral position on this bill and HB 2151 passed out of the Legislature. 6 House Bill 2161, sponsored by Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon(D- Burien), would allow jurisdictions to levy SEPA mitigation fees for projects outside of their jurisdictional boundary, if that project has traffic impacts within their jurisdiction. In order for a project to proceed forward, there must be an inter-local agreement between the two jurisdictions on how SEPA mitigation fees are to be paid. This bill received a hearing in committee, but was never voted on. House Bill 2168 s onsored b Re . Brian Blake D- Aberdeen exem is minimum room area requirements from the State Building Code, and prohibits cities and counties from regulating or restricting minimum room or floor area requirements for single-family residential buildings, unless necessary for fire, life safety, or environmental purposes. The bill was motivated by a company who makes small cabins that do not meet current building code minimum room area requirements. The Association of Washington Cities opposed the original version of the bill, but inevitably identified a compromise with the sponsor of the legislation that stated that any local regulation on minimum room floor area regulations must include a reasonable exception for single-family residential buildings. Despite reaching an agreement on a compromise,the bill was never voted on in the House. House Bill 2213, sponsored by Rep. Dean Takko (D- Longview), and Senate Bill 6019, sponsored by Sen. Pam Roach(R-Auburn), would create a joint legislative task force to reevaluate the delivery of electrical code adoption, rule-making, and inspection. The primary mission of this task force was to explore whether or not the State should bring all electrical code inspection under their own umbrella(currently, a small handful of cities are authorized to employ their own electrical code enforcement office), or even possibly delegate the responsibility of inspection to local jurisdictions. HB 2213 was given a hearing in the House Local Government Committee, but was never scheduled for a vote to get out of committee, and SB 6019 did not receive a hearing this session. House Bill 2214, sponsored by Rep. Dean Takko (D- Longview),levies a fee of$2 per building permit to fund a task force to review the training and apprenticeship program for code enforcement officials. The bill was brought forward by the Association of Building Officials, who indicated that there are very few building officials under the age of 50, and that with many building inspectors reaching retirement, they need to be able to fill vacancies with a younger, diverse group who are skilled, qualified, and can consistently provide the same answers to the same questions. In order to accomplish that goal, there needs to be training and apprenticeships. The Washington State Heating, Ventilation, Air-conditioning, and Refrigeration Association opposed the bill, stating that fees should not be continually added to building permits. The bill was passed out of its original committee,but never received a vote in the House Appropriations Committee and died. House Bill 2234, sponsored by Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon(D-Burien), states that determinations of invalidity issued by the Growth Management Hearings Board is applied retroactively for vesting purposes. Under the bill, rights do not vest in the part or parts of a plan or regulation determined to be invalid, and permit applications or permits submitted or issued under the invalidated plan are void, and have no vested rights. The bill was heard in the House Local Government Committee, but did not advance out of the committee. 7 House Bill 2299, sponsored by Rep. Liz Pike(R- Camas),would allow local governments to opt out of prevailing wage requirements by a vote of the local governing body. This bill was heard in the House Labor& Workforce Development Committee, but was never scheduled for a vote and died. In response to a controversy in Spokane County, Rep. Timm Ormsby(D- Spokane) sponsored House Bill 2245,which would not allow vesting of new territory within urban growth areas until both 60 days after the decision is made and all petitions for review are settled. The bill was amended in committee to only allow a court to order a stay of the UGA territory vesting if a petition was filed within court. Cities and counties both expressed concerns with this legislation, as it would limit their ability to conduct land-use decision making and would add another obstacle to the process of changing UGA boundaries. While the bill passed out of committee, it died shortly thereafter in the House Rules Committee, House Bill 2311, sponsored by Rep. Gerry Pollet(D- Seattle),regards the timeline for protesting short plat and land use decisions. This bill would require that notice of proposed land use be provided to any potentially affected property owners before the statute of limitations can begin for those property owners to challenge the land use decision. This bill was given a hearing in committee, but never scheduled for a vote. House Bill 2346, sponsored by Rep. Jessyn Farrell (D- Seattle), requires state agencies to work together collaboratively to determine the prioritization of fish passage barrier removal in a given biennium in order to coordinate the removal with these entities, in the most cost-effective manner. This bill was heard, and the content of the bill was integrated into House Bill 2251, sponsored by Rep. J.T. Wilcox (R- Yelm), which passed the Legislature. House Bill 2349, sponsored by Rep. Larry Springer(D- Kirkland), is the latest iteration of tax increment financing, or community revitalization financing. Rep. Springer also introduced House Joint Resolution 4214 (a constitutional amendment) that would provide for"pure"tax increment financing. These bills would have allowed local jurisdictions to create special apportionment districts, and allowed for special tax rates to be levied within those districts to fund local improvements. Both of the bills were given hearings in committee, but neither were scheduled for a vote and failed to advance this session. House Bill 2428, sponsored by Rep. Sam Hunt(D- Olympia), allows an emergency medical service levy to be reauthorized at a lower rate than the immediately prior levy rate. In 2012, legislation was passed allowing the reauthorization of an EMS levy by a simple majority approval of voters, as long as the reauthorized levy has the same rate as the existing levy. However, the legislation did not extend the same simple majority rule for the reauthorization of an EMS levy at a lower rate. The bill clarifies that the simple majority vote is also permitted for the reauthorization of an EMS levy at a lower rate. This bill was brought forward by the Washington State Council of Firefighters, and no one testified in opposition to the bill. The bill was never brought to the House floor for a vote. House Bill 2433, sponsored by Rep. Cyrus Habib (D-Kirkland), requires a city or town to notify light and power businesses and gas distribution businesses of annexed areas and 8 affected properties. The Association of Washington Cities expressed concerns with the bill, and was able to amend the bill to make some minor technical changes. The bill passed the Legislature and has been signed by the Governor. House Bill 2497, sponsored by Rep. Sam Hunt(D- Olympia), and Senate Bill 6249, sponsored by Sen. Bruce Dammeier(R- Puyallup), increases three court fees to raise funds for local jurisdictions to fund new standards and caseload limits for public defenders. The fee a court of limited jurisdiction may collect upon a defendant's conviction is raised from $43 to $55. The limit on expenses a court may recoup for costs incurred in preparing and serving a warrant for failure to appear is raised from $100 to $175. The allowed monthly assessment a court may impose for services provided for misdemeanor probation evaluation and supervision is raised from$100 to $150. Revenue collected that is attributable to these increases must be used to support contracts,programs, and personnel specifically associated with indigent defense. The Association of Washington Cities indicated that the bill was a priority, and worked to support it. Those who opposed the bill indicated that many of the defendants already cannot pay their legal financial obligations and that an increase in fees will simply add to the amount they are unable to pay. In response, it was argued that cities continue to have the opportunity to waive the fees at the local level for those who are unable to pay. The bill did not pass the Legislature, however, key legislators issued a letter committing to work on the issue over the interim and to bring the bill back next session. House Bill 2547 sponsored by Rep. Timm Ormsby(D- Spokane) and Senate Bill 6315 sponsored by Sen. Jant a Holmquist-Newbry (R- Moses Lake) allow the creation of a port district smaller than a county within counties that do not have a port district. This bill was introduced because there is no longer any mechanism to allow port districts to be created that are less than countywide. However, to promote economic development, some communities within counties that are not likely to support a countywide district would like to develop port districts- as is the case in Spokane County. While SB 6315 did not pass the Senate, HB 2547 passed both chambers and was signed into law in 2014. House Bill 2539, sponsored by Rep. Reuven Carlyle(D- Seattle), and Senate Bill 6472, sponsored by Sen. Andy Hill (R-Kirkland), would clarify the taxation of recreation and physical activities. These bills were sponsored by request of the Department of Revenue and were supported by cities,parks departments, and non-profit organizations across the State. The purpose of this legislation is to provide the Department of Revenue with clarity on what types of recreational activities must pay sales and use tax. Senate Bill 6472 was passed out of the Senate, but failed to receive a vote on the House Floor. House Bill 2539 was passed out of the House Finance Committee, but was never scheduled for a vote on the House Floor and died. Members of the House Appropriations and Finance Committees expressed a desire to work on this issue during a budget year, and have made an informal commitment to continue their work throughout this interim and address this issue during the 2015 legislative session. House Bill 2558, sponsored by Rep. Jake Fey(D- Tacoma), and Senate Bill 6324, sponsored by Sen. Jeannie Darneille(D- Tacoma), allows cities to acquire tax-foreclosed property from a county for affordable housing purposes within 90 days of the tax foreclosure, and after a public bid has been held to sell the property and where no public bids were received. The city is 9 required to pay the amount owed to the county in unpaid taxes and penalties. Neither version of the bill passed the Legislature. House Bill 2591. sponsored by Rep. Joe Schmick(R- Colfax), and Senate Bill 6307, sponsored by Sen. John Braun (R- Centralia),preempts the entire field regarding wages, hours of work, employee retention, and leave from employment. Cities,towns, counties, and port districts cannot require, enforce, or regulate payment of wages, hours of work, employee retention, or leave from employment. The term `leave from employment' includes sick, vacation and holiday pay, leave when an employee's place of business or child's school or place of care has been closed by order of a public official, and any other type of employee leave except for leave for domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Neither version of the legislation advanced forward. House Bill 2618, sponsored by Rep. Mia Gregerson(D- SeaTac), would give the authority for cities to conduct public works projects that meet certain requirements in-house rather than having to contract for services. This tool would be good for code cities, as it would allow more flexibility for small projects to be done in-house,rather than having to get independent contractors. This bill passed out of the House, but died in the Senate when it failed to come up for a vote. House Bill 2745, sponsored by Rep. Jake Fey(D- Tacoma), and Senate Bill 6501, sponsored by Sen. Doug Ericksen(R- Whatcom), would establish best management practices for local waste oil recycling programs. If jurisdictions comply with the best management practices, and then later receive a finding from the EPA related to PCBs, then the jurisdiction can submit a petition for relief from the Legislature. The Senate version of the legislation passed and was signed into law by the Governor. Senate Bill 5872, sponsored by Sen. Andy Hill(R-Redmond), extends a document recording surcharge that was set to sunset in order to fund homeless housing and assistance. The$40 document recording surcharge is extended to June 30,2019. 45% of the funds generated must be used for private rental housing payments,which is housing owned by a private landlord and does not include housing owned by a nonprofit housing entity or a government entity. The Office of Financial Management is charged with getting an independent audit of the expenditure of the funds. If the audit finds that 45% of the funds were not used for private rental housing payments, then the Department of Commerce must submit a corrective action plan. Additionally, Commerce is directed to convene a stakeholder group to discuss long-term funding options for homeless housing programs that do not include document recording surcharges. The bill passed the Legislature and is currently awaiting the Governor's signature. This bill is the result of a compromise after House Bill 2368, sponsored by Ren. David Sawyer(D-Lakewood), and Senate Bill 6313, sponsored by Sen. Jeannie Darneille(D-Tacoma), died early in the legislative session. Senate Bill 5955, sponsored by Sen. Bob Hasegawa(D- Seattle). would establish a publicly owned trust with marijuana revenues. The trust would accept deposits from marijuana producers, processors, and retailers (instead of them going to the bank). All deposits would be 10 guaranteed by the state rather than insured by the FDIC. All income of the trust from interest and investments would be spent on public infrastructure. This bill was given a hearing in the Senate Government Operations Committee but did not otherwise advance forward. Senate Bill 6008, sponsored by Sen. Maralyn Chase(D- Shoreline), and House Bill 2413, sponsored by Rep. Dean Takko (D- Longview),prohibits a city or town from assuming all or part of a water-sewer district within their jurisdiction unless voters of the entire special district approve a ballot measure authorizing the assumption. While the House version was never given a hearing in committee, the Senate version was amended in committee to only apply to King County and was then passed by the Senate. The bill was then heard in the House policy committee, but was never voted on and inevitably died in the House Committee. Senate Bill 6089, sponsored by Sen. Mike Padden (R- Spokane Valley), changes eminent domain law to state that any property taken for economic development does not constitute a public use. The bill was heard in the Senate Law and Justice Committee but otherwise did not pass out of the Senate. Senate Bill 6117, sponsored by Sen. Don Benton(R-Vancouver), states that the rate that local government utilities may charge WSDOT for the construction, operation, and maintenance of storm water control facilities under certain conditions is revised to 100 percent of the rate for comparable real property. The Association of Washington Cities supported the legislation, but the bill did not pass out of the Legislature. Senate Bill 6308, sponsored by Sen. Mark Schoesler(R- Ritzville), limits local governments' ability to provide bonuses to employees. Payment of any bonus must be authorized by a resolution specifically describing the employee receiving the bonus, the service performance goal for which the bonus is paid, and the amount of the bonus. The bill was never scheduled for a hearing and did not pass the Legislature. Senate Bill 6516, sponsored by Sen. Jim Honeyford(R- Yakima), established a legislative task force on financing the state's storm water, flood risk reduction, floodplain restoration, water supply and integrated water management priorities. The bill was part of final Capital Budget negotiations but inevitably did not pass. 11 4/15/2014 City of Spokane Valley 2014 Legislative Session Recap l3riahna Taylor & Alex Soldano 2014 Legislative Session Short, 60-day session Amend biennial budgets adopted in June 2013 State has three budgets: • Operating © Capital • Transportation • Transportation Revenue Package Ilir""'4644111111111111141.111%1111- z 1 4/15/2014 Recovering Nuisance Abatement Costs: HB 1367/SB 5323 A Bills carried over from the 201 3 session y Worked with community banks prior to session HB 1367 passed out of the House • Concerns about first priority liens resulting in foreclosure if not paid , HB 1367 heard and passed out of the Senate Government Operations Committee , HB 1367 put on the Senate floor calendar for a vote 3 Appleway Trail No Supplemental Capital Budget in 2014 Laid the groundwork in 2014 Moving forward: • Refine the request: what amount, what scope Collect letters of support from community groups o Highlight in community events • Submit request to Governor's Budget in early fall :z., 1 • 4 2 4/15/2014 State- Shared Revenues Liquor Profits HB 2314/SB 6361 - Restoring Growth Liquor Taxes 2013 - 50% cut Senate Operating Budget Proposal Marijuana Revenues HB 2149/SB 5887 ri- Transportation Revenue Package/Barker Road Halfway through the legislative session, the MCC released a new version of the transportation revenue package z Negotiations restarted, but agreement could not be reached. Major sticking points: Multimodal funding Sales tax redirection Labor reform 5 3 4/15/2014 Questions? Briahna Taylor btaylor@gth-gov.com (253) 310-5477 Alex Soldano asoldano@gth-gov.com (206) 920-7967 4