Loading...
2014, 07-15 Study Session Minutes MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington July 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 Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director Rod Higgins, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Ed Pace, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Ben Wick, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Micki Harnois, Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer 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 ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance#14-007 , 2003 Bond Refunding—Mark Calhoun After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance #14-007 as drafted. After Finance Director Calhoun explained the background of the purpose and process of this ordinance, Councilmember Hafner asked about the Public Facilities District(PFD) savings. Mr. Calhoun explained that the PFD would save about$1.2 million over the next seventeen years, and that they can apply that to capital projects as deemed appropriate by their Board. Mr. Calhoun added that at the time this concept of bond refunding first arose, he contacted the PFD Executive Director and asked if they had an interest in sharing back the savings and there was no response. Mr. Calhoun said because interest rates change frequently, he would like to get this bond ordinance process completed as quickly as possible. There was additional discussion concerning the PFD and the savings this would represent, and Mr. Calhoun said that perhaps an appropriate use would be for Browns Park; that he does not know their intentions in how to use the savings, and they are not obligated to do any specific project. Councilmember Wick suggested that we have a representative on their Board, and Mr. Jackson said he would research that idea. Both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Calhoun encouraged proceeding with this ordinance tonight. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Several other Councilmembers agreed with the idea of having representation on the PFD Board. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance #14-008, Marijuana Regulations—Erik Lamb After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 14-008, adopting definitions for recreational marijuana uses, adopting zoning buffers for undeveloped school, library and certain City property, for recreational marijuana uses, and repealing interim marijuana regulations, to a second reading at Council's July 22 meeting. Deputy City Attorney Lamb gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed amendments, Council Study Session 07-15-2014 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council:08-12-2014 definitions, and restrictions; said he spoke with representatives from the Liquor Control Board concerning infused products and explained that there are emergency rules in place, but certification would be needed for any extraction process, as well as having the product certified and tested if making consumable goods; he said there are currently no infused products and there can't be at this point because they don't have that approval mechanism set up yet. Mr. Lamb noted that on page 8 of the ordinance, he failed to include the phrase about the stormwater facility or right-of-way, and said that would be added for the second reading next week if this moves forward tonight. Councilmember Pace asked about infusing product into e- cigarettes and Mr. Lamb said there is no authorization for retail sale for vapor infused products, although they might be able to do so through a medical supplier. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Mr. Justin Peterson of Spokane had a handout, which was distributed to Councilmembers, which showed the County results for the vote on Initiative 502, as well as the outcome of the vote in Spokane; and he read his prepared letter addressing his concerns about the additional restrictions; said his would be a local small business and would bring revenue directly to our City, and said the applicants want to form a partnership rather than a lawsuit. There were no other public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 3. Proposed Resolution#14-008 Opening McMillan Road—Erik Lamb It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Resolution No. 14-008 opening McMillan Road to vehicular traffic between Buckeye Avenue and Euclid Avenue. Deputy City Attorney Lamb briefly explained that the purpose of this resolution is to re-open a portion of McMillan Road that was previously closed to traffic in 1999; and that a resolution is necessary to effect this action. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Approval of Interlocal Agreement with Spokane Transit Authority—Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the STA Interlocal agreement for fiber facilities. Public Works Director Guth said this agreement would permit the Spokane Transit Authority to use one pair of dark fiber to provide communications between the Pence Cole Valley Transit Center and STA's other facilities. Mr. Guth said this is a ten-year renewable agreement. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 5. Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects—Steve Worley Engineer Worley explained the process for the upcoming Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects, and went over the four proposed projects for consideration: (1) University, 16th to Dishman Mica for a pavement preservation project with an opportunity to restripe existing roadway from a four to a three lane street, including bike lanes; (2) Sullivan, Sprague to 8`h Avenue for a mill and asphalt inlay as well as new sidewalk installation; (3) McDonald-16`h to Mission Avenue to restore the pavement using a mill and thin inlay, restriping from a four-lane to a three lane with bike lanes; and (4) 32°d-SR 27 to Evergreen, which would address pedestrian access across SR 27 and 32nd by providing sidewalks to serve several residential and commercial developments and which connects to recent improvements along Evergreen Road. There was some Council discussion concerning moving from four to three lanes, and Mr. Worley said there is nothing preventing us from later moving back to four lanes if desired. Council expressed agreement with the need for the sidewalks with Mayor Grafos stated that he feels all the projects are great choices. Other discussion included bike lanes,traffic, re-stripping and mention that Argonne doesn't have enough room to put in five-foot bike lanes without making that heavily traveled road too narrow. There was Council consensus to bring this back for a motion consideration at a future Council meeting. Council Study Session 07-15-2014 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council:08-12-2014 6. Washington State Dept. of Transportation,Traffic Operations Agreement—Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth explained that this interlocal agreement is actually a combination of several contracts into one document to address maintenance for traffic signals, illumination and ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) devices; and said that this agreement was reviewed by our and WSDOT's legal departments; that it would be a one-year contract, automatically renewed on a calendar year, expiring in 2024. Councilmember Pace asked if this could be put out for bid instead of using the State's department, and Mr. Guth explained that the signals on the state highway operate with a different type of controller from what the County chose to put in the Valley; so all parts and equipment are stocked by the state; additionally, he said the state has its own large bucket truck, which the County does not have, and they work well for those very high areas; he said WSDOT also works for us on behalf of BNSF Railroad; he said there is nothing legally precluding us from going elsewhere, but the County and State would be the only entities that would be able do the work needed. There was Council consensus to move this agreement forward at a future council meeting for approval consideration. 7. Proposed Code Text Amendment, Setbacks—Micki Harnois Planner Harnois explained that this proposed code text amendment is a citizen-initiated amendment with the intent to reduce the side and rear yard setback for the Light Industrial Zoning district from 35 feet to 20 feet when the site is adjacent to a residential zoning district or use; and through her PowerPoint presentation, showed some examples of industrial zones with existing non-conforming residential uses, and said that typical lot sizes and uses vary in the established industrial area, and added that the lots are narrow. Ms. Harnois stated that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the modified amendment, which would specify that the minimum side and rear yard setbacks in the I-1 and 1-2 zones adjacent to a residential use be set at 20 feet, and to amend the Table in the Municipal Code 19.60-1 to specify that the minimum side and rear yard setback in the I-1 zone adjacent to a residential zone be set at 20 feet and minimum side and rear setbacks in the I-2 zone adjacent to residential zone be set at 35 feet. To assist in the discussion, Senior Planner Barlow showed a slide depicting how the residential zone abuts the industrial zone in zone I-1 and I-2, as well as the same zone with a different use and the same zones with the same use. Mayor Grafos suggested for L1 to have a 10' side and rear setback at 20' in both zones. Discussion ensued regarding the homes in the residential area and whether they are owner occupied, are still used as homes, or have been converted into offices. Ms. Barlow mentioned that Mayor Grafos' suggestion would be a significant change, and City Attorney Driskell added that since those setbacks were not discussed at the Planning Commission, the issue should be referred back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. In response to questions about notifying residents, Ms. Barlow said that since this would be a city-wide code text amendment, notification to property owners is not required other than through the normal process of advertising and publishing on our website; and said if this were to return to the Planning Commission, another public hearing would be re-advertised and held based on the current proposal; and she added that there was no public testimony during the first process other than the applicant; and she agreed it would be a good idea to send this back for another public hearing. After continued discussion on the residential homes in the area, Ms. Harnois said she felt there would be a total of less than ten homes; with Ms. Barlow adding that no analysis has been done on how many possible homes might be impacted, and perhaps that could be ascertained by use of a GIS system. In an effort to be fair and consistent, City Manager Jackson said he would like an opportunity to examine the Code concerning how we address the question of notification. Mayor Grafos asked about the idea of making this change now, and then changing again later if desired, by a city-initiated amendment. Mr. Jackson said if we did that, it might be prudent to examine other setback requirements as well. Ms. Barlow said that the issue tonight, is whether there is Council consensus to move this amendment to a first ordinance reading. The discussion included mention of this item and a subsequent change as two distinct proposals; that the applicant wants to put a building in the area but Ms. Harnois said she is unaware of his timing needs; and Councilmember Hafner stating that regardless of the number of homes involved, he would want the Council Study Session 07-15-2014 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council:08-12-2014 homeowner notified. It was ultimately determined by Council to move this forward as recommended by the Planning Commission. At 8:00 p.m., Mayor Grafos called for a recess; he reconvened the meeting at 8:10 p.m. 8. Proposed Noel Telecommunication Franchise Agreement—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell explained the proposal from Noel Communications for a non-exclusive franchise to construct, maintain and operate telecommunication facilities within the public rights-of-ways; he said that this is a smaller company out of Yakima seeking to expand in our area; that their concept is fairly limited to the Industrial Park; that this would be the seventh fiber franchise the City has granted, and is nearly identical to the last fiber franchise agreement. There was no objection to moving this forward. 9. Public Facilities District Amended Interlocal—Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb gave some history on the interlocal agreement we entered into with the Public Facilities District (PFD) for the Development of the Regional Center Projects; and that the PFD felt certain provisions needed to be amended, and that this is the first modification of that agreement. Mr. Lamb went over the proposed amendments, and said that this is tied to our 2003 bond refunding ordinance process. As shown on the attachments to Mr. Lamb's Request for Council Action form, the changes include an updated definition of section 1.38 describing what Valley City Bonds means, as well as several other changes as noted. Mr. Lamb said since we won't know the exact amounts of the bond, this won't be executed until the date of pricing on the bonds, and he said to date, the PFD has approved this, Spokane County will consider it in August, and this will be brought to Council for a motion consideration at the July 22 meeting. Mr. Lamb stated that this is not necessarily tied to the bond refunding, other than providing the PFD a substantial savings. Finance Director Calhoun added that in order to advance the bond issue in a timely manner, they are seeking approval from all parties. Council agreed time is important and that this should move ahead, and noted that the PFD sharing the savings is a separate issue. 10. Traffic School Contract—Morgan Koudelka Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that Council approved a Traffic School interlocal agreement and an amendment January 2012 and October 2013 respectively; that the original one-year agreement was extended and added an auto-renewal clause, but prior to the County approving the amendment, the Sheriff disputed the application of indirect costs to the Traffic School and was successful in having State legislation adopt the prohibition of indirect costs. Mr. Koudelka said that the County has subsequently revised the amendment language and our staff finds the document acceptable. There was Council consensus to include this on the July 22 Consent Agenda for approval consideration. 11. Appleway Trail Update—Eric Guth After Engineer Worley gave an update on the Appleway Trail Project, University Plaza Design Concept, there was brief discussion concerning ideas for the area, including a plaque or historical sign about the origin of the former townships that are now part of Spokane Valley. It was also mentioned that STA (Spokane Transit Authority) is willing to work with us for some of the transit area to be used for parking, and that we are working with Valley Glass concerning space for their truck turning. Councilmember Wick mentioned the idea of the Arts Council statue that has not yet been placed. Mr. Worley said that we are working on two construction bids: earthwork; and then the trail, lighting, plaza and landscaping, with the earthwork bid set for July 25 and work to start August 25, and the trail bid set for August 22 with work beginning September 29. 12. Advance Agenda—Mayor Grafos Mayor Grafos brought up the topic of proposed changes to Trent Avenue, to change corridor mixed use and mixed-use center zoning to regional commercial, and he referenced his handout to Council and Mr. Council Study Session 07-15-2014 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council:08-12-2014 Jackson. Mr. Jackson said he would examine the information and schedule a future administrative report. It was also mentioned that there would be no meeting September 30,2014. 13. Information Only The (a) Draft Solid Waste Management Plan, and (b) Appleway Landscaping Project were for information only and were not discussed or reported. 14. Council Comments—Mayor Grafos: There were no additional Council comments. 15. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about the status of the Sullivan Bridge project and Mr. Jackson said due to a technicality, we didn't get any qualified bids so the project will be re-bid, which sets the schedule back a little. Public Works Director Guth said that the bid was re-advertised for a bid opening July 18; that we have TIB and WSDOT as funding partners so they will have to review the bids for approval as well as Council; and Mr. Jackson said we can discuss later about the timing for this to come to Council. Mr. Jackson noted that several Councilmembers attended the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) conference and heard about a survey designed to address some important issues; and said he will bring the idea of the survey forward at a future meeting; he also mentioned the idea of having a legislator scorecard showing how they vote on specific issues; said he received some information from our lobbyist Briahna Taylor, and said asked if Council wants to pursue that,to please let him know. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. /01111.°H.5 AT / . . y Dean 'os, or hristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session 07-15-2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council:08-12-2014 7/15/2014 TRENT AVE: PROPOSED CHANGE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PINES RD. TO SULLIVAN RD: Change Corridor Mixed Use and Mixed Use Center Zoning to Regional Commercial. These properties are currently bordered on the North by R-3, on the East by Light Industrial zoning and the land South of Trent is currently Light Industrial. The land to the West at the intersection of Pines Rd and Trent is currently zoned Mixed Use Corridor. The type of business activities listed below are appropriate land uses for properties located along Trent Ave between Pines Rd and Sullivan Rd. The majority of these business activities are more intensive, and in some cases less aesthetically compatible with currently allowed uses in either The City of Spokane Valley's Mixed Use Center or Corridor Mix zones. Changing the zoning to Regional Commercial would encourage more development, but would not impact or expand business activities now allowed in Mixed Use Center or Corridor Mixed Use zones. Animal Clinic Auction House Auto/Light truck sales and service Heavy trucks sales and service Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle painting. Repair, body and fender works Boat Sales and Service • Building Supply and home improvement Carpenter shop Equipment Rental shop Equipment sales, repair, and maintenance (example: fork lift sales and service) Farm machinery Sales and repair (example: tractor sales) Golf Driving range/training center Landscape materials and sales Machine shop Manufactured home sales Recreational vehicle sales and service Re-cycling facility with conditions Upholstery shop Dean Grafos Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING Div«ioiv jUalley. c 1 Residential Zone`�-,., #2 Residential Use #3 Industrial Use abuts Industrial Zone ) in Industrial Zone abuts Industrial Use LU Z o NIt _IA FA jin J Q __ z 20' w fl!o i IA Si FAI w cc 1-1 __.....__- Different Zones Same Zones - Different Use Same Zones — Same Use Municipal Code Text Amendment /— /_ - 2/ / Item #2 Proposed Ordinance No. 14-008: Recreational -T------- ----Ma riju a-n a_:-RegUI ate ons_.�,�__�_ Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Christina Janssen, Planner Proposed Amendments o Largely Mirror Existing Interim Regulations o Appendix A-Definitions: Add definitions for Marijuana processing, production, and sales. • Adopt SVMC 19.85: Development regulations for the processing, production and sales of Marijuana. o Amend SVMC 19.120.050-Permitted use matrix to include Marijuana uses. o Repeal interim development regulations adopted pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 14-002 and 14-004. 2 1 Item #2 City Definitions For Marijuana Processing, Production, and Sales, definitions track allowable uses under state-issued licenses. Thus, can process and package useable marijuana, infused-products (edibles) and concentrates only as allowed under state law and the state license See Section 2 of Proposed Ordinance No. 14-008 3 Production Restrictions - City Zoning: Light and Heavy Industrial —indoor and outdoor Community Commercial and Regional Commercial—indoor only Buffers — 1,000 foot limit between use and: Vacant and undeveloped school and library property Vacant and undeveloped City owned or leased property Exception for Stormwater, Right-of-Way, and Appleway Trail City Hall and CenterPlace 4 2 Item #2 Production Restrictions - State Limited to maximum size of 21 ,000 square feet of growing Security requirements May be outdoor, but require eight-foot high sight-obscuring fence and must still comply with security requirements Buffers (see slide 10) 5 Processing Restrictions - City Zoning: Light and Heavy Industrial —useable marijuana, extraction, infused products Community Commercial and Regional Commercial —useable marijuana only Buffers — 1 ,000 foot limit between use and: Vacant and undeveloped school and library property ' Vacant and undeveloped City owned or leased property Exception for Stormwater, Right-of-Way, and Appleway Trail 6 ' City Hall and CenterPlace 3 Item#2 Processing Restrictions - State Certification for extraction equipment and process Approval for infused products (edibles) by Liquor Control Board (LCB) Cannot exceed serving size limitations Must be"scored"to show single servings Cannot be appealing to children Cannot require hot or cold storage THC must be homogenous within product (so no one serving has all the THC) 7 Buffers (see slide 10) Retail Restrictions - City Zoning: Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Community Commercial and Regional Commercial Buffers — 1 ,000 foot limit between use and: Centennial Trail Appleway Trail Vacant and undeveloped school and library property Vacant and undeveloped City owned or leased property Exception for Stormwater, Right-of-Way City Hall and CenterPlace 8 4 Item #2 Retail Restrictions - State Limit of 3 stores in Spokane Valley No sales over the internet No delivery sales Cannot share same space with medical marijuana outlet Retail hours limited to 8:00AM to Midnight Cannot sell alcohol at same location Limits on size and content of advertising Buffers (see slide 10) 9 Buffer Restrictions - State No production, processing, or retail sales or advertising of the same within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of any of the following: Elementary or secondary school Playground Recreation center or facility Child care center, Public park (excluding trails) Public transit center Library Game arcade open to persons under the age of 21 10 5 Item#2 Buffer Restrictions - State and City No production, processing, or retail sales or advertising of the same within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of any of the following: © Elementary or secondary school AND undeveloped school property m Playground AND undeveloped City property © Recreation center or facility O Child care center a Public park (excluding trails)AND undeveloped City property, Appleway Trail, and Centennial Trail (Trails for retail only) 11 Buffer Restrictions — State and City Continued No production, processing, or retail sales or advertising of the same within 1 ,000 feet of the perimeter of any of the following: o Public transit center O Library AND undeveloped library property O Game arcade open to persons under the age of 21 O City Hall o CenterPlace 12 6 Item #2 Questions? 13 7 Item 11 Sp kane ~ elle• Appeway oject Pir_ ase ? ��� o °vers _uty to f_ les July 1 5 , 2014 • 0 jt _ lre _ „,„, ..,, .,:. r.V�tarn,. . !o LM is xa�r�.,.^jr rn. H t; University Plaza e....r...^?. k. Trail Landscaping { Valley Glass ,. Trail Lighting J' '' - ,, ,_ K,• _ Construction Bids r - Project Schedule _ y> Cost Estimate - y> Questions .: Wit': Pi: INi 2 1 Item 11 University Plaza r Based on Concept Plan ® Includes: • Gabion Benches • Water Fountain • Kioskt : 1 • Picnic Tablesil .��///`yy1, ,�, �_._ • Rail Paving _- TJa o Trail Sign APPLEWAY TRAIL CORRIDOR ��;, 3 University Plaza BOSUN (SITE PLT 4-N mi mom , , !3 ]] i (w P..en - /_ Do-n,wcn.,Pr,tc i I"- A 1 `�ii5°"°"` UNIVERSITY WAY 4WM Pal/&Ww•AL twA 4 2 Item 11 University Plaza DECOMPOSED ERR 1E PA.PG EcR&E MACK Trp ( TREES PEA LANDSCAPE RAN DUN ca QJTE TRAFFIC r.2fJ Nag AVD R NER L '�^ !l ' CAP B•GEL•CTA9.'E COSYsTD RAN R-102ice' �,' fTAL1E RAH TYPE B y, FOR NTLn A CE ® y,'.p 'Y9 'USE. o-e G1S,GJ SES is O n1I \Ll�l r.'S. Fes© �N.4. \' U a U yc i. 11/4 �6 %�. Luft.i CtlSAM RAMP COMPIJRNE MDI ADA 1 u o loo u9 I --, —�. REJUFEYD1Ts Atm COOROCIATE 1MTN ttCOSY Flt RAMP REPLACEW AS /MET yK APPLEWAY BLVD 1 ; �t� mart PAT*`y����i A D L OLLAiO ELSE 1001E FORCE 1104, lar 1'a��1 A'98-Y- KEP CQtiECT TO E19SDRO I A 4 4.-- -----.'� !'PRESSURE UM I , ;,i19 k:7 () , ------ ENTRY Sal tr.d®a=`;1 —>--.�-- RECYCLED RAL PRONG ;:. RKK\ TRAT.CN STALE FOR TrPE 2 NN OR ET i; ROADRAY When- TCP COMON LOW PONT OF 0'S 1995.6 N LATTER 90Ti0Y OF A'ALE 1995.1 - - (COSY STD RAN 5-111) wruu w.o-u Elm CCAOSIE TRAFFIC NR9 kg GUTTER -----.. 5 Trail Landscaping ® Rows of trees at University Plaza ® Berms with Ornamental Shrubs east of Plaza ® 26 Trees planted along Trail d 6 Benches with shade trees along Trail Hydroseed disturbed areas .. 6 3 Item 11 a, La i �� S C a li ll n PLANT SCHEDULE 11,4 (a 1 Mt ...0.1...•.........0e*...� n.a... _ S. ... ...rw .w.. 1 C B LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLAN “ UNIVERSITY PLAZA jam CALLOUTS � , + -, rR Vaiiey Glass License Agreement — L ,dAte.yVeConcept'W2-65 tom- Lotot and Spokane County Access nte65 -. 1y ��- ��(,. ` Truck k T rn i n Analysis t1= ► u c Turning __ ` ' __ %� !I ; �- with Trail vi I �, ` _� 101,„.\v/ Trucks and Trail can I -II work together LL _— \ � underway Valley Glass - great to work with 8 4 Item 11 ......_ !=tt Type _—` 12� M ting Height "'a:fill Lighting Pole Spacing V.e can!k n mance sG ® Lighting design is ongoing .TL An1Min: R' ;3f�"�: Avg'R'n:12.:A:RIawVvm:43.00 D Illumination maps Balancing = -- • Light levels for user safety =- Minimal light onto neighbors ``O22 ght O 18'M oun5ng He: . 70'Pok Spacng • Prevent Vandalism of Lights VerJcal Illuminance©5ft Avg:0.85fc:Max:2.0fc;Rtin:0.tfc o Cost Avg:Min:8.50:Max/Mi::20.00 d a 9 Construction Bods ® Two Bids • Bid 1 : Earthwork • Bid 2: Trail, Lighting, Plaza, Landscaping ® Allows major grading work to get done while design is being finalized Kf S ' 10 5 Item 11 ?: OJ &t crled : e Earthwork Bid - duly 25 Earthwork Bid Opening - August 8 Earthwork begins - August 25 Trail Bid - August 22 Trail Bid Opening - September 9 Trail work begins - September 29 11 Cost Estmate o Preliminary Estimate — $ 1 ,309,000 e Includes: • Site Prep • Grading • Drainage • Surfacing • Hot Mix Asphalt Paving • Other Paving • Erosion Control/Roadside Plantings • Traffic • Utilities Does not yet include: • Landscaping Materials Testing • Lighting Inspection/Project Management 11111111111 12 6 Item 11 n ° -r � -S^ _ Y54"lS 4'01 13 7 Initiative Measure No. 502 Concerns marijuana - County Results Search Last updated on 11/27/2012 4:55 PM Total ` atcom Pend Skagit Okanogan Ferry Stevens Oreike Yes 55.7% Ctaliam Snohomish 1,724,209 Jefferson Chelan "2ouglas L.i:co(; Spokane King Grays Mason tiarbor Kittitas Giant � No 44.3% Peine ' Adan Wlhitrraan rh,r5ton 1,371,235 Pacfic Lewis Yakima Franklin Garireid Benton Cokrrnbra Cowitc Vaka Walla Rsotrs Wainciakurn } Skarnaraia Kkkdat Clarti Initiative Measure No. 502 Concerns marijuana Results Summary Spokane Yes 116,190 52.15% No 106,601 47.85% Total Votes 222,791 100% HOW ARE THESE FUNDS SPENT BY FUNCTION? The following chart shows how the $81.8 billion 2013-15 total funds budget is allocated: Public Schools Higher Education 16% 22.2% Transportation 9.5% Gov't Operations 7% Human Services Natural Resources 4.9% 35.4% Debt Service/Other 5% 2013-15 All Budgeted Expenditures* (Dollars in Billions) Human Services $28.9 Public Schools $18.2 Higher Education $13.1 Transportation $7.8 Governmental Operations $5.8 Natural Resources $4.0 Debt Service/Other $4.1 Total $81.8 "Includes Capital Re-appropriations. Sources: Winsum and B uildsum budget development systems for the 2013 Session. Human Services, such as medical and public assistance, long-term care, other health care, and prisons, represents 35.4% of total budgeted expenditures. Most human services programs are partnerships between the state and the federal government, with the federal government providing about half of the money and the state providing the rest. The state provides human services to one out of every three citizens, including services to over one million children residing in Washington. Public Schools--state funding of kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) school districts--is the next largest category of total budgeted expenditures at 22.2%, although it represents the majority of the state general fund budget (see page 13). 5 Higher Education accounts for 16% of total budgeted spending. Higher education includes support for state four-year schools and community and technical colleges. Over $7 billion is planned to be spent for Transportation services and construction in the 2013-15 biennium. These services and construction include highways, state ferries, and other transportation programs in the Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT); the Washington State Patrol (WSP); and the Department of Licensing (DOL), to name the three largest. Of that $7.8 billion, transportation operating activities account for more than $3.6 billion (4.4% of statewide spending), and transportation capital activities account for $5.2 billion (nearly 6.4% of total spending). Other major spending categories include Natural Resources (agencies for environmental protection, management, and recreation); Governmental Operations (administrative,judicial, and legislative agencies); and other expenditures, such as the payment of Debt Service (the interest and principle costs of facilities and services funded through general obligation bonds). 6 ' H-3248 . 1 HOUSE BILL 2322 State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2014 Regular Session By Representatives Sawyer, Condotta, Appleton, Kirby, Fey, Farrell, Fitzgibbon, Hunt, Reykdal, Springer, and Ryu Read first time 01/15/14 . Referred to Committee on Government Accountability & Oversight . 1 AN ACT Relating to prohibiting local governments from taking 2 actions preventing or impeding the creation or operation of commercial 3 marijuana businesses licensed by the liquor control board; amending RCW 4 66. 08 . 170, 82 . 08 . 170, and 66. 08 . 050; adding a new section to chapter 5 69. 50 RCW; and declaring an emergency. 6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 7 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 . A new section is added to chapter 69. 50 RCW 8 to read as follows : 9 (1) Cities, counties, and towns must cooperate with the liquor 10 control board with respect to the establishment within their 11 jurisdictional boundaries of businesses involved in the production, 12 processing, or sale of recreational marijuana where such businesses are 13 licensed under RCW 69 . 50 . 325 . Subject to the regulatory requirements 14 of this chapter, licensed marijuana businesses attempting to locate 15 within the jurisdictional boundaries of a municipality must be treated 16 the same as other businesses within that jurisdiction with respect to 17 ordinances or regulations that include, but are not limited to, those 18 pertaining to local business licensing, zoning, and land use. 1 (2) Cities, counties, and towns are prohibited from enacting any 2 ordinance or other regulation pertaining to business licensing, zoning, 3 or land use that has the effect of preventing or impeding the 4 establishment of a recreational marijuana business licensed under RCW 5 69. 50 . 325 . In the event the liquor control board determines that a 6 municipality has engaged in regulatory practices that impede the 7 establishment of such businesses in violation of this section, the 8 liquor control board may: 9 (a) Penalize the offending municipality by making it ineligible to 10 receive any funds from the liquor revolving fund established in RCW 11 66. 08 . 170 and the liquor excise tax fund established under RCW 12 82 . 08 . 170 . Upon the determination that a municipality is ineligible to 13 receive moneys from such funds under this section, the liquor control 14 board may direct the state treasurer to withhold the revenues to which 15 a county, city, or town would otherwise be entitled from the liquor 16 revolving fund and the liquor excise tax fund. In the event the liquor 17 control board later determines that the offending municipality has 18 become compliant with the requirements of this section, it shall direct 19 the state treasurer to resume distributing revenues from these funds to 20 the municipality; and 21 (b) Bring legal action in superior court against the offending 22 municipality for injunctive relief for violations of this section. The 23 municipality shall pay all court costs and other litigation-related 24 expenses for legal actions brought under this section. 25 Sec. 2 . RCW 66. 08 . 170 and 2011 1st sp. s . c 50 s 959 are each 26 amended to read as follows: 27 (1) There shall be a fund, known as the "liquor revolving fund", 28 which shall consist of all license fees, permit fees, penalties, 29 forfeitures, and all other moneys, income, or revenue received by the 30 board. The state treasurer shall be custodian of the fund. All moneys 31 received by the board or any employee thereof, except for change funds 32 and an amount of petty cash as fixed by the board within the authority 33 of law shall be deposited each day in a depository approved by the 34 state treasurer and transferred to the state treasurer to be credited 35 to the liquor revolving fund. During the 2009-2011 fiscal biennium, 36 the legislature may transfer funds from the liquor revolving ( (account 37 [fund] ) ) fund to the state general fund and may direct an additional 1 ' amount of liquor profits to be distributed to local governments . 2 Neither the transfer of funds nor the additional distribution of liquor 3 profits to local governments during the 2009-2011 fiscal biennium may 4 reduce the excess fund distributions that otherwise would occur under 5 RCW 66. 08 . 190 . During the 2011-2013 fiscal biennium, the state 6 treasurer shall transfer from the liquor revolving fund to the state 7 general fund forty-two million five hundred thousand dollars for fiscal 8 year 2012 and forty-two million five hundred thousand dollars for 9 fiscal year 2013. The transfer during the 2011-2013 fiscal biennium 10 may not reduce the excess fund distributions that otherwise would occur 11 under RCW 66. 08 . 190 . Sales to licensees are exempt from any liquor 12 price increases that may result from the transfer of funds from the 13 liquor revolving fund to the state general fund during the 2011-2013 14 fiscal biennium. Disbursements from the revolving fund shall be on 15 authorization of the board or a duly authorized representative thereof. 16 In order to maintain an effective expenditure and revenue control the 17 liquor revolving fund shall be subject in all respects to chapter 43. 88 18 RCW but no appropriation shall be required to permit expenditures and 19 payment of obligations from such fund. 20 (2) Transfers of funds to local governments from the liquor 21 revolving fund are subject to the provisions of section 1 of this act. 22 Local governments are ineligible to receive such funding if the liquor 23 control board determines that the local government is noncompliant with 24 the requirements of section 1 of this act . 25 Sec. 3. RCW 82 . 08 . 170 and 2012 2nd sp. s . c 5 s 4 are each amended 26 to read as follows : 27 (1) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, during 28 the months of January, April, July, and October of each year, the state 29 treasurer must make the transfers required under subsections (2) and 30 (3) of this section from the liquor excise tax fund and then the 31 apportionment and distribution of all remaining moneys in the liquor 32 excise tax fund to the counties, cities, and towns in the following 33 proportions : (a) Twenty percent of the moneys in the liquor excise tax 34 fund must be divided among and distributed to the counties of the state 35 in accordance with the provisions of RCW 66. 08 . 200; and (b) eighty 36 percent of the moneys in the liquor excise tax fund must be divided 1 ' among and distributed to the cities and towns of the state in 2 accordance with the provisions of RCW 66. 08 . 210 . 3 (2) Each fiscal quarter and prior to making the twenty percent 4 distribution to counties under subsection (1) (a) of this section, the 5 treasurer shall transfer to the liquor revolving fund created in RCW 6 66. 08 . 170 sufficient moneys to fund the allotments from any legislative 7 appropriations for county research and services as provided under 8 chapter 43. 110 RCW. 9 (3) During the months of January, April, July, and October of each 10 year, the state treasurer must transfer two million five hundred 11 thousand dollars from the liquor excise tax fund to the state general 12 fund. 13 (4 ) During calendar year 2012, the October distribution under 14 subsection (1) of this section and the July and October transfers under 15 subsections (2) and (3) of this section must not be made. During 16 calendar year 2013, the January, April, and July distributions under 17 subsection (1) of this section and transfers under subsections (2) and 18 (3) of this section must not be made. 19 (5) All transfers of funds to local governments from the liquor 20 excise tax fund are subject to the provisions of section 1 of this act. 21 Local governments are ineligible to receive such funding if the liquor 22 control board determines that the local government is noncompliant with 23 the requirements of section 1 of this act. 24 Sec. 4. RCW 66. 08 . 050 and 2012 c 2 s 107 are each amended to read 25 as follows: 26 The board, subject to the provisions of this title and the rules, 27 must: 28 (1) Determine the nature, form and capacity of all packages to be 29 used for containing liquor kept for sale under this title; 30 (2) Execute or cause to be executed, all contracts, papers, and 31 documents in the name of the board, under such regulations as the board 32 may fix; 33 (3) Pay all customs, duties, excises, charges and obligations 34 whatsoever relating to the business of the board; 35 (4) Require bonds from all employees in the discretion of the 36 board, and to determine the amount of fidelity bond of each such 37 employee; 1 (5) Perform services for the state lottery commission to such 2 extent, and for such compensation, as may be mutually agreed upon 3 between the board and the commission; 4 (6) Accept and deposit into the general fund-local account and 5 disburse, subject to appropriation, federal grants or other funds or 6 donations from any source for the purpose of improving public awareness 7 of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption by youth and 8 the abuse of alcohol by adults in Washington state. The board' s 9 alcohol awareness program must cooperate with federal and state 10 agencies, interested organizations, and individuals to effect an active 11 public beverage alcohol awareness program; 12 (7) Perform all other matters and things, whether similar to the 13 foregoing or not, to carry out the provisions of this title and chapter 14 69 . 50 RCW regarding the production, processing, and sale of 15 recreational marijuana, and has full power to do each and every act 16 necessary to the conduct of its regulatory functions, including all 17 supplies procurement, preparation and approval of forms, and every 18 other undertaking necessary to perform its regulatory functions 19 whatsoever, subject only to audit by the state auditor. However, the 20 board has no authority to regulate the content of spoken language on 21 licensed premises where wine and other liquors are served and where 22 there is not a clear and present danger of disorderly conduct being 23 provoked by such language or to restrict advertising of lawful prices . 24 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5 . This act is necessary for the immediate 25 preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the 26 state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect 27 immediately. --- END --- Mayor Grafos and City Council, Thank you again for hearing me on marijuana regulations. As I only had about 30 minutes before last weeks meeting to get ready, I wanted to make sure I'm more prepared. I wanted to address a few concerns: The fear behind these additional restrictions: What Washington State and Spokane County voters have agreed on is the end to the prohibition on cannabis. They agreed that the restrictions and taxing structure of 1-502 was sufficient to legalize cannabis. You will see 1-502 results on pages 1 and 2. I assume that City Council is wanting to impose additional restrictions based on fear of what the retailers could bring. The restrictions being placed are based on fear of something that hasn't happened with legalized marijuana. They are based on the current criminal aspects. As with ANY business, there will always be an "undesirable" crowd. The people that a store would rather not have. Big box retailers have it and small businesses have it. But to generalize citizens, Spokane Valley citizens, who use marijuana as something you don't want around your city owned/leased parcels or trails is not fair to them. If we were already open, and we ONLY brought in the shady crowd, then I would understand these restrictions. But we are not. And we don't have Washington State data to support it either way. In Colorado, crime has been reduced. It has also brought in millions in taxes. Not a SINGLE retailer has been caught selling to someone underage. Not one. We're not big business: We're local, small businesses. I quit my job to start this business. We're not some big box retailer. In Spokane Valley, we will create jobs and we will pay taxes. If 1-502 allowed big business to sell marijuana, would you restrict them? City Revenue: We will bring in taxes that directly benefit the city. Spokane Valley receives 0.85% of sales tax. That equates to at least $10,000 a month for the three retail stores. The excise tax will bring $1.9 Billion within 5 years. That will go into the states General Fund, which funds schools, health services, and transportation. The division of funds is shown on pages 3 and 4. If the bill that is being introduced this year passes (which it's expected to), Spokane Valley will not receive those funds. I included the one form earlier this year on page 5. When it passes the council will be restricting funds for schools and roadway improvements based on assumptions. Legal: All applicants want to form a partnership, rather than a lawsuit. There are currently applicants I've spoken with that are exploring lawsuits. They, including myself, have been given the go ahead from the city, then had that redacted. After speaking with multiple attorneys (including land use attorneys), they have a strong case. This will cost the city significant amounts of money, even if they lose. Don't cost your citizens money with unnecessary lawsuits based on your assumptions. Do it on facts. What we seek is a partnership and agreement: Remove the City Property, City Hall, and trail restrictions. There is no basis for these restrictions, just a personal distaste of having us around. We will completely agree with the current restrictions on parcels owned by Libraries and Schools. We don't want to be near children. In conclusion: Allow us to bring tax dollars into the city. Allow us to give the citizens of Spokane Valley what they voted for. And reduce the chance of a lawsuit, costing taxpayers money. To quote Spokane Valley's slogan: "A community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play, and businesses will flourish and prosper." Right now, we cannot flourish and prosper. I have included this speech on the last two pages of the packet. Thank you again for your time.