The URL can be used to link to this page

2014, 09-09 Regular Meeting Amended AMENDED AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday,September 9,2014 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Brad Bruszer,of Genesis Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.)When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1.PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget Revenues—Mark Calhoun Added Agenda Item: Outside Agency Funding Presentations—Mark Calhoun 1. Goodwill Industries of the Pacific NW 2.Hearth Homes 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a.Approval of claim vouchers on Sept 9,2014 Request for Council Action Form,Totaling: $3,200,111.34 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending August 31,2014: $418,684.01 c.Motion to Set Budget Hearing for October 14,2014 d.Motion to Authorize City Manager to finalize and execute Car Radio Club Agreement e.Approval of August 19,2014 Council Study Session Meeting Minutes f.Approval of August 26,2014 Council Formal Meeting Minutes Council Agenda 09-09-14 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 NEW BUSINESS: 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-010 Amending Setbacks—Micki Harnois [public comment] 4. Proposed Resolution 14-009 Adopting Shoreline Regulations—Lori Barlow [public comment] 5.Motion Consideration: Sidewalk Infill Project Phase 2 Bid Award—Eric Guth [public comment] 6.Motion Consideration: Thierman Traffic Configuration— Sean Messner [public comment] 6a. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment, Shane Comer to Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee—Mayor Grafos [public comment] 6b.Motion Consideration: Bid Award Appleway Trail Phase 2A— Steve Worley [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Grafos INFORMATION ONLY n/a CITY MANAGER COMMENTS 8.EXECUTIVE SESSION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] Review the Performance of a Public Employee ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats(the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1st, 3rd and 5th Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included,comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 09-09-14 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 H:tBudgetsl2015lRCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentationsl2014 09 0942094 09 09 RCA Public Hearing est 2015 rev and exp.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 9, 2014 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business X public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - Estimated 2015 revenues and expenditures. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No formal Council action has been taken on the 2015 Budget. A proposed budget is currently under review by the City Manager who will present his Preliminary 2015 Budget to the Council on October 7, 2014. BACKGROUND: This marks the third occasion where the Council will discuss the 2015 Budget and by the time the Council is scheduled to adopt the 2015 Budget on November 18, 2014, Council will have had an opportunity to discuss it on seven separate occasions, including two public hearings to gather input from citizens: • June 17 Council Budget Retreat • September 2 Admin report: Estimated 2015 revenues and expenditures • September 9 Public hearing #1 on 2015 revenues and expenditures • October 7 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2015 Budget • October 14 Public hearing #2 on 2015 Budget • October 28 First reading on ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget • November 18 Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget State law requires that the City hold a public hearing on revenue sources for the upcoming year's budget in order to consider input from the public. An administrative report was presented to Council on this topic on September 2"d and the public hearing is set for this evening. Until City Council adoption all figures currently included in the 2015 Budget worksheets are preliminary and subject to change by the City Manager. 2015 Budget Overview: • The 2015 Budget currently includes appropriations of $67,205,345 including $16,251,718 in capital expenditures, comprised in-part of: o $11,474,668 in Fund #303 Street Capital Projects o $308,000 in Fund #309 Park Capital Projects o $2,615,050 in pavement preservation including $920,000 financed by the General Fund o $1,800,000 in Stormwater Management Fund #402 and APA Fund #403 projects o $30,000 in Fund #501 Equipment Rental and Replacement for the acquisition of one small SUV for the Community and Economic Development Department. • To partially offset the $16,251,718 in capital costs, we anticipate $10,945,146 in grant revenues which results in 67.3% of capital expenditures being covered with State and Federal money. • Budgets will be adopted across 21 separate funds. 1 H:1Budgets120151RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentationsl2014 09 0912014 09 09 RCA Public Hearing est 2015 rev and exp.docx • The full time equivalent employee (FTE) count will remain at 87.25 employees Pertaining Specifically to the General Fund: • The 2015 recurring revenue estimate of $38,442,200 is $1,618,700 or 4.40% greater than the 2014 budget of$36,823,500. • The 2015 recurring expenditure proposal of $38,338,882 is $1,515,872 or 4.12% greater than the 2014 appropriation of$36,823,010. • With the exception of the addition of some supplemental requests discussed at the June 17 Budget Workshop, recurring expenditures for nonpayroll related expenditure classifications have been held to a maximum increase over the previous year's budget, of 1%. • Recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $103,318 or .27% of recurring revenues. • Nonrecurring expenditures total $498,400 and include: o a $100,000 transfer to Fund #309— Park Capital Projects o $145,000 for information Technology expenditures including: • $25,000 for PEG hardware and software • $20,000 to replace 2 copy machines (in Finance and Public Works) • $60,000 to replace a Cisco 4510 switch that is 10-years old • $20,000 to replace 2 DVRs at CenterPlace that are 9-years old • $20,000 for a Laserfiche upgrade o $25,000 to construct offices for unit supervisors at the Police Precinct o $200,000 for professional services necessary to assist Community Development in the comprehensive plan update o $10,000 to upgrade the dial-up modems at the 3 swimming pools o $8,000 to replace lounge area carpet at CenterPlace o $7,400 of supplies for a 10-year CenterPlace anniversary event • The total of 2015 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $395,082 - and this is entirely a result of the one-time/nonrecurring expenditure. • The projected General Fund fund balance at the end of 2015 is currently $19,856,710 or 51.79% of recurring revenues. 2 H:1Budgets120151RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentationsl2014 09 0912014 09 09 RCA Public Hearing est 2015 rev and exp.docx Other Funds: 2015 Budget appropriations (expenditures) in the other funds total $28,368,063 as follows: Fund Fund 2015 Number Name Appropriation 101 Street Fund 4,446,000 103 Paths and Trails Fund 0 105 Hotel I Motel Tax Fund 600,000 106 Solid Waste Fund 125,000 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 0 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund 0 122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 500,000 123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 616,284 204 Debt Service Fund 538,100 301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 555,179 302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 656,913 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 11,474,668 309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 308,000 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 0 311 Pavement Preservation Fund 2,615,050 312 Capital Reserve Fund 2,120,000 402 Stormwater Management Fund 2,257,869 403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 1,200,000 501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 30,000 502 Risk Management Fund 325,000 28,368,063 Primary sources of revenues in these other funds include: • Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the Street Fund is anticipated to be $1,859,900. • Telephone Tax revenues remitted to the City that supports Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated to be $2,565,100. • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed street projects are anticipated to total $1,250,000. • Hotel I Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be $510,000. • Stormwater Management Fees are estimated at $1,880,000. • Aquifer Protection Area Fees are estimated at $500,000. 3 H:1Budgets120151RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations12014 09 0942014 09 09 RCA Public Hearing est 2015 rev and exp.docx OPTIONS: State law requires a public hearing on 2015 estimated revenues and expenditures. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: As the purpose of the public hearing is to gather input from the public in regard to the 2015 Budget, no action is requested at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Given that the budget will not be adopted by the Council until November 18, 2014, it is possible the figures may be modified as we refine estimates of revenues and expenditures. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Power Point presentation. • Assorted 2014 Budget information: o Pages 1-13 Budget summary information with detail by fund. o Page 14 General Fund budget change from June 17 to September 2. o Page 15 General Fund revenue and expenditure line-item changes. o Page 16 General Fund department changes from 2014 to 2015. o Page 20 Full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). 4 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA _ 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ 14001 -GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 11,049,400 0 11,049,400 11,277,100 227,700 2.06% Sales Tax 16,390,000 0 96,390,000 17,628,400 1,238,400 7.56% Sales Tax-Public Safety 745,000 0 745,000 820,100 75,100 10.08% Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,330,000 0 1,330,000 1,468,700 138,700 10.43% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 617,400 0 619,400 535,100 (84,300) (13.61%) Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,213,000 0 1,213,000 1,238,000 25,000 2.06% State Shared Revenues 1,886,500 0 1,856,500 1,768,900 (117,600) (6.23%) Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety 1,470,500 0 1,470,500 1,507,100 36,300 2.47% Community Development 1,255,400 0 1,255,400 1,325,100 69,700 5.55% Recreation Program Revenues 579,500 0 579,800 563,500 (16,300) (2.81%) Miscellaneous Department Revenue 85,500 0 55,500 95,900 10,400 12.16% Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 117,600 0 115,600 131,200 15,600 13.49% Transfers in-#101 (street admin) 39,700 0 39,700 39,700 0 0.00% Transfers in-#105(h/m tax-CP advertising) 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% Transfers in-#402(storm admin) 13,400 0 13,400 13,400 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 36,523,500 0 36,823,500 38,442,200 1,615,700 4.40% Expenditures City Council 414,950 0 414,950 513,114 95,164 23.66% City Manager 660,843 0 660,843 685,363 27,520 4.16% Legal 448,922 0 445,922 461,839 12,917 2,88% Public Safety 23,354,643 [ or 23,384,643 24,153,492 768,849 3.29% Deputy City Manager 653,215 0 653,215 691,303 38,088 5.83% Finance/IT 1,150,659 0 1,180,659 11203,879 23,220 1.97% Human Resources 237,883 0 237,883 243,317 5,434 2.28% Public Works 852,694 0 882,694 921,914 39,220 4.44% Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Admin 290,883 0 290,883 261,094 (29,789) (10,24%) Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Econ Dev 0 0 0 298,276 298,276 #DMO! Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Dev Svc 807,114 0 807,114 1,424,944 617,530 76.55% Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Planning 925,906 0 928,906 0 (928,906) (100.00%) Community&Economic Dvlpmnt-Building 1,267,656 0 1,267,656 1,380,902 113,246 8.93% Parks&Rec-Administration 274,743 0 274,743 286,947 12,204 4,44% Parks&Rec-Maintenance 796,200 0 796,200 544,842 48,442 6.08% Parks&Rec-Recreation 229,152 0 229,152 226,174 (2,978) (1.30%) Parks&Rec-Aquatics 490,400 0 490,400 496,200 5,800 1.18% Parks&Rec-Senior Center 89,582 0 59,552 91,955 2,103 2.34% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 825,542 0 828,842 524,997 (3,845) (0.46%) Pavement Preservation 888,523 0 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% General Government 1,741,600 0 1,741,600 1,741,200 (400) (0.02%) Transfers out-#502(insurance premium) 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Transfers out-#310(bond pmt>$434.6lease pmt) 0 0 0 67,600 67,600 #DIV/0? Transfers out-#310(city hall o&m costs) 0 0 0 271,700 271,700 #DIV/0! Total Recurring Expenditures 36,823,010 0 36,823,010 38,338,882 1,515,872 4.12% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 490 0 490 103,315 Page 1 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ % #001 -GENERAL FUND-continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues n/a 0 0 0 0 0 #DMO! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Expenditures Transfers out-#309(park capital projects) 192,500 55,000 247,500 100,000 (147,500) (59.60%) General Government-IT capital replacements 0 0 0 145,000 145,000 #DIVIO! City Manager(2 scanners) 0 0 0 3,000 3,000 #DIV10! Public Safety(const offices for unit supervisors) 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 #DIV10! Community&Econ Dev(comp plan update) 0 0 0 200,000 200,000 #DIV/0! Parks&Rec(upgrade dial-up modem at pools) 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 #DIV10! Parks&Rec(replace CP lounge area carpet) 0 0 0 8,000 8,000 #DIVIO! Parks&Rec(CenterPlace 10yr anniversary) 0 0 0 7,400 7,400 #DIV10! Law Enforcement Contingency 350,000 0 350,000 0 (350,000) (100.00%) Public Works(autocad licenses) 8,800 0 8,800 0 (8,800) (100.00%) Parks&Recreation (CP chairs) 11,350 0 11,350 0 (11,350) (100.00%) Public Safety(precinct improvements) 24,000 0 24,000 0 (24,000) (100.00%) Transfers out-#106(solid wast ed/marketing) 0 60,000 60,000 0 (60,000) (100.00%) Transfers out-#312('12 fund bal>50%) 0 2,443,507 2,443,507 0 (2,443,507) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 586,650 2,558,507 3,145,157 498,400 (2,646,757) (84.15%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (586,650) (2,558,507) (3,145,157) (498,400) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (586,160) (2,558,507) (3,144,667) (395,082) Beginning unrestricted fund balance 23,396,459 23,396,459 20,251,792 Ending unrestricted fund balance 22,810,299 20,251,792 19,856,710 Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures L 67.95% 55.00% 51.79% Page 2 of 20 H:\budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09,xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended , Budget $ 1 % SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 -STREET FUND [RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Utility Tax 2,750,000 0 2,750,000 2,565,100 (184,900) (6.72%) Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,858,600 0 1,858,600 1,859,900 1,300 0.07% Investment Interest 3,000 0 3,000 3,000 0 0,00% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 #DIV/0! Total Recurring Revenues 4,611,600 0 4,611,600 4,438,000 (173,600) (3.76%) Expenditures Wages/Benefits 1 Payroll Taxes 627,288 0 627,288 677,297 50,009 7.97% Supplies 91,500 0 91,500 111,500 20,000 21.86% Services&Charges 2,167,201 0 2,167,201 2,122,808 (44,393) (2.05%) Snow Operations 520,000 0 520,000 520,000 0 0.00% Intergovernmental Payments 798,000 0 798,000 748,000 (50,000) (6.27%) Vehicle rentals-#501 (non-plow vehicle rental) 10,777 0 10,777 12,077 1,300 12.06% Vehicle rentals-#501 (plow replace.) 75,000 0 75,000 0 (75,000) (100.00%) Transfers out-#001 39,700 0 39,700 39,700 0 0.00% Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 282,000 0 282,000 206,618 (75,382) (2673%) Total Recurring Expenditures 4,611,466 0 4,611,466 4,438,000 (173,466) (3.76°/4 Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 134 0 134 0 [NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Expenditures Pavement marking grinder 0 0 0 8,000 8,000 #DIV10! Patch trailer 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) Hawk Signal 25,000 0 25,000 0 (25,000) (100.00%) Software 6,750 0 6,750 0 (6,750) (100.00%) Transfers out-#501 (new pickup) 15,000 0 15,000 0 (15,000) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 76,750 0 76,750 8,000 (68,750) (89.58%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (76,750) 0 (76,750) (8,000) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (76,616) 0 (76,616) (8,000) Beginning fund balance 2,063,234 2,063,234 1,986,618 Ending fund balance 1,986,618 1,986,616 1,978,618 Page 3 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9./2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #103 -PATHS&TRAILS FUND Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 7,800 0 7,800 7,800 0 0.00% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 7,800 0 7,800 7,800 0 0.00% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Transfers out-#309(App!eway Trail-Univ to Pines; 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Total expenditures 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,800 (42,200) 7,800 Beginning fund balance 71,871 71,871 29,671 Ending fund balance 79,671 29,671 37,471 #105-HOTEL!MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax 490,000 40,000 530,000 510,000 (20,000) (3.77%) Investment Interest 300 0 300 300 0 0.00% Total revenues 490,300 40,000 530,300 510,300 (20,000) (3.77%) Expenditures Transfers out-#001 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% Tourism Promotion 547,000 0 547,000 570,000 23,000 4.20% Total expenditures 577,000 0 577,000 600,000 23,000 3.99% Revenues over(under)expenditures (86,700) (46,700) (89,700) Beginning fund balance 236,927 236,927 190,227 Ending fund balance 150,227 190,227 100,527 #106-SOLID WASTE FUND Revenues Sunshine administrative fee 0 0 0 125,000 125,000 #DIV/0! Road maintenance fee 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DMO! Transfers in-#001 (marketing/education) 0 60,000 60,000 0 (60,000) (100.00%) Total revenues 0 60,000 60,000 125,000 65,000 108.33% Expenditures Education/Contract Admin/General Fund reimb 0 0 60,000 125,000 65,000 108.33% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 60,000 125,000 65,000 108.33% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0_ 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 Page 4 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09,xisx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ I SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #120-CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0I Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0± Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 300,000 #121 -SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 7,300 0 7,300 8,200 900 12.33% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Total revenues 7,300 0 7,300 8,200 900 12.33% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,300 7,300 8,200 Beginning fund balance 5,448,502 5,448,502 5,455,802 Ending fund balance 51455,802 5,455,802 5,464,002 #122-WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 700 0 700 800 100 14.29% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Subtotal revenues 700 0 700 800 100 14.29% Expenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (499,300) (499,300) (499,200) Beginning fund balance 503,565 503,565 503,565 Ending fund balance 4,265 4,265 4,365 #123-CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,700 0 1,700 1,300 (400) (23.53%) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 1,700 0 1,700 1,300 (400) (23.53%) Expenditures Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 0 0.00% Total expenditures 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (614,584) (614,584) (614,984) Beginning fund balance 1,789,271 1,789,271 1,174,687 Ending fund balance 1,174,687 1,174,687 559,703 Page 5 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ % _, DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204-LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 441,520 0 441,520 373,800 (67,720) (15.34%) Transfers in-#301 93,152 0 93,152 82,150 (11,002) (11.81%) Transfersin-#302 93,151 0 93,151 82,150 (11,001) (11.81%) 2014 LTGO Bond issue proceeds 0 7,661,000 7,661,000 0 (7,661,000) (100.00%) Total revenues 627,823 7,661,000 8,288,823 538,100 (7,750,723) (93.51%) Expenditures Debt Service Payments-CenterPlace 441,520 0 441,520 373,800 (67,720) (15.34%) Debt Service Payments-Roads 186,303 0 186,303 164,300 (22,003) (11.81%) 2003 LTGO Bond retirement 0 7,549,000 7,549,000 0 (7,549,000) (100.00%) 2014 LTGO Bond issue costs 0 112,000 112,000 0 (112,000) (100.00%) Total expenditures 627,823 7,661,000 8,288,823 538,100 (7,750,723) (93.51%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 0 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 0 0 Page 6 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xtsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 8/212014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 , Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment, Amended Budget $ CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 -REET 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 600,000 0 600,000 625,000 25,000 4.17% Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% Total revenues 601,000 0 601,000 626,000 25,000 4.16% Expenditures Transfers out-#204 93,152 0 93,152 82,150 (11,002) (11.81%) Transfers out-#303 268,575 0 268,575 221,980 (46,595) (17.35%) Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 66,577 36.09% Total expenditures 546,199 0 546,199 555,179 8,980 1,64% Revenues over(under)expenditures 54,801 54,801 70,821 Beginning fund balance 968,021 968,021 1,022,822 Ending fund balance 1,022,822 1,022,822 1,093,643 #302-REET 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2-Taxes 600,000 0 600,000 625,000 25,000 4.17% Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% Total revenues 601,000 0 601,000 626,000 25,000 4.16% Expenditures Transfers out-#204 93,151 0 93,151 82,150 (11,001) (11.81%) Transfers out-#303 585,097 0 585,097 323,714 (261,383) (44.67%) Transfers out-#311 (pavement preservation) 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 66,577 36.09% Total expenditures 862,720 0 862,720 656,913 (205,807) (23.86%) Revenues over(under)expenditures (261,720) (261,720) (30,913) Beginning fund balance 1,323,378 1,323,378 1,061,658 Ending fund balance 1,061,658 1,061,658 1,030,745 Page 7 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ I CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #303-STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 11,092,997 (2,768,189) 8,324,808 8,714,114 389,306 4.68% Developer 166,020 0 166,020 94,860 (71,160) (42,86%) Transfers in-#301 268,575 0 268,575 221,980 (46,595) (17.35%) Transfers in-#302 585,097 0 585,097 323,714 (261,383) (44 67%) Transfers in-#312-Appleway Landscaping 250,000 0 250,000 0 (250,000) (100,00%) Transfers in-#312-Sullivan Rd W Bridge 2,320,000 (2,120,000) 200,000 2,120,000 1,920,000 960.00% Transfers in-#402 7,101 0 7.101 0 (7,101) (100.00%) Total revenues 14,689,790 (4,888,189) 9,801,601 11,474,668 1,673,067 17.07% Expenditures 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 860,280 0 860,280 602,196 (258,084) (30.00%) ' 061 Pines(SR27)ITS Imporvements 10,000 0 10,000 0 (10,000) (100.00%) 123 Mission Ave.-Flora to Barker 382,410 0 382,410 355,376 (27,034) (7.07%) 141 Sullivan&Euclid PCC(PE&RW) 123,090 0 123,090 35,052 (88,038) (71.52%) 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan PCC int,(PE/RW) 50,000 0 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) 145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail 100,000 0 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%) 149 Sidewalk Infill 364,425 0 364,425 0 (364,425) (100.00%) 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 8,888,189 (4,888,189) 4,000,000 7,201,779 3,201,779 80.04% 156 Mansfield Ave.Connection 1,158,727 0 1,158,727 570,480 (588,247) (50.77%) 159 University Rd 11-90 Overpass Study 50,000 0 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) 166 Pines Rd(SR27)&Grace Ave. Intersect Safety 538,850 0 538,850 556,137 17,287 3.21% 167 Citywide Safety Improvements(bikelped) 341,928 0 341,928 320,560 (21,368) (6.25%) 168 Wellesley Ave&Adams Rd Sidewalk 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) 177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 100,000 0 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%) 181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 50,000 0 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) 185 Appleway Landscaping-Phase 1 250,000 0 250,000 0 (250,000) (100.00%) 196 8th Avenue-McKinnon to Fancher 300,000 0 300,000 0 (300,000) (100.00%) 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE START 2014) 91,891 0 91,891 301,357 209,466 227.95% 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 0 0 0 246,231 246,231 #DIV/0! 206 Indiana& Evergreen Transit Access Improve. 0 0 0 70,014 70,014 #DIV/0! xxx N. Sullivan Corridor ITS Project(PE start 2015) 0 0 0 105,486 105,486 #DIV/0! xxx Trent Lighting Replacement 0 0 0 110,000 110,000 #DIV/0! Contingency 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 14,689,790 (4,888,189) 9,801,601 11,474,668 1,673,067 17.07% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 61,827 81,827 61,827 Ending fund balance 61,827 61,827 61,827 Page 8 of 20 FI:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015. Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ % CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #309-PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 192,500 55,000 247,500 100,000 (147,500) (59.60%) Transfers in-#103 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Transfers in-#312 0 1,452,100 1,452,100 0 (1,452,100) (100.00%) Investment Interest 500 0 500 500 0 0.00% Contributions 0 500 500 0 (500) (100.00%) Total revenues 193,000 1,557,600 1,750,600 100,500 (1,650,100) (94.26%) Expenditures 3 Sand volleyball courts at Browns Park 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 #DIVIO! Pocket dog park 0 0 0 75,000 75,000 #DIVIO! Mission Trailhead landscaping 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 #DIV10! 203 2 Sand volleyball courts at Browns Park 40,000 30,050 70,050 0 (70,050) (100.00%) Edgecliff picnic shelter 65,000 50,450 115,450 0 (115,450) (100.00%) 195 Discovery Playground equipment 50,000 1,400 51,400 0 (51,400) (100.00%) Shade structure at Discovery Playground 15,000 (15,000) 0 38,000 38,000 #DIV10! City entry sign 70,000 (70,000) 0 70,000 70,000 #DIV/0! Park signs(3) 22,500 19,500 42,000 0 (42,000) (100.00%) Edgecliff sewer connection 0 13,000 13,000 0 (13,000) (100.00%) Old Mission Trailhead 0 55,000 55,000 0 (55,000) (100.00%) Appleway Trail(Univ.-Pines) 0 1,502,100 1,502,100 0 (1,502,100) (100 00%) Total expenditures 262,500 1,586,500 1,849,000 308,000 (1,541,000) (83.34%) Revenues over(under)expenditures (69,500) (98,400) (207,500) Beginning fund balance 352,779 352,779 254,379 Ending fund balance 283,279 254,379 46,879 #310-CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIVIO! Sale of land 0 839,285 839,285 0 (839,285) (100.00%) Investment Interest 1,900 0 1,900 1,200 (700) (36.84%) Transfers in-#001 0 #DIV/01 Future C.N.bond pmt>$424.6k tease pmt 0 0 0 67,600 67,600 #DIV10! Future C.N.o8m costs 0 0 0 271,700 271,700 #DIVI01 Total revenues 1,900 839,285 841,185 340,500 (500,685) (59.52%) Expenditures Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Capital 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Revenues over(under)expenditures 1,900 841,185 340,500 Beginning fund balance 1,101,903 1,101,903 1,943,088 Ending fund balance 1,103,803 1,943,088 2,283,588 Note The fund balance in#314 includes$839,281.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site, if the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City ill repurchase this land at the original sale price of$839,28510. Page 9 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #311 -PAVEMENT PRESERVATION Revenues Transfers in-#101 282,000 0 282,000 206,618 (75,382) (26.73%) Transfers in-#123 616,284 0 616,284 616,284 0 0.00% Transfers in-#301 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 66,577 36.09% Transfers in-#302 184,472 0 184,472 251,049 66,577 36.09% Transfers in-#001 888,823 0 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% Grants 2,763,272 123,464 2,886,736 971,032 (1,915,704) (66.36%) Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Total revenues 4,919,323 123,464 5,042,787 3,216,032 (1,826,755) (36.23%) Expend!iures Pavement preservation 3,595,521 270,865 3,866,386 2,565,050 (1,301,336) (33.66%) Pre-project GeoTech 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0.00% Total expenditures 3,595,521 320,865 3,916,386 2,615,050 (1,301,336) (33.23%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 1,323,802 1,126,401 600,982 Beginning fund balance 798,609 798,609 1,925,010 Ending fund balance 2,122,411 1,925,010 2,525,992 #312-CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 0 2,443,507 2,443,507 0 (2,443,507) (100.00%) Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DMO! Total revenues 0 2,443,507 2,443,507 0 (2,443,507) (100.00%) Expenditures Transfers out#303(Applaway Landscaping-Dora to 250,000 0 250,000 0 (250,000) (100.00%) Transfers out#303(Sullivan Rd W Bridge) 2,320,000 (2,120,000) 200,000 2,120,000 1,920,000 960.00% Transfers out#309(Applesvay Trail-Univ-Pines) 0 1,452,100 1,452,100 0 (1,452,100) (100.00%) Total expenditures 2,570,000 (667,900) 1,902,100 2,120,000 217,900 11.46% Revenues over(under)expenditures (2,570,000) 541,407 (2,120,000) Beginning fund balance 7,742,299 7,742,299 8,283,706 Ending fund balance 5,172,299 8,283,706 6,163,706 Page 10 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09,xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ f ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402-STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,835,000 0 1,835,000 1,880,000 45,000 2.45% Investment interest 2,500 0 2,500 1,500 (1,000) (40,00%) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV101 Total Recurring Revenues 1,837,500 0 1,837,500 1,881,500 44,000 2.39% Expenditures Wages 1 Benefits/Payroll Taxes 505,535 0 505,535 488,101 (17,434) (3.45%) Supplies 15,900 0 15,900 15,900 0 0.00% Services&Charges 1,065,076 0 1,065,076 1,078,301 13,225 1.24% Intergovernmental Payments 26,500 0 26,500 42,000 15,500 58.49% Vehicle rentalst-#501 1,567 0 1,567 4,167 2,600 165.92% Transfers out-#001 13,400 0 13,400 13,400 0 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,627,978 0 1,627,978 1,641,869 13,891 0.85% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 209,522 0 209,522 239,631 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) (100.00%) Expenditures Capital-various projects 900,000 0 900,000 600,000 (300,000) (33.33%) Property acquisition 250,000 0 250,000 0 (250,000) (100.00%) VMS Trailer 16,000 0 16,000 16,000 0 0.00% Transfers out-#403(DOE for Decant Prof) 0 50,125 50,125 0 (50,125) (100.00%) Transfers out-#501 (new pickup) 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,196,000 50,125 1,246,125 616,000 (630,125) (50.57%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (1,196,000) (125) (1,196,125) (616,000) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (986,478) (125) (986,603) (376,369) Beginning working capital 2,319,423 2,319,423 1,332,820 Ending working capital 1,332,945 1,332,820 956,451 Page 11 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between • As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted Amendment Amended Budget $ I [ENTERPRISE FUNDS-continued #403.-AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00% Grant DOE-Decant Facility 0 634,523 634,523 0 (634,523) (100.00%) Grant DOT-Decant Facility 0 100,000 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%) Grant DOE-LID/Retrofit Design 120,000 0 120,000 0 (120,000) (100.00%) Grant DOE-SE Yardley Retrofits 750,000 0 750,000 0 (750,000) (100.00%) Grant DOE-Broadway SD Retrofit 0 40,000 40,000 1,260,000 1,220,000 3050.00% Transfers in-#402(DOE for Decant Proj) 0 50,125 50,125 0 (50,125) (100.00%) Total revenues 1,370,000 824,648 2,194,648 1,760,000 (434,648) (19.80%) Expenditures Broadway Storm Drain Retrofit 60,000 40,000 100,000 1,200,000 1,100,000 1100.00% 173 Decant Facility 0 910,159 910,159 0 (910,159) (100.00%) 192 SE Yardley Retrofits 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 0 (1,000,000) (100.00%) Outfall Diversion(design only) 60,000 0 60,000 0 (60,000) (100.00%) Total expenditures 1,120,000 950,159 2,070,159 1,200,000 (870,159) (42.03%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 250,000 124,469 560,000 Beginning working capital 333,610 333,610 458,099 Ending working capital 583,610 458,099 1,018,099 Page 12 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09,xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget 2014 2015 Difference Between As As Proposed 2014 and 2015 Adopted , Amendment Amended_ Budget $ % INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 -ER&R FUND Revenues Vehicle rentals-#001 15,400 0 15,400 19,300 3,900 25.32% Vehicle rentals-#101 10,777 0 10,777 12,077 1,300 12.06% Vehicle rentals-#101 (plow replace.) 75,000 0 75,000 0 (75,000) (100.00%) Vehicle rentals-#402 1,567 0 1,567 4,167 2,600 165.92% Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00% Transfers in-#101 (new pickup) 15,000 0 15,000 0 (15,000) (100.00%) Transfers in-#402(new pickup) 30,000 0 30,000 0 (30,000) (100.00%) Total revenues 148,744 0 148,744 36,544 (112,200) (75.43%) Expenditures Computer replacement lease 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Software/Hardware replacement 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV10! Vehicle Replacement 90,000 30,000 120,000 30,000 (90,000) (75.00%) Snow Plow Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 #D1V101 Total expenditures 90,000 30,000 120,000 30,000 (90,000) (75.00%) Revenues over(under)expenditures 58,744 28,744 6,544 Beginning working capital 1,183,348 1,183,348 1,212,092 Ending working capital 1,242,092 1,212,092 1,218,636 #502-RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #01V10! Transfers in-#001 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Total revenues 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Expenditures Auto&Property Insurance 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Unemployment Claims 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/01 Total expenditures 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 _ 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 124,171 124,171 124,171 Ending fund balance 124,171 124,171 124,171 TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 67,257,980 8,711,315 75,969,295 64,458,444 Total of Expenditures for all Funds 71,304,691 7,651,067 79,015,758 67,205,345 Total grant revenues(included in total revenues) 14,726,269 (1,820,202) 12,906,067 10,945,146 Total Capital expenditures(included in total expenditures) 20,985,561 (2,000,665) 18,984,896 16,251,718 Page 13 of 20 H.\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentatlons\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 0909,xtsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA I 912)2014 2015 Budget General Fund 2015 Difference Between 2014 as of 6 as 2014 and 2615 Budget 6/1711014 Change - revised $ [ Y. 1RECURRING ACTIVITY I Revenues Property Tax 11,049,400 11,227,100 50,000 11,277,100 227,700 2.00% Sales Tax 16,390,000 17,546,600 81,800 17,628,400 1,238,406 7.66% Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,330,000 1,462,900 5,800 1,468,700 138,700 10.43% Sales Tax-Public Safety 745,000 817,100 3,000 820,100 75.100 10.08% Gambing Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 617,400 535,100 0 535,100 (82,300) (13.331/4) Franchise Fees/Business Reg"stratlpn 1,213,000 1,236,000 0 1,238,000 25,000 2.06% Slate Shared Revenues 1,858,500 1,789,800 (900) 1,788,900 (117,600) (8.23%) Fin es and Fortelures/PublicSafety 1,470,800 1,507,100 0 1,507,100 36,300 2.47% Community Development 1,255,400 1,325,100 0 1,325,100 69,700 5.55% Recreation Program Revenues 579,800 567,500 (4,000) 563,500 (16.300) (2-81%) Miscellaneous Department Revenue 65,500 95,900 0 95,900 10,400 12.16% Miscellaneous&Investment Interest 117,600 131,200 0 131,200 13,600 11.58% Transfer-1n -8101(sfresr adm'n) 39,700 39,700 0 39,700 0 0.00% Transfer-in -8105(n'rn lee-OP ajar/is.ng} 30,000 30,000 0 30,000 0 0.00% Transfer in -8402(storm edm'n) 13,400 13,400 0 13,400 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 300,823,530 38,366,500 135,703 38,442,200 1,618,700 4.40% Ex)enditures City Council 414,950 513,114 0 513,114 98,164 23.66% City Manager 660,843 685,670 2.693 688,083 27,520 4.16% Legal 446.922 461,839 0 461,839 12,917 2.881/4 Public Safety 23,364,643 24,163,492 0 24,153,492 788,849 3.29% Deputy City Manager 653,215 670,494 20,609 691,303 38,088 5,831 Finance!IT 1,180,659 1,218,613 (14,934) 1,203,879 23,220 1.97% Human Resources 237,883 241,317 2,000 243,317 5,434 2 281/4 Public Works 882,694 921,914 0 921,914 39,220 4.44%_ Community&Eban Dev-Admin. 290,883 261,094 0 251,094 (29,789) (10.24%) Community&Soon Dee-Peon Dav 0 204,547 93,729 298,276 298,276 #DIVi01 Community&Econ Dari•Develop.Svc. 0 0 1,424,944 1,424,944 1,424,944 #DIV701 _ Net Community&Boon Dee-Engineering 807,114 702,608 (702,808) 0 (807,114) (100.00%) d'Perence Comrnun:ty&.Econ Doe-Planning 928,906 823,930 (823,930) 0 (928,906) (100.00%) (58,555) Cammunity&Econ Dev-Building 1,257,656 1,380,902 0 1,380,902 113,246 6.005$_ Parks&Rec•Administration 274,743 286,947 0 265,947 12,204 4.441 Parks&Rec-Maintenance 796,200 824,642 20,000 844,642 48,442 6.08% Parks&Res-Rereeetien 229,152 226,174 0 226,174 (2,978) (1.30%) Parks&Rey•Aquatics 490,400 496,200 0 496,200 5,800 1.181 Parks&Reit-SeniorCenter 89,882 91,985 0 91,035 2,103 2.34% Parks&Rec-CenterPisce 828,842 824,997 0 824,997 (3,845) (0.46%) Pavement Preservation 868,823 890,000 30,000 920,000 31,177 3.51% General Government 1,741,600 1,741,200 0 1,741,200 (400) (0.02%) Transfers out-8502('nevranee premium) 325,000 325,000 0 325,000 0 0.00% Transfers out 5310(Bond pmt'1434.0r lease pati, 0 67,600 0 67,600 67,600 fD!Vl0! Transfers cut#310(GtyHa900'.rcos!s) 0 271,700 0 271,700 271,700 #DIVi01 Total Recurring Expenditures 36,823,010 38,288,379 52,503 38,338,882 1,515,872 4.12% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 490 20,121 63,197 103,318 'NONRECURRING ACTIVITY I Revenues Ma 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV161 Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DMO! Excend'tures Tran sfers out-#305(park 710a!pioieds) 247,500 100,000 0 100,000 (147,500) (59.661/4) General Government•IT capital replacements 0 145,000 0 145,000 145,000 #0IV10! City Manager(2 scenrera) 0 0 3,000 3,000 3,000 0010110! Public Safely(annul u".ces Inn ur,.!sopenaors) 0 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 801V/01 Community&Econ Den(comp plea epoafa) 0 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 601Vr01 Parks&Roc(upgrade d-a'-p modem erpecrs) 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 #0101101 Parks&Res(rep'ace CPlounge area oeerpet) 0 0 8,000 8,000 8000 8DIViOI Parks&Rec(CentarPia_e 10)*ann;vemasry) 0 0 7,400 7,400 7,400 #DIV/0l Lavv Enforcement Contingency 356,000 0 0 0 (350,000) (100.03%) Public Works(aulaced licenses) 8,800 0 0 0 (8,800) (100.001/4) Packs&Recreation(CP charms) 11,350 0 0 0 (11,350) (100,001) Public Safety(precinct improvements) 24,000 0 0 0 (24,000) (100.001) Transfers out-5106(nod Lcust e'en m_r«_r),9) 00,000 0 0 0 (60,000) (100.00%) Transfers out-8310(12 rind bal>5411) 2,443,507 0 0 0 (2,443,507) (100.00%) Total Nonrecurring Expenditures . 3,145,157 245,000 253,400 498,400 (2,648,757) (84.15%) Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (3,145,157) (245,000) (498,400) Excess(Deficit)or Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expendtures (3,144,667) (224,879) ( (395,082) Beginning unrestricted fund balance 23,390,456 20,251,792 20,251,792 Ending unrestricted fund balance 20,251.792 '• 20,028,913 19,855,710 Ending fund balance es 8 percent of recurring axpendfures=I 52.3155 I I 51.70% Recurring armatures Public Safety 23,384,643 24,153,492 788,849 3.29% 63.09% All alher departments 13,438,387 14,132,887 694,520 6.17% 35.91% 36,823,010 38,288,379 1,463,369 397% 100.001/4 Page 14 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA I 9/2/2014 General Fund#001 2015 Budget Worksheets- Expenditure Changes from June 17 to September 2,2014 Line-Item Line-Item Account Budget @ Increase Budget @ Number Description 6/17/2014 (Decrease) 9/2/2014 I Revenues 001.000.311.10.01 Property Tax 11,227,100 50,000 11,277,100 001.000.313.10.00 Sales Tax 17,546,600 81,800 17,628,400 001.000.313.71.00 Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,462,900 5,800 1,468,700 001.000.313.73.00 Sales Tax-Public Safety 817,100 3,000 820,100 001.000.336.00.99 Streamline Sales Tax Mitigation 570,000 (50,000) 520,000 001.000.336.06.21 MVET Criminal Justice-Population 23,800 (800) 23,000 001.000.336.06.26 Criminal Justice Special Programs 80,000 1,900 81,900 001.000.336.06.94 Liquor Board Excise Tax 121,000 54,800 175,800 001.000.336.06.95 Liquor Board Profits 814,000 (6,800) 807,200 001.000.362.40.04 CP Miscellaneous Rentals 74,000 (4,000) 70,000 135,700 Expenditures City Manager 001.013.000.513.10.xx.xx Department Payroll(exec.assistant) R 620,480 2,693 623,173 001.013.099.513.10.35.01 Small Tools&Minor Equip(2 scanners) N 0 3,000 3,000 5,693 Public Safety 001.016.099.521.20.35.01 Small Tools&Minor Equip(offices for trafl N 0 25,000 25,000 Deputy City Manager 001.018.013.513.10.xx.xx Department Payroll(reallocation of position R 606,669 20,809 627,478 Finance 001.018.014.514.23.xx.xx Department Payroll(reallocation of position R 1,189,917 (17,434) 1,172,483 001.018.014.514.23.41.05 Prof. Svc(LTGO Bond post compliance) R 0 2,500 2,500 (14,934) Human Resources 001.018.016.518.10.41.05 Professional Services(exercise incentives) R 7,428 1,000 8,428 001.018.016.518.10.49.06 Miscellaneous(mobile app maintenance) R 0 1,000 1,000 2,000 Community&Economic Development 001.058.xxx.558.xx.xx.xx Payroll savings related to reorganization R 2,931,781 (8,065) 2,923,716 001.058.099.558.60.41.05 Professional Services(comp plan) N 0 200,000 200,000 191,935 Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 001.076099.576.10.31.01 Nonrecur Supplies(pool dial-up modem) N 0 10,000 10,000 001.076.099.576.10.31.01 Nonrecur Supplies(replace CP lounge carx N 0 8,000 8,000 001.076.099.576.10.31.01 Nonrecur Supplies(CP 10yranniversary) N 0 7,400 7,400 001.076.300.576.80.41.05 Park Maint(Appleway Trail-Univ-Pines) R 736,442 20,000 756,442 45,400 General Government 001.090.000.518.85.41.03 Pavement Preservation R 890,000 30,000 920,000 Total changes in General Fund expenditures 305,903 R=recurring 52,503 N=nonrecurring 253,400_ 305,903 Page 15 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget General Fund-Recurring Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 2014 2015 Increase Decrease) Budget Budget $ % City Council Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 210,658 214,379 3,721 1/7% Supplies 4,192 4,550 358 8.54% Services&Charges 200,100 294,185 94,085 47.02% Total 414,950 513,114 98,164 23.66% City Manager Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 596,300 623,173 26,873 4.51% Supplies 3,350 3,350 0 0.00% Services&Charges 61,193 61,840 647 1.06% Total 660,843 688,363 27,520 4.16% Legal Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 367,812 379,917 12,105 3.29% Supplies 2,400 2,540 140 5.83% Services&Charges 76,710 79,382 672 0.85% Total 448,922 461,839 12,917 2.88% Public Safety Non-Departmental(Fines&Forfeits) 764,500 733,500 (31,000) (4.05%) Wages/Payroll Taxes/Benefits 3,500 3,800 300 8.57% Supplies 27,000 28,000 1,000 3.70% Other Services and Charges 671,450 492,650 (178,800) (26.63%) Intergovernmental Services 21,918,193 22,895,542 977,349 4.46% Total 23,384,643 24,153,492 768,849 3.29% Deputy City Manager Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 590,025 627,478 37,453 6,35% Supplies 2,050 2,500 450 21.95% Services&Charges 61,140 61,325 185 0.30% Total 653,215 691,303 38,088 5.83% Finance/IT Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 1,151,059 1,172,483 21,424 1.86% Supplies 7,000 6,000 (1,000) (14.29%) Services&Charges 22,600 25,396 2,796 12.37% Total 1,180,659 1,203,879 23,220 1.97% Human Resuorces Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 214,905 218,109 3,204 1.49% Supplies 700 700 0 0.00% Services&Charges 22,278 24,508 2,230 10.01% Total 237,883 243,317 5,434 2.28% Public Works Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 799,369 834,363 34,994 4.38% Supplies 19,500 19,000 (500) (2.56%) Services&Charges 63,825 68,551 4,726 7.40% Total 882,694 921,914 39,220 4,44% (Continued to next page) Increases in nonpayroll costs from 2014 to 2015 have been held at or below 1%with the exception of some items that have been added since the Budget Workshop held on June 17,2014. These additional expenditures are detailed on page 15 of 20. Page 16 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09,xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/2/2014 _ 2015 Budget General Fund-Recurring Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 Difference Between 2014and2015 2014 2015 Increase(Decrease) Budget Budget $ (Continued from previous page) Community&Econ. Dev.-Administration Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 232,683 237,394 4,711 2.02% Supplies 3,100 3,100 0 0.00% Services&Charges 55,100 20,600 (34,500) (62.61%) Total 290,883 261,094 (29,789) (10.24%) Community&Econ. Dev.-Economic Development Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 0 274,776 274,776 #DIV101 Supplies 0 1,000 1,000 #DIV101 Services&Charges _ 0 22,500 22,500 #DIV/0! Total 0 298,276 298,276 #DIV10! Community&Econ. Dev.-Development Services Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 0 1,122,644 1,122,644 #DIV/0! Supplies 0 21,050 21,050 #DIV/0! Services&Charges 0 281,250 281,250 #DIV/0! Total 0 1,424,944 1,424,944 #DIVIO! Community&Econ. Dev.-Engineering Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 709,964 0 (709,964) (100.00%) Supplies 9,800 0 (9,800) (100.00%) Services&Charges 87,350 0 _ (87,350) (100 00%) Total 807,114 0 (807,114) (100.00%) Community&Econ. Dev.-Planning_ Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 777,356 0 (777,356) (100.00%) Supplies 11,250 0 (11,250) (100.00%) Services&Charges 140,300 0 (140,300) (100.00%) Total 928,906 0 (928,906) (100.00%) Community&Econ. Dev.-Building Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 1,136,956 1,288,902 151,946 13.36% Supplies 28,200 28,200 0 0.00% Services&Charges 102,500 63,800 (38,700) (37.76%) Total 1,267,656 1,380,902 113,246 8.93% (Continued to next page) Page 17 of 20 F1:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 9/2/2014 2015 Budget General Fund-Recurring Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 Difference Between _ 2014 and 2015 2014 2015 Increase(Decrease) Budget Budget $ (Continued from previous page) Parks&Rec-Admin Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 222,343 228,697 6,354 2.86% Supplies 8,450 8,450 0 0.00% Services&Charges 43,950 49,800 5,850 13.31% Total 274,743 286,947 12,204 4.44% Parks&Rec-Maintenance Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Supplies 10,000 20,000 10,000 100.00% Services&Charges 786,200 824,642 38,442 4.89% Total 796,200 844,642 48,442 6.08% Parks&Rec-Recreation Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 156,702 153,924 (2,778) (1.77%) Supplies 5,350 7,750 2,400 44.86% Services&Charges 67,100 64,500 (2,600) (3.87%) Total 229,152 226,174 (2,978) (1.30%) Parks&Rec-Aquatics Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 0 0 0 #DIV10t Supplies 2,500 7,200 4,700 188.00% Services&Charges 487,900 489,000 1,100 0,23% Total 490,400 496,200 5,800 1.18% Parks&Rec-Senior Center Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 81,682 84,285 2,603 3.19% Supplies 2,500 2,500 0 0.00% Services&Charges 5,700 5,200 (500) (8.77%) Total 89,882 91,985 2,103 2.34% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 420,115 435,609 15,494 3.69% Supplies 64,187 66,963 2,776 4.32% Services&Charges 344,540 322,425 (22,115) (6.42%) Total 828,842 824,997 (3,845) (0.46%) (Continued to next page) Page 18 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and intros and PowerPoint presentations\201409 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 912/2014 2015 Budget General Fund-Recurring Department Changes from 2014 to 2015 Difference Between 2014 and 2015 2014 2015 Increase(Decrease) Budget Budget $ 1] % (Continued from previous page) Pavement Preservation Council Designation 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% Total 888,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% General Government Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 0 0 0 #DIV101 Supplies 77,400 70,650 (6,750) (8.72%) Services&Charges 1,301,300 1,292,550 (8,750) (0.67%) Intergovernmental Services 269,600 300,500 30,900 11.46% Capital outlays 93,300 77,500 (15,800) (16.93%) Total 1,741,600 1,741,200 (400) (0.02%) Transfers out-#502 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Transfer out-#310 Bond pmt>$434,600 lease pmt 0 67,600 67,600 #DIV10! Estimated City Hall O&M costs 0 271,700 271,700 #DIV/0! 0 339,300 339,300 #DIV10! Total recurring expenditures 36,823,010 38,338,882 1,515,872 4.12% Summary by Category Wages, Payroll Taxes&Benefits 7,671,429 7,899,933 (1,169,216) 2.98% Supplies 288,929 303,503 (8,476) 5.04% Services&Charges 4,603,236 4,544,104 (184,082) (1.28%) Pavement Preservation 688,823 920,000 31,177 3.51% Transfers out-#502 325,000 325,000 0 0.00% Transfers out-#310 0 339,300 0 #DIV/0! Non-Departmental(fines&forfeits) 764,500 733,500 (31,000) (4.05%) Intergovernmental Svc(public safety) 21,918,193 22,895,542 300 4.46% Intergovernmental Svc 269,600 300,500 1,000 11,46% Capital outlay 93,300 77,500 (178,800) (16.93%) 36,823,010 38,338,882 (1,539,097) 4.12% Page 19 of 20 H:\Budgets\2015\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2014 09 09\budget summary as of 2014 09 09.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Full Time Equivalent Employees Difference from Adopted Proposed 2014 to 2015 2009 2010 2011 I 2012 2013 2014 2015 k(-) #001 -General Fund City Manager 1 City Clerk 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0.000 Legal 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.000 Deputy City Manager 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 0.000 Finance 10 12 11 11 10,75 11.75 11.75 0.000 Human Resources 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.000 Public Works 7.5 7.5 7.5 7 7 7.375 7.375 0.000 CED-Administration 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 0.000 CED-Economic Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.500 (1) CEO-Development Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11.000 (1) CED- Engineering 8 8 6 6 8 7 0 (7.000) (1) CED-Planning 9 9 8.5 8.5 8 8 0 (8.000) (1) CED- Building 14.75 14.75 12.75 12.75 11,5 12.5 14 1.500 (1) Parks& Rec-Admin 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.000 Parks &Rec- Recreation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 Parks &Rec-Senior Cntr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000 Parks& Rec-CenterPlace 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 0.000 Total General Fund 81.25 83.25 74.75 74.25 72.25 73.625 73.625 0.000 #101 -Street Fund 5 5 4.5 5 5 5.375 5.725 0.350 (2) #303-Street Capital Project Fund 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.000 #402-Storm Water Fund 4 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.75 4,4 (0.350) (2) Total FTEs 93.75 95.75 87.25 87.25 85.25 87.25 87.250 = 0.000 (1) Reflects a reorganization of the Community and Economic Development Department which results in a net change of 0.0 FTEs. (2) Reflects a revised estimate of time spent by various employees between Streets and Stormwater. Net change is 0.0 FTEs. Page 20 of 20 City of Spokane Valley 2015 Budget Discussion Public Hearing #1 2015 Estimated Revenues and Expenditures September 9, 2015 1 2015 Budget Summary All Funds Total appropriations across all City Funds of $67.2 million including : $38.8 million in the General Fund which is comprised of $38.3 million recurring and $498,400 nonrecurring. $28.4 million spread across 20 additional funds. $16.3 million in capital expenditures. FTE count will remain at 87.25 employees in 2015. 2 General Fund REVENUES: ■ Total recurring 2015 revenues of $38,442 ,200 as compared to $36, 823, 500 in 2014 for an increase of $ 1 ,618,700 or 4.40% . All revenue estimates are based upon a combination of historical collections and future projections with some increasing and others decreasing . 2 largest sources are Sales Tax and Property Tax which are collectively estimated to account for $31 , 194, 300 or 81 . 1 % of 2015 General Fund revenues. 3 General Fund General sales tax collections are estimated at $ 17,628,400, an increase of $ 1 ,238,400 or 7. 5% over the 2014 Budget. Property Tax levy is not proposed to include the 1 % increase authorized by State law. 2015 Levy is estimated at $11 ,277, 100 Levy assumes we start with the 2014 levy of $11 ,077, 144 + estimated new construction of $200,000. 4 General Fund EXPENDITURES: ■ 2015 recurring expenditure proposal of $38, 338, 882 as compared to $36, 823, 010 in 2014 for an increase of $ 1 , 515, 872 or 4. 12% . Recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $ 103 , 318 or .27% of recurring revenues. 5 General Fund Nonrecurring expenditures total $498,400 and include: a $100,000 transfer to Fund #309 — Park Capital Projects $145,000 of IT related capital replacements $25,000 to construct offices for traffic unit supervisors at the precinct $200,000 for professional services directed towards the comp plan update $10,000 to upgrade the dial-up modems at the pools 6 General Fund The total of 2015 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $395, 082 . Projected fund balance at the end of 2015 is currently $ 19, 856,710 or 51 .79% of recurring expenditures. 7 Other Funds Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the Street Fund is anticipated to be $1 ,859,900. Telephone Taxes that are remitted to the City and support Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated to be $2,565, 100. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed street projects are anticipated to total $1 ,250,000. 8 Other Funds Hotel/Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be $510, 000. Stormwater Management Fees of $ 1 , 880, 000. Aquifer Protection Area fees of $500, 000. Grant Revenues of $ 10, 945, 146: Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $8,714, 114 Fund #311 — Pavement Preservation - $971 ,032 Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area - $1 ,260,000 9 Future Council Budget Discussions Oct. 7 — City Manager presentation of Preliminary 2015 Budget Oct. 14 — Public hearing #2 on 2015 Budget Oct. 28 — First reading of ordinance adopting 2015 Budget. Nov. 18 — Second reading of ordinance adopting 2015 Budget. 10 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 9, 2014 Department Director Approval: i1 Check all that apply: ►1 consent ❑old business ❑ new business [' public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 08/20/2014 33143 $40.75 08/22/2014 5871-5892 $2,251.00 08/22/2014 33144-33211; 819140185 669,842.84 08/25/2014 33212 $350.00 08/28/2014 33213-33217 $6,604.99 08/29/2014 33218-33235 $135,063.99 08/29/2014 5893-5929 $2,397.00 08/29/2014 33236-33258; 829146023 $2,383,560.77 GRAND TOTAL: $3,200,111.34 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 -General Fund Other Funds 001.011.000.511 City Council 101 —Street Fund 001.013.000.513. City Manager 103—Paths&Trails 001.013.015.515. Legal 105—Hotel/Motel Tax 001.016.000. Public Safety 120—CenterPlace Operating Reserve 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 121 —Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.018.014.514. Finance 122—Winter Weather Reserve 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 123 —Civic Facilities Replacement 001.032.000. Public Works 204—Debt Service 001.058.050.558. Comm. Develop.-Administration 301 —Capital Projects(1st A%REET) 001.058.055.558. Comm. Develop.—Develop.Eng. 302—Special Capital Proj (2nd IA%REET) 001.058.056.558. Community Develop.-Planning 303—Street Capital Projects 001.058.057.558. Community Develop.-Building 304—Mirabeau Point Project 001.076.000.576. Parks&Rec—Administration 307—Capital Grants 001.076.300.576. Parks&Rec-Maintenance 309—Parks Capital Grants 001.076.301.571. Parks&Rec-Recreation 310—Civic Bldg Capital Projects 001.076.302.576. Parks&Rec-Aquatics 311 —Pavement Preservation 001.076.304.575. Parks&Rec- Senior Center 312—Capital Reserve 001.076.305.571. Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 402—Stormwater Management 001.090.000.511. General Gov't-Council related 403 —Aquifer Protection Area 001.090.000.514. General Gov't-Finance related 501 —Equipment Rental&Replacement 001.090.000.517. General Gov't-Employee supply 502—Risk Management 001.090.000.518. General Gov't-Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't-Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't-Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't-Natural&Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't-Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't-Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't-Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/20/2014 2:32:07PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33143 8/20/2014 000365 DEPT OF LICENSING LICENSING V002705 402.402.000.531 LICENSE AND TITLE FEES SOLAR' 40.75 Total : 40.75 1 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 40.75 1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 40.75 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 1 . � �� =�— vchlist Voucher List Page: r@---' 00/22/2014 2:34:39P08 Spokane Valley Bank code: ph-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5871 8/22/2014 003887 BAUMAN,SUE PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5872 022C2014 002565 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 53'00 5873 8/22/2014 003899 BROOKS,CIERA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 195.00 Total : 195.00 5874 8/22/2014 003886 DAVIS, BOB PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.09 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME) 52.00 Total : 62'00 5875 8/22/2014 003481 DEREU, MICHELLE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR VALLEY M 52.00 Total : 52.00 5876 8/22/2014 003893 HANSON, ROBERT PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR GREAT RC 210.00 Total : 310'00 5877 022/2014 003889 HOLDER, FALLON PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY P1 52.00 Total : 52'00 5878 8/22/2014 003890 INLAND EMPIRE BOOKEEPERS ASSOC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.09 DAMAGE DEPOSIT SULLIVAN PARI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5879 8/22/2014 000642 INLAND NW CAMARO CLUB PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.09 DAMAGE DEPOSIT K8|RABEAUME/ 257.00 Tota} : 257.00 5880 8/22/2014 003894 KIRICHENKO, MARINA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.09 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 310.00 5881 8/22/2014 003896 KIRILOVICH, MARIA PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.08 Total : 210'80 5882 8/22/2014 002826 MEYERS,CHARLES PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT BROWNS PARI 52.00 Total : 52'00 5883 8/22/2014 003897 MOLLISON,AMANDA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR FIRESIDE 210.00 ` . _� ~�__ vchlist Voucher List ��Page: � 08/22/2014 2:34:39PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5883 8/22/2814 003897 003897 MOLLISON,AMANDA (Continued) Total : 210.00 5884 8/22/2014 003895 MORK, DAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER TENNIS CAMP REFUND 178.00 Total : 178.00 5885 8/22/2014 003898 PARTRIDGE,TRACY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR CONF RO( 52.00 Total : 53'00 5886 8/22/2014 003843 PELZ, CHRISTIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.90 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00 Total : 52.00 5887 8/22/2014 003888 PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT BROWNS PARI< 52.00 Total : 53.00 5888 8/22/2014 003884 PILANT, SUSAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5889 8/22/2014 003892 RESCARE HOME CARE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00 Total : 52.00 5890 8/22/2014 003415 REYES,MIRNA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND PORTION SUMMER CAMF 53.00 Total : 53'00 5891 8/22Y2014 003885 SCOTT, DANNETTE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.09 DAMAGE DEPOSIT TERRACE VIEP 52.00 Total : 52.00 5892 022/2014 003891 SPOKANE CARDIOLOGY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 22 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total : 2.251'00 22 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 2,251.00 vchlist Voucher List Page: T--4---- 08/22/2014 3:43:51 PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33144 8/22/2014 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 52185 402.402.000.531 2014 STORM DRAIN CLEANING 31,548.11 52269 402.402.000.531 2014 STREET SWEEPING CONTRA 53,004.96 Total : 84,553.07 33145 8/22/2014 000648 ABADAN, REPROGRAPHICS&IMAGING 36294 303.000.185.595 COLOR PRINT SETS 205.33 Total : 205.33 33146 8/22/2014 002816 ABLE CLEAN-UP TECHNOLOGIES INC 15776 001.058.056.524 FENCE RENTAL 1,065.26 15788 001.058.056.524 HAZARDOUS WASTE SERVICES 999.54 Total : 2,064.80 33147 8/22/2014 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA EXPENSE 001.032.000.543 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 14.00 Total : 14.00 33148 8/22/2014 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 142029 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 1,123.87 Total : 1,123.87 33149 8/22/2014 002326 BATTERIES PLUS 248-271960 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: PW 58.53 Total : 58.53 33150 8/22/2014 001816 BENTHIN&ASSOCIATES 2177 311.000.179.595 0179-SURVEY SVCS 150.00 Total : 150.00 33151 8/22/2014 003860 BILOUS, PAVLO EXPENSE 001.018.013.513 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 102.93 Total : 102.93 33152 8/22/2014 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC S0081903 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 253.14 S0087635 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 30.94 S0087651 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 6.88 Total : 290.96 33153 8/22/2014 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 47392 001.013.000.513 SUPPLEMENT UPDATE 269.03 Total : 269.03 33154 8/22/2014 003319 CO-ENERGY,CONNEL OIL 0094441-IN 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 291.51 Total : 291.51 Page: edt''�- vchlist Voucher List Page: —2-- 08/22/2014 3:43:51PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33155 8/22/2014 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES 345403 101.042.000.542 2014 TRAFFIC SERVICES ON CALL 651.00 Total : 651.00 33156 8/22/2014 000235 DB SECURE SHRED 2721081814 001.090.000.518 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION CITY I- 164.40 Total : 164.40 33157 8/22/2014 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB40714070 101.042.000.542 STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT 13,546.96 RE-313-ATB40714071 101.042.000.542 SIGNAL& ILLUMINCATION MAIN 2,897.05 RE-313-ATB40812060 101.042.000.542 STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT 8,413.89 RE-313-ATB40812061 101.042.000.542 SIGNAL&ILLUNIMATION MAIN 2,463.57 RE-313-ATB40812119 303.303.155.595 SULLIVAN RD W BRIDGE REPLACE 366.54 RE-313-ATB40812124 303.303.156.595 MANSFIELD AVE CONNECTION 35.53 RE-313-ATB40812147 311.000.187.595 ARGONNE RD&SPRAGUE AVE ST 359.75 RE-313-ATB40812162 311.000.187.595 SPRAGUE AVE ST PRESERVATION 75.68 Total : 28,158.97 33158 8/22/2014 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST AUGUST 2014 001.076.305.575 ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE 225.25 Total : 225.25 33159 8/22/2014 002920 DIRECTV INC 23743335625 402.402.000.531 CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINT SHOF 48.99 Total : 48.99 33160 8/22/2014 003256 DISCOVERY BENEFITS INC, HRA PLAN 0000477746-IN 001.018.016.518 JULY 2014 HRA SERVICE FEE 387.00 Total : 387.00 33161 8/22/2014 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES INC CD201419948 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER MAINT SHOP 5,214.57 CD201420016 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER MAINT SHOP 5,235.34 CD201420017 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER MAINT SHOP 5,567.75 CD201420018 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER MAINT SHOP 5,244.00 CD201420019 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER MAINT SHOP 5,207.64 CD201420020 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER MAINT SHOP 5,256.12 Total : 31,725.42 33162 8/22/2014 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 0714-0464 303.303.166.595 0166-PINES RD&GRACE AVE INT 4,015.75 Total : 4,015.75 33163 8/22/2014 001232 FASTENAL CO IDLEW98092 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 444.69 Page: """.. vchlist Voucher List Page:‹e:2 -a-- 08/22/2014 3:43:51 PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33163 8/22/2014 001232 001232 FASTENAL CO (Continued) Total : 444.69 33164 8/22/2014 002134 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 861-425941429 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVCIES 282.62 Total : 282.62 33165 8/22/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 42325 309.000.176.595 LEGAL PUBLICATION 118.40 42352 403.000.192.595 LEGAL PUBLICATION 136.00 42353 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 182.40 42356 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 91.80 42357 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 93.50 42384 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 174.40 42385 303.303.149.595 LEGAL PUBLICATION 147.20 42386 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 163.20 42389 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 96.05 42390 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 76.50 Total : 1,279.45 33166 8/22/2014 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC 0130808 311.000.000.544 FWD TESTING-FALLING WEIGHT 23,933.01 Total : 23,933.01 33167 8/22/2014 001911 GLOVER MANSION&, RED ROCK CATEF CIP1118 001.076.305.575 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 152.18 CP1116 001.076.305.575 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 1,283.97 CP1266 001.076.305.575 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 10.87 Total : 1,447.02 33168 8/22/2014 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL JULY14 1042 001.011.000.511 LOBBYIST SERVICES 3,112.85 Total : 3,112.85 33169 8/22/2014 000007 GRAINGER 9515575380 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: PW 36.65 9515575398 001.058.056.558 SUPPLIES:CD 36.65 9517343662 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: PW 161.97 9517768801 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: PW 100.11 9517768819 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: PW 75.66 Total : 411.04 33170 8/22/2014 003667 GREEN SOLUTIONS LLC GS1401-02 001.090.000.513 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAT 16,544.01 Total : 16,544.01 Page: ..--3---- --- vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 --4 08/22/2014 3:43:51PM Spokane Valley /// Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33171 8/22/2014 001723 HEDEEN&CADITZ PLLC 7698 303.303.155.595 PROFESSIOANL SERVICES 55.00 Total : 55.00 33172 8/22/2014 000741 HONEY BUCKETS 1-990697 001.076.300.576 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL-PARKS 158.00 1-991073 001.076.300.576 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL-PARKS 158.00 1-992812 001.076.301.571 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL-PARKS 72.00 Total : 388.00 33173 8/22/2014 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 787990 101.000.000.542 5-204 DOT ANNUAL INSPECTION 48.64 788014 101.000.000.542 5-203 DOT ANNUAL INSPECTION 48.64 Total : 97.28 33174 8/22/2014 000220 ICMA 435270 001.013.000.513 M.JACKSON 2014-2015#35270 1,400.00 Total : 1,400.00 33175 8/22/2014 002810 INLAND NW PARTNERS ASSOC SEPTEMBER 2014 001.011.000.511 2014 FALL MEETING FEES: R. HIG( 40.00 Total : 40.00 33176 8/22/2014 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 772692 001.076.305.575 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 115.89 Total : 115.89 33177 8/22/2014 003185 LAMB, ERIK EXPENSE 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 53.98 Total : 53.98 33178 8/22/2014 001944 LANCER LTD 0447205 001.058.057.558 BUSINESS CARDS 52.83 Total : 52.83 33179 8/22/2014 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 492 303.303.060.595 PROFESSIOANL SERVICES 43.75 Total : 43.75 33180 8/22/2014 001054 MOBIUS SCIENCE CENTER AND, KIDS C 10230924 001.076.301.571 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 8/ 260.00 Total : 260.00 33181 8/22/2014 002948 NA DEGERSTROM PAY APP 2 101.223.40.00 RETAINAGE RELEASE CIP 14-017 1,412.50 Total : 1,412.50 33182 8/22/2014 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS JULY 2014 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 36.00 Page: --5'- vchlist Voucher List Page: 6i 08/22/2014 3:43:51 PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33182 8/22/2014 002203 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS (Continued) Total : 36.00 33183 8/22/2014 003211 NORDIC TARPS MFG INC 13601 101.042.000.542 TARPS: PW 369.58 Total : 369.58 33184 8/22/2014 003900 NORTHWEST PLANT HEALTH CARE 2946 303.303.156.595 CONSULTING SERVICES 244.58 Total : 244.58 33185 8/22/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 710148733001 001.018.016.518 SUPPLIES: HR 5.35 Total : 5.35 33186 8/22/2014 003587 PACE, ED EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 25.76 Total : 25.76 33187 8/22/2014 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 44200 101.042.000.542 2014 STREET AND STORMWATER 258,159.32 Total : 258,159.32 33188 8/22/2014 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS INC. 40187 101.042.000.542 DECALS FOR CITY VEHICLES 104.35 40240 001.076.301.571 VINYL DECALS FOR CP 84.79 Total : 189.14 33189 8/22/2014 000675 RAMAX PRINTING&AWARDS INC 25925 001.013.015.515 WALL HOLDER 20.11 Total : 20.11 33190 8/22/2014 000952 RECALL DESTRUCTION SVC 3901150836 001.058.057.558 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION PERMI 61.61 Total : 61.61 33191 8/22/2014 000153 ROLLER VALLEY 3283 001.076.301.571 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 8/ 260.00 Total : 260.00 33192 8/22/2014 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD&DRUG CENTER 01-163606 001.076.301.571 SUPPLIES REC PROGRAM 20.17 01-165716 001.076.301.571 SUPPLIES REC PROGRAM 20.13 02-145931 001.076.301.571 SUPPLIES REC PROGRAM 54.50 Total : 94.80 33193 8/22/2014 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 6252974 101.042.000.542 2014 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONT 1,187.00 Total : 1,187.00 Page: ..5"""-- 9 vchlist Voucher List Page: ,-6"--- 08/22/2014 6 08/22/2014 3:43:51 PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33194 8/22/2014 002947 SILVER MOUNTAIN CORP 4434XF 001.076.301.571 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 7/ 1,272.00 Total : 1,272.00 33195 8/22/2014 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 5-711781 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 18.31 Total : 18.31 33196 8/22/2014 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 9046 303.303.156.595 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SERA 3,588.55 Total : 3,588.55 33197 8/22/2014 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE JULY 2014 001.058.056.558 RECORDING FEES 643.00 Total : 643.00 33198 8/22/2014 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 50311498 001.018.013.513 COUNTY IT SUPPORT JULY 2014 12,004.08 Total : 12,004.08 33199 8/22/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 110100044 303.303.181.595 ENGINEERING AND ROADS INVOI( 67,541.32 Total : 67,541.32 33200 8/22/2014 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 399652 001.011.000.511 ADVERTISING ACCOUNT 42365 JU 1,373.91 Total : 1,373.91 33201 8/22/2014 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3238601504 001.011.000.511 CREDIT MEMO SUPPLIES:COUNC -51.53 3238601505 001.058.050.558 SUPPLIES:CD 868.36 Total : 816.83 33202 8/22/2014 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L104509 001.090.000.514 SAO AUDIT OF 2013 20,965.20 Total : 20,965.20 33203 8/22/2014 001791 STONE, MIKE EXPENSE 001.076.000.576 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 131.48 Total : 131.48 33204 8/22/2014 001875 STRATA INCORPORATED SP140197-IN 303.303.156.595 MANSFIELD CONNECTION BLDG C 723.75 SP140225-IN 403.000.173.594 MATERIALS TESTING 2,562.25 Total : 3,286.00 33205 8/22/2014 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 59009817 001.076.300.576 NITRATE 300 ANALYSIS: PARKS 20.00 59009847 001.076.300.576 TC/PA ANAYLSIS: PARKS 27.00 Page: rte' vchlist Voucher List Page: 08/22/2014 3:43:51 PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33205 8/22/2014 001472 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES (Continued) Total : 47.00 33206 8/22/2014 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8040047153 101.042.000.542 47362D:OIL CHANGE 108.37 8040047191 402.402.000.531 47366D: OIL CHANGE 36.22 Total : 144.59 33207 8/22/2014 001660 TITAN TRUCK EQUIP 1076652 402.402.000.531 40201D:SERVICE AND REPAIR 613.31 Total : 613.31 33208 8/22/2014 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP 113430 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,251.40 Total : 1,251.40 33209 8/22/2014 002291 WACE SEPTEMBER 2014 001.058.056.524 WALE FALL CONFERENCE; B. SCE 200.00 Total : 200.00 33210 8/22/2014 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS INC 0000025553 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES:STREET 4,283.06 Total : 4,283.06 33211 8/22/2014 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW 410153 001.076.302.576 MANAGEMENT/OPERATIONS EXPE -1.62 JULY 31ST 2014 001.076.302.576 OPERATING/MAINTENANCE EXPE 81,359.07 Total : 81,357.45 819140185 8/20/2014 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-56 001.016.000.521 CRY WOLF CHARGES JULY 2014 3,777.37 Total : 3,777.37 69 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 669,842.84 69 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 669,842.84 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: �+ 08/25/2014 12:17:03PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33212 8/25/2014 003221 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SEPA Review 402.000.197.595 SEPA REVIEW FOR BROADWAY/HI 350.00 Total : 350.00 1 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 350.00 1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 350.00 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: -4--- 08/28/2014 1''08/28/2014 3:53:18PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33213 8/28/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 7511 July 2014 001.013.000.513 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 1,178.00 7511 July 2014 101.042.000.542 PETERS HARDWARE 7.01 7511 July 2014 402.402.000.531 STORMCON 2014 540.00 7511 July 2014 001.032.000.543 BNSFCONTRACTOR.COM 45.00 7511 July 2014 001.018.016.518 APPLE ONLINE STORE 107.61 7511 July 2014 001.018.016.518 DOLLARTREE STORES 6.52 7511 July 2014 001.018.016.518 AMAZON.COM 239.13 7511 July 2014 001.013.000.513 WASHINGTON COURT HOTEL 1,097.97 7511 July 2014 001.013.000.513 WASHINGTON COURT HOTEL -0.06 7511 July 2014 001.018.013.513 OFFICE DEPOT 88.59 Total : 3,309.77 33214 8/28/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 2199 July 2014 001.011.000.511 AVIS RENT A CAR 221.56 2199 July 2014 001.011.000.511 ALASKA AIRLINES 329.20 2199 July 2014 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 20.00 2199 July 2014 001.011.000.511 AVIS RENT A CAR 70.86 2199 July 2014 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE INTERNATIONALAIRPOI 9.50 2199 July 2014 001.018.013.513 HIGH NOONER 88.19 2199 July 2014 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 28.00 Total : 767.31 33215 8/28/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 9094 July 2014 001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY 6.49 9094 July 2014 001.076.301.571 FIRST AID SUPPLIES ONLINE 64.79 9094 July 2014 001.076.000.576 ALASKA AIRLINES 304.20 9094 July 2014 001.076.301.571 ALASKA AIRLINES 304.20 9094 July 2014 001.076.305.575 THE HOME DEPOT 96.51 9094 July 2014 001.076.305.575 THE HOME DEPOT -11.63 9094 July 2014 001.076.000.576 AUTONATION AUTOMOTIVE GROU 299.85 9094 July 2014 001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY 16.27 Total : 1,080.68 33216 8/28/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 2207 July 2014 001.058.050.558 GOOD TO GO! 8.95 2207 July 2014 001.058.056.558 ROGER BROOKS INTERNATIONAL 85.00 2207 July 2014 001.058.056.558 IEDC 270.00 2207 July 2014 001.058.056.558 ACTION REGISTRATION FOR APA 200.00 2207 July 2014 001.058.055.558 AMAZON.COM 235.06 Page: -1*------- vchlist Voucher List /3Page: F 08/28/2014 3:53:18PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33216 8/28/2014 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) 2207 July 2014 001.058.056.558 AMAZON.COM 18.34 2207 July 2014 001.058.055.558 AMAZON.COM 33.58 2207 July 2014 001.058.057.558 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP 64.13 2207 July 2014 001.058.056.558 BUYROLLS.COM 137.80 Total : 1,052.86 33217 8/28/2014 001606 BANNER BANK 2223 July 2014 001.090.000.518 BEST BUY 141.30 2223 July 2014 001.018.016.518 RITE AID PHARMACY 7.59 2223 July 2014 001.076.301.571 DOLLARTREE STORE 25.00 2223 July 2014 001.076.301.571 HOBBY-LOBBY 34.48 2223 July 2014 001.076.301.571 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 20.83 2223 July 2014 101.042.000.542 ASPHALT INSTITUTE 50.00 2223 July 2014 101.042.000.542 ASPHALT INSTITUTE 50.00 2223 July 2014 101.042.000.542 ASPHALT INSTITUTE 50.00 2223 July 2014 001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY 15.17 Total : 394.37 5 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 6,604.99 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 6,604.99 Page: ..,,2'"''----- vchlist Voucher ListPage: /9' 08/29/2014 1:43:08PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33218 8/29/2014 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC INV010625 001.016.000.521 PRECINCT JANITORIAL SERVICE:. 2,386.87 Total : 2,386.87 33219 8/29/2014 000030 AVISTA August 2014 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA 24,691.57 July 2014 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA 19,016.60 Total : 43,708.17 33220 8/29/2014 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY August 2014 001.058.056.558 PETTY CASH: 10273, 10274 6.79 Total : 6.79 33221 8/29/2014 003221 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY August 2014 001.016.000.521 PETTY CASH:8981,82,83,84 26.80 Total : 26.80 33222 8/29/2014 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 July 2014 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW MISSED ACCOUNTS 42.88 Total : 42.88 33223 8/29/2014 000900 DEPT OF L&I 248830 001.076.300.576 TWO YEAR OPERATING CERTIFICi 21.50 Total : 21.50 33224 8/29/2014 003136 GIBSON, CARLY Expenses 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 34.72 Total : 34.72 33225 8/29/2014 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 2nd QTR 2014 001.090.000.550 2014 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI 9,178.50 Total : 9,178.50 33226 8/29/2014 000070 INLAND POWER&LIGHT CO 94202 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES:JULY 2014 PW 408.45 Total : 408.45 33227 8/29/2014 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 July 2014 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW 105.56 Total : 105.56 33228 8/29/2014 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO July 2014 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW 18,269.79 Total : 18,269.79 33229 8/29/2014 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC Sept 2014 001.090.000.518 CITY HALL RENT 34,000.00 Total : 34,000.00 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page:/ ' 08/29/2014 1:43:08PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33230 8/29/2014 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD&DRUG CENTER 01-157745 001.076.301.571 SUPPLIES FOR REC PROGRAM 61.01 10-279001 001.076.301.571 SUPPLIES REC PROGRAM 7.82 Total : 68.83 33231 8/29/2014 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM August 2014 001.090.000.550 2014 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI 1,271.21 Total : 1,271.21 33232 8/29/2014 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 52196 001.016.000.521 JULY 2014: MONTHLY MAINTENANI 587.80 Total : 587.80 33233 8/29/2014 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 6090 105.000.000.557 2014 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 17,920.04 Total : 17,920.04 33234 8/29/2014 001134 WA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH 84745 1 001.076.300.576 SULLIVAN PARK OPERATING PER 101.30 Total : 101.30 33235 8/29/2014 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0059816-1518-9 402.402.000.531 WASTE MGMT: PW VACTORING 6,924.78 Total : 6,924.78 18 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 135,063.99 18 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 135,063.99 Page: ^''._ er vchlist. Voucher ListPage: ` -1---- 08/29/2014 2:39:03PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5893 8/29/2014 003925 BARBER, ROSEMARY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT EDGECLIFF PAI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5894 8/29/2014 003920 BERKOWITZ,JOAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT EDGECLIFF PAI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5895 8/29/2014 003924 BLACKWOOD,MEAGAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT EDGECLIFF PAI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5896 8/29/2014 003915 BLATNER,CHARLES PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT TERRACE VIE'', 52.00 Total : 52.00 5897 8/29/2014 003914 BRAATEN, MARY JO PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5898 8/29/2014 003916 BRUCE, KATHY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT TERRACE VIEW 52.00 Total : 52.00 5899 8/29/2014 003926 CASCADES LAKES RACE GROUP PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 257.00 Total : 257.00 5900 8/29/2014 000729 CH2MHILL INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5901 8/29/2014 003910 CONVERSION CONCEPTS INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5902 8/29/2014 003927 COPE,SARAH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5903 8/29/2014 002794 DODGE,CONNIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT EDGECLIFF PAI 52.00 Total : 52.00 5904 8/29/2014 003939 DOTY,JESSICA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5905 8/29/2014 001360 FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Page: ,,,,--r"----- /9 vchlist Voucher List Page: ~-2- 08/29/2014 2:39:03PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5905 8/202014 001360 001360 FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA (Continued) Total : 53'00 5906 029/2014 003156 FRUCCI,MIKE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00 Total : 52.00 5907 029/2014 003918 HARRIS,TORI PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT[N|RABEAUK3E/ 52.00 Total : 52'00 5908 0202014 003930 HOLMQUIST, MATT PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT K8|RABEAUWYE/ 52.00 Total : 52'00 5909 8/29/2014 001673 HOSPICE OF SPOKANE PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT N\|RABEAUME) 52.00 Total : 53.00 5910 029/2014 003923 HUMBERT,JASON PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00 Total : 52.00 5911 0202014 003933 JENNO, REBECKA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT TERRACE VIE\. 52.00 Total : 52.00 5912 8C29/2014 003911 KENWORTHY, LIANNA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME) 52.00 Total : 52.00 5913 8/202014 003505 LINDSAY,GLENDA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5914 8/202014 003919 MCHENRY,CHERYL PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00 Total : 52'00 5915 8/29/2014 003931 MENDOZA,AMY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU SPF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5916 8/29/2014 003937 MORGAN, LOREN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total ' 62.00 5917 8/29/2014 003936 PAWN 1 INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52'$0 5918 8/29/2014 003922 PHILLIPS, FELICIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00 -- vchlist Voucher List Page: � 08/29/2014 2:39:03PM Spokane Valley Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5918 8/29/2014 003922 003922 PHILLIPS, FELICIA (Continued) Total : 52.00 5919 8/29/2014 003932 RAMLAL, ERIN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT TERRACE VIEW 52.00 Total : 52.00 5920 8/29/2014 003921 ROONEY,TAMRA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00 Total : 52.00 5921 8/29/2014 003912 SANDERS,JULIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND SUMMER CAMP 115.00 Total : 115.00 5922 8/29/2014 002727 SMART SMOKE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5923 8/29/2014 003929 STAMAND,CATHY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5924 8/29/2014 003934 SWARTZ,SUSAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5925 8/29/2014 003917 TAYLOR,GREG PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME) 52.00 Total : 52.00 5926 8/29/2014 003935 TEJEDA, MARBELYS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00 Total : 52.00 5927 8/29/2014 003913 TUPLING,JULIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU SPF 52.00 Total : 52.00 5928 8/29/2014 003928 WALGREENS INFUSION RESP.SERV PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 5929 8/29/2014 003142 WESTERN DANCE ASSOCIATION PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT SULLIVAN PARI 257.00 Total : 257.00 37 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total : 2,397.00 37 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,397.00 Page: ---3'— 4 vchlist Voucher List Page: ,---1"-- 08/2912014 3:06:03PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33236 8/29/2014 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC SPO-063553 101.042.000.542 SERVICE CALL-PHONE 619.59 SPO-063847 001.090.000.518 NETWORK SERVICE CALL-PHONE 382.62 Total : 1,002.21 33237 8/29/2014 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9567103 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 280.76 Total : 280.76 33238 8/29/2014 000322 CENTURYLINK AUGUST 2014 001.076.000.576 2014 PHONE SVCS:ACCT 509 Z14- 471.70 Total : 471.70 33239 8/29/2014 002036 CITY OF SPOKANE,TREASURER IN-027188 311.000.179.595 REF NO SL-14021-INTERSECTION 601.48 Total : 601.48 33240 8/29/2014 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST AUGUST 2014 001.076.304.575 ADVERTISING SENIOR CENTER 39.00 Total : 39.00 33241 8/29/2014 000278 DRISKELL, CARY EXPENSE 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 51.40 Total : 51.40 33242 8/29/2014 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 42415 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 102.85 42416 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 69.70 42417 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 97.75 Total : 270.30 33243 8/29/2014 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 10.08 Total : 10.08 33244 8/29/2014 002568 GRANICUS INC 57165 001.011.000.511 BROADCASTING COUNCIL SEPTEt 719.59 Total : 719.59 33245 8/29/2014 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. PAY APP 3 311.000.179.595 0179-ARGONNE RD&SPRAGUE: 592,547.95 Total : 592,547.95 33246 8/29/2014 002810 INLAND NW PARTNERS ASSOC SEPTEMBER 2014 001.011.000.511 FALL MEETING BATES&HAFNER 80.00 Total : 80.00 33247 8/29/2014 001944 LANCER LTD 0447489 001.018.013.513 BUSINESS CARDS 36.14 Page: �1---"-` vchlist Voucher List Page:-7° .2--'- 08/29/2014 3:06:03PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 33247 8/29/2014 001944 001944 LANCER LTD (Continued) Total : 36.14 33248 8/29/2014 000616 NEW HORIZONS COMPUTER LEARNING 33421 001.058.050.558 MICROSOFT SHAREPOINT 2010-D 800.00 Total : 800.00 33249 8/29/2014 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 705566147001 001.090.000.519 SUPPLIES: GENERAL 66.50 705566196001 001.018.014.514 SUPPLIES: FINANCE 35.18 705866916001 001.090.000.519 SUPPLIES: GENERAL 6.25 Total : 107.93 33250 8/29/2014 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER JULY 2014 001.016.000.586 STATE REMITTANCE 64,320.32 Total : 64,320.32 33251 8/29/2014 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 1428301-AU14 001.090.000.518 POSTAGE METER RENTALAUGUS' 275.00 Total : 275.00 33252 8/29/2014 003407 RIGHT! SYSTEMS INC 130321 001.090.000.594 BARRACUDA BACKUP SERVER 891 27,187.78 Total : 27,187.78 33253 8/29/2014 003938 ROB'S DEMOLITION INC PAY APP 1 303.303.156.595 SIX PLEX DEMOLITION CIP 0156 42,338.65 Total : 42,338.65 33254 8/29/2014 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY JULY 2014 001.016.000.586 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F 966.49 Total : 966.49 33255 8/29/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51502258 001.016.000.523 HOUSING INVOICE JULY 2014 122,049.00 Total : 122,049.00 33256 8/29/2014 000311 SPRINT 959698810-081 001.058.057.558 GPS PHONE 70.23 Total : 70.23 33257 8/29/2014 003312 TAYLOR,CHELSIE EXPENSE 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 8.40 Total : 8.40 33258 8/29/2014 001464 TW TELECOM 06458305 001.076.305.575 INTERNET/PHONE CENTER PLACE 1,245.93 Total : 1,245.93 829146023 8/29/2014 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 9290200623 001.229.51.12 LAW ENFORCEMENT AUGUST 201 1,528,080.43 Page: -- vchlist Voucher List Page: / 08/2912014 3:06:03PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 829146023 8/29/2014 000001 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER (Continued) Total : 1,528,080.43 24 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 2,383,560.77 24 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 2,383,560.77 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 09-09-2014 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending August 31, 2014 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 256,988.00 $ 5,475.00 $262,463.00 Benefits: $ 145,454.55 $ 10,766.46 $156,221.01 Total payroll $ 402,442.55 $ 16,241.46 $418,684.01 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 9, 2014 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Set public hearing date for the 2015 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: State law requires the City to a set a public hearing date to review the 2015 Budget and Staff is proposing October 14, 2014. This public hearing is included in the seven separate opportunities the Council will have to discuss the budget, including two public hearings to gather input from citizens: • June 17 Council Budget Retreat • September 2 Admin report: Estimated 2015 revenues and expenditures • September 9 Public hearing #1 on 2015 revenues and expenditures • October 7 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2015 Budget • October 14 Public hearing #2 on 2015 Budget • October 28 First reading on ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget • November 18 Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget OPTIONS: The Council could chose to set the public hearing on another date but the recommendation will keep us on schedule to adopt the budget on November 18, 2014. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to set the 2015 Budget hearing date for October 14, 2014. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This is part of the 2015 Budget development process leading to its scheduled adoption on November 18, 2014. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS: • None. DRAFT LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND RADIO CONTROL CAR CLUB OF SPOKANE This License Agreement (Agreement) is made and entered into by and between the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, as "City" acting through the City Manager and/or Parks and Recreation Director, and Radio Control Car Club of Spokane (RCCCS, or Licensee) whose address is RCCCS in care of Darren Hill, 13320 E. Mission Avenue #354, Spokane Valley, WA 99216. In consideration of the following terms,conditions and covenants,the parties agree: 1. Purpose. This Agreement licenses and grants permission to use public property or facilities that are owned or controlled by the City of Spokane Valley, hereinafter, "Premises." The Premises are described on Exhibit"A" attached hereto. 2. Scope of Use. The City authorizes Licensee to use and occupy the Premises for the purpose of providing radio control car facilities for the general use and enjoyment of the public at the radio control car track at Sullivan Park, 1901 North Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley. Any event with 50 or more people shall require Licensee to comply with the requirements of Spokane Valley Municipal Code 6.05.050 as adopted or amended. 3. Effective Date and Duration. This Agreement shall be in effect from the date of execution through December 31, 2017. The parties may mutually agree in writing to execute one extension of two years, which would expire December 31, 2019. Future use shall be subject to future plans for the use of Sullivan Park as determined by the City. 4. Costs of Operation. Licensee agrees to pay or reimburse the City for all electrical charges and for support services as may be agreed upon in writing and provided by the City at the request of RCCCS. 5. Indemnification/Hold Harmless. Licensee shall, at its sole expense, defend, indemnify and hold harmless, City and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, attorney's fees and costs of litigation, expenses, injuries, and damages of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of the wrongful or negligent acts, errors or omissions in the services provided by Licensee and Licensee's agents, to the fullest extent permitted by law, subject only to the limitations provided below. Licensee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City shall not apply to liability for damages arising out of such services caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of City or City's agents or employees. Licensee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless against liability for damages arising out of such services caused by the concurrent negligence of(a) City or City's agents or employees, and (b) Licensee or Licensee's agents shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Licensee or Licensee's agents. Licensee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless shall include, as to all claims, demands, losses and liability to which it applies, City's personnel-related costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and the reasonable value of any services rendered by the office of the City Attorney, outside consultant costs, court costs,fees for collection, and all other claim-related expenses. Licensee specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be granted it under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. These indemnification obligations shall not be limited in 2014 Use Agreement—Radio Control Car Club of Spokane Page 1 of 4 DRAFT any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable to or for any third party under workers' compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employee benefits acts. Provided, that Licensee's waiver of immunity under this provision extends only to claims against Licensee by City, and does not include, or extend to, any claims by Licensee's employees directly against Licensee. Licensee hereby certifies that this indemnification provision was mutually negotiated. 6. Insurance. Unless waived by the City in writing, Licensee shall provide a Certificate of Insurance to the City with the following minimum coverages/limits: A. Employer's Liability or Washington Employer's Stop Gap liability with a limit of no less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence (including disease). B. Commercial or Comprehensive General Liability with a limit of no less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 in the annual aggregate for bodily injury, property damage and personal injury including premises and operations, products and completed operations and contractual liability. The City of Spokane Valley shall be named as an additional insured. C. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for automobile liability,professional liability and commercial general liability insurance: 1. Licensee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by City shall be in excess of Licensee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. Licensee shall fax or send electronically in .pdf format a copy of insurer's cancellation notice within two business days of receipt by Licensee. D. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.Best rating of not less than A:VII. E. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Agreement, Licensee shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates to the City Clerk at the time Licensee returns the signed Agreement. The certificate shall specify all of the parties who are additional insureds, and will include applicable policy endorsements, and the deduction or retention level. Insuring companies or entities are subject to City acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies shall be provided to City. Licensee shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions,and/or self-insurance. 7. Damage. Licensee shall reimburse the City for all damages to City property and improvements as a result of the acts, errors or omissions of Licensee, its agents or event patrons. Licensee shall leave the premises in substantially at least as good a condition as when Licensee was first given permission to use the premises. Licensee shall have the right, upon termination of this agreement, to remove all of its materials and equipment. 8. Posting of Signs. Licensee shall not post, exhibit, or allow to be posted or exhibited any signs, advertisements, show bills, or other items of any description, including any existing signs, on the Premises or any other property owned by the City except upon the written approval of the City Manager or Parks and Recreation Director. 9. Minimum Support Personnel. Licensee agrees to employ at its sole cost, expense and liability, such minimum security, admission and support personnel as deemed necessary by the City Manager or Parks and Recreation Director to ensure the safety of the event patrons and the Premises. 2014 Use Agreement—Radio Control Car Club of Spokane Page 2 of 4 DRAFT 10. Copyright/Trademark. Licensee warrants, on its own behalf and on the behalf of any performer or any other person permitted by Licensee upon the Premises, that all materials presented, heard or shown have been duly licensed or authorized by the owners of any copyright or trademark. Licensee acknowledges sole responsibility for payment of any royalty fees and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, their agents and employees for all claims and attorney fees that arise through a trademark or copyright dispute. 11. Concessions. All concession rights are reserved to the City. Licensee shall not sell or give away food or merchandise without the written consent of the City Manager or Parks and Recreation Director. 12. Additional Conditions. In connection with the use and occupancy of the Premises, Licensee agrees to the following additional conditions, which are incorporated into this agreement as if fully set forth. The additional conditions are set forth in Exhibit"A." This Agreement is made this day of September, 2014. Mike Jackson, City Manager Attest: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Licensee By: Its: 2014 Use Agreement—Radio Control Car Club of Spokane Page 3 of 4 DRAFT Exhibit A Property Subject to License This radio car facility is known as the Hank Perry Radio Car Track, and is located in Sullivan Park, 1901 North Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley,with boundaries as set forth on the attached map. Special Conditions General maintenance and repairs are the responsibility of RCCCS. Improvements to the facilities may be made only upon prior written approval by the City of Spokane Valley. RCCCS is required to pay power bills and other costs that are directly associated with their operation. The facility shall be open to the general public. Membership in the RCCCS or other organization shall not be a requirement for members of the public to use the facility. No fees may be charged to enter and use the facility except for entry fees as provided by special event permit granted by the City. The City will continue to maintain the landscaped area adjacent to the track and will provide routine garbage service. All garbage generated in excess of regularly scheduled pickups shall be the responsibility of RCCCS. The Western Dance Hall shall have first right of paved parking lot use. Use of the paved parking shall be specifically requested in advance by RCCCS to the City. Electrical power shall be provided only through outlets specified in writing by the City. The Western Dance Hall is under private lease, and therefore use of electrical power from that facility is not allowed. Overnight camping is prohibited. However, a limited number of vehicles may be permitted for the purpose of overnight security during special events. Such use must receive prior approval by the City. 2014 Use Agreement—Radio Control Car Club of Spokane Page 4 of 4 DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington August 19,2014 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 Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Rod Higgins, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Ed Pace,Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Ben Wick, Councilmember Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Sean Messner,Traffic Engineer 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.Bid Award, SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit—Eric Guth It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the SE Yardley Stormwater Retrofit Project to Halme Construction, Inc., in the amount of$704,727.75, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Speaking for Mr. Guth, Senior Engineer Worley explained that the bid came in below the engineer's estimate, and staff recommends awarding the bid to Halme Construction. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 2. Previously Adopted,TIB Call for Projects,Motion to Amend—Steve Worley, Sean Messner It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded that in accordance with notice given at the last meeting, to amend the motion adopted at the July 22, 2014 Council meeting to add the language "University, 16th to Dishman Mica, to remain four lanes." Mr. Worley went over the background of this issue, including the action that was taken at the July 22 Council meeting, and said the previous proposal was to resurface University Road and re-stripe to three lanes plus buffered bike lanes along University, which he explained, would allow people safe access to the Appleway Trail, the park library site, and elsewhere. Mr. Worley explained staffs estimated application scores for University Road with both the three lane and four-lane configuration; and said the safety score drops considerably for the four lane as compared with the three lane; and explained that the numbers circled on the chart are the projects that were selected last year; he said if this remains four lanes, we would likely not be eligible for this grant under the safety category. Mr. Worley explained the difference between the three-lane with buffered bike lanes, and the four lane with bike lanes without a buffer and with the two middle lanes ten-feet wide, which he said would be narrow; that the outside lane would be twelve feet since the buses tend to be wider and use that curb lane, which he said would leave a five-foot bike lane with no buffer; or another idea is to make all travel lanes eleven feet each.There was additional discussion about vehicle width,lane width, and narrow lanes, which Mr. Messner said are not preferred on arterials. Mr. Messner stated that Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT these changes are being examined from a safety perspective, that the data they examined for Broadway going from a four to a three lane, showed a 20% reduction in crashes, and said he anticipates similar results in this case; he said the buffered bike lane also gives more distance from the bikers and the traffic. Mr.Messner noted this section has the lowest amount of traffic volume of any they have looked at for this type of configuration; and said there is plenty of capacity with either three or four lanes. Mr. Messner talked about the three lane type of crashes, and said while there would be an overall reduction of crashes, the type of crashes would change from angle crashes which are more severe, to the less severe rear-end crashes. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would rather have a head-on collision than a rear-end collision;that this is a bus route so we would want to accommodate the bus,adding that the bus (STA bus)cannot be passed legally on that third lane;he also mentioned snow and ice problems as people try to get up the hill in winter weather. Mr. Messner said from a maintenance perspective, they have not had any reports or incidents of sliding on that hill. Councilmember Wick asked about the area north of the intersection and if we have had any complaints or problems, and Mr. Messner said he has not examined that area,but has not heard anything in the last eight months; he said the majority of our lanes are twelve feet wide and that they try not to go less than eleven feet since the bus has wide mirrors and it would be uncomfortable to have only two feet between the mirrors and the vehicle in the next lane,especially when traffic travels about 35 to 40 mph. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Hafner said in comparing the three lanes to four lanes,that ten feet wide is not very good while thirteen feet gives ample room for bikes;he said sidewalks are important; and said he is not in favor of a change since the pros for a three-lane outweigh the pros for a four lane; that this was determined a few weeks ago and this is a safety factor;which he said is more important, and therefore seems there is no rationale for going back to the four lanes. Councilmember Pace said we have to balance this with what people want in that area and that it has been four lanes for a long time; that he has a gut feeling and thinks people want it to stay as it is not; that he didn't talk to anyone, but this is just based on his own experience. Councilmember Wick stated that nearly one in three crashes would not have to happen if the road is switched to a three lane; and said it appears it would score better on the grant application. Councilmember Bates stated he agreed with Councilmember Wick and thinks the decision made July 22 was the correct one as safety must be the highest priority and that there is some proven data indicating three lanes are safer. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he asked about having four lanes with bike lanes three weeks ago and was told staff didn't think it was feasible; which he said is what prompted him to start his questioning of the decision; and said he should have visited the site prior to the July 22 meeting; he said he is not being critical and doesn't have an engineering degree,but that doesn't mean common sense can't come into play; that he doesn't see that it is "all that broke" and doesn't see the problem, and feels a change to three lanes will not see that much accident reduction. Councilmember Higgins said that we seem to be dealing with some statistical"what-ifs" and that he doesn't see convincing evidence that it will be significantly different. Mayor Grafos added that he feels it won't gain a lot to change it to three lanes. Councilmember Hafner called for the question, which resulted in a unanimous vote in favor of stopping discussion and voting on the motion. Vote by Acclamation on the motion to amend the motion adopted at the July 22, 2014 Council meeting to add the language "University, 16th to Dishman Mica, to remain four lanes" resulted in Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Higgins and Pace voting for the motion; with Councilmembers Hafner, Wick and Bates voting against the motion. The motion passed. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 3. Shoreline Development Regulations—Lori Barlow Community Development Director Hohman reported that staff worked diligently to "scrub" this document's verbiage;that his staff as well as legal counsel spent many hours going over the development regulations word by word, and said he feels that effort has resulted with a clear document that staff can Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT implement and developers can understand; he said they tried to accommodate the many comments and suggestions given over the years, and he feels this is ready for Council's review. Mr. Hohman said that special Counsel Tadas Kisielius is here tonight; that this program has minimal impact on the development community as there are not a lot of vacant parcels; he said everyone worked hard to include the most unique portion, which is our variable buffers, and said that has not been done elsewhere in the state yet; that they worked with the Department of Ecology (DOE) to prove that this could be implemented in the field; that staff spent the last four months going over this in detail with the Planning Commission; and he encouraged Council to ask questions throughout the report. Senior Planner Barlow said that tonight's report is to give Council an overview of the document, and demonstrate how the document is likely to be used by the public; said she will highlight some of the issues discussed by the Planning Commission, and as required by Washington State law, these final draft regulations will be presented to Council for adoption by resolution; and eventually the entire document will come back to Council for adoption consideration by Ordinance. Ms. Barlow said that this is the final piece to be developed, that once complete it will be taken through the public review process, and then it goes to the Department of Ecology for their final review and process. Ms. Barlow also noted that this draft document is the Planning Commission's recommended final draft, and is in track-change format so Council see easily see the Commission's recommended changes. Ms. Barlow explained that the regulations are the "how to"proponent of the Shoreline Master Plan and identify what is allowed without a permit, and what activities require a permit, all of which is in compliance with the DOE rules; she said this also identifies the process to make sure it meets the intent of all regulations, including regulations found in our City Code. Mr.Kisielius reviewed some of the specific regulations and how the Planning Commission resolved some of their concerns;he mentioned that the "no net loss" standard is the cornerstone and the regulations must assure this, which he said could be accomplished through various means, including mitigation if needed. Mr. Kisielius noted that they went out and mapped the riparian area; and he went over several sections and draft changes including 21.50.210, 150(4) and 21.50.250; and noted that section "e" is a large, added section which sets the standards for paths within the buffer, and sets out more clearly the parameters when a path can be built, and that part of that section addresses docks and where they can be allowed; he said the Planning Commission options considered included keeping the status quo, or drawing the division between the "lake-like" conditions and the "free flowing"part of the river; that they identified the middle ground as the transition area, and an applicant will be required to demonstrate whether they fall in that parameter of free flowing or lake-like; said the problem in that area is public health and safety as we do not want docks built in an area where they would be at risk of falling down or have an ecological impact on the shoreline; he said the Planning Commission chose more robust reporting requirements for those who want to build docks in those areas, and he referenced subsection 8 on page 39. Mr. Kisielius noted that west of Millwood is the lake-like area with not much habitat, and the free-flowing area is east of Millwood. Ms. Barlow said they don't know the number of properties in that area, but there are only a handful of properties still vacated, adding that Coyote Rock contains about 31 lots. Mr. Hohman added that of those 31 lots, there are three existing homes on those water front lots, and to the east is part of a proposed subdivision, and Ms. Barlow said that the property east doesn't have waterfront. Mr. Hohman explained that these regulations don't materially change the environment we have now; that the topic of docks has been very controversial, and that it won't be any more difficult to get a dock constructed after these regulations are approved, then it would be today. Ms. Barlow mentioned that there is also no push in that area, and there are no property owners seeking dock approval; she said they reached out to the community but have received no responses. Mayor Grafos said he recognizes that a lot of work has been done on this, and he feels Mr.Kisielius has provided a good service to the citizens, and that with a simple survey, a developer could immediately see what can or can't be done. Mr. Kisielius reminded everyone that this is mandated by the state, of what triggers an exemption, what is and is not exempt, but that Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT overall the goal is to assure there is no net loss; and that they sought opportunities to streamline the process while still accomplishing that objective. Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 7:39 p.m., and he reconvened the meeting at 7:51 p.m. 4. Historic Preservation—Mike Basinger After Senior Planner Basinger went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the steps to become a Certified Local Government (CLG), which is a means to maintain historic preservation that aids in tourism and economic development, and which generally includes formation of a commission, Council indicated their preference for staff to pursue this further; and agreed with Mr. Basinger's idea of inviting the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer)to speak to Council in greater detail on forming a CLG. 5. Commercial Vehicles(trucks,etc.)Parking in Residential Areas—Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell explained that tonight's agenda item is in response to Council's desire to have a more detailed discussion about commercial vehicles parking in residential neighborhoods, adding that several discussion points are covered in his August 19, 2014 Request for Council Action form; or that Council could determine not to regulate this issue. Councilmember Hafner said he doesn't want anything too complex yet does want it accommodating; said Council has the right to regulate public streets and large vehicles can obstruct and restrict travel, especially emergency vehicle travel; said that it appears some people are using public roads as private land for their private property; that some think of this as a convenience and that for some, it is just easier to park on the street; he said if people purchase a large vehicle,like a boat,they need to make arrangements for parking, and said that includes people who live in apartments; he said we should be consistent in addressing the problem; that previously Council held about eight meetings on this topic, but the issue still exists; and said perhaps parking could be prohibited for vehicles over 10,000 pounds or prohibited from parking in residential areas; he said if recreational vehicles (RVs) are located in garages, carports, or other areas where they do not obscure the sight of vision of neighbors, that would not be an issue; he said it appears that pick-up trucks are getting bigger and longer, and perhaps there should be a regulation to limit where they can park, whether in a garage or driveway; adding that some garages are not big enough to handle such vehicles; and lastly, he said if we enact regulations, we need to give the truckers the opportunity to make accommodations prior to the effectiveness of any ordinance, perhaps by giving them anywhere from three to twelve months' notice prior to the ordinance becoming effective; and said he does not want 18-wheelers parking in residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Pace said he agreed with Councilmember Hafner; that it is important to honor property rights and not restrict what people do inside their own property; and that the cost of parking a commercial vehicle is part of the cost of doing business,and said that same idea can be applied to those owning an RV or boat; and that the focus should be on safety and eliminating the obstruction of view. Councilmember Higgins asked if we have had any accidents concerning our existing ordinance, and Mr. Driskell explained that the existing focus is on idling vehicles and about existing signs for local delivery only. Councilmember Higgins asked if there have been any accidents or citations under the existing ordinance and Mr. Driskell said he is not aware of any accidents, but is aware of a situation about a month ago where the Police Department was going to cite someone for the idling violation, but due to a technical issue, did not; and said he is also not aware of the number of truckers this would adversely affect or how many people in businesses would be affected. Councilmember Bates said he feels the ordinance needs some changes; and he would like to discuss this issue as two separate issues, and separate the problem of 18-wheelers from the other categories like RV's or boats; and said the ultimate goal is to give the streets back to the neighborhood; that he realizes placing an RV in storage involves cost, but that is something for the individual to consider when making such a purchase. Councilmember Wick said the first time this was addressed, the focus was on noise and Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT pollution; now perhaps issues to consider are length of vehicle, multiple vehicles, and crowding streets; he said he does not want to tell people what they can or can't park on their own property,but now people can park cars on streets; he said that often small business owners are truck owners and this would affect their livelihood and he asked what other options they would have; adding that he could not support the idea of going after trucks on a city-wide basis. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that neighborhood problems do not make for good public policy, nor does making public policy due to the vocalness of some neighborhoods or neighbors, and said such regulations could have unintended consequences; said there are two different issues, one is the eighteen wheelers and the other all the larger vehicles such as motor homes, RVs, or boats; and he questioned who would notify all the dealers of motor homes, boats, etc., if such regulations were in place; he asked how big is the problem; he said public property is also the citizen's property and we allow curbside parking of cars; said that 18-wheelers might be a different issue and agreed with the idea of having more time prior to any ordinance becoming effective; said there are safety issues as well to consider, and agreed with the idea of separating 18-wheelers from the RVs and other vehicles. Mayor Grafos stated that he feels more than 80% of the vehicles in question are less than 22' long, and that the larger vehicles represent a small percentage;he asked if we talked with the towing association about their wrecker trucks; said he also does not want to see adverse impacts to neighbors, and proposed if vehicles are longer than 22' long,they must be parked on the individual's private lot and not be permitted to park on the public right-of-way; and said he realizes trucks are running a business but it should not impact property owners. Attorney Driskell said it appears there are three member of council who don't want regulations; three who favor some consideration of an ordinance dealing with vehicles longer than 22'; and one member of council who wants regulations for semi-trucks but not RVs. Councilmember Bates clarified that his stance is, this wouldn't mean it would be permissible to park RVs on streets, but rather than he wants the issue separate from 18-wheelers. Mr. Driskell said he will work on draft language, keep away from regulating private property, consider some reasonable implementation time, and that such draft would be a"work in progress" and that there will be further future discussions. At 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting for forty-five minutes. 6. Goals and Priorities for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC)—Mark Calhoun,Erik Lamb Finance Director Calhoun gave a summary of what was discussed last week as noted on his August 19, 2014 Request for Council Action form, and said that tonight's focus is the goals and priorities,which will ultimately be given to the LTAC when the meet later this fall. Mr. Calhoun said he is looking for consensus as to what to include in the application that goes out in two weeks. Councilmember Wick, as the LTAC Committee chair, briefly explained the rationale for how they came up with the goals and that he was trying to represent what Council was looking for: that#1 was a decision about the $30,000,which he said is not really a goal but is a decision about the funds; #2 was geared to trying to spread the funds through multiple aspects of tourism and not just use the funds for marketing; #3 is to include other aspects of tourism and not just focus on overnight stays, but to include restaurants, shopping, and to take into consideration if tourists travel more than fifty miles or come from out of town; #4 was to use funds to develop tourism destination facilities within our City; and #5 goal is that Council would like funding recipients to be self-sustaining in the future. There was brief discussion about putting a time limit on entities becoming self-sustaining with no eventual change in the goal,but there was Council consensus to add a sixth goal of dedicating 5% of the funds toward funding new projects, activities and/or events. Mr. Calhoun said he will revise the list and bring this information back to Council next week for further discussion. Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 7. Draft Council Goals—Mike Jackson In order to be clear on Council's goals in adopting the upcoming budget, City Manager Jackson said tonight is an opportunity to discuss goals for any changes or refinements; regarding the last goal of the Comprehensive Plan review, he said that staff is developing a scope of work, but that it could not be completed by 2015, that the scope of work would take the process through 2016, and while it is not legally due until 2017,it is likely not able to be done in a year based on the number of public hearings and time spent by the Planning Commission in review,which all occurs prior to Council's review; and said he will look at the aspects of this review to see what kind of timeline staff needs. After discussion of the second goal of pursuing the bridging the valley concept, Mr. Jackson said he would add the words "corridor consolidation"to that goal. 8. Tourism Promotion Agency(TPA)—Mark Calhoun,Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that this item is to provide information about the TPA as a separate funding mechanism, as sometimes it gets confused with the LTAC, and he went over the four main purposes of the TPA as shown on page 2 of his Request for Council Action form. 9.Advance Agenda-Mayor Grafos There were no suggested changes to the advance agenda. 10. Council Comments—Mayor Grafos Council had no additional comments. 11. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson Concerning the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center, Mr. Jackson said all parties are moving forward toward a new interlocal agreement or memorandum of understanding, where WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) would operate the Management Center; and said staff should have more information in several weeks. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session 08-19-2014 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,August 26,2014 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff: Dean Grafos,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Bill Bates, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Deputy City Manager Chuck Hafner, Councilmember John Hohman,Community Development Dir. Rod Higgins, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Rec Director Ed Pace,Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer Micki Harnois,Planner Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Don Jutila of Valley Fourth Memorial Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and audience rose for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: Introduction of Deputy City Manager by City Manager Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson introduced newly hired Deputy City Manager Mark Calhoun; and after giving a brief history of Mr. Calhoun's work background,Mr. Calhoun was welcomed by all in attendance. COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmembers Bates and Hafner had no report. Councilmember Wick: said he will be traveling to Olympia this Friday for the AWC (Association of Washington Cities)Ad Hoc Rail Committee meeting. Councilmember Pace: said he attended a meeting with Cathy McMorris Rodgers at the Davenport, and that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke about how the government needs to catch up with industry with it comes to cost renovations; said he also attended the Spokane Valley Business Association meeting; and went to the Chamber of Commerce lunch at the Fairgrounds. Councilmember Higgins: said he attended the Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting where the consultant for the County presented and solicited comments on a draft Plan. MAYOR'S REPORT:Proclamation:Diaper Need Awareness Week After Mayor Grafos read the Proclamation,Mr. Jessie Shelton, founder of Inland NW Baby, accepted the proclamation with thanks. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Minutes Regular Council Meeting 08-26--2014 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on Aug 26, 2014 Request for Council Action Form, Totaling $$987,184.71 b.Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending August 15,2014: $317,051.59 c.Approval of August 12,2014 Regular Formal Council Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance 14-010 Amending Setbacks-Micki Harnois After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance 14-010, moding the regulations regarding rear and side yard setbacks in the industrial zoning districts adjacent to residential zoning districts and uses, to a second reading. Planner Harnois went over the background of this citizen-initiated code text amendment, which is to reduce the side and rear yard setbacks within the industrial zones. She explained that with the assistance of the City's GIS Specialist Dan Neyman, as well as the assessor's tax code data and business license information, potentially impacted residences were located in the industrial zones, and she went over the information as shown on her PowerPoint slides, including how many residences were in the Yardley, Montgomery,and Flora industrial areas.Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Mr.John Renshaw,from Spokane encouraged Council's acceptance of the proposed recommendation. There were no additional public comments. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 3. Potential Projects for Public Facilities District—Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone said he was asked to determine if there might be CenterPlace projects to consider in a request for funding assistance from the Public Facilities District(PFD)as a result of the savings they will realize as a result of our re-financed 2003 LTGO bonds. Mr. Stone said the accompanying list is not in any order of priority, and his estimates are conservative; that he seeks Council's input and then Mr. Jackson will decide if some of these projects can move forward as he meets later with members of the PFD. Mr. Stone said that all the projects are located at CenterPlace since that was the focus of the previous bond issue. After Mr. Stone explained some of the projects in further detail, there was Council concurrence that their top priority was the sound system in the Great Room, followed by updating the sound system in room 109 and other rooms if funding is available; and it was noted that the amount of funding is at the discretion of the PFD. Mr. Jackson explained that the PFD does not have cash on hand, so the funding would be handled over time instead of a lump savings, and said the PFD's total savings as a result of our re-financing the bonds is estimated at$1.7 million. 4. Street Maintenance Contract—Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth explained that the current street and stormwater maintenance contract,which was originally signed in 2007 with seven annual extensions, expires at the end of this year, and staff will seek new bids, with a hopeful bid opening of September 18. Mr. Guth said his staff worked with our legal department, as well as a consultant to assist in the RFB (request for bids) packet; he said the intent was to take the service contract and make it fit within the state bidding laws, and said that significant changes have been made to the verbiage and bidding documents since that original bid package of 2007. Mr. Guth went over some of the highlights of what will be included in the new contract; said this is a public works program so we are governed by state regulations, which includes that contractors must pay Minutes Regular Council Meeting 08-26--2014 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT prevailing wage as a minimum wage; said the labor rates, equipment and material rates must be fully loaded, and he explained that before we had hourly rates for labor,equipment and materials,and asked for overhead and profit margin, so it was a cost-plus style contract;now,he explained it will be a fully loaded rate which means no overhead and profit will be shown as a separate plus into the rate;that it will include all the positions for the subcontractors so we will know the rates even before the work starts, which will allow us to manage the contractor as well as the subcontractor. Regarding the term of the contract, Director Guth said they liked the one year with the possibility to extend an additional year, but felt eight years was too long, so they are starting annually with an extension of four years for a total of five years. Mr. Guth said before, the compensation was negotiated and the contractor could request an increase within sixty days of the end of the year, with a cap of CPI (consumer price index), but with the new contract, we didn't want to get into the negotiation aspect and felt it would serve better if we allowed an increase over the five year term for the prevailing wage, and/or the price of oil since that price fluctuates. Mr. Guth said we have also removed the snow removal portion of this contract and are looking at handling the snow removal with in-house forces along with hiring some temporary snowplow drivers. Mr. Guth said that the request for bid is a draft and that staff continues refining some aspects of the package. Mr. Guth said that the legal department has reviewed this and is comfortable this will keep us within the state bidding laws; and that we will be looking at the lowest responsible bidder while looking at the ability to do the work, as well as some other considerations bidders will need to meet in order to be responsive to this bid. Councilmember Higgins said he thought that September 18 is a narrow window; but Mr. Guth said the bid forms are basic,with the labor spelled out for most bidders that it must be prevailing wages or better; that the bidder will know their own overhead and profit as well as equipment rates; and regarding the materials, we will mostly get current pricing from current vendors; he said if they are putting together bids for any projects, a lot of these are normal requests, adding the process including the timeframe is similar to what we do for most of our projects, and that this was how we handled the Sullivan Bridge bid. Councilmember Bates said he assumes Mr. Guth has specific projects in mind with the total of $1,366,000; and Mr. Guth listed some of the basic projects that it will cover. Mayor Grafos said he thinks there was a lot of thought put into the process and appreciates the effort as it will save a lot of money. There were no objections to Mr. Guth bringing this back for a motion consideration at an upcoming meeting. 5. Thierman Traffic Analysis—Sean Messner Senior Traffic Engineer Sean Messner explained that during the June 3 Council meeting, Council requested a more detailed analysis of the Sprague/Thierman and Appleway/Thierman intersections, using the VISSIM traffic analysis software to detail the options of keeping the existing conditions, modifying the northbound lane to a shared through left-turn lane with no changes to Appleway/Thierman, and modifying the northbound approach to have dual left-turn lanes and a single through lane and reduce the southbound left-turn lane length at Appleway/Thierman. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Messner explained that the analyses reveal that the alternate lane configurations provide additional queue storage for the northbound left-turn traffic,but degrades the operations of both Sprague and Appleway-Thierman intersections; it showed that 36% of the crashes at the intersection were the result of left-turn crashes; and he suggested the installation of flashing yellow arrows for the northbound approach to help mitigate those accidents. He explained that this type of arrows are used in various places throughout our city to allow permissive and protective left-turns, and could improve the operations of the intersections. Mr. Messner explained that the approximate cost for this installation at Sprague/Thierman is $6,000, plus County and City staff time. The next best option, Mr. Messner explained, would be option #1 with an estimated cost of$14,000. Mr. Messner said that his previous opinion that all options increase a delay on Sprague by three to five second per vehicle, was confirmed with the VISSIM analysis and that average queues increased except Minutes Regular Council Meeting 08-26--2014 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT for the northbound Thierman; also his previous opinion that based on current traffic counts, updated analyses and periodic monitoring, the option to keep the current operations with no changes was also confirmed with VISSIM and he said the current configuration and traffic signal timings provide acceptable levels of service.Mr.Messner said he also looked at the safety analysis which shows very few crashes, which he said is a dead give-away that operations must be good as traffic is high and if the operations were not good,there would be more crashes. Mr. Messner explained that left-turn crashes are one of the worst crashes and result in the most injury; he also noted that installation of dual left-turn lanes to replace a single left-turn lane would likely increase sideswipes as much as 41%based on national data, adding that the 2008-2013 data shows that there have been no sideswipe crashes. Mr. Messner explained that dual left-turn lanes from Thierman to Sprague would create trap lanes, which can also increase sideswipes and rear-end crashes; he said his recommendation is to maintain the existing lane configurations, but to replace the existing signal heads with flashing yellow arrows, which will improve safety and should improve operation as well. Mr. Messner said he conducted a twenty-four hour video surveillance and did not see any blocking issues. Councilmember Higgins said a concern was raised by a business owner about the corner, and perhaps the twenty-four hour sampling is not sufficient to address his problem. Mr. Messner said he didn't want to spend any more money to conduct further studies; said the analysis indicate that a dual lane will help the situation for the northbound, but would impact all other movements of the intersection. Mayor Grafos asked when the video was done and Mr. Messner replied that it was a twenty-four period on a Tuesday or Wednesday. Mayor Grafos said we do not know how many out-of-town people make that turn who are not familiar with the intersection, or were in the wrong lane and had to turn around further down the road,and he asked if the intent was to change the dual left turn lane to a single lane. Mr. Messner said that was not the intent as the comparison was going from a single to a dual. Mayor Grafos said he has seen people try to get into that one left turn lane and end up right next to a truck; said he feels it is a problem and would like a dual left turn off Thierman, which is option #1. Councilmember Hafner stated that it was just one person who started all this, and feels we need to do whichever option is best. Councilmember Bates said Mr. Messner's recommendation is to leave the configuration as it is; that this is the third report Council has heard on this and all recommendations seem to be the same; that a lot of time and effort have been spent on this and he said he wondered what changed since 2012; said he feels we don't have more traffic, there has been no increase in crashes, and he asked if we are getting complaints. Mr. Messner said he is not aware of any complaints. Councilmember Bates said he feels Council needs to take the recommendations of the experts and not waste any more time on this issue. Councilmember Hafner said he does not understand why Council is not seriously considering the safety factor of people in this community, and that to keep it the way it is now is far safer. Mr. Messner confirmed that the existing configuration is safer than the other options as the other options increase the chances of sideswipes. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he doesn't think Council would be voting for less safety; and said perhaps after a change we could discover that the dual option is wrong; adding that perhaps the software analysis is wrong; said he doesn't feel Council would be jeopardizing the public safety by using a dual arrow. Discussion turned to the expense of the options as shown on Mr. Messner's slides. Mr. Jackson said this issue is not slated for a motion tonight,but if there is Council consensus,the matter could come back as a motion to select one of the options. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about having a trial period of perhaps ninety days to get statistical data; and Mr. Messner suggested such trial period should be at least a year. By a show of hands, those favoring to bring this back as a motion included Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Pace and Higgins; those opposed to bringing the matter back as a motion included Councilmembers Hafner, Wick and Bates. The matter will be scheduled as a motion consideration for the September 9,2014 council meeting. Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 8:00 p.m.;he reconvened the meeting at 8:06 p.m. Minutes Regular Council Meeting 08-26--2014 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT 6. Goals and Priorities for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC)—Mark Calhoun,Erik Lamb Deputy City Manager Calhoun briefed Council on the information contained in his Request for Council Action Form, which has a focus of the Council's goals and policies for the LTAC, and said he seeks Council consensus to bring these forward through the lodging tax award process. Councilmember Wick suggested removing #1 as it really isn't a goal, and Mr. Jackson noted that the list includes goals and policies and said Council could remove it, but in future years, Council might find they are having that discussion again. It was noted that the $30,000 set aside for CenterPlace, which is the subject of goal/policy #1, will be shown as a reduction in the total amount of funds available for the LTAC grant awards, as would the 5% allocation for funding new projects, activities and/or events. Councilmember Bates said he preferred that #1 goal/policy remain; Councilmember Wick said that information could be included in the information given to the committee, but said he doesn't feel it needs to be on the goals' document. There was Council consensus to have it removed from the list. 7.Advance Agenda Councilmember Wick asked about inviting the new GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) director to come to Council to discuss GSI's new direction; and Mr. Jackson suggested waiting until after their funding presentation September 2id. Council concurred. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about the situation on Carnahan and 8th where someone keeps running through a fence, and Mr. Jackson said he will have staff research that issue. INFORMATION ONLY The (8) Radio Car Club; and (9) Department Reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS. Mr. Jackson said that he and Mr. Guth, along with Councilmember Wick will be attending Friday's AWC Rail Meeting; and mentioned that the Mayor will be hosting Patty-Murray's assistant for a transportation meeting; and noted the upcoming September 9 Department of Ecology meeting concerning rail oil transportation. 10.EXECUTIVE SESSION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] Review the Performance of a Public Employee It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately sixty minutes to review the performance of a public employee, and that no action would be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:19 p.m. Mayor Grafos declared Council out of Executive Session at 9:45 p.m., after which it was immediately moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: Dean Grafos,Mayor Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting 08-26--2014 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 9,2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading --Proposed Ordinance 14-010, Amending SVMC Title 19.60 and 19.70 with modifications to the rear and side yard setbacks in the industrial zoning districts adjacent to residential zoning districts and uses. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At the July 15, 2014 Council meeting, Council recommended this issue move forward to an ordinance reading; at the August 26, 2014 Council meeting, Council moved to advance the ordinance to a second reading. BACKGROUND: CTA-2014-0001 is a citizen initiated code text amendment to modify the side and rear yard setback for industrial zones from 35 feet to 20 feet. This amendment will: 1. Require a 20 foot minimum side and rear yard setback in both the Light and Heavy Industrial Zones,if an industrial use is proposed adjacent to a residential use. 2. Require a 20 foot minimum side and rear setback in the Light Industrial Zone and a 35 minimum side and rear setback in the Heavy Industrial Zone if a proposed use is adjacent to a residential zone. On May 22,2014,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the amendment. Following public testimony and deliberations,the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment. OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve Ordinance 14-010. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:None STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois,Planner ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance 14-010 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 14-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TABLE 19.60- 1-AND SECTION 19.70.010(B) RELATING TO REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on September 25, 2007, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Title 19,pursuant to Ordinance 07-015; and WHEREAS,on October 28,2007, SVMC Title 19 became effective; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, on May 2"d and 9th, 2014, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, providing a 60-day notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS,on May 8, 2014,the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation followed by deliberations and provided a recommendation; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2014, the Planning Commission approved the findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS,on July 15,2014,City Council reviewed the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, SVMC Table 19.60-1 and SVMC 19.70.010(B), as amended, bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare and protection of the environment. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend SVMC Table 19.60-1 and Section 19.70.010(B)to reduce the rear and side yard setbacks in the light and heavy industrial zones for sites located adjacent to residential zones and uses. Ordinance 14-010 Page 1 of 5 DRAFT Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's fmdings. The City Council hereby makes the following fmdings: A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County-Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. 1. Land Use Policy-13.1: Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. 2. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility,consistency,predictability and clear direction. 3. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious. 4. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. C. Conclusions 1. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare,and protection of the environment. 2. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F). 3. The Growth Management Act stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Ordinance 14-010 Page 2 of 5 DRAFT Section 3. Amendment. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Table 19.60-1 is hereby amended as follows: Table 19.60-1 —Commercial Development Standards Office Commercial Mixed Use Industrial GO 0 NC** C RC CC* CMU* MUC* I-1 I-2 Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Minimum Flanking Street Setback 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Minimum Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2035 2035 a Residential Use or zone Minimum Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 35 a Residential Zone Maximum Building Height(in feet) 45 100 35 35 100 Unlimited 50 60 40 65 *Except as otherwise required **Townhouse development in the NC zone shall comply with setback and building height standards in the R-4 zone found in Table 19.40-1 Section 4. Amendment. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 19.70.010(B) is hereby amended as follows: 19.70.010 I-1,Light Industrial district. A. The Light Industrial designation is a planned industrial area with special emphasis and attention given to aesthetics,landscaping and internal and community compatibility. Typical uses would include technology and other low-impact industries. Light Industrial areas may also include office and commercial uses as ancillary uses within an overall plan for industrial development. B. Supplemental Regulations. 1. The outdoor storage provisions contained in SVMC 19.60.060(B) shall apply to the I-1 district. 2. Mobile food vendors shall be located on/within designated areas which do not interfere with parking or internal circulation with permission of the property owner,health certificate and permit. 3. Setbacks. a. Front and flanking street yard setbacks shall be 20 feet; and b. Side and rear yard setbacks of 35 feet are required only adjacent to residential zoning districts. 3.4 The following structures may be erected above the height limits of this code,provided: (a)the structure is accessory to or part of a building which is a permitted use in the zone; Ordinance 14-010 Page 3 of 5 DRAFT (b)the structure complies with the height limits in the Airport Overlay zone; and(c)no residential use of the structure shall occur above the height limits prescribed in the zone: a. Penthouses or roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways,tanks,ventilating fans,or similar equipment to operate and maintain a building. b.Fire or parapet walls,skylights, flagpoles,chimneys,church steeples,belfries,wireless masts, and similar structures. c. Structures such as silos,feed mills,batch plants, and fixed cranes which are used in a manufacturing process which utilizes vertical processing and storage of materials. d.Water stand pipes and tanks. I 4. All parking,maneuvering and outdoor storage areas shall be paved. Exemptions: a.Parking and storage areas routinely used by cleated and other heavy equipment as approved by the planning director. b. The planning director may waive portions of these requirements upon recommendation by the Spokane regional clean air agency or the Spokane Valley development engineering division when it can be demonstrated that the proposed surfacing, such as grass pavers or other technology,will not adversely affect air quality,water quality or the integrity of the parking area. 5.e. The following features attached to structures are allowed as exceptions to the setback standards: a. Minor Projections Allowed.Minor features of a structure, such as eaves, chimneys,fire escapes,bay windows no more than 12 feet long and which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure,uncovered stairways, wheelchair ramps and uncovered decks or balconies,may extend into a required structure setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback. However,they may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required. b. Full Projections Allowed. In addition to subsection(B)(5)(a)of this section,the following features are allowed to project farther into the required structure setback: i. Canopies,marquees, awnings and similar features may fully extend into a street setback and may extend into the public right-of-way subject to the requirements of the building code and adopted street standards. ii. Uncovered stairways and wheelchair ramps that lead to one entrance on the street-facing facade of a building may fully extend into a street setback. iii. Uncovered decks and stairways that are no more than 42 inches above the ground may fully extend into a required structure setback. iv. On lots that slope down from the street,vehicular and pedestrian entry bridges that are no more than 42 inches above the average sidewalk elevation may fully extend into a required structure setback. v. Balconies may extend into public rights-of-way as allowed in the building code and adopted street standards. vi. Attached mechanical equipment such as heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators and water pumps are allowed to project into the side or rear yard setback only. I 6. Community facilities and public utility distribution facility(ies),except power poles and underground transformers, shall comply with the following conditions: a. The requirements for landscaping, signage,lighting and other requirements shall apply. b. Type I landscape screening is required along property line(s)adjacent to a residential use or zone. Ordinance 14-010 Page 4 of 5 DRAFT 7.&- Public utility transmission facility shall comply with the following conditions: a. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the property construction,continued maintenance,and general safety to the property adjoining the public utility transmission facility; b. All support structures for electric transmission lines shall have their means of access located a minimum of 10 feet above ground; c. The facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding uses either by distance, landscaping,buffering,or design, as determined by the director; and d. The height of any structure above ground does not exceed 125 feet. I 8.9. The following shall apply to all secondhand stores and consignment sales: a. The subject parcel must have frontage on an arterial; and b. Minimum building size of 15,000 gross square feet(gsf); and c. Limited to a single tenant. I 9A& A home occupation may be established in a residence that has been legally permitted, excluding caretaker dwellings. I 10.44. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units. Guests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period. The intent is to accommodate visiting guests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwelling unit. Section 5. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Chapters 19.60 and 19.70 SVMC not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this 9th day of September,2014. Mayor, Dean Grafos ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 14-010 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 9, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 14-009: Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update — Draft Development Regulations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous discussions regarding local implementation of the Shoreline Management Act under RCW 90.58. BACKGROUND: The City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update team has completed the Draft Shoreline Development Regulations ("Draft Regulations"). The document completes phase seven of the City's Update process and introduces the regulations that will implement the SMP. The Draft Regulations generally consist of three sections: 1. Administrative Provisions (Sections 21.50.010 —21.50.170) 2. General Provisions (Sections 21.50.180 —21.50.450) 3. Critical Areas Regulations (Sections 21.50.460 —21.50.560) The Planning Commission review was completed over a series of seven meetings beginning on March 27, 2014. A public hearing was conducted on May 22, 2014 and deliberations were completed on July 10, 2014. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend acceptance of the Draft Regulations with minor changes. Those changes have been incorporated into the Draft Regulations presented to the Council including the addition of a definition for native vegetation. Once the Council accepts the Draft Regulations by Resolution, the Draft Regulations will become the City Council Draft Shoreline Development Regulations and be included in the final Draft Shoreline Master Program package for formal public review. OPTIONS: (1) Approve the attached Draft Regulations as presented; (2) Approve with modifications; (3) Send the Draft Regulations back to the Planning Commission; or (4) Request additional information. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 14-009 informally accepting the City Council Draft Shoreline Development Regulations. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Resolution No. 14-009 Attachment B: City Council Draft Shoreline Master Program Regulations, Definitions and Maps DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 14-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SHORELINE DEVLOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS,the City initiated a Shoreline Master Program Update process in 2009; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2009, the City Council ("Council") reviewed and accepted by Resolution 09-016, a public participation plan for the Shoreline Management Program Update;and WHEREAS,the public participation plan specifies the public involvement plan overview; and WHEREAS, the Shoreline Management Program Update process specifies that individual components of the Shoreline Management Program Update will be reviewed separately and accepted by Council by resolution, recognizing that as each component is completed, it will be used as a base upon which to develop the remainder of the City's Shoreline Management Program; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2009, the first Shoreline Master Program Update open house was conducted at which the Shoreline Management Program Update process was explained to interested parties; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2010, the first component of the Shoreline Master Program Update,the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report,was accepted by Resolution 10-014; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2012, the second component of the Shoreline Master Program Update,the Goals and Policies,was accepted by Resolution 12-004; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012, the third component of the Shoreline Master Program Update,the Environment Designations,was accepted by Resolution 12-007; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2012, the fourth component of the Shoreline Master Program Update,the Restoration Plan,was accepted by Resolution 12-012; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2013, the fifth component of the Shoreline Master Program Update, the Public Access Plan,was accepted by Resolution 13-001; and WHEREAS, the sixth component of the Shoreline Master Program Update is the Shoreline Development Regulations("Development Regulations"); and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2014, the Draft Development Regulations were sent to the Technical Review Group for review; and WHEREAS, on March 27, 2014, April 24, 2014, and May 8, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted study sessions where the Draft Development Regulations were presented and discussed; and WHEREAS on May 2, 2014, the Draft Development Regulations were issued for public review, and a notice published in the Spokane Valley News Herald announcing the public hearing; and Resolution 14-009,Accepting SMP Draft Development Regulations Page 1 of 2 DRAFT WHEREAS, on May 24, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the Draft Development Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received written comments from the Technical Review Group and limited comment from the public and revisions were made to the Draft Development Regulations; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2014, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Draft Development Regulations be formally accepted with the revisions noted; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2014 the Council conducted a study session where the Draft Development Regulations were presented and discussed; and WHEREAS, Council, by this Resolution, desires to informally accept the proposed Draft Development Regulations recommended by the Planning Commission, and it is anticipated that additional revisions may occur prior to formal adoption; and WHEREAS, the Council Draft Development Regulations are anticipated to be formally adopted by Ordinance at a later date as a part of the complete Shoreline Master Program. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington,as follows: The City Council Draft Development Regulations, attached as Exhibit A, are hereby accepted. Approved this 9th day of September,2014. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Dean Grafos,Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 14-009,Accepting SMP Draft Development Regulations Page 2 of 2 Chapter 21.50 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION PROGRAM Sections: 21.50.010 Applicability, shoreline permits, and exemptions. 21.50.020 Applicability. 21.50.030 Administrative authority and responsibility. 21.50.040 Types of shoreline permits. 21.50.050 Development authorization review procedure. 21.50.060 Authorization decisions - Basis for action. 21.50.070 Conditions of approval. 21.50.080 Prohibited uses. 21.50.090 Minor activities allowed without a permit or letter of exemption. 21.50.100 Shoreline substantial development permit. 21.50.110 Exemptions from a shoreline substantial development permit. 21.50.120 Letters of exemption. 21.50.130 Shoreline conditional use permit. 21.50.140 Shoreline variance. 21.50.150 Nonconforming development. 21.50.160 Minor revisions to approved uses or developments. 21.50.170 Enforcement responsibilities generally. 21.50.180 General provisions. 21.50.190 Shoreline uses table. 21.50.200 Shoreline modification activities table. 21.50.210 No net loss and mitigation sequencing. 21.50.220 Height limit standards. 21.50.230 Shoreline buffers and building setbacks. 21.50.240 Flood hazard reduction. 21.50.250 Public access. 21.50.260 Shoreline vegetation conservation. 21.50.270 Water quality, stormwater, and non-point pollution. 21.50.280 Archaeological and historic resources. 21.50.290 Gravel pits. 21.50.300 Specific shoreline use regulations. 21.50.310 Boating facilities. 21.50.320 Commercial use. 21.50.330 Industrial use. 21.50.340 In-stream structures. 21.50.350 Parking facilities. 21.50.360 Recreational development and use. 21.50.370 Residential development and use. 21.50.380 Signs and outdoor lighting. 21.50.390 Transportation facilities. 21.50.400 Public facilities and utilities. 21.50.410 General regulations for specific shoreline modifications. 21.50.420 Shoreline/slope stabilization. 21.50.430 Piers and docks. 21.50.440 Dredging and fill. 21.50.450 Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects. 21.50.460 General - Shoreline critical areas regulations - Applicability. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 21.50.470 Maps and inventories. 21.50.480 Exemptions from critical area review and reporting requirements. 21.50.490 Critical area review. 21.50.500 Critical area report requirements for all critical areas. 21.50.510 Mitigation. 21.50.520 Wetlands - Shoreline critical area regulation. 21.50.530 Critical aquifer recharge areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. 21.50.540 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. 21.50.550 Geologically hazardous areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. 21.50.560 Frequently flooded areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. Appendix A-1 Shoreline Master Program Definitions Appendix A-2 Shoreline Buffers Map City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft CHAPTER 21.50 SHORELINE REGULATIONS 21.50.010 Applicability, shoreline permits, and exemptions. To be authorized, all uses and development activities in shorelines shall comply with the City of Spokane Valley's (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(1). All regulations applied within the shoreline shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted. 21.50.020 Applicability. A. The SMP shall apply to all shorelands, shorelines, and waters within the City that fall under the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW. The Shoreline Designations Map is shown in Appendix A. These include: 1. Lands extending 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of waters that fall under the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW, in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane; 2. Floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; 3. Critical areas within the shoreline and their associated buffer areas; and 4. Lakes that are subject to the provisions of the SMP, as may be amended. B. Maps depicting the extent of shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline designations are for guidance only. They are to be used in conjunction with best available science, field investigations, and on-site surveys to accurately establish the location and extent of the shoreline jurisdiction when a project is proposed. All areas meeting the definition of a shoreline or a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, whether mapped or not, are subject to the provisions of the SMP. Within the City, Shelley Lake is considered a Shoreline of the State and is subject to the provisions of the SMP. The Spokane River is further identified as a shoreline of statewide significance. C. The SMP shall apply to every person, individual, firm, partnership, association, organization, corporation, local or state governmental agency, public or municipal corporation, or other non-federal entity that develops, owns, leases, or administers lands, critical areas, or waters that fall under the jurisdiction of the SMA. D. Hazardous substance remedial actions pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW are exempt from all procedural requirements of the SMP. E. Development may require a shoreline permit in addition to other approvals required from the City, state, and federal agencies. F. The SMP shall apply whether the proposed development or activity is exempt from a Shoreline Permit or not. G. Definitions relevant to the SMP are set forth in Appendix A-1. If any conflict occurs between the definitions found in Appendix A-1, and Appendix A, the definition provided in Appendix A-1 shall govern. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft H. When the provisions set forth in SVMC 21.50 conflict with other provisions of the SMP or with federal or state regulations, those which provide more substantive protection to the shoreline shall apply. 21.50.030 Administrative authority and responsibility. A. The City Manager has designated the Community Development Director (Director) as the City's shoreline administrator, who shall carry out the provisions of the SMP and who shall have the authority to act upon the following matters: 1. Interpretation, enforcement, and administration of the SMP; 2. Modifications or revisions to approved Shoreline Permits as provided in the SMP; and 3. Requests for Letters of Exemption. B. The Director shall ensure compliance with the provisions of the SMP for all shoreline permits and approvals processed by the City pursuant to SVMC 21.50.100, 21.50.110, 21.50.130, and 21.50.140. C. The Director shall document all project review actions in the shoreline jurisdiction in order to periodically evaluate the cumulative effects of authorized development on shoreline conditions, pursuant to WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(iii)(D). D. The Director shall consult with Ecology to ensure that any formal written interpretations are consistent with the purpose and intent of chapter 90.58 RCW and the applicable guidelines of chapter 173-26 and 173-27 WAC. 21.50.040 Types of shoreline permits. Developments and uses within the shoreline jurisdiction may be authorized through one or more of the following: A. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.100, for substantial development. B. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.130, for projects identified in SVMC 21.50.190 or uses not specified in the SMP. C. Letters of Exemption, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.120, for projects or activities meeting the criteria of RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) and WAC 173-27-040(2). D. Shoreline Variance, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140. 21.50.050 Development authorization review procedure. A. Complete development applications and appeals shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, SVMC 17.90 Appeals, and with any specific process requirements provided in SVMC 21.50 including: 1. Submittals; 2. Completeness review; 3. Notices; 4. Hearings; 5. Decisions; and 6. Appeals. B. The following procedures shall also apply to development authorizations within the shoreline jurisdiction: 1. The public comment period for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be 30 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-110. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 2. The public comment period for limited utility extensions and shoreline stabilization measures for bulkheads to protect a single-family residence and its appurtenant structures shall be 20 days, pursuant to WAC 173-27-120. 3. For limited utility extensions and bulkheads for a single-family residence, a decision shall be issued within 21 days from the last day of the comment period, pursuant to WAC 173-27-120. 4. The effective date of a Shoreline Permit shall conform to WAC 173-27-090 and shall be the latter of the permit date, or the date of final action on subsequent appeals of the Shoreline Permit, if any, unless the Applicant notifies the shoreline administrator of delays in other necessary construction permits. 5. The expiration dates for a shoreline permit pertaining to the start and completion of construction, and the extension of deadlines for those dates shall conform to WAC 173-27-090 and are: a. Construction shall be started within two years of the effective date of the shoreline permit; b. Construction shall be completed within five years of the effective date of the shoreline permit; c. A single one-year extension of the deadlines may be granted at the discretion of the Director; and d. The Director may set alternative permit expiration dates as a condition of the shoreline permit if just cause exists. 6 The decision and the application materials shall be sent to Ecology after the local decision and any local appeal procedures have been completed, pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. 7. For Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Ecology shall file the permit without additional action pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. 8. For Shoreline Conditional Use permits and Variance decisions, Ecology shall issue a decision within 30 days of the date of filing, pursuant to WAC 173-27-130 and WAC 173-27-200. 9. The appeal period to the Shorelines Hearings Board of an Ecology action shall be 21 days from the date of filing for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, or the issue date of a Shoreline Conditional Use permit or Variance decision, pursuant to WAC 173-27-190. 10. The Shorelines Hearings Board will follow the rules governing that body, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. C. Development applications shall be reviewed for conformance with SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.560. 21.50.060 Authorization decisions - Basis for action. A. Approval or denial of any development or use within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be based upon the following: 1. Danger to life and property that would likely occur as a result of the project; 2. Compatibility of the project with the critical area features on, adjacent to, or near the property, shoreline values and ecological functions, and public access and navigation; 3. Conformance with the applicable development standards in SVMC 21.50; 4. Requirements of other applicable local, state, or federal permits or authorizations; 5. Adequacy of the information provided by the Applicant or available to the Director; and City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 6. Ability of the project to satisfy the purpose and intent of the SMP. B. Based upon the project evaluation, the Director shall take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the development or use; 2. Approve the development or use with conditions, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.070; or 3. Deny the development or use. C. The decision by the Director on the development or use shall include written findings and conclusions stating the reasons upon which the decision is based. 21.50.070 Conditions of approval. When approving any development or use, the Director may impose conditions to: A. Accomplish the purpose and intent of the SMP; B. Eliminate or mitigate any negative impacts of the project on critical areas, and on shoreline functions; C. Restore important resource features that have been degraded or lost on the project site; D. Protect designated critical areas and shoreline jurisdiction from damaging and incompatible development; or E. Ensure compliance with specific development standards in SVMC 21.50. 21.50.080 Prohibited activities and uses. The following activities and uses are prohibited in all shoreline designations and are not eligible for a Shoreline permit, including a Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance. See Table 21.50-1 and Table 21.50-2. A. Uses not allowed in the underlying zoning district; B. Discharge of solid wastes, liquid wastes, untreated effluents, or other potentially harmful materials; C. Solid waste or hazardous waste landfills; D. Speculative fill; E. Dredging or dredge material disposal in wetlands; F. Dredging or dredge material disposal to construct land canals or small basins for boat moorage or launching, water ski landings, swimming holes, or other recreational activities; G. Commercial timber harvest or other forest practices; H. Agriculture and aquaculture; Non water-oriented Industrial Uses and Mining; and J. The construction of breakwaters, jetties, groins, or weirs. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 21.50.090 Minor activities allowed without a Shoreline permit or letter of exemption. The SMP applies to the following activities, however, they are allowed without a Shoreline permit or Letter of Exemption: A. Maintenance of existing landscaping (including paths and trails) or gardens within the shoreline, including a regulated critical area or its buffer. Examples include mowing lawns, weeding, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning, and planting of non- invasive ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the general condition and extent of such areas. Removing trees and shrubs within a buffer is not considered a maintenance activity. See SVMC 21.50.260 for regulations regarding vegetation removal. Excavation, filling, and construction of new landscaping features are not considered a maintenance activity and may require a shoreline permit or letter of exemption. B. Minor maintenance and/or repair of lawfully established structures that do not involve additional construction, earthwork, or clearing. Examples include painting, trim or facing replacement, re-roofing, etc. Construction or replacement of structural elements is not covered in this provision, but may be covered under an exemption in SVMC 21.50.110(B). C. Cleaning canals, ditches, drains, wasteways, etc. without expanding their original configuration is not considered additional earthwork, as long as the cleared materials are placed outside the shoreline jurisdiction, wetlands, and buffers. D. Creation of unimproved private trails that do not cross streams or wetlands and which are less than two feet wide and do not involve placement of fill or grubbing of vegetation. E. Planting of native vegetation. F. Noxious weed control outside of buffers pursuant to SVMC 21.50.110(M) except for area wide vegetation removal/grubbing. G. Noxious weed control within vegetative buffers, if the criteria listed below is met. Control methods not meeting these criteria may still apply for a restoration exemption, or other authorization as applicable: 1. Hand removal/spraying of individual plants only; and 2. No area-wide vegetation removal/grubbing. H. Pruning, thinning, or dead or hazardous tree removal pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(C). 21.50.100 Shoreline substantial development permit required. A. Classification Criteria - A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for any substantial development unless the use or development is specifically exempt pursuant to SVMC 21.50.090 or 21.50.110. B. Process - Shoreline Substantial Development Permits shall be processed as a Type II review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures, subject to the exceptions set forth in SVMC 21.50.050. C. Decision Criteria - A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may be issued when all applicable requirements of the SMA, WAC 173-27, and the SMP have been met. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 21.50.110 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit. The activities listed below are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit pursuant to WAC 173-27-040. These activities still require a letter of exemption and may require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, or other development permits from the City or other agencies. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for a Letter of Exemption, then a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for the entire proposed development project. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemptions from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. A. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed $6,416 or as adjusted by the State Office of Financial Management, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or Shorelines of the State. For purposes of determining whether or not a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed, or found labor, equipment, or materials. B. Normal maintenance or repair of existing legally-established structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire, or elements. 1. Normal maintenance includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. 2. Normal repair means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location, and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment. 3. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is: a. The common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location, and external appearance; and b. The replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment. C. Construction of a normal protective bulkhead common to residential lots: 1. A normal protective bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the OHWM for the sole purpose of protecting an existing residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. 2. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. 3. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft bulkhead has deteriorated such that an OHWM has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual OHWM. 4. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). D. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment that requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with Chapter 21.50. 1. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the Director to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit that would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, WAC 173-27, or the SMP, shall be obtained. 2. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies and requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW and the SMP. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency. E. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. F. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence or appurtenance for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above average grade level, and which meets all requirements of the City, other than requirements imposed pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. Construction authorized under this subsection shall be located landward of the OHWM. G. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private non-commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single- family or multiple-family residence. A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities, or other appurtenances. This exception applies when the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $20,000, but if subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding $2,500 occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development. H. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands. The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft J. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system. K. Any project with a State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council certification from the governor pursuant to RCW 80.50. L. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under this chapter, if: 1. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of surface waters; 2. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; 3. The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity; and 4. The Applicant first posts a performance surety acceptable to the City to ensure that the site is restored to pre-existing conditions. M. Removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control published by the Department of Agriculture or Ecology jointly with other state agencies under RCW 43.21 C. N. Watershed restoration projects as defined in WAC 173.27.040(2)(o). The Director shall determine if the project is substantially consistent with the SMP and notify the Applicant of such determination by letter. O. A public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage as reviewed by WDFW and all of the following apply: 1. The project has been approved in writing by the WDFW; 2. The project has received hydraulic project approval by the WDFW pursuant to chapter 77.55 RCW; and 3. The Director has determined that the project is substantially consistent with the SMP and shall notify the Applicant of such determination by letter. 21.50.120 Letter of exemption. A. The proponent of an activity exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall apply for a Letter of Exemption. All activities exempt from the requirement for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall use reasonable methods to avoid impacts to critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. Being exempt from the requirements for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit does not give authority to degrade a critical area, or shoreline, or ignore risk from natural hazards. B. The Director shall review the Letter of Exemption request to verify compliance with the SMP and shall approve or deny such Letter of Exemption. C. If a Letter of Exemption is issued, it shall be sent to Ecology, the Applicant, and a copy retained by the City. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft D. A Letter of Exemption may contain conditions and/or mitigating conditions of approval to achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of the SMP and the SMA. E. A denial of a Letter of Exemption shall be in writing and shall list the reason(s) for the denial. 21.50.130 Shoreline conditional use permit. A. Classification Criteria - Shoreline conditional uses are those uses within the shoreline jurisdiction identified in Table 21.50-1 Shoreline Use Table, which require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. B. Unclassified uses not specifically identified in Table 21.50-1 may be authorized through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, provided the Applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of SVMC 21.50. C. Process - A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be processed as a Type II review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. The Director shall be the final authority for the City, whose recommendation is then forwarded to Ecology. Ecology shall have final approval authority pursuant to WAC 173-27-200. D. Decision Criteria - The Director's decision on a conditional use shall be based upon the criteria set forth in SVMC 19.150.030 and 21.50.060 Conditions and Requirements, together with the criteria established below. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the development meets all of the following criteria: 1. The use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020; 2. The use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; 3. The use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other permitted uses in the area; 4. The use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment designation in which it is located; and 5. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. E. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if Shoreline Conditional Use Permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist for similar uses and impacts, the total cumulative effect of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. F. The burden of proving that the project is consistent with the applicable criteria shall be upon the Applicant. 21.50.140 Shoreline variance. A. The purpose of a Shoreline Variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional requirements set forth in SVMC 21.50 where extraordinary or unique circumstances exist relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the standards would impose unnecessary hardships on the Applicant, or thwart the policies set forth in the SMA and the SMP. B. When a development or use is proposed that does not meet requirements of the bulk, dimensional, and/or performance standards of the SMP, such development may only be City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft authorized by approval of a Shoreline Variance, even if the development or use does not require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. C. Process - A Shoreline Variance shall be processed as a Type II review pursuant to SVMC 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. Each request for a Shoreline Variance shall be considered separately and prior to any decision on a development application. Any decision to approve or conditionally approve the development will include and specifically cite only those variances approved for inclusion with the project. D. When a Shoreline Variance is requested, the Director shall be the final authority for the City. The Director's determination shall be provided to Ecology for review. Ecology shall have final approval authority of Shoreline Variances pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(10). E. Decision Criteria - To qualify for a Shoreline Variance, the following shall be required: 1. Demonstrate compliance with the criteria established in SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action. 2. A Shoreline Variance request for a development or use located landward of the OHWM, or landward of any wetland shall cite the specific standard or condition from which relief is requested and be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates the variance is consistent with all of the items below: a. That the strict application of a standard precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; b. That the hardship described in subsection (a) is specifically related to the property, and is a result of unique natural or physical conditions, such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features which do not allow compliance with the standard. The site constraint shall not be the result of a deed restriction, a lack of knowledge of requirements involved when the property was acquired, or other actions resulting from the proponent's own actions; c. The project is generally compatible with other permitted or authorized uses in the project area, with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP, and will not cause adverse impacts to the area; d. The requested variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area, and the variance is the minimum necessary to afford the requested relief; and e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 3. A Shoreline Variance request for a development or use located waterward of the OHWM, or within any wetland shall cite the specific standard or condition from which relief is requested and be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates the variance is consistent with all of the items below: a. That the strict application of a standard would preclude all reasonable use of the property; b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (e) of this section; and c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. 4. In the granting of any Shoreline Variance, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like variances in the area. For example, if Shoreline Variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances shall also City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft remain consistent with the policies of the SMA and SMP and shall not cause substantial adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. F. The burden of proving that a proposed variance meets the criteria of the SMP and WAC 173-27-170 shall be on the Applicant. Absence of such proof shall be a basis for denial of the application. 21.50.150 Nonconforming development. A. Classification Criteria—A use, structure, appurtenant structure, or lot is nonconforming if it was legally established but is inconsistent with a subsequently adopted regulation or regulations. Lawful uses, structures, appurtenant structures, and lots that are deemed nonconforming are subject to the provision of this section. B. Process and Decision Criteria 1. Decisions on projects that require review under this section shall be made pursuant to SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions - Basis for Action and the following criteria. 2. Legal nonconforming uses and structures shall be allowed to continue with no additional requirements except as otherwise addressed in this section. 3. Nonconforming Uses. a. Additional development of any property on which a nonconforming use exists shall require that all new uses conform to the SMP. b. Intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses that will not result in an increase of nonconformity shall be allowed and will be processed under these nonconforming provisions as a Type II review, pursuant to SVMC Title 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. c. Change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a nonconforming use shall not affect its nonconforming status provided that the use does not change or intensify. d. If a nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use, a nonconforming use may not be resumed. e. Conversion from one nonconforming use to another may only be approved through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit pursuant to SVMC 21.50.130(E) if the following additional criteria are met: The property is located within a residential or conservancy shoreline environment; ii. The replacement use is either of a similar intensity to the previous nonconforming use, or is more conforming with the intent of the applicable Shoreline Environment Policies; and iii. The impacts to the shoreline ecological functions from the existing use are reduced by changing the use. f. When the operation of a nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months, the nonconforming use rights shall expire and the future use of such property shall meet all current applicable regulations of the SMP. g. If a conforming building housing a nonconforming use is damaged, the use may be resumed at the time the building is repaired, provided a permit application for the restoration is received by the City within 12 months following said damage. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft h. Normal maintenance and repair of a structure housing a nonconforming use may be permitted provided all work is consistent with the provisions of the SMP. Legally established residences are considered conforming uses. 4. Nonconforming Structures. a. A nonconforming structure may be maintained or repaired, provided such improvements do not increase the nonconformity of such structure and are consistent with the remaining provisions of the SMP. b. Alterations to legal nonconforming structures that: Will result in an increase of nonconformity to the structures, including expanding within the buffer, may be allowed under a Shoreline Variance pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140; or ii Do not increase the existing nonconformity and will otherwise conform to all other provisions of SVMC 21.50 are allowed without additional review. c. A nonconforming structure that is moved any distance within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be brought into conformance with the SMP. d. A damaged nonconforming structure may be reconstructed or replaced, regardless of the amount of damage if: The rebuilt structure or portion of structure does not expand or modify the original footprint or height of the damaged structure unless: (1). The expansion or modification does not increase the degree of nonconformity with the current regulations; and (2). The reconstructed or restored structure will not cause additional adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; ii. It is not relocated except to increase conformity or to increase ecological function, in which case the structure shall be located in the least environmentally damaging location possible; iii. The permit application to restore the development is made within 12 months of the date the damage occurred; and iv. Any residential structures, including multi-family structures, may be reconstructed up to the size, placement, and density that existed prior to the damage, so long as other provisions of the SMP are met. 5. Nonconforming Lots. Legally established nonconforming, undeveloped lots located landward of the OHWM are buildable, provided that all new structures or additions to structures on any nonconforming lot must meet all setback, height, and other construction requirements of the SMP and the SMA. 21.50.160 Minor revisions to approved uses or developments. A. Classification Criteria - Minor revisions to a project that have been approved under a shoreline permit are allowed in certain circumstances. 1. Changes that are not substantive are not required to obtain a revision and may be allowed as part of the original shoreline permit. Examples include, but are not limited to, minor changes in facility orientation or location, minor changes in structural design that do not change the height or increase ground floor area, and minor accessory structures such as equipment covers or small sheds near the main structure. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 2. Substantive changes are those that materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance with the shoreline permit and SMP requirements. Such changes may be approved as a minor revision if: a. The Director determines that the proposed revision and all previous revisions are within the scope and intent of the original shoreline permit; b. The use authorized with the original shoreline permit does not change; c. The project revision does not cause additional significant adverse environmental impacts; d. No new structures are proposed; and e. The criteria in SVMC 21.50.160(A)(3) are met. 3. Substantive changes shall comply with the following to be approved as a minor revision: a. No additional over-water construction shall be involved, except that pier, dock, or swimming float construction may be increased by 10 percent from the provisions of the original shoreline permit; b. Lot coverage and height approved with the original shoreline permit may be increased a maximum of 10 percent if the proposed revisions do not exceed the requirements for height or lot coverage pursuant to SVMC 21.50.220 Dimensional Standards and SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations; and c. Landscaping may be added to a project without necessitating an application for a new shoreline permit if the landscaping is consistent with permit conditions (if any) and SVMC 21.50. 4. Substantive changes which cannot meet these requirements shall require a new shoreline permit. Any additional shoreline permit shall be processed under the applicable terms of this chapter. B. Process - Requests for minor revisions to existing shoreline permits shall be processed as a Type I review, pursuant to SVMC Title 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures. Parties of record to the original shoreline permit shall be notified of the request for revision, although a comment period is not required. A minor revision for a project within shoreline jurisdiction shall follow state filing, appeal, and approval standards pursuant to WAC 173-27-100 Revisions to Permits. C. Decision Criteria - Decisions on minor revisions shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.060 Authorization Decisions— Basis for Action. 21.50.170 Enforcement. A. Enforcement of the SMP, including the provisions of SVMC 21.50, shall be pursuant to SVMC 17.100. Nothing herein or within SVMC 17.100 shall be construed to require enforcement of the SMP and SVMC 21.50 in a particular manner or to restrict the discretion of the Director in determining how and when to enforce the SMP and SVMC 21.50; provided all enforcement shall be consistent with the policies of the SMP and SVMC 21.50. B. Upon a determination that a violation of the SMP, including SVMC 21.50, has occurred, no further development may be authorized unless and until compliance with any applicable shoreline and development permit or process conditions and requirements of SVMC 21.50 have been achieved to the satisfaction of the Director. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft C. For violations affecting a critical area, the party(s) responsible for the violation and the owner shall meet the following minimum performance standards to achieve the restoration requirements, as applicable: 1. A restoration plan shall be prepared and address the following: a. Restoration of historical structural and functional values, including water quality and habitat functions; b. Ensure that replacement soils will be viable for planting and will not create a less fertile growing conditions; c. Replacement of native vegetation within the critical area, and buffers with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities; d. Replication of the historic functions and values at the location of the alteration; e. Annual performance monitoring reports demonstrating compliance with mitigation plan requirements shall be submitted for a minimum two-year period; and f. As-built drawings and other information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of the SMP shall be submitted. 2. The following additional performance standards shall be met for restoration of frequently flooded areas and geological hazards and be included in the restoration plan: a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the pre- development hazard; b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated; and c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard. 3. The Director may, at the violator's expense, consult with a Qualified Professional to determine if the plan meets the requirements of the SMP. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the violator for revision and resubmittal. 21.50.180 General provisions. A. General Regulations. 1. Regulations in SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.290 are in addition to the specific use regulations in SVMC 21.50.300 through 21.50.450 and other adopted rules, including but not limited to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Spokane Valley Street Standards, and the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, as adopted or amended. 2. All permitted and exempt projects within the shoreline jurisdiction shall ensure that the no net loss of ecological functions standard is met. SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing and SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation contain appropriate methods to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological function. The City may also condition project dimensions, location of project components on the site, intensity of use, screening, parking requirements, and setbacks, as deemed appropriate. 3. All shoreline uses and modifications shall obtain all necessary permits from the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and shall operate in compliance with all permit requirements. 4. Deviations from regulations may be granted through a Shoreline Variance, which requires approval by both the City and Ecology. Shoreline modifications listed in City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft Table 21.50-2 as "prohibited" are not eligible for consideration as a Shoreline Variance. 5. New projects, including the subdivision of land and related construction of single- family residences, are prohibited when the use or development requires structural flood hazard reduction or other structural stabilization measures within the shoreline to support the proposed or future development. 6. When a proposal contains two or more use activities, including accessory uses, the most restrictive use category shall apply to the entire proposal. 7. Structures, uses, and activities shall be designed and managed to minimize blocking, reducing, or adversely interfering with the public's visual access to the water and the shorelines from public lands which are within the shoreline jurisdiction and excluding public roads. 8. Structures and sites shall be designed with landscaping, vegetated buffers, exterior materials, and lighting that are aesthetically compatible with the shoreline environment. 9. When a study is required to comply with SVMC 21.50, it shall be performed by Qualified Professional registered in the State of Washington. 10. All clearing and grading activities shall comply with SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities. Adherence to the following is required during project construction: a. Materials adequate to immediately correct emergency erosion situations shall be maintained on site; b. All debris, overburden, and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a manner so as to prevent their entry into a water body. Such materials from construction shall not be stored or disposed of on or adjacent to Shorelines of the State; c. The shoreline buffer shall be clearly marked on the ground prior to and during construction activities to avoid impacts to the buffer; and d. Infrastructure used in, on, or over the water shall be constructed using materials that do not contaminate the water or interfere with navigation. B. The City may consult with agencies with expertise or jurisdiction over the resources during the review of any permit or process to assist with analysis and identification of appropriate performance measures that adequately safeguard shoreline and critical areas. C. The Director may consult with a Qualified Professional to review a critical areas report when City staff lack the resources or expertise to review these materials. The City may require the Applicant to pay for or reimburse the City for the consultant fees. 21.50.190 Shoreline uses table. A. Uses and activities are categorized within each shoreline environment as allowed, permitted, conditional use, or prohibited, as defined in this section. This priority system determines the applicable permit or process, administrative requirements, and allows activities that are compatible with each shoreline designation. Procedures and criteria for obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Letter of Exemption, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, and Shoreline Variance are set forth in SVMC 21.50.040. These uses shall also meet the requirements of SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations. B. The following terms shall be used in conjunction with Shoreline Use and Modification Tables provided in SVMC 21.50.190 and SVMC 21.50.200. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft Allowed Use: These are uses that are exempt from the shoreline permit review process and do not require submittal of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Letter of Exemption application. Projects or uses shall be reviewed to ensure that all requirements contained in SVMC 21.50 are met. Building permit applications or site plans are the general method of review. Permitted Use: These are uses which are preferable and meet the policies of the particular shoreline environment designation. They require submittal of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or a Letter of Exemption application. An exemption is subject to an administrative approval process; a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit requires public notice, comment periods, and filing with Ecology. Conditional Use: A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is intended to allow for flexibility and the exercise of judgment in the application of regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of the SMA and the SMP. Prohibited: These are uses which are viewed as inconsistent with the definition, policies, or intent of the shoreline environmental designation. For the purposes of the SMP, these uses are considered inappropriate and are not authorized under any permit or process. Table 21.50-1 - Shoreline Uses, below, shall be used to determine the permit or process required for specific shoreline uses and activities within the shoreline jurisdiction. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft Table 21.50-1: Shoreline Uses I I I To 70 U U 0J= C C ✓ 7 f0 f0 N 7 L L ✓ a) p 0 0 f6 _ -a c ,_ V G.J 3 u _y C �y L C C U ++ L (p L yam., fC fC b c s 0- - °° o- SHORELINE USES N m N = a Agricultural Activities Aquaculture Boating Facilities (Including launches, ramps, public/commercial docks, and private docks serving more than four residences) N/A P C 1 Commercial Use Water-dependent P2 P2 C Water-related and water-enjoyment P2 P2 P2 C Non water-oriented P2,3 Forest Practices Industrial Use Water-dependent P C Water-related and water-enjoyment P Non water-oriented P3 In-stream Structures As part of a fish habitat enhancement project N/A P P P P Other N/A P P P Mining Parking Facilities As a primary use Asan accessory/secondary use P P P C Recreational Use Water-dependent P P P P P Water-related and water-enjoyment P P P P P Non water-oriented P P P C4 C Trails and walkways P P P C5 P Residential Use Single-family A A A A Single-family residential accessory uses and structures A A A A Multi-family P P P Private docks serving one to four single- family residences N/A P P P City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft I I I To 70 U U C C C C 4J 4J CO c0 N 47 L L v CI) p 0 O c0 .� C .7) L C C U ++ ca � c ca c0 s s Q- s °° a SHORELINE USES '^ n N = a Accessory Dwelling Units P P P P Transportation Facilities New circulation routes related to permitted shoreline activities P P C C Expansion of existing circulation systems P P P P New, reconstructed, or maintenance of bridges, trail, or rail crossings P P P P P Public Facilities and Utilities Public facilities C C C C Utilities and utility crossings C C C C C Routine maintenance of existing utility corridor and infrastructure A6 A6 A6 P7 A6 KEY: A=Allowed P= Permitted C=Conditional Use Blank= Prohibited N/A= Not Applicable Notes: 1For Boating Facilities within the aquatic environment, the adjacent upland environment as set forth on the City Environment Designation Map shall govern (i.e., if the aquatic environment is adjacent to Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designated shorelines, the use would be permitted). 2 Commercial uses are allowed in the Shoreline Residential - Upland, Shoreline Residential - Waterfront and Urban Conservancy Environments only if the underlying zoning of the property is Mixed Use Center. 3 Permitted only if the applicable criteria in SVMC 21.50.320(6)(1) or 21.50.330(6)(1) are met. 4 Non water-oriented recreation uses are prohibited in Urban Conservation - High Quality Shorelines except limited public uses that have minimal or low impact on shoreline ecological functions, such as the Centennial Trail and appropriately-scaled day use areas which may be allowed through a Conditional Use Permit. 5 Modifications, improvements, or additions to the Centennial Trail are permitted in the Urban Conservancy - High Quality Environment. 6 A Letter of Exemption is required if the maintenance activity involves any ground disturbing activity. 7A Letter of Exemption is required. 21.50.200 Shoreline modification activities table. Table 21.50-2, Shoreline Modification Activities, below, shall be used to determine whether a specific shoreline modification is allowed in a shoreline environment. Shoreline modifications may be permitted, approved as a conditional use, or prohibited, pursuant to SVMC 21.50.190. Shoreline modifications shall also meet the requirements of SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft Table 21.50-2: Shoreline Modification Activities 1 I 70 70 I U U C C C C GJ GJ ea ea N 7cc cc 4' L L LA LA 4-0 C C C v v p 0 o To CC LC C ++ L (4 in L in ra s ro .0 Q- s ra na a SHORELINE MODIFICATION ACTIVITY '^ m N = a Shoreline/Slope Stabilization Structural, such as bulkheads P P Nonstructural, such as soil bioengineering P P P 1 Piers and Docks Piers N/A P C Viewing Platforms P P P Docks N/A P C 1 Dredging and Fill Dredging C C C C Fill C C C C Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects P P P P P Groins and Weirs N/A C C C KEY: P= Permitted C=Conditional Use Blank= Prohibited N/A= Not Applicable 1 For these uses within the aquatic environment, the adjacent upland environment as set forth on the Environment Designation Map shall govern (i.e., if the aquatic environment is adjacent to Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designated shorelines, "hard" shoreline stabilization measures would be allowed by Shoreline Substantial Development Permit). 21.50.210 No net loss and mitigation sequencing. A. Applicability. This section applies to all shoreline activities, uses, development, and modifications, including those that are exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. B. Standards. 1. All projects shall result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The requirement for no net loss may be met through project design, construction, and operations. Additionally, this standard may be achieved by following the mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210(6)(4) and SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. The City may condition project dimensions, location of project components on the site, intensity of use, screening, parking requirements, and setbacks, as deemed appropriate to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological function. 2. Required mitigation shall not exceed the level necessary to ensure that the proposed use or development will ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 3. Mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210(6)(4) is required when specified in these regulations or for projects that: a. Involve shoreline modifications; b. Request a buffer or setback reduction pursuant to SVMC 21.50.230 Shoreline Buffers and Building Setbacks; c. Are located within a wetland or its buffer; or d. Will have significant probable adverse environmental impacts that must be avoided or mitigated. 4. Mitigation measures shall be applied in the following order: a. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology; c. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; e. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and f. Monitor the impact and the compensation projects and take appropriate corrective measures, as needed. 21.50.220 Height limit standards. A. Applicability. This section applies to all new or redeveloped primary and residential accessory structures. B. Standards. 1. The maximum height limit for all new or redeveloped primary structures shall be 35 feet. 2. The maximum height limit for single-family residential accessory or appurtenant structures shall be 25 feet. 3. These height limit standards may be altered through a Shoreline Variance pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140. 21.50.230 Shoreline buffers and building setbacks. A. Applicability. This section applies to all new construction, new and expanded uses, and modifications. Shoreline buffers are shown on the City Shoreline Buffer Map in Appendix A-2 Shoreline Buffers. B. Standards. 1. Unless otherwise specified in SVMC 21.50, buffers shall be maintained in predominantly natural, undisturbed, undeveloped, and vegetated condition. 2. The shoreline buffer shall be clearly marked on the ground prior to and during construction activities to avoid impacts to the buffer. 3. Shoreline buffers for new and expanded uses may be reduced up to 25 percent by the Director if the buffer widths have not been reduced or modified by any other prior action and one or more of the following conditions apply: a. Adherence of the buffer width would not allow reasonable use; b. The buffer contains variations in sensitivity to ecological impacts due to existing physical characteristics; i.e. the buffer varies in slope, soils, or City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft vegetation. This shall be supported by a Habitat Management Plan developed in conformance with SVMC 21.50.540(E)(2); or c. Where shoreline restoration is proposed consistent with the City's Restoration Plan. 4. Building Setback from the shoreline buffer shall be as shown in Table 21.50-3: Table 21.50-3 Buffer Building Setbacks Environment Urban Urban Shoreline Shoreline Conservancy Conservancy— Residential - Residential - High Quality Upland Waterfront Setback 10 foot 15 foot 0 foot 1 0 foot 1 1 A 15-foot building setback from the shoreline buffer shall be required for any subdivision, binding site plan, or planned residential development in the Shoreline Residential—Upland and Shoreline Residential—Waterfront designations. 5. Front, rear, and side setbacks and lot coverage shall conform to the SVMC Title 19, Zoning Regulations. 21.50.240 Flood hazard reduction. A. Applicability. This section applies to development proposals: 1. Intended to reduce flood damage or hazard; 2. To construct temporary or permanent shoreline modifications or structures within the regulated floodplains or floodways; or 3. That may increase flood hazards. B. Standards. 1. All proposals shall conform to SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulation, SVMC 21.50.340, In-stream Structures and SVMC 21.50.410 Shoreline Modifications. 2. The following uses and activities may be allowed within the floodplain or floodway: a. Actions or projects that protect or restore the ecosystem-wide processes and/or ecological functions; b. New bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation structures, with appropriate mitigation, where no other feasible alternative exists; c. Repair and maintenance of an existing legal structure, utility corridor, or transportation structure, provided that such actions do not increase flood hazards to other uses; d. Modifications, expansions, or additions to an existing legal use; and e. Measures to reduce shoreline erosion. 3. Natural in-stream features such as snags, uprooted trees, or stumps shall be left in place unless an engineered assessment demonstrates that they are causing bank erosion or higher flood stages. 21.50.250 Public access. A. Applicability. This section applies to all new projects by public and private entities. B. Standards. 1. Public access shall be consistent with the City's SMP Public Access Plan. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 2. Public access may only be required as a condition of approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit to the extent allowed by law and in a manner consistent with the City's Public Access Plan, and only in the following circumstances: a. The use or development is a public project; or b. The project is a private use or development and one of the following conditions exists: The project impacts, interferes with, blocks, discourages, or eliminates existing access; ii. The project increases or creates demand for public access that is not met by existing opportunities or facilities; or iii. The project impacts or interferes with public use of waters subject to the Public Trust Doctrine. 3. Public access shall not be required for activities qualifying for a letter of exemption or new single-family residential development of four or fewer units. 4. All developments, including shoreline permits or letter of exemption applications, which require or propose public access shall include a narrative that identifies: a. Impacts to existing access, including encroachment, increased traffic, and added populations; b. The access needs of the development consistent with those described for similar projects in the Public Access Plan, Section Four; and c. The proposed location, type, and size of the public access. 5. When public access is required pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b), the City shall impose permit conditions requiring public access that are roughly proportional to the impacts caused or the demand created by the proposed use or development. 6. Prior to requiring public access as a condition of approval of any shoreline permit or letter of exemption pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b), the Director shall determine and make written findings of fact stating that the use or development satisfies any of the conditions in SVMC 21.50.250(B)(2)(b) and that any public access required is roughly proportional to the impacts caused or the demand created by the proposed use or development. 7. When public access is required or proposed, the following shall apply: a. Mitigation sequencing shall be required to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from the public access. b. Visual access to the shoreline may be established if any vegetation removal is pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. c. Public access sites shall be connected to the nearest public street or other public access point. d. Future trails on private property, including trail extensions and new access points, shall incorporate enhancement and restoration measures and be contained within a recorded easement. e. Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy or use of the project or activity. f. Public and private entities may establish user regulations, including hours of operation, usage by animals or motorized vehicles, and prohibited activities, such as camping, open fires, or skateboarding. Such restrictions may be approved by the Director as part of the permit review process. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft g. Public access improvements shall include provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons where reasonably feasible. h. Signage associated with public access shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.380 Signs and Outdoor Lighting, and SVMC 22.110 Sign Regulations. 21.50.260 Shoreline vegetation conservation. A. Applicability. Vegetation conservation measures are required for all projects that propose vegetation removal. B. Standards. 1. A vegetation management plan shall be submitted for projects that propose to remove either of the following within the shoreline jurisdiction: a. One or more mature native trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at chest height; or b. More than 10 square feet of native shrubs and/or native ground cover at any one time by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or other activities. 2. When required, a vegetation management plan shall contain the following: a. A site plan showing: The distribution of existing plant communities in the area proposed for clearing and/or grading; ii. Areas to be preserved; iii. Areas to be cleared; and iv. Trees to be removed. b. A description of the vegetative condition of the site that addresses the following: Plant species; ii. Plant density; iii. Any natural or man-made disturbances; iv. Overhanging vegetation; v. The functions served by the existing plant community (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat values, slope stabilization); and vi. The presence and distribution of noxious weeds. c. A landscape plan showing: Proposed landscaping, including the species, distribution, and density of plants; the plan should be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(B)(3)(b), if applicable; and ii. Any pathways or non-vegetated portions, and the materials proposed. 3. Projects that propose to remove native vegetation within a shoreline buffer shall meet the following standards: a. The Applicant must demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction that the proposed vegetation removal is consistent with SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing, and that avoidance is not feasible; b. Vegetation shall be replaced per the following: 1:1 area ratio for herbaceous vegetation; ii. 2:1 stem ratio for shrubs and saplings; and iii. 3:1 ratio for trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height or 2:1 ratio if tree stock is five years old or greater. For native City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft trees greater than 16 inches diameter at breast height, replacement tree stock shall be at least five years old; c. All removed native plants shall be replaced with native vegetation; removed ornamental plants may be replaced with similar species; d. Applicant shall submit a vegetation management plan consistent with SVMC 21.50.260(6)(2) that demonstrates compliance with the standards of SVMC 21.50.260(6)(3); and e. Projects that propose a pathway or trail in the shoreline buffer shall meet the additional following standards: Pathways and trails that are roughly parallel to the OHWM may be allowed if: (1) It is a public non-motorized multi-use equestrian or pedestrian/bike trail; (2) It is located at the landward edge of the shoreline buffer with the following exceptions: (a) When physical constraints, public safety concerns, or public ownership limitations merit otherwise; or (b) When the trail will make use of an existing constructed grade such as those formed by an abandoned rail grade, road, or utility. ii. Pathways, trails, and river crossings that are perpendicular to the water, and lead to the OHWM, shall be sited in a location that has the least impact to shoreline ecological functions with mitigation sequencing pursuant to SVMC 21.250.210. Previously altered or disturbed locations shall be preferred. iii. All pathways and trails shall be located, constructed, and maintained so as to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, removal and other impacts to perennial native vegetation, including trees, standing snags, forbs, grasses, and shrubs, consistent with the vegetation management plan. iv. Alternatives to impervious paving should be considered and are encouraged. v. Total trail width, inclusive of shoulders, shall be the minimum width necessary to achieve the intended use and shall not exceed 14 feet. vi. Disturbed areas (outside of the designated trail and trail shoulders) shall be re-vegetated with native vegetation consistent with the vegetation management plan. vii. Public, non-motorized multi-use equestrian pedestrian/bike trails shall only be allowed in the shoreline buffer for the Urban Conservancy-High Quality environment designation to connect to or from (in phases or otherwise) an existing regional multi-use non-motorized trail and only pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260(6). viii. Encroachments in the buffer allowed by the exceptions listed above shall be the minimum necessary to provide for the permitted use. 4. A performance surety may be required as a condition of Shoreline Permit approval to ensure compliance with the SMP. The performance surety shall be substantially in the same form and for the same coverage as provided for in the City's Street Standards as adopted or amended. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 5. Projects that require a critical areas report pursuant to SVMC 21.50.490 shall incorporate any specific vegetation conservation measures identified in the critical areas reports for the identified critical areas. Any application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals proposed in conjunction with the vegetation removal or management activities shall be addressed by the report. C. Minor vegetation conservation activities allowed without a shoreline permit or letter of exemption. 1. Pruning and thinning of trees or vegetation on public or private land for maintenance, safety, forest health, and view protection if the criteria listed below are met: a. No native vegetation is removed, including thinning; b. Pruning of native vegetation shall not exceed 30 percent of a tree's limbs. Tree topping shall not occur; c. Native shrubs shall not be pruned to a height less than six feet; d. Pruning any vegetation waterward of the OHWM is prohibited; and e. Pruning of any vegetation and thinning activities associated with non- native plants shall ensure the continued survival of vegetation. Whenever possible, pruning and thinning activities conducted to maintain or create views shall be limited to areas dominated with non-native vegetation and invasive species. Pruning and thinning on public land to establish a view for adjacent properties shall be prohibited unless written approval from the Washington State Parks Riverside Area Manager is given. 2. Pruning and thinning within a utility corridor by the utility service provider of both native and non-native trees and vegetation shall be allowed when the following criteria are met: a. Reasonable measures to reduce the adverse effects of the activity are implemented; and b. No net loss of buffer functions and values occur. 3. Dead or hazardous trees within the shoreline buffer that pose a threat to public safety or a risk of damage to private or public property may be removed if a letter from a certified arborist or Qualified Professional is submitted that confirms the tree is dead or is hazardous and includes: a. Removal techniques; b. Procedures for protecting the surrounding area; and c. Replacement of native trees, if applicable. Where possible, hazard trees within the shoreline buffer shall be turned into snags. 21.50.270 Water quality, stormwater, and non-point pollution. A. Applicability. This section applies to all projects that add any pollution-generating impervious surfaces. This standard supersedes the regulatory threshold specified in the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, which is applicable outside the shoreline jurisdiction. B. Regulations. 1. All activities shall comply with the SVMC 22.150 Stormwater Management Regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency's Underground Injection Control program, the Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requirements, applicable total maximum daily loads laws and regulations, and other water cleanup plans. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 2. Use of chemicals for commercial or industrial activities shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.530(C). 3. Herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, and pesticides shall not be applied within 25 feet of a water body, except by a Qualified Professional in accordance with state and federal laws. 21.50.280 Archaeological and historic resources. A. Applicability. This section applies to: 1. Projects with archaeological and historic resources on site that are either recorded at the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), or Spokane County; 2. Projects where archaeological and historical resources have been inadvertently uncovered; or 3. Permit applications that contain a ground-disturbing component. B. Standards. 1. Archaeological sites are subject to chapter 27.44 RCW Indian Graves and Records and chapter 27.53 RCW Archaeological Sites and Records. Development or uses that may impact such sites shall comply with WAC 25-48 as well as the regulations of this section. 2. A cultural resources site survey or assessment prepared by a Qualified Professional is required for all Shoreline Permit applications that contain a ground-disturbing component if the proposal meets the criteria below, which may be determined through review of Spokane County and/or DAHP resources: a. The project is on property known to contain archaeological, historic, or cultural resources; or b. The project is in an area mapped as having the potential for the presence of archaeological, historic, or cultural resources. 3. When required, the cultural resources site survey or assessment shall: a. Use standard procedures and methods to assess the potential for presence of archaeological, historic, or cultural resources that could be impacted by the project; b. Provide appropriate recommendations for protecting and preserving the archaeological, historical, or cultural resources; c. Make an inventory of buildings or structures over 50 years in age located within the project area in a DAHP Historic Property Inventory Database entry; and d. Record archaeological sites located within the project area on DAHP Archaeological Site Inventory Forms. 4. When required, the cultural resources site survey or assessment shall be circulated to DAHP and affected tribe(s). The Director shall consider comments from DAHP and affected tribe(s) prior to approval of the survey or assessment. Based on the cultural resources site survey or assessment, the application may be conditioned to ensure that such resources are protected. 5. If archaeological, historic, or cultural resources are inadvertently discovered or uncovered during excavation, the Applicant shall immediately stop work on that portion of the project site and notify the City. The Applicant may be required to prepare a cultural resources site survey or assessment pursuant to SVMC 21.50.280(6)(3), after coordinating with DAHP. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 21.50.290 Gravel pits. A. Applicability. This section applies to existing and active gravel pit operations including but not limited to known gravel pits located at 2010 North Sullivan Road and 220 North Thierman Road. B. Standards. Active gravel pits are not regulated as Shorelines of the State until reclamation is complete and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources terminates the Surface Mine Reclamation Permit. Proposed subsequent use of mined property shall be consistent with the provisions of the Urban Conservancy Environment unless a different environmental designation is established through an amendment pursuant to WAC 173-26-201. 21.50.300 Specific shoreline use regulations. Applicability. The regulations in SVMC 21.50.300 through 21.50.450 apply to specific common uses and types of development to the extent they occur within the shoreline jurisdiction. 21.50.310 Boating facilities. A. Applicability. This section applies to new and existing boating facilities. B. Standards. 1. Boating facilities shall: a. Be allowed only for water-dependent uses or for public access; b. Be limited to the minimum size and height necessary to achieve the intended purpose of the facility; and c. Incorporate measures for cleanup of accidental spills of contaminants. 2. Public boating facilities shall be located only at sites identified in the Public Access Plan. 3. All new boating facilities shall incorporate public access when required by the Public Access Plan and SVMC 21.50.250 herein. 4. New launch ramps shall be approved only if public access is provided to public waters which are not adequately served by existing access facilities because of location or capacity. Documentation of need shall be required from the Applicant prior to approval pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access. 5. Existing boating facilities may be maintained and repaired pursuant to SVMC 21.50, provided the size is not increased. 6. In addition to the regulations above, boating facilities shall comply with SVMC 21.50.320 Commercial Use, SMVC 21.50.360 Recreational Development and Use, and SVMC 21.50.430 Piers and Docks, as applicable. 21.50.320 Commercial use. A. Applicability. This section applies to all commercial uses. B. Standards. 1. New non water-oriented commercial uses shall be prohibited, except within the Urban Conservancy Environment, where such uses may be permitted if: a. The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent uses; and b. Provides a significant public benefit, such as public access or ecological restoration; or The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another parcel or public right-of-way. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 2. New commercial uses shall comply with the following criteria: a. Windows, breezeways, and common areas should be oriented towards the shoreline or recreational amenities on the site; b. Buildings should provide at least one main entry that orients toward the shoreline, not including a service entry; c. Architectural features that reduce scale shall be incorporated, such as pitched roofs, offsets, angled facets, and recesses; d. Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water shall employ materials that minimize reflected light; e. Building mechanical equipment, noise generating systems, vents, utility cabinets, and small scale service elements shall be incorporated into building architectural features, such as pitched roofs. Where it is not possible to incorporate into architectural features, a landscaping screen consistent with SVMC 22.70.030(C) shall be utilized; f. Screening and buffering, or other visual screen consistent with the building exterior material and colors, shall be provided that conceals view of such equipment from the shoreline; g. Commercial uses shall be screened from any adjacent residential uses by providing a Type I-Full Screening Buffer pursuant to SVMC 22.70 Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping; h. Landscaping within the shoreline setback area shall incorporate native plant materials; Loading docks and maintenance facilities shall be located away from the shoreline to minimize visual, noise, or physical impacts on the site, street, adjacent public open spaces, and adjacent properties; and j. A site plan and landscaping plan shall be submitted showing all the applicable items listed in SVMC 21.50.320(6)(2). 3. Commercial wireless communication facilities shall not be allowed within the shoreline jurisdiction. 4. Home occupations shall be allowed within the Shoreline Residential - Upland and Shoreline Residential - Waterfront designations pursuant to SVMC 19.40.140 Home Occupations. 21.50.330 Industrial use. A. Applicability. This section applies to all new Industrial uses, including uses involved in processing, manufacturing, assembly, and storage of finished or semi-finished goods and food products. B. Standards. 1. New non water-oriented industrial uses shall be prohibited, except within the Urban Conservancy Environment, where such uses may be permitted if the use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent use and: a. Provides a significant public benefit such as providing public access and ecological restoration; or b. The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another parcel or public right-of-way. 2. Industrial development shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated to avoid visual impacts to users of the Spokane River and Centennial Trail. 3. New industrial uses shall comply with the requirements of SVMC 21.50.320(6)(2) and (3). City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 4. Noise associated with operations or equipment, including volume, repetitive sound, or beat, shall be muffled or otherwise controlled so that it is not audible at a distance over 30 feet from the landward boundary of a buffer. 21.50.340 In-stream structures. A. Applicability. This section applies to all projects proposing in-stream structures. B. Standards. 1. In-stream structures shall conform with the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WDFW, SVMC 21.50.240 Flood Hazard Reduction, SVMC 21.50.270 Water Quality, Stormwater and Non-Point Pollution, SVMC 21.50.410 General Regulations for Specific Shoreline Modifications, and any other applicable federal, state, and local requirements. 2. In-stream structures shall provide for the protection and preservation of ecosystem-wide processes, ecological functions, and cultural resources pursuant to WAC 173-26-241(3)(g). 21.50.350 Parking facilities. A. Applicability. This section applies to all new parking facilities. B. Regulations. 1. A parking facility is permitted only if: a. It directly serves a permitted shoreline use, including the Centennial Trail, direct river access, and use areas; and b. It is not the primary use; for example, it cannot be a stand-alone parking facility. 2. Parking facilities serving individual buildings within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be located: a. Landward from the principal building being served; or b. Within or beneath a structure. 3. Parking facilities shall be screened from the shoreline and less intense adjacent land uses by providing a Type I - Full Screening Buffer pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030(B) Fencing, Screening, and Landscaping. A majority of the plant materials proposed to meet the vegetation mix requirements shall be native plants. 4. Parking shall be pursuant to SVMC 22.50 Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. 5. Private projects, excluding single-family residential projects, which include public access features shall dedicate parking stalls for public use that are in addition to the number of parking stalls necessary to serve the proposed development pursuant to SVMC 22.50 Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards: a. Projects shall provide and dedicate additional parking for public use. Applicants shall either use a presumptive standard of one additional space for public parking for every 25 parking spaces required to serve the proposed development or provide an assessment of public access need which supports a different ratio. Any proposal to change from this presumptive standard shall be approved by the Director, which approval shall be based upon the unique factual circumstances of the development and surrounding shoreline uses; b. Spaces that are dedicated for public use shall be marked with appropriate signage; and City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft c. Stalls dedicated for public use shall be near the public access point. 21.50.360 Recreational development and use. A. Applicability. This section applies to public and commercial shoreline recreational facilities and uses, including but not limited to trails, viewing platforms, swimming areas, boating facilities, docks, and piers. B. Standards. 1. Non water-oriented recreation uses are prohibited in Urban Conservation - High Quality Shorelines except limited public uses that have minimal or low impact on shoreline ecological functions, such as the Centennial Trail and appropriately- scaled day use areas. 2. Water-oriented recreational structures, limited to boat launches, ramps, public docks or piers, commercial docks or piers, and private docks serving more than four residences may be allowed waterward of the shoreline buffer and setback. 3. Water-oriented recreational structures, limited to access routes, boat and equipment storage, viewing platforms, amenities such as benches, picnic tables and similar facilities for water enjoyment uses, including those related to the Centennial Trail shall be allowed within the shoreline buffer and setback area provided: a. Structures are located outside of an Urban Conservancy - High Quality area; b. Structures are not located in, on, or over water; and c. Structure height limit is less than 15 feet. 4. All recreational development shall provide: a. Non-motorized and pedestrian access to the shoreline pursuant to SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access; b. Landscaping, fencing, or signage designed to prevent trespassing onto adjacent properties; c. Signs indicating public right of access to shoreline areas, installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at the point of access and the entrance; and d. Buffering of such development and uses from incompatible adjacent land uses pursuant to SVMC 22.70.030 Screening and Buffering, and Table 22.70-2 - Buffers Required by Type, as applicable. 5. Recreational development and uses shall be pursuant to SVMC 21.50.310 Boating Facilities, SVMC 21.50.320 Commercial Use, and SVMC 21.50.430 Piers and Docks, as applicable. 21.50.370 Residential development and use. A. Applicability. 1. This section applies to single-family and multi-family structures, lots, and parcels. 2. Residential uses also include accessory uses and structures normally associated with residential uses including, but not limited to, garages, sheds, decks, driveways, fences, swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, and tennis courts. 3. Clearing, grading, and utilities work associated with residential use are subject to the regulations established for those activities. B. Standards. 1. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is not required for construction by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family residence, provided, City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft any such construction of a single-family residence and all accessory structures meet the requirements of the SMP. 2. Residential development, including single-family structures, shall be required to control erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation shall be minimized and any areas disturbed shall be restored to prevent erosion and other impacts to shoreline ecological functions pursuant to SVMC 21.50.260. 3. New residential development, including accessory uses and structures, shall be sited in a manner to avoid the need for structural improvements that protect such structures and uses from steep slopes and shorelines vulnerable to erosion, including bluff walls and other stabilization structures. 4. New over-water residences and floating homes are prohibited. 5. New single-family residential accessory structures, excluding accessory dwelling units, may be located waterward of the shoreline setback provided that all of the following criteria are met: a. The combined building footprint of all accessory structures does not exceed 10 percent of the lot area; b. Structures are located outside of critical areas, their associated buffers, and the shoreline buffer; and c. Structures are set no closer than five feet to any side or rear property line. 6. New attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall: a. Be located landward of the shoreline buffer and outside of all critical areas and their buffers; b. Be pursuant to SVMC 19.40.100 Accessory Dwelling Unit; and c. Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 7. New residential developments of four or more lots shall comply with the following requirements: a. The shoreline buffer shall be shown on the plat and permanently marked on the ground with methods approved by the Director; b. A site plan shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit application showing the project elements described in SVMC 21.50.370(6)(3); and c. Provide a project narrative describing how the project elements are being met. 8. Exterior lighting associated with single-family residences, such as pathway lighting and lighting directed at landscaping features, is permitted within the setback area so long as it is directed away from the shoreline. 9. Recorded plats shall include language that states that pursuant to SVMC 21.50.230, use and development within the defined shoreline buffer area is prohibited. Title notices shall be recorded with each newly created parcel with the restrictive language. 10. New fences shall meet the requirements of SVMC 22.70 Fencing, Screening and Landscaping. 11. Fences are prohibited in the following areas: a. Shoreline buffers; b. Critical areas; and c. Waterward of the OHWM. 21.50.380 Signs and outdoor lighting. A. Applicability. This section applies to any commercial, industrial, or advertising sign directing attention to a business, professional service, community site, facility, or City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft entertainment conducted or sold, and all outdoor lighting, except those associated with residential use and public street lighting. B. Standards. 1. All signs shall comply with SVMC 22.110 Sign Regulations; variances from these regulations may be granted pursuant to SVMC 21.50.140 Shoreline Variances. 2. Signage, including kiosks and directional signage to commercial uses or recreation areas, related to, or along, the Centennial Trail, is allowed without a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit provided: a. Signage is consistent with the SMP, the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and any applicable master plan of Washington State Parks; and b. Signage proposed within a buffer area shall not: Exceed 15 square feet in area; ii. Exceed six feet in height; iii. Be illuminated unless warranted by safety factors; and iv. A building permit is obtained, if required. 3. Outdoor lighting shall comply with SVMC 22.60 Outdoor Lighting Standards. 4. New permanent outdoor lighting is prohibited within the shoreline buffer. 5. Pedestrian-oriented lighting along walkways and paths shall be allowed within the shoreline setback area if: a. The purpose of the light is safety; b. Lighting structure height is not greater than 12 feet; and c. Lighting fixtures are downward directed and fully shielded. 6. All outdoor lighting shall be oriented away from the shoreline and adjacent uses using directional lighting or shielding. 21.50.390 Transportation facilities. A. Applicability. This section applies to structures and developments that aid in land, air, and water surface movement of people, goods, and services. They include roads and highways, bridges, bikeways, heliports, rail, and other related facilities. Trails are addressed in SVMC 21.50.250 Public Access. B. Standards. 1. New road and bridge construction and expansion of existing roads and bridges shall only be located within the shoreline jurisdiction upon approval by the Director when deemed necessary for the good of the community, or when deemed related to, and necessary to support permitted shoreline activities. 2. When allowed, transportation facilities shall be: a. Consistent with an approved private project or applicable City plans, including the City's Transportation Improvement Plan, Public Access Plan and Restoration Plan; b. Located on the landward side of existing structures or uses; and c. Be designed to minimize clearing, grading, and alteration of natural features. Roadway and driveway alignment should follow natural contours and minimize width. 3. To the extent consistent with federal jurisdiction, new rail lines and corridors or expansion of existing rail lines and corridors shall be allowed only for the purpose of connecting to existing rail lines or rights-of-way. New rail lines, including bridges, shall be constructed within existing rail corridors or rights-of-way. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 4. To the extent consistent with federal jurisdiction, new rail lines shall be constructed so that they do not compromise the public's ability to access the shoreline safely. 21.50.400 Public facilities and utilities. A. Applicability. This section applies to all public facilities and utilities. This section does not apply to on-site utility features serving a primary use, such as water, sewer, or gas lines to a development or residence. These utility features are considered "service utilities" and shall be considered part of the primary use. B. Regulations. 1. New public facilities and utilities may only be allowed pursuant to Shoreline Conditional Use permit and if they meet the following conditions: a. Address conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses through site design or configuration, buffers, aesthetics, or other methods; and b. Identify the need to site within shoreline jurisdiction and why it is not possible to locate outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. 2. New wastewater and stormwater outfalls shall not be allowed. 3. Routine maintenance, replacement, and minor upgrades of existing utilities shall be allowed; provided that if the activity involves ground disturbance or is located in the Urban Conservancy - High Quality Environment, then such maintenance, replacement, and minor upgrades shall only be allowed by Letter of Exemption. If existing high-quality vegetated areas, as noted in the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis, are disturbed by maintenance activities in Urban Conservancy - High Quality designated shorelines, mitigation pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing, shall be required. 4. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables, and pipelines, should be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. 5. New utility corridors shall be prohibited within the Urban Conservation — High Quality Environment. 6. New over-water utility crossings are allowed within existing utility corridors. 7. New or expanded service utilities shall: a. Be located underground, unless placement underground results in more damage to the shoreline area; b. Utilize low impact, low profile design, and construction methods; and c. Restore any areas disturbed to pre-project configurations, replant with native species, and maintain until the newly planted area is established. 8. Stormwater pipe systems shall not be allowed within the shoreline buffer. 21.50.410 General regulations for specific shoreline modifications. A. Applicability. SVMC 21.50.410 through 21.50.450 apply to all shoreline modifications. Shoreline modification activities are structures, including in-stream structures, or actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area. B. General shoreline modification standards. 1. All shoreline modification applications shall also comply with: a. SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulations; b. SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities; and c. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (WDFW, Ecology and Transportation, 2003 as adopted or amended). City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 2. All shoreline modification activities shall ensure that the no net loss of ecological function standard is met. 3. Structural shoreline modifications within the regulated floodplain, geologically hazardous areas, and in-stream shall only be allowed where it can be demonstrated that nonstructural measures are not feasible or the proposed activities are necessary to: a. Support or protect a legally existing shoreline use or primary structure that is in danger of loss or substantial damage; b. Reconfigure the shoreline or channel bed for an allowed water-dependent use; or c. Provide for shoreline mitigation or enhancement purposes. 4. All shoreline modifications within the regulated floodplain and in-stream, with the exception of docks proposed on the Spokane River that are located west of the City of Millwood, shall provide the following: a. Site suitability analysis that justifies the proposed structure; b. A Habitat Management Plan prepared by a Qualified Professional that describes: The anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife habitat and migration areas; ii. Provisions for protecting in-stream resources during construction and operation; and iii. Measures to compensate for impacts to resources that cannot be avoided. c. An engineering analysis which evaluates and addresses: The stability of the structure for the required design frequency; ii. Changes in base flood elevation, floodplain width, and flow velocity; iii. The potential for blocking or redirecting the flow which could lead to erosion of other shoreline properties or create an adverse impact to shoreline resources and uses; iv. Methods for maintaining the natural transport of sediment and bedload materials; v. Protection of water quality, public access, and recreation; and vi. Maintenance requirements. 21.50.420 Shoreline/Slope stabilization. A. Applicability. This section applies to shoreline modification activities for shoreline and slope stabilization projects, including structural and nonstructural measures. B. Standards. 1. Nonstructural measures are the preferred method for slope and shoreline stabilization. 2. Nonstructural measures may include building setbacks, relocation of the structure to be protected, groundwater management, and planning and regulatory measures to avoid the need for structural stabilization. 3. Structural stabilization measures may include hard surfaces such as concrete bulkheads or less rigid materials, such as vegetation, biotechnical vegetation measures, and riprap-type stabilization. 4. New structural shoreline modifications require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 5. New structural stabilization measures may be allowed under the following circumstances: a. To protect existing primary structures, public facilities and utilities, and the Centennial Trail. Prior to approval, a geotechnical investigation shall: Demonstrate that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion by currents or waves; and ii. Evaluate on-site drainage and address drainage problems away from the shoreline. b. To protect new non water-dependent uses from erosion, when all of the following apply: The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions; ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient; iii. An engineering or scientific analysis demonstrates that damage is caused by natural processes; and iv. The stabilization structure shall incorporate native vegetation and comply with the mitigation sequencing in SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing. c. To protect water-dependent development from erosion when all of the following apply: The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions; ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient; and iii. The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. d. To protect restoration and remediation projects when all of the following apply: The project is conducted pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW Model Toxics Control Act; and ii. Nonstructural measures are neither feasible nor sufficient. 6. Unless otherwise exempt from Shoreline Permit requirements, replacement of an existing shoreline stabilization structure may be approved with a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, provided the structure remains in the same location and the outer dimension changes by 10 percent or less. However, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit shall be required if existing shoreline stabilization measures are relocated or the outer dimension changes by more than 10 percent. 7. All new or replaced structural shoreline stabilization measures shall provide: a. Design plans showing the limits of construction, access to the construction area, details, and cross sections of the proposed stabilization measure, erosion and sediment controls, and re-vegetation of the project area; and b. An engineered report that addresses the purpose of the repair, engineering assumption, and engineering calculations to size the stabilization measure. 8. A replacement structure shall not encroach waterward of the OHWM, unless all of the following apply: a. For residences occupied or constructed prior to January 1, 1992; b. There are overriding safety or environmental concerns; c. The replacement structure shall abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure; and d. The Department of Natural Resources has approved, if applicable, the proposed project if it is on state-owned aquatic lands. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 21.50.430 Piers and docks. A. Applicability. This section applies to the construction or expansion of piers and docks constructed waterward of the OHWM. B. Standards. 1. Piers and docks designed for pleasure craft only, and for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single and multi-family residences, shall require a Letter of Exemption. Any other dock or pier permitted under the SMP requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 2. Piers and docks serving more than four residences and public or commercial piers and docks shall comply with SVMC 21.50.310 Boating Facilities. Public or commercial piers and docks shall comply with SVMC 21.50.360 Recreational Development and Uses. 3. New piers and docks shall only be allowed for water-dependent uses or public access. A dock associated with a single-family residence and designed and intended as a facility for access to watercraft is a water-dependent use. 4. New piers and docks shall be the minimum size necessary based upon a needs analysis provided by the Applicant. However, the size shall not exceed 55 feet in length measured perpendicularly from the OHWM. Total deck area shall not exceed 320 square feet. 5. The City may require modifications to the configuration of piers and docks to protect navigation, public use, or ecological functions. 6. Wood treated with toxic compounds shall not be used for decking or for in-water components. 7. Existing legally established docks, piers, or viewing platforms may be repaired or replaced in accordance with the regulations of the SMP, provided the size of the existing structure is not increased. 8. Piers and docks proposed on the Spokane River and located east of the City of Millwood shall comply with SVMC 21.50.410(6)(4) and the following additional criteria: a. The site suitability analysis shall demonstrate that: The river conditions in the proposed location of the dock, including depth and flow conditions, will accommodate the proposed dock and its use; and ii. Any design to address river conditions will not interfere with or adversely affect navigability. b. The Habitat Management Plan for any such docks shall demonstrate that the proposed dock will not result in a net loss of ecological functions. 9. New residential development of two or more dwellings within the shoreline located east of the City of Millwood, and west of the Centennial Trail Pedestrian Bridge, shall provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allowing individual docks for each residence. 21.50.440 Dredging and fill. A. Applicability. This section applies to shoreline modification activities for projects or uses proposing dredging, dredge material disposal, or fill waterward of the OHWM. B. Regulations. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 1. Dredging and dredge material disposal is prohibited unless associated with a comprehensive flood management solution, an environmental cleanup plan, a habitat restoration, fish enhancement project, or when considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with, the Dredged Material Management Program of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. These projects require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. 2. Fill shall be allowed only when necessary to support the following uses (a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is required unless stated otherwise): a. Water-dependent uses; b. Public access; c. Cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental cleanup plan; these proposals may be exempt from a Shoreline Permit of any type by the Model Toxics Control Act; d. Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities. These proposals shall also demonstrate that alternatives to fill are not feasible and require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit; e. A mitigation action; and f. An environmental restoration or enhancement project. 21.50.450 Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects. A. Applicability. This section applies to all shoreline habitat and natural system enhancement projects. B. Standards. 1. Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects are encouraged. These projects shall: a. Obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or a Letter of Exemption; b. Demonstrate that the main project purpose is enhancing or restoring the shoreline natural character and ecological functions by establishing the restoration needs and priorities; and c. Implement the restoration plan developed pursuant to WAC 173-26- 201(2)(f) and with applicable federal and state permit provisions. 21.50.460 General - Shoreline critical areas regulations - Applicability. A. SVMC 21.50.460 through 21.50.560 apply to critical areas and their buffers that are completely within the shoreline jurisdiction as well as critical areas and their buffers located within, but extending beyond the mapped shoreline jurisdiction boundary. Regulated critical areas include: wetlands, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs), Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs), geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas, pursuant to WAC 173-26-221(2) and (3), and WAC 365- 196-485. B. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within the shoreline jurisdiction of the City, whether or not a shoreline permit or other authorization is required. No person, company, agency, or other entity shall alter a critical area or its associated buffer within the shoreline jurisdiction except as consistent with the purposes and requirements of the SMP. 21.50.470 Maps and inventories. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft A. The approximate location and extent of known critical areas are depicted on the Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map updated and maintained by the Community Development Department. The Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map is a reference tool, not an official designation or delineation. The exact location of a critical area boundary shall be determined through field investigation by a Qualified Professional. B. In addition to the Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map, City staff may review additional reference materials to determine whether a proposed development has the potential to affect a critical area within the shoreline jurisdiction. Reference materials may include, but are not limited to the following as adopted or amended: 1. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Spokane County, Washington, 2012; 2. USGS 7.5 Minute Series Digital Elevation Model; 3. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Spokane County, Washington and Incorporated Areas, July 6, 2010; 4. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory; 5. Aerial photos; 6. WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and Wildlife Heritage Maps and Data; and 7. City critical area designation maps. 21.50.480 Exemptions from critical area review and reporting requirements. A. Activities exempt from critical area review and reporting requirements shall ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210. Exempt activities shall be conducted consistent with performance standards identified in SVMC 21.50.180 through 21.50.450, including mitigation sequencing. B. Any incidental damage to or alteration of a critical area or their buffers resulting from exempt activities shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the expense of the responsible party within one growing season. C. The following activities are exempt from critical area review and reporting requirements: 1. Conservation or enhancement of native vegetation. 2. Outdoor recreational activities which do not involve disturbance of the resource or site area, including fishing, hunting, bird watching, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, and natural trail use. 3. Education, scientific research, and surveying. 4. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of: a. Legally-constructed existing irrigation and drainage ditches, utility lines, and appurtenances; b. Facilities within an existing right-of-way and existing serviceable structures or improved areas, not including expansion, change in character or scope, or construction of a maintenance road; and c. State or City parks, including noxious weed control and removal of hazard trees where the potential for harm to humans exists. 5. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. 6. Routine maintenance, repair, and minor modifications (such as construction of a balcony or second story) of existing structures where the modification does not extend the structure further into or adversely impact the functions of the critical area. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 7. In Category III or IV wetlands only, stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioinfiltration swales located within the outer 25 percent of the buffer provided that no other location is feasible. 21.50.490 Critical area review. A. All clearing, uses, modifications, or development activities within a shoreline critical area or its buffer shall be subject to review under SVMC 21.50 unless specifically exempted under SVMC 21.50.480. B. Applicant shall identify in the application materials the presence of any known or suspected critical areas on or within 200 feet of the property line. C. If the proposed project is within or adjacent to a critical area, or is likely to create a net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain a critical area, the City shall: 1. Require and review a critical area report for each applicable critical area; and 2. Determine if the proposed project adequately addresses and mitigates impacts to the critical area and is consistent with the requirements of the SMP. 21.50.500 Critical area report requirements for all critical areas. A. When required by SVMC 21.50.490(C), the Applicant shall submit a critical area report subject to the requirements of this section and any additional reporting requirements for each critical area, as applicable. B. Critical area reports for two or more types of critical areas shall meet the report requirements for each relevant type of critical area. C. All critical area assessments, investigations, and reports shall be completed by a Qualified Professional. D. At a minimum, all critical area reports shall contain the following: 1. The name and contact information of the Applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the permit(s) requested; 2. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site; 3. A statement from the Qualified Professional certifying that the report meets the critical area requirements; 4. A description of the nature, density, and intensity of the proposed use or activity in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such proposal upon identified critical area; 5. List of all references used and all assumptions made and relied upon; 6. A scaled site plan showing: a. Critical areas and their buffers; b. Ordinary high water mark; c. Proposed and existing structures and related infrastructure; d. Clearing and grading limits; e. Impervious surfaces; f. Location of temporary and/or permanent construction signage and fencing to protect critical areas and their buffers; g. Topographic contours at two foot intervals; h. Fill and material storage locations; Proposed and existing drainage facilities and stormwater flow arrows; and j. Title, date, scale, north arrow, and legend; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 7. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, water bodies, and critical areas associated with buffers located on site, adjacent to, and within 200 feet of proposed project areas. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer shall apply; 8. A mitigation plan which contains a description of the application of mitigation sequencing and offsetting of impacts pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing; 9. Erosion and sediment control plan and drainage plan, as applicable for conformance with SVMC 24.50; 10. Cost estimate for required mitigation when a financial surety is required pursuant to SVMC 21.50.510; 11. A discussion of the performance standards applicable to the critical area and proposed activity; and 12. Monitoring plan pursuant to SVMC 21.50.510(D) when mitigation is required. E. The Director may modify the required contents or the scope of the required critical area report to adequately evaluate the potential impacts and required mitigation. This may include requiring more or less information and addressing only that part of a site affected by a development proposal. 21.50.510 Mitigation. A. Applicants shall follow the mitigation sequencing put forth in SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss Mitigation and Sequencing. B. All impacts to critical areas and their buffers likely to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain the critical area shall be mitigated consistent with appropriate state and federal guidelines. C. Unless specifically addressed in specific critical area sections, compensatory mitigation may be provided by any of the following means, in order of preference: 1. Except as provided in SVMC 21.50.510(C)(2)(a), adverse critical area impacts shall be mitigated on or contiguous to the development site through resource expansion, enhancement, protection, or restoration. 2. Off-site mitigation. a. Off-site mitigation may be allowed if an Applicant demonstrates that mitigation on or contiguous to the development proposal site cannot be achieved and that off-site mitigation will achieve equivalent or greater ecological functions. b. When off-site mitigation is authorized, priority shall be given to the following locations within the same drainage sub-basin as the project site: Mitigation banking sites and resource mitigation reserves. ii. Private mitigation sites that are established in compliance with the requirements of SVMC 21.50.510(C)(2) and approved by the Director. iii. Offsite mitigation consistent with Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Eastern Washington) (Publication #10-06-07, Olympia, WA, November 2010 as adopted or amended). c. The Director shall maintain a list of known sites available for use for off- site mitigation projects. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 3. Title notices shall be recorded against the affected parcels for on-site mitigation, and easements shall be recorded for off-site mitigation, to avoid impacts from future development or alteration to the function of the mitigation. The mitigation site shall be permanently preserved. D. Monitoring. 1. The Applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and submit performance monitoring reports, as specified in the applicable permit conditions. 2. When required, the monitoring plan shall: a. Demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the SMP and specific permits and approvals; b. Describe the objectives and methods for monitoring and quantifying; c. Provide results with an estimate of statistical precision; d. Identify the length of monitoring and reporting requirements; e. Recommend management actions based upon the monitoring results; and f. Address the length of the mitigation consistent with the following: Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a minimum of two years for temporary impact restoration and up to ten years for compensatory mitigation; and ii. If the mitigation objectives are not obtained within the initial monitoring period, the Applicant shall remain responsible for restoration of the natural values and functions until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved. E. Sureties. 1. Performance and maintenance sureties shall be required from all private persons and entities required to provide mitigation and a maintenance plan. 2. The performance surety shall be in substantially the same form as provided for in the City's Street Standards as adopted or amended. 3. A performance surety shall be submitted prior to issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development, Conditional Use Permit, or Grading Permit. The surety shall include costs to cover for construction and vegetation, annual maintenance for a five-year period, and a 25 percent contingency fee. 4. The performance surety shall be released when the following conditions have been met: a. The installation of the required mitigation is approved by the City; and b. The Applicant has submitted a warranty surety pursuant to SVMC 21.50.510(E)(5). 5. All projects with required mitigation shall submit a warranty surety to ensure the success of the mitigation project before certificate of occupancy, final plat approval, or as required by the City. The warranty surety shall be for 40 percent of the total mitigation construction and planting costs and annual maintenance/ monitoring for five years, including but not limited to: costs for the maintenance and replacement of dead or dying plant materials; failures due to site preparation, plant materials, construction materials; installation oversight, monitoring, reporting, and contingency actions expected through the end of the required monitoring period. 6. The warranty surety shall remain in effect for five years from the release of the performance surety or a timeframe as otherwise determined by the Director. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft The Applicant shall have a Qualified Professional inspect the mitigation site within 30 days of the expiration of the warranty. Any deficiencies noted shall be repaired prior to the release of the surety. If the inspection is not conducted and/or the deficiencies are not repaired, the warranty surety shall be renewed by the Applicant until all deficiencies are corrected. The City shall conduct an inspection prior to releasing the warranty surety. 7. If any deficiencies identified while the warranty surety is in effect are not corrected in the time frame specified by the Director, the City may choose to conduct the necessary repairs. The City shall then either invoice the Applicant or collect from the surety for all costs for the related work, plus a $500 administrative fee. F. The Director may approve alternative mitigation provided such mitigation is based on the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available and provides an equivalent or better level of protection of shoreline ecological functions than would be provided by the strict application of the SVMC 21.50. The Director shall consider the following for approval of an alternative mitigation proposal: 1. The Applicant proposes creating or enhancing a larger system of natural areas and open space in lieu of preserving many individual habitat areas. 2. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the proposed site. 3. The approved plan contains clear and measurable standards for achieving compliance with the specific provisions of the plan. 21.50.520 Wetlands - Shoreline Critical Area Regulations. A. Applicability. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within or adjacent to wetlands, unless specifically exempted by SVMC 21.50.480. B. Designation, delineation, and classification. 1. Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include, but are not limited to, swamps, marshes, bogs, ponds, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction or a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. 2. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries shall be determined through a field investigation by a Qualified Professional in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to The Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (September 2008). Wetland delineations are valid for five years, after which the City shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. 3. Classification. Wetlands shall be rated by a Qualified Professional according to the Ecology wetland rating system as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Ecology Publication #04-06-015, City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft November 2010 as adopted or amended). The wetland categories are generally defined as follows: a. Category I (scores of 70 points or more): Wetlands that perform many functions very well. These wetlands are those that: Represent a unique or rare wetland type; ii. Are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; iii. Are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or iv. Provide a high level of function. b. Category II (scores between 51-69 points): Forested wetlands in the floodplains of rivers or wetlands that perform functions well. c. Category III (scores between 30-50 points): Wetlands that have a moderate level of functions. These wetlands have been disturbed in some way and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. d. Category IV (scores fewer than 30 points): These wetlands have the lowest level of functions and are often heavily disturbed but have important functions that need to be protected. 4. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to any illegal modifications. C. Wetland buffers. 1. Applicability. These buffer provisions apply to all wetlands that: a. Are not associated with riparian areas or buffers; b. Do not contain habitat identified as essential for local populations of priority species identified by WDFW or Natural Heritage plant species identified by the WDNR; c. Are not a vernal pool; d. Are not an alkali wetland; and e. Do not contain aspen stands. 2. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in SVMC 21.50.520(C)(1), wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. 3. Buffer widths. a. All buffers widths shall be measured perpendicularly from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. b. The total buffer width shall be calculated by adding the standard and the additional buffer widths together. c. The standard buffer widths in Table 21.50 - 4 are based on the category of wetland. In order to qualify for the standard buffer widths in Table 1, the measures in Table 21.50 - 5 shall be implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses on the wetland(s). d. Additional buffer widths listed in Table 1 shall be added to the standard buffer widths based on the habitat score for the wetland. Table 21.50-4: Wetland Buffer Requirements Additional Buffer Additional Buffer Additional Buffer Wetland Standard Buffer Width if Wetland Width if Wetland Width if Wetland Category Width Scores 21-25 Scores 26-29 Scores >30 Habitat Points Habitat Points Habitat Points Category I 100 feet Add 15 feet Add 45 feet Add 75 feet Category II 75 feet Add 15 feet Add 45 feet Add 75 feet City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft Category III 60 feet Add 30 feet Add 60 feet N/A Category IV 40 feet N/A N/A N/A 4. Increased buffer widths. a. If measures listed in Table 21.50-5 are not implemented, then the standard buffer widths in Table 21.50-4 shall be increased by 33 percent. b. Buffer widths may be increased on a case-by-case basis when the wetland is used by a plant or animal species listed by the federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitored, or documented priority species or habitats, or essential or outstanding habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites. The buffer increase should be determined by the Qualified Professional in the critical areas report. Table 21.50-5: Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10 foot heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer Chemical Use • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Route all untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Retrofit substandard stormwater facilities • Prevent channelized flow that directly enters the buffer • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing or plant dense,thorny vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for this area Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of corridors or • Maintain connections to off-site areas that are connections undisturbed City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Vegetation alteration • Protect and maintain native plant communities in buffers 5. Buffer averaging. a. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be allowed when all of the following conditions are met: The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions and the buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; ii. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; and iii. The buffer at its narrowest point is not less than either 75 percent of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III and 30 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater. b. Buffer averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be allowed when all of the following are met: There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging; ii. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland's functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report; iii. The total buffer area after averaging is equal or greater to the area required without averaging; and iv. The buffer at its narrowest point is not less than either 75 percent of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III and 30 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater. 6. Signs and fencing. a. Temporary. The outer perimeter of wetland buffers and the clearing limits shall be signed and fenced to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur during construction. ii. Temporary signs and fencing shall be placed prior to beginning permitted activities and maintained throughout construction. b. Permanent. The Director, at his/her sole discretion, may require installation of permanent signs and/or fencing along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. ii. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another non-treated material of equal durability. Signs, if required by the Director, shall be posted at an interval not less than one per lot, and which shall be maintained in perpetuity by the property owner. The obligation to maintain permanent signs shall be recorded against the property in a form acceptable to the City. iii. The signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the Director: City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship iv. Permanent fence shall be installed and maintained around the wetland buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on site. v. Fencing shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat and designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs. D. Mitigation. 1. Mitigation ratios. a. Impacts resulting from alteration to wetlands shall be mitigated using the ratios specified in Table 21.50-6 below: Table 21.50-6: Wetland Mitigation Ratios' Wetland Creation or Category Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement Category I 4:1 8:1 16:1 Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1 Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 Refer to Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, (Ecology Publication#06-06-011a, March 2006),for further information on wetland creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement. b. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Only fully vegetated buffer areas will be included in mitigation calculations. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas shall be excluded from buffer area calculations. c. Credit/Debit Method. As an alternative to the mitigation ratios provided in Table 21.50-6, the Director may allow mitigation based on the "credit/debit" method developed by the Ecology in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Eastern Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication #11-06-015, August 2012, as adopted or amended). 2. Wetland mitigation banks. a. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved as off-site mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: The bank program is certified under state rules; ii. The Director determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and iii. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified bank instrument. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft b. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the certified bank instrument. c. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions. d. When applying for a wetland mitigation bank, the Applicant shall prepare a Wetland Mitigation Credit Use Plan that documents consistency with these criteria and shows how the identified wetland type and associated functions will be compensated for by purchase of the credits. 3. Design. a. Design of wetland mitigation projects shall be appropriate for its landscape position. Compensatory mitigation shall result in the creation, restoration, or enhancement of a wetland that matches the geomorphic setting of the site. b. The design of a wetland that has a different Cowardin or hydrogeomorphic classification than the impacted wetland may be justified if supported by a demonstrated need for, or scarcity of, the wetland type being designed. 4. Timing. a. Compensatory mitigation is encouraged to be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. b. Compensatory mitigation shall be completed no later than immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. c. The Director may authorize a one-time delay of mitigation when the Applicant provides a compelling written rationale for the delay with recommendations from a qualified wetland professional if the delay shall not: Create or perpetuate hazardous conditions; ii. Create environmental damage or degradation; or iii. Be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. E. Additional critical area report requirements for wetlands. 1. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, wetland reports shall include: a. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including but not limited to field data sheets for delineations, function assessments, ratings, or baseline hydrologic data; b. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, function assessments, or impact analyses including references; c. For each wetland identified on site, adjacent to and within 200 feet of the project site, provide: Required buffers; ii. A professional survey from the field delineation that identifies: (1) Wetland rating; (2) Hydrogeomorphic classification; (3) Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft (4) On-site wetland acreage, and (5) Ecological function of the wetland and buffer. Note: The above shall be based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the proposed project site. iii. Estimates of acreage and boundary for the entire wetland area where portions of the wetland extend off-site; iv. Description of habitat elements; v. Soil conditions based on site assessment and soil survey information; and vi. The following information shall be provided to the extent possible: (1) Hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/outlets (if they can be legally accessed); (2) Estimated water depths within the wetland; and (3) Estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.); d. A description of the proposed actions and survey and an analysis of site development alternatives, including a no-development alternative; e. An assessment of the probable impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting from the proposed development, including: An estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field delineation; ii. Impacts associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project; and iii. Impacted wetland functions; f. A description of how mitigation sequencing was applied pursuant to SVMC 21.50.210 No Net Loss and Mitigation Sequencing; g. A discussion of mitigation measures, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded by the current proposed land-use activity; h. Methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions; A site plan, drawn to scale, with the following information: Delineated wetland(s) and required buffer(s) for on-site wetlands as well as off-site critical areas that extend onto the project site; ii. Areas of proposed impacts to wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates); iii. Proposed stormwater management facilities and outlets for the development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas; and j. A mitigation plan, if required. 21.50.530 Critical aquifer recharge areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. A. Applicability. This section applies to the following developments and uses when proposed within designated CARAs: 1. Underground and aboveground storage tanks; 2. Vehicle repair and service uses, including automobile washers; 3. Chemical treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; 4. Hazardous waste generating uses; 5. Injection wells, not including Class V or injection wells for stormwater management; 6. Junk and salvage yards; 7. On-site sewage systems; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 8. Solid waste handling and recycling facilities; 9. Surface mines; 10. Uses of hazardous substances, other than household chemicals for domestic applications; 11. Projects having the potential to adversely impact groundwater; and 12. Work within a wellhead protection area. B. Designation and classification. 1. CARAs are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. 2. Aquifer recharge areas are rated as having a high, moderate, or low susceptibility based on a scientific analysis of soils, hydraulic conductivity, annual rainfall, the depth to aquifers, the importance of the vadose zone, and wellhead protection information. The entire shoreline jurisdiction, as well as the entire City, is identified as a high susceptibility CARA. C. Performance standards. The uses listed in Table 21.50-7 shall be conditioned as necessary to protect CARAs in accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations. Table 21.50-7: Statutes, Regulations, and Guidance Pertaining to Ground Water Impacting Activities Activity Statute— Regulation—Guidance Above Ground Storage Tanks WAC 173-303-640 WAC 173-216; Best Management Practices Manual for Vehicle and Equipment Washwater Automobile Washers Discharges(WQ-R-95-056) Below Ground Storage Tanks WAC 173-360 Chemical Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities WAC 173-303-300 Hazardous Waste Generator(Boat Repair Shops, Biological Research Facility, Dry Cleaners, Furniture Stripping, Motor Vehicle Service Garages, Photographic Processing, Printing and Publishing Shops, etc.) WAC 173-303-300 Injection Wells 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146;WAC 173-218 Vehicle and Metal Recycles—A Guide for Implementing the Industrial Stormwater General Junk Yards and Salvage Yards NPDES Permit Requirements (94-146) On-Site Sewage Systems (Large Scale) WAC 246-272B On-Site Sewage Systems (< 14,500 gal/day) WAC 246-272A, Local Health Ordinances Solid Waste Handling and Recycling Facilities WAC 173-304 Surface Mining WAC 332-18 Additional performance standards for storage tanks that store hazardous substances or waste. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft All storage tanks shall: 1. Comply with Title 24 SVMC Building Code and fire department requirements; 2. Use material in the construction or lining of the tank that is compatible with the substance to be stored; 3. Not allow the release of a hazardous substance to the ground, groundwater, or surface water; 4. Prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the operational life of the tank; and 5. Be protected against corrosion and constructed of noncorrosive material or steel clad with a noncorrosive material. D. All new underground storage tanks shall include a built-in secondary containment system that prevents the release or threatened release of any stored substances. E. All new aboveground storage tanks shall include a secondary containment structure and meet either of the criteria below: 1. If the secondary containment is built into the tank structure, the tank shall be placed over a sealed impervious pad surrounded with a dike. The impervious pad/dike shall be sized to contain the 10-year storm if exposed to the weather; or 2. If the tank is single walled, the tank shall be placed over a sealed impervious pad surrounded with a dike. The impervious pad/dike shall have the capacity to contain 110 percent of the largest tank plus the 10-year storm if exposed to the weather. F. Additional performance standards for vehicle repair and servicing. Vehicle repair and servicing must be conducted over impermeable pads and within a covered structure capable of withstanding normally expected weather conditions. G. Additional standards for chemical storage. 1. All chemicals used shall be stored in a manner that protects them from weather. Secondary containment shall be provided. On-site disposal of any critical material or hazardous waste shall be prohibited. 2. All developments and uses shall provide a narrative and plan to show how development complies with the regulations and performance standards in SVMC 21.50.530(C-F), or prepare a hydrogeological assessment in accordance with SVMC 21.50.530(H). 3. Proposed developments and uses that are unable to satisfy the performance standards in SVMC 21.50.530(C-F), shall submit a hydrogeological assessment report. H. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, hydrogeological assessments shall include: 1. Available geologic and hydrogeological characteristics of the site, including groundwater depth, flow direction, gradient, and permeability of the unsaturated zone; 2. Discussion of the effects of the proposed project on groundwater quality and quantity; 3. A spill plan that identifies equipment and/or structures that could fail, resulting in an impact. Spill plans shall include provisions for regular inspection, repair, replacement of structures and equipment that could fail, and mitigation and cleanup in the event of a spill; and City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 4. Best management practices proposed to be utilized. 21.50.540 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. A. Applicability. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within designated FWHCAs. B. Designation. 1. The shoreline buffer as mapped by the City, which protects riparian habitat, and the waters and land underneath the Spokane River are FWHCAs. The City protects shoreline functions of these through the Shoreline Buffer established in SVMC 21.50.230 and the vegetation conservation standards in SVMC 21.50.260. 2. Additionally, all areas meeting one or more of the following criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated FWHCAs: a. Areas where state or federal designated endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association; b. State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species, as identified by the WSDFW and are updated periodically; and c. State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas. Natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas are defined, established, and managed by WDNR. C. Performance standards. All development and uses shall be prohibited within FWHCAs designated in SVMC 21.50.540(6)(2), except in accordance with this section. Buffers shall be required only for FWHCAs described under SVMC 21.50.540(6)(2), excluding Priority Habitats. Buffer requirements shall be based on the recommendations of the FWHCA critical area report. Buffers shall not exceed 100 horizontal feet from the edge of the FWHCA. 1. General. a. A FWHCA may be altered only if the proposed alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not create a net loss of the quantitative and qualitative shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain the FWHCA. b. No plant, wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall be introduced into a FWHCA unless authorized by a state or federal permit or approval. c. Contiguous functioning habitat corridors are preferred to minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas. d. Vegetation. Vegetation shall be maintained in its natural state and shall be disturbed only as minimally necessary for the development; and ii. Riparian vegetation shall not be removed unless there are no other alternatives available. When it is necessary, only those areas of vegetation that are absolutely unavoidable may be cleared, and shall be re-vegetated with natural riparian vegetation as soon as possible. e. The subdivision and short subdivision of land shall comply with the following provisions: Land that is located wholly within a FWHCA or its buffer may not be subdivided; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft ii. Land that is located partially within a FWHCA or its buffer may be divided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new lot is located outside of the habitat conservation area or its buffer; and iii. Access roads and utilities serving the proposal may be permitted within the FWHCA and associated buffers only if the City determines that no other feasible alternative exists and when consistent with the SMP. f. The project may be conditioned to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: Establishment of buffer zones; ii. Preservation of critically important vegetation, including requirements for re-vegetation of disturbed areas with native plants; iii. Vegetation screenings to reduce the potential for harassment from people and/or domesticated animals; iv. Limitation of access to the habitat area during critical times of the year; v. Fencing to protect wildlife and deter unauthorized access; vi. Dedication of all or part of the required open space to fish and wildlife habitat conservation; and vii. Seasonal restriction of construction activities. 2. FWHCAs with endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. a. No development shall be allowed within a FWHCA or buffer where state or federal endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association without state and federal consultation and approval from WDFW and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), respectively. b. Approval for alteration of land or activities adjacent to a FWHCA having a primary association with state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species shall not occur prior to consultation with the WDFW. c. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected consistent with: WAC 232-12-292, Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules; and ii. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which may require a permit obtained from the USFWS. D. Mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring for FWHCAs designated in SVMC 21.50.540(6)(2). 1. Mitigation sites shall be located: a. Preferably to achieve contiguous functioning habitat corridors that minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas; and b. Within the same aquatic ecosystem as the FWHCA disturbed. 2. Where necessary, a permanent means of irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings. The design shall meet the specific needs of riparian and shrub steppe vegetation and be prepared by a Qualified Professional and/or landscape architect. 3. Mitigation shall be installed no later than the next growing season after completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Director. 4. Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and management plan objectives are successful. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 5. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous, as-needed elimination of undesirable plants, protection of shrubs and small trees from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants, and repair and replacement of any dead plants. 6. Planting areas shall be maintained so they have less than 20 percent total non- native/invasive plant cover consisting of exotic and/or invasive species. Exotic and invasive species include any species on the state noxious weed list, or considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Conservation Services Department or local conservation district. 7. The Applicant shall monitor the performance of any required mitigation and submit performance monitoring reports to the City consistent with the following: a. Mitigation sites shall be monitored for five years. b. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a Qualified Professional: One year after mitigation installation; ii. Three years after mitigation installation; and iii. Five years after mitigation installation. c. The Qualified Professional shall verify whether the conditions of approval and provisions in the fish and wildlife management and mitigation plan have been satisfied. d. Mitigation planting survival shall be 100 percent for the first year, and 80 percent for each of the four years following. E. Additional critical area report requirements for FWHCAs designated in SVMC 21.50.540(6)(2). 1. Report Contents. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, FWHCA reports shall include: a. Habitat assessment, including: Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area; ii. Identification of any species of local importance, priority habitats and species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species; iii. A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations, including WDFW habitat management recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area; iv. A discussion of measures, including mitigation sequencing, proposed to preserve existing habitats or restore any habitat that was degraded prior to the current proposed land use activity; and v. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect habitat after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs. 2. Any proposal in a FWHCA or within 1,320 feet from a priority species den or nest site that the Director (in consultation with the WDFW) determines is likely to have an adverse impact on a FWHCA or associated species shall provide a Habitat Management Plan, including: a. A plan, drawn to scale, that identifies: The location of the proposed site; City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft ii. The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and built elements; iii. The nature and intensity of the proposed use or activity; iv. Proposed improvement(s) locations and arrangements; v. The location of the OHWM, shoreline jurisdiction, and riparian habitat area boundary lines; vi. The legal description and the total acreage of the parcel; vii. Existing structures and landscape features including the name and location of each; and viii. The location of priority habitat types or priority species point locations within 1,320 feet of the proposal; b. An analysis of the impact of the proposed use or activity upon FWHCAs or associated species and riparian habitat area; c. A mitigation plan that may include, but is not limited to: Establishment of perpetual buffer areas; ii. Preservation and/or restoration of native flora; iii. Limitation of access to habitat area; iv. Seasonal restriction of construction activities; v. Clustering of development and preservation of open space; vi. Signs marking habitats or habitat buffer areas; vii. Use of low impact development techniques; viii. Recorded deed, plat, binding site plan, or planned unit development covenant, condition, or restriction legally establishing a riparian habitat area for subject property; ix. Conservation or preservation easements; and x. Dedication or conveyance of title of a riparian habitat area to a public entity for the purpose of conservation; and d. A summary of consultation with a habitat biologist with the WDFW. If the habitat management plan recommends mitigation involving federally listed threatened or endangered species, migratory waterfowl, or wetlands, the USFWS shall receive a copy of the draft habitat management plan and their review comments shall be included in the final report. The Director shall have the authority to approve habitat management plans or require additional information. 21.50.550 Geologically hazardous areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. A. Applicability. 1. This section applies to all uses, activities, and structures within designated geologically hazardous areas. 2. Applications for development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall identify if it is located within a geohazard area as designated on the City Critical Areas and Priority Habitats Map. The Director may require additional information based on the criteria in SVMC 21.50.550 to identify unmapped geohazards if application material and/or a site visit indicate the potential for geohazard. B. Designation and classification. 1. Areas susceptible to erosion, sliding earthquake, or other geological events are designated geologically hazardous areas in accordance with WAC 365-190-120, Geologically Hazardous Areas. 2. Categories. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft a. Erosion hazard areas are identified by the NRCS as having a "moderate to severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter-rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas also include areas with slopes greater than 15 percent. b. Landslide hazard areas are subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope, slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors and include the following: Areas of historic failures, including: (1) Areas delineated by the NRCS as having a significant limitation for building site development; and (2) Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps published by the United States Geological Survey or WDNR; ii. Areas with all of the following characteristics: (1) Slopes steeper than 15 percent; (2) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock; and (3) Springs or groundwater seepage. iii. Areas that have shown movement during the holocene epoch (from 10,000 years ago to the present) or which are underlain or covered by mass wastage debris of this epoch; iv. Slopes that are parallel or subparallel to planes of weakness (such as bedding planes,joint systems, and fault planes) in subsurface materials; v. Slopes having gradients steeper than 80 percent subject to rock fall during seismic shaking; vi. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action, including stream channel migration zones; vii. Areas that show evidence of, or are at risk from snow avalanches; viii. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding; and ix. Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of bedrock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief. c. Seismic hazard areas are subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or subsidence, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. One indicator of potential for future earthquake damage is a record of past earthquake damage. C. Standards applicable to all geologic hazard areas. 1. Any development or uses proposed within 50 feet of a geologic hazard area shall prepare a critical areas report satisfying the general critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500 and the additional standards for Geologic Hazard Areas in SVMC 21.50.550(E). City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft 2. Development or uses within geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers shall only be allowed when the proposed development or use: a. Does not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre-development conditions; b. Does not adversely impact other critical areas; c. Is designed so that the hazard is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than pre-development conditions; and d. Is determined to be safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a Qualified Professional. 3. New development that requires structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development is prohibited, except in instances where: a. Stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses consistent with SVMC 21.50.420(6)(5); b. No alternative locations are available; c. Shoreline modifications do not negatively affect other critical areas pursuant to SVMC 21.50.460; and d. Stabilization measures conform to WAC 173-26-231, Shoreline Modifications. D. Standards applicable to erosion and landslide hazard areas. 1. Development within an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of the SMP. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function: a. Development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic conditions shall be based on a minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the Uniform Building Code as adopted or amended; b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas; c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography; d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation; e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties; f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes; and g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage. 2. Buffers from all edges of Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas. a. The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope or 50 feet, whichever is greater. b. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a Qualified Professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject critical area. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft c. The buffer may be increased where the Director determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development. 3. Removal of vegetation from an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and/or buffer shall be prohibited unless as part of an approved alteration plan consistent with SVMC 21.50.260 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. 4. New utility lines and pipes shall be permitted only when the Applicant demonstrates that no other practical alternative is available. The line or pipe shall be located above ground and properly anchored and/or designed so that it will continue to function in the event of an underlying slide. 5. Stormwater conveyance shall be allowed only when the pipe design includes a high-density polyethylene pipe with fuse-welded joints, or similar product that is technically equal or superior. 6. New point discharges from drainage facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas shall be prohibited except as follows: a. If it is conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazards areas downstream from the discharge; b. If it is discharged at flow durations matching pre-developed conditions, with adequate energy dissipation, into existing channels that previously conveyed stormwater runoff in the pre-developed state; or c. If it is dispersed or discharged upslope of the steep slope onto a low- gradient undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and stormwater runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope. 7. Division of land in Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas and associated buffers is subject to the following: a. Land that is located wholly within a designated Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area or an associated buffer shall not be subdivided. b. Land that is located partially within a designated Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area or an associated buffer may be subdivided, provided that each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area outside of the Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and buffer to accommodate reasonable development without impacting the critical area or requiring structural stabilization consistent with SVMC 21.50.180(6)(5) General Provisions. c. Access roads and utilities may be permitted within an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area and associated buffers if the City determines that no other feasible alternative exists. 8. On-site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within Erosion or Landslide Hazard Areas and associated buffers. E. Additional critical areas report requirements for geologically hazardous areas reports. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, geologically hazardous area reports shall include: 1. A site plan showing the following: a. The location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of groundwater on or within 200 feet of the project area or that have potential to be affected by the proposal; b. The topography, in two-foot contours, of the project area and all hazard areas addressed in the report; and c. The following additional information for a proposal impacting an Erosion Hazard or Landslide Hazard Area: City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft The height of slope, slope gradient, and cross section of the project area; ii. Stormwater runoff disposal location and flow patterns; and iii. The location and description of surface water runoff. 2. A geotechnical study that addresses the geologic characteristics and engineering properties of the soils, sediments, and/or rock of the project area and potentially affected adjacent properties, including: a. A description of the surface and subsurface geology, hydrology, soils, and vegetation found in the project area and in all hazard areas addressed in the report; b. A detailed overview of the field investigations; published data and references; data and conclusions from past assessments of the site; and site specific measurements, test, investigations, or studies that support the identification of geologically hazardous areas; c. Site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading; d. A description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic and other geologic events; e. Proposals impacting an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area shall include the following additional information: A description of the extent and type of vegetative cover; ii. An estimate of load capacity including surface and groundwater conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations, and all structural development; iii. An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the slope over the estimated life of the structure; iv. An estimate of the bluff retreat rate that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100 year storm event; v. Consideration of the run-out hazard of landslide debris and/or the impacts of landslide run-out on down slope properties; vi. A study of slope stability including an analysis of proposed angles of cut and fill, and site grading; vii. Recommendations for building limitations, structural foundations, and an estimate of foundation settlement; and viii. An analysis of proposed surface and subsurface drainage, and the vulnerability of the site to erosion. f. A detailed description of the project, its relationship to the geologic hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the subject property, and affected adjacent properties; g. Recommendations for the minimum no-disturbance buffer and minimum building setback from any geologic hazard based upon the geotechnical analysis; h. A mitigation plan addressing how the activity maintains or reduces the pre-existing level of risk to the site and adjacent properties on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or occupation); Proposals impacting an Erosion or Landslide Hazard Area shall include the following additional information: City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft An erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with requirements set forth in SVMC 22.150 Stormwater Management Regulations; and ii. Drainage plan for the collection, transport, treatment, discharge, and recycle of water; j. Location and methods of drainage, surface water management, locations and methods of erosion control, a vegetation management and replanting plan, or other means for maintaining long-term soil stability; and k. A plan and schedule to monitor stormwater runoff discharges from the site shall be included if there is a significant risk of damage to downstream receiving waters due to: Potential erosion from the site; ii. The size of the project; or iii. The proximity to or the sensitivity of the receiving waters. 3. A geotechnical report, prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions are unchanged, may be incorporated into the required critical area report. The Applicant shall submit a geotechnical assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site. 21.50.560 Frequently flooded areas - Shoreline critical area regulations. A. Incorporation and applicability. SVMC 21.30 Floodplain Regulations are incorporated by reference herein and apply to all uses, activities, and structures within frequently flooded areas. B. Additional critical areas report requirements for frequently flooded areas. In addition to the critical area report requirements in SVMC 21.50.500, critical area reports for frequently flooded areas shall include: 1. A site plan showing: a. All areas of a special flood hazard within 200 feet of the project area, as indicated on the flood insurance map(s); b. Floodplain (100-year flood elevation), 10- and 50-year flood elevations, floodway, other critical areas, buffers, and shoreline areas; and c. Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures, and the level to which any nonresidential structure has been flood proofed. Alterations of natural watercourses shall be avoided, if feasible. If unavoidable, the critical area report shall include: A description of and plan showing the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated; ii. A maintenance plan that provides maintenance practices for the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse to ensure that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished and downstream or upstream properties are not impacted; and iii. A description of how the proposed watercourse alteration complies with the requirements of FWHCAs, the SMP, and other applicable state or federal permit requirements. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program Regulations, September 9, 2014 City Council Draft APPENDIX A-1 DRAFT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DEFINITIONS A. General Provisions. The definitions provided herein are supplemental to the definitions provided in Appendix A and only apply for use with the City's SMP,including chapter 21.50 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Solely for purposes of the City's SMP,if a conflict exists between these definitions and definitions in Appendix A,the definitions in Appendix A-1 shall govern. The definition of any word or phrase not listed in Appendix A-1 which is ambiguous when administering the SMP shall be defined by the City's Community Development Director,or his/her designee, from the following sources in the order listed: 1. Any City of Spokane Valley resolution,ordinance,code,or regulation; 2. Any statute or regulation of the State of Washington; 3. Legal definitions from the Hearings Board,from Washington common law,or the most recently adopted Black's Law Dictionary; or 4. The most recently-adopted Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. B. Definitions. Accessory or appurtenant structures: A structure that is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence,including garages, sheds,decks,driveways,utilities,fences, swimming pools,hot tubs, saunas,tennis courts,installation of a septic tank and drainfield, and grading which does not exceed 250 cubic yards and does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the OHWM. Agricultural activities: Relating to the science or art of cultivating soil or producing crops to be used or consumed directly or indirectly by man or livestock,or raising of livestock. The term has the full meaning as set forth in WAC 173-26-020(3)(a)as adopted or amended. Amendment: A revision,update, addition,deletion, and/or reenactment to an existing SMP. Applicant: A person who files an application for permit under the SMP and may be the owner of the land on which the proposed activity would be located, a contract purchaser,or the authorized agent of such a person. Aquaculture: The culture or farming of fish, shellfish,or other aquatic plants and animals. Associated wetlands: Those wetlands (see"Wetlands"definition)that are in proximity to and either influence,or are influenced by, a lake or stream subject to the SMA. Average grade level: The average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the lot,parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building or structure;provided that in case of structures to be built over water,average grade level shall be the elevation of OHWM. Calculation of the average grade level shall be made by averaging the elevations at the center of all exterior walls of the proposed building or structure. Best Management Practices(BMPS): Site-specific design strategies,techniques,technologies, conservation and maintenance practices,or systems of practices and management measures that minimize adverse impacts from the development or use of a site. Bioengineering: Project designs or construction methods which use living plant material or a combination of living plant material and natural or synthetic materials to establish a complex root grid within the bank which is resistant to erosion,provides bank stability, and promotes a healthy riparian environment. Bioengineering approaches may include use of wood structures or clean angular rock to provide stability. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program City Council Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 1 Boating facilities: Boating facilities include boat launches,ramps,public docks,commercial docks,and private docks serving more than four residences,together with accessory uses such as Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant access routes,boat and equipment storage,user amenities such as benches and picnic tables, and restroom facilities. Buffer or Shoreline buffer: The horizontal distance from the OHWM or critical area which is established to preserve shoreline or critical area functions by limiting or restricting development. See Appendix A-2, Shoreline Buffers Map. Permitted development and activities within buffers depend on the type of critical area or resource land the buffer is protecting. Clearing: The destruction or removal of ground cover, shrubs,and trees including,but not limited to, root material removal and/or topsoil removal. Commercial uses: Those uses that are involved in wholesale,retail,service, and business trade. Examples of commercial uses include restaurants,offices, and retail shops. Conditional use: A use,project,or substantial development which is classified as a conditional use or is not classified within the SMP. Degrade: To impair with respect to some physical or environmental property or to reduce in structure or function. Development: A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; filling;removal of any sand,gravel,or minerals;bulkheading; driving of piling;placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the SMA at any stage of water level. Development regulations: The controls placed on development or land uses by the City,including,but not limited to,zoning ordinances,building codes,critical areas ordinances, all portions of the SMP other than goals and policies approved or adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW,planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. Dock: A floating platform over water used for moorage of recreational or commercial watercraft. Dredging: The removal of sediment,earth,or gravel from the bottom of a body of water, for the deepening of navigational channels,to mine the sediment materials,to restore water bodies, for flood control,or for cleanup of polluted sediments. Ecological functions or Shoreline functions: The work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. Ecology: Washington State Department of Ecology. Ecosystem-wide process: The suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of erosion, transport,and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological functions. Enhancement: Alteration of an existing resource to improve its ecological function without degrading other existing functions. Exemption or Exempt development: Exempt developments are those set forth in WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030(3)(e),RCW 90.58.140(9),RCW 90.58.147, RCW 90.58.355, and RCW 90.58.515. See also"Shoreline exemption,letter of'. Feasible: An action, such as a project,mitigation measure,or preservation requirement,which meets all of the following conditions: City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program City Council Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 2 1. The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in similar circumstances,or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; 2. The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; 3. The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's intended legal use; and 4. In cases where the SMP requires certain actions unless they are infeasible,the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action's infeasibility,the City may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits,considered in the short- and long-term time frames. Fill: The addition of soil, sand,rock,gravel, sediment,earth retaining structure,or other material to an area waterward of the OHWM,in wetlands,or on shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land. Depositing topsoil in a dry upland area for landscaping purposes is not considered a fill. Flood hazard reduction: Measures taken to reduce flood damage or hazards. Flood hazard reduction measures may consist of nonstructural measures, such as setbacks,land use controls,wetland restoration, dike removal,use relocation,biotechnical measures, and stormwater management programs, and of structural measures, such as dikes,levees,revetments,floodwalls,channel realignment, and elevation of structures consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program. Footprint: That area defined by the outside face of the exterior walls of a structure. Forest practices: Any activity relating to growing,harvesting,or processing timber,including,but not limited to,uses defined in RCW 76.09.020. Grading: The movement or redistribution of the soil, sand,rock,gravel, sediment,or other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land. Habitat: The place or type of site where a plant or animal lives and grows. Habitat enhancement: Actions performed within an existing shoreline,critical area,or buffer to intentionally increase or augment one or more ecological functions or values, such as increasing aquatic and riparian plant diversity or cover,increasing structural complexity,installing environmentally compatible erosion controls,or removing non-indigenous plant or animal species. Hearings Board: The Shoreline Hearings Board established by the SMA. Height: Height is measured from average grade level to the highest point of a structure;provided that television antennas,chimneys, and similar appurtenances shall not be used in calculating height;provided further that temporary construction equipment is excluded from this calculation. In-stream structure: A structure placed by humans within a stream or river waterward of the OHWM that either causes or has the potential to cause water impoundment or cause the diversion,obstruction,or modification of water flow. In-stream structures may include those for hydroelectric generation, irrigation,water supply, flood control,transportation,utility service transmission,fish habitat enhancement,recreation,or other purpose. Industrial uses: Facilities for processing,manufacturing,fabrication, assembly, and storage of finished or semi-finished products. Landward: To,or towards,the land in a direction away from a water body. May: The action is acceptable,provided it conforms to the provisions of this SMP. Mining: The removal of sand,gravel, soil,minerals, and other earth materials for commercial and other uses. Mitigation or Mitigation sequencing: To avoid,minimize,or compensate for adverse impacts. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program City Council Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 3 Native: For the purposes of this SMP,"native"means a plant or animal species that naturally occurs in Spokane County,or occurred in Spokane County at the time of Euro-American exploration and settlement,beginning in the early 19th century. No net loss: The standard for protection of shoreline ecological functions established in RCW 36.70A.480 as adopted or amended, and as that standard is interpreted on an on-going basis by courts,the Growth Management Hearings Board,or the Hearings Board. The concept of"no net loss" as used herein,recognizes that any use or development has potential or actual,short-term or long-term impacts which may diminish ecological function and that through application of appropriate development standards and employment of mitigation measures in accordance with mitigation sequencing,those impacts will be addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the end result will not cumulatively diminish the shoreline resources and values as they currently exist. Where uses or development that impact ecological functions are necessary to achieve other objectives of RCW 90.58.020,the no net loss standard protects to the greatest extent feasible existing ecological functions and favors avoidance of new impacts to habitat and ecological functions before implementing other measures designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. Nonconforming structure: A structure within the shoreline which was lawfully constructed or established within the application process prior to the effective date of the SMA or the SMP,or amendments thereto,but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the SMP. Nonconforming use: A shoreline use which was lawfully established or established within the application process prior to the effective date of the SMA or the SMP,or amendments thereto,but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the SMP. Non water-oriented uses: Any uses that are not water-dependent,water-related,or water-enjoyment as defined by the SMP. Off-site mitigation: To replace wetlands or other shoreline environmental resources away from the site on which a resource has been impacted by an activity. Ordinary high water mark(OHWM): The mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland,in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter,or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by the City,provided that in any area where the OHWM cannot be found,the OHWM adjoining freshwater shall be the line of mean high water. Pier: A fixed platform over water used for moorage of recreational or commercial watercraft. Priority habitats and species: Habitats and species designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as requiring protective measures for their survival due to population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational,commercial,or tribal importance. Priority species include State Endangered,Threatened, Sensitive,and Candidate species;animal aggregations(such as bat colonies) considered vulnerable; and species of recreational,commercial,or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains maps of known locations of priority habitats and species in Washington State. Provisions: Policies,regulations, standards,guideline criteria,or environment designations. Public access: The ability of the general public to reach,touch, and enjoy the water's edge,to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Public facilities: Facilities and structures,operated for public purpose and benefit,including,but not limited to, solid waste handling and disposal,water transmission lines,sewage treatment facilities and City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program City Council Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 4 mains,power generating and transfer facilities,gas distribution lines and storage facilities, stormwater mains, and wastewater treatment facilities. Qualified professional: A person who,in the opinion of the Director,has appropriate education,training and experience in the applicable field to generate a report or study required in this SMP. 1. For reports related to wetlands,this means a certified professional wetland scientist or a non-certified professional wetland scientist with a minimum of five years' experience in the field of wetland science and with experience preparing wetland reports. 2. For reports related to critical aquifer recharge areas,this means a hydrogeologist, geologist,or engineer,who is licensed in the State of Washington and has experience preparing hydrogeologic assessments. 3. For reports related to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas this means a biologist with experience preparing reports for the relevant type of habitat. 4. For reports related to geologically hazardous areas this means a geotechnical engineer or geologist,licensed in the State of Washington,with experience analyzing geologic, hydrologic, and ground water flow systems. 5. For reports related to frequently flooded areas this means a hydrologist or engineer, licensed in the State of Washington with experience in preparing flood hazard assessments. 6. For reports related to cultural and archaeological resources and historic preservation,this means a professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional. RCW: Revised Code of Washington. Recreational use: Commercial and public facilities designed and used to provide recreational opportunities to the public. Residential use: Uses for residential purpose. Restore, restoration, or ecological restoration: The reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including,but not limited to,revegetation,removal of intrusive shoreline structures,and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre- European settlement conditions. Riparian area: The interface area between land and a river or stream. The area includes plant and wildlife habitats and communities along the river margins and banks. Setback or shoreline setback: The minimum required distance between a structure and the shoreline buffer that is to remain free of structures. Shall: An action that is mandatory and not discretionary. Shorelands or shoreland areas: Those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the OHWM; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands associated with the streams and lakes which are subject to the provisions of the SMA and the SMP; all of which will be designated as to location by Ecology. Shoreline exemption,letter of: Documentation provided by the City that proposed development qualifies as an Exempt Development(as that term is defined herein)and that the proposed development is consistent with chapter 21.50 SVMC and other local and state requirements,including the State Environmental Policy Act as adopted or amended when applicable. Shoreline jurisdiction and shoreline areas: All"shorelines of the state" and"shorelands". Shoreline Management Act(SMA): The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW as adopted or amended. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program City Council Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 5 Shoreline Master Program (SMP): The comprehensive use plan applicable to the shorelines of the state within the City,including the use regulations,together with maps,goals and policies,and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020. Shoreline modifications: Those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area,usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike,breakwater,pier, weir,dredged basin, fill,bulkhead,or other shoreline structure. They can include other actions,such as clearing,grading,or application of chemicals. Shoreline permit(s): Means any substantial development,variance,conditional use permit,or revision authorized under chapter 21.50 SVMC and chapter 90.58 RCW. Shoreline stabilization: Actions taken to prevent or mitigate erosion impacts to property or structures caused by shoreline processes such as currents,floods,or wind action. Shoreline stabilization includes, but is not limited to, structural armoring approaches such as bulkheads,bulkhead alternatives,and nonstructural approaches such as bioengineering. Shoreline substantial development permit: A permit required by the SMP for substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction. Shorelines: All of the water areas of the state,including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them,except(a) shorelines of statewide significance; (b)shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and(c) shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. Shorelines of statewide significance: Has the meaning as set forth in RCW 90.58.030(2)(f) as adopted or amended. Shorelines of the state: The total of all"shorelines" and"shorelines of statewide significance"within the state. Should: An action which is required unless there is a demonstrated,compelling reason based on policy of the SMA and the SMP, against taking the action. Substantial development: Any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $6,416, or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The current thresholds will be adjusted for inflation by the State Office of Financial Management every five years,beginning from July 1,2007. Temporary impact: Impacts to a critical area that are less than one year and expected to be restored following construction. Transportation facilities: Facilities consisting of the means and equipment necessary for the movement of passengers or goods. Upland: Generally described as the dry land area above and landward of the OHWM. Utilities: Services and facilities that produce,convey, store or process power,gas, sewage,water, stormwater, communications,oil, and waste. Variance: A process to grant relief from the specific bulk,dimensional,or performance standards through submission of a shoreline variance. A variance is not a means to change the allowed use of a shoreline. Viewing platform: A platform located landward of the OHWM used for viewing pleasure. WAC: Washington Administrative Code. Water-dependent use: A use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the water and which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program City Council Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 6 Water-enjoyment use: A recreational use or other use that facilitates public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of the use and which through location,design, and operation ensures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use,the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Water-oriented use: A use that is water-dependent,water-related,or water-enjoyment,or a combination of such uses. Water quality: The physical characteristics of water within the shoreline jurisdiction,including water quantity,hydrological,physical,chemical,aesthetic,recreation-related,and biological characteristics. Water quantity: The flow rate and/or flow volume of stormwater or surface water. Where used in the SMP,the term "water quantity" refers to uses and/or structures regulated under the SMP affecting water quantity, such as impermeable surfaces and stormwater handling practices. Water quantity, for purposes of the SMP,does not mean the withdrawal of groundwater or diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340. Water-related use: A use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because: 1. The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or 2. The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent uses and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support,a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites,including,but not limited to,irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales,canals,detention facilities,wastewater treatment facilities,farm ponds, and landscape amenities,or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990,that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road,street,or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. City of Spokane Valley I Shoreline Master Program City Council Draft Definitions—Appendix A-1 r ,„_., .... . ‘ ,-,. ,r 1. _ t ,L 1„,,,. . _ _ _ , _ „,.. / ;•-.-Q 1 r ' , `kms I,f ',`,"4',, s t o - r': 1 4 104 s� t +` n! f Iva!' 141. ; 1 ,� 11 mpg xy ttriN .. � a f + ' �t ,! + — I., .,-iT d ? .lei -rt I�Fi., , r'J Ai %. 4r-...or 01111 y`1";1.:4,-, 1`.�-•.- .x 7 Y vcjG.I s = f 3 jl amain 1 rte_ J -r{ - i 1 _•.:: 9 ,I . ,I� }Ty�i `!py a gip,. * v - if Q ,T _ r =,....., ,, .,,,,... . _ t1�P.nr tont ad• F } - 1 r r �, „ r 1 Fm. :‘, .11157-r1 +—M1.1k rfi (� >t `'i1 1 7 R4�t��I y. ., �' �,I �J TMP,!F ” W - W111111:.. _.�tir 3,.j" �1r`4"-,,� w-: .fit• '` ti'1'.I,�•, �. _l'—'7-10-or 'i r -,41'-f �� F - .-x �� r_____)11 'm -;,. , �'V, IIII'�a�q Et-4 , ,. °� � 1 ,.r ' ( � ,.. I��11IIii .. ice . i- 'r ''f's�, fi� i A ! � „„,,,,-.% T �4 .: i •. �,' ' F kt ``;4-_L �. f 9k I q« .l= S i to r, 4-,+. _ < -• o. %l' -,•,'a-- fit. 1;,, r il, t 11 .,'.___ •-:( 'S` d.. t L ` N `..r .r„^t" '- x .,,,,. ., = 4 v ':v •-ao",r .fix'• t 2° - L �- _a :Y T-.✓ z'."' 'r:3- ' `.^'' 1•k .i....1..„,,,,.;. A*�� r _ c. -��-ry, °All 't s 'ff��'l :s. PUN r Ifs` 'LA ri err I L „ ,-„ a n =+... ,47,-,. ... _ 'III .rv.� - a ` v a s a \_ _ YI ® W. B. I ti. W. $ I "' • �X' Orchard Avenue �v f'- ` g `^ - ., ' I`IIIII� Ilii �' �` +�yL + ¢ Teo Q...41' ; ' _ 4 , !,- 4111/-11 '. _ - 6 r"w .1 1 _s ., R ,....f,,4,--...,r �^ , y ' • 14v/f, 0' •• V.„....-• if. iti 4'4•'-".4".." - '.I' ' _er'. 114. 1 pt" ^til a ,. 'il. t.r". t .,': at _ ,} ... r • '' u, : : cy.ir;_,.-- r . .•. t' ;�i.- (i. , + 'Y r.�Y zy,r1 c• .E'er _ i d I- �,---`- i e�. J a'�I, "� �� r ,—:iY] � r�3;`_ F'w�'..r lr r •1� � .•,.r�� y � p•'.� � •�� A�• +h z y i { - --1. a, cud: .:.: ...•::1 a? :L4' ._.__, '_ -:.'"' °' _ V,.� .yam.,,. _ n .'.. __ _;L r''' .w- ,4 .. �..°.. > ' '`l e r,__a _W.• - ° I�rt �c .yr� ;{,` IN unFs F a , Ordinary High Water Line•��^��^�^Centennial Trail __Li_ r---- City Council Draft 1 Shoreline Jurisdiction City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Buffers Map Buffer «.<,,,.M., Cdy of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update September9,2014 m,,,00,„«,,,,«,,, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 9, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration - Sidewalk Infill Project Phase 2 (#0149) Bid Award GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion at 8/24/10 meeting followed by an Admin Report RCA on 9/21/10 to move forward with the CMAQ funding application. An Information RCA on 8/27/12 with a phase 1 bid award motion on September 4, 2012. BACKGROUND: The Sidewalk Infill Project constructs miscellaneous sidewalk projects throughout the City. The projects focus on improvements within the walking radius of schools, high density housing, commercial districts and transit facilities. Phase 1 of the project included sidewalk on Pines Road between 16th and 23rd Avenue. Also included in the Phase 1 bid was street preservation work and storm drainage improvements. This project was completed in June 2013. Phase 2 will include sidewalk on Perrine, Farr and 6 bus shelter pads located at various sites throughout the city. See attached map. Phase 2 bids were opened on Friday, August 29. The bid tabulations are attached. The low bid came in below the Engineer's Estimate. OPTIONS: 1) Award contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or 2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to award the bid for the Sidewalk Infill Project — Phase 2 #0149 to Cameron Reilly, LLC in the amount of $208,937.20 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are sufficient project funds to award this project. The following is a breakdown of the project funding: Project Revenues Project Expenditures CMAQ Grant $572,400 PE - Phase 1 & Phase 2 $140,117 City Match $143,100 RW - Phase 2 $ 52,679 EECBG Grant $ 55,000 CN - Phase 1 $590,724 Pavement Pres. (Fund 311) $131,040 Estimated Expenditures to Date $783,520 Stormwater (402 Fund) $ 38,415 Anticipated Expenditures Subtotal Revenues $939,955 PE — Phase 2 $ 200 Additional CMAQ Grant $160,000 RW— Phase 2 $ 0 Additional City Match $ 40,000 CN — Remaining Phase 2 $356,235 Total Revenues $1,139,955 Total Anticipated Expenditures $356,435 Total Project Expenditures $1,139,955 STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, P.E. — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric Guth, P.E. — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Project Map, Bid Tabulation BID TABULATION _ Sidewalk Infill Project-Phase 2 5 ii f ktane K. A Project CIP No. 0149 vP WA MSQ BID OPENING DATE - August 29,201410:00 A.M. Q `Q ' . z s .' f ! Engineers Estimate Cameron Reilly Winkler i .Y- NUMBER ITEM Unit QUANTITY ITEM A Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost q g6g07 ,Q- - -r: FO�STEF��O BASE BID SCHEDULE A-Lane Widening,Sidewalk and Rostripingr"NAL IStlfl� 101 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 L5 $13,352.00 LS $28,614.10 1!� 102 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING 1 LS $15000.00 $15,000.00 LS $3,500.00 LS $2,325.00 103 SPCC PLAN 1 LS $700.00- $700.00 LS $500.00 LS _$550.00 104 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $1,700.00 $1,700.00 LS $2,500.00 LS _ $55000 105 TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 LS $500.00 LS $115.00 106 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 LS $16,500.00 LS $35,983.50 107 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 LS $5,000.00, $5,000.00 LS $6,000.00 LS $2,875.06- 108 LARGE TREE REMOVAL 3 EA $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $2,300.00 $6,900.00 109 SAWCUT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 4,180 LF-IN $1.00 $4,180.00 $1.00 $4,180.00 $0.33 $1,379.40 110 ROADWAY EXCAV.INCL HAUL _ 80 CY $7500 $6,000.00 $70.00 $5,600.00 $2300.00' $184,000,00 111 EMBANKMENT COMPACTION METHOD C 40 CY $50.00 $2,000.00 $20.00 $800.00 $57.50 $2,300.00 112 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 1 DRIVEWAY APPROAC 80 SY $12.00 $960.00 $1000 $800.00 . $28.75 $2,300.00 113 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 475 SY $10.00 $4,750.00 $10.00 $4,750.00 $17.25 $8,193.75 114 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB 520 LF $8.00 $4,160.00 $6.00 $3,120.00 $5.75 $2,990.00 - 115 REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN 2 EA $650.00 $1,300.00. $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $920.00 $1,840.00 116 REMOVE STORM DRAIN PIPE 25 LF $12.00 $300.00 $50.00 $1,250.00_ $17.25 $431.25 117 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 2 IN.DEPTH 710 SY $15.00 $13650.00 $4.00 $2,840.00 $4.48 $3,180.80 118 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,4 IN.DEPTH 780 SY $18.00 $14,040.00 $8.07 $6.29400 $7.94 _ $6,193.20 119 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,_6 IN.DEPTH 410 SY $20.00 $8,200.00 $11.66 $4,780.60 $12.65 $5,186.50 120 HMA CL.112"PG 64-28,0.25 FT DEPTH 180 SY $28.00 $5,040.00 $37.00 $6,660.00 $37.29 $6,712.20 121 HMA.CL.1/2"PG 64-28,0,33 FT DEPTH 200 SY $35.00 $7,000.00 $42.00 $8,400.00 $40.68 $8,136.00 122 HMA CL.112"PG 64-28,0.5 FT DEPTH 9 SY $70.00 $630.00 $250.00 $2,250.00 $226.00 $2,034.00 123 HMA.Patch CL.112"PG 64-28,0.17 FT DEPTH MISCELLANOUS AF 25 SY $4500 $1,125.00 $125.00 $3,125.00 $113.00 $2,825 00 124 JOINT ADHESIVE 1,190 LF $1.25 $1,487.50 $1.00 $1,190.00 $2.00 $2,380.00 125 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT 1 CALC $1.00 $1.00 CALC 51 00 CALC 51 00 126 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT 1 CALC -$1.00 {$1.00) CALC 151.001 CALC (51.001_ 127 CATCHBASIN TYPE 1 3 EA $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $2,000.00 _ $6,000.00 $1,356.00 $4,068.00 128 CONNECTION TO EXISTING DRYWELL 3 EA $500.00 $1,500.00 $750.00 $2,250.00 $282.50 $84750 129 DUCTILE IRON STORM SEWER PIPE,10"DIAMETER 98 LF $65.00 $6,370,00 $75.00 $7,350.00 $67.80 $6,644.40 130 SPILL CONTROL SEPARTOR 3 EA $400.00 $1,200.00 $450.00 $1,350.00 $226.00 $678.00 131 ADJUST EXISTING CATCHBASIN OR DRYWELL 3 EA $550.00 $1,650.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 $282.50 $847.50 132 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE 1 EA $550.00 $550.00 $600.00 $600.00 $282.50 $262.50 133 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE 5 EA $300.00 $1,500.00 $350.00 _ $1,750.00 $169.50 $847.50 134 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB 800 LF $20.00 $16,000.00 $14.00 $11,200.00 $16.00 $12,800.00 135 CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB 160 LF $22.00 $3,520.00 $16.00 $2,560.00 $22.00 $3,520.00 136 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB WALL 80 LF $40.00 $3,200.00 $45.00 $3,600.00 $56.09 $4,487.20 137 CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APPROACH 80 SY $50.00 _ $4,000.00 $60.00 $4,800.00 $30.26 $2,420.80 138 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 460 SY $50.00 $23000.00 $45.00 $20,700.00 $24.77 $11,394.20 139 CEMENT CONCRETE BUS SHELTER PAD 96 SY $80.00 $7,680.00 _ $80.00 $7,680.00 $77.00 $7,392.00 - 140 STAMPED CEMENT CONCRETE 33 SY $100.00 $3,300.00 $100.00 $3,300.00 $107.70 $3,554.10 141 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP,TYPE A,SINGLF DIRECTION 4 EA 51 200.00 $4,800.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 $4.00" $16.00 142 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE A,PARALLEL 1�EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $850.00 _ $850.00 143 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP,TYPE B,PARALLEL 2 EA $1,200.00 $2,400.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 _$65,000.00"" $130,000.00 144 SEEDING,FERTILIZING AND MULCHING 140 SY $10.00 $1,400.00 $15.00 $2,100.00 $11.50 $1,610.00 145 TOPSOIL,TYPE 8 42 SY $9.00 $378.00 $15.00 $630.00 $23.00 $966.00 146 SOD INSTALLATION 42 SY $16.00 $672.00 $25.00 $1,050.00 $23.00 $966.00 147 BARK MULCH 65 SY $14.00 $910.00 $25.00 $1,625.00 $28.75 $1,868.75 148 RIVER ROCK 2 SY $40.00 $80.00 . $100.00 $200.00 _ $115.00 $230.00 149 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISIONS _ 4 EA $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $50000 $2,000.00 _ $575.00 $2,300.00 150 MAILBOX SUPPORT,TYPE 1 _ 3 EA $500.00 $1,500.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 $385.25 $1,155.75 151 PERMANENT SIGNING 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 LS $1,200.00LS $1,029.25 TOTAL BID SCHEDULE $251,032.50 $208,937.20 r $518,770.15""' 'Math Error corrected from the actual Bid Form for the total.The unit bid price was utilized as written of"2300"Tho incorrect total was 1,840. "Math Error corrected from the actual Bid Form for the total.The unit bid price was utilized as written of"4.00". The incorrect total was 3,360. ""Math Error corrected from the actual Bid Form for the total.The unit bid price was utilized as written of"65000". The incorrect total was 1,300. -"-The total was corrected after the 3 errors on the bid tab were addressed. Bid deposit surety bond Yes Yes DBE Goal Met based on corrected total Yes No SIDEWALK INFILL PROJECT mu Iw�� ! 111 1 i 11■■Illllllll�i i '":A'"141..1 'r 141..G Li� =■111111 Ip111■JIIII■=�11�1'. - �- �.1�■i Ili �- I -11\■' ■ 11.1! ■■■■111//111��Illi�1,■■111.11 IIII■l r 11�� /-11... . r r " :■ ■- 1111 Inn sits 11111--°IIID-5 •:.11111111. ''. ■■ °=iIIl�IIIIIluIIih �••.. ■. "■ r 1�.r r In%il 1111.1111__a1 .r .�, �•loria\\\\\\ 1111 ��•I,I'Imre. .rr -.. •IIIL' ■■■■■■•IIII:e ■■I11:. j j .. r.: 11un- 11 1.11\�■ � �.� ..11111111■ ��-III 11i r11Li�Y X111111.■. .uG+i.-IIII■1 11 ■�■�_'■■III�YiL'�.�f■ 1 '�III ■� • X1111//1111 ��-I1■1111w: +�an �r � r .�111 ■ 1111111-7 r. '�is--- S . r1 1 -a■■1111■ •1._\_,�.. _= n■ ■�1Ip�= ■■�lI!L V�Sliu�l■■�_I�_ ■111.III�11I IIIIPI C �C■I�1■��:1��n .Emir." ;II:1"-j ■IM_;; •• , tial MI.■MI 111ln 11 mq I `warp-- I m 1 L 11,11111.1=,IMI'_cm.. r?I==° SII �■ ■11 11�Ti.111... Ilnun■Illluu�111.1 I! 1 I I i ...15;AI._n mull■• ....I uuu.n\ 'IGu1 _E. _ 1 ■ •' 1. nnu •�• , ' S _ �• 11211111m ow MI No�11a =I i.11■\\\■11 Ill_j1 �IIIIIII'-i .- Ilia■- ` y';+111111111.11:C::P �. SW 1 ni X111■�1�:.■ -mil-=-1' , s =��\nnn111-j'r 01.-- I ■■11.IIIL 111■: _- C: r r 1 ■ 111n:io�= •"' 1t R 1 - - ■1111■■. _�■___i r E-.1..l■...J ■ Li'- hili-nn.� -.it - �■ ,I -.-- ...■1n\\t\\r. ■��7m ■ u..•'A .■■ X1111 .r R„-_7 i -�� tltl .=��_��ou1 IIS III. �■ ��II[1'} 11�■�-.r r� �r_�� j Iain=��_i■liii 'l- ...1I' � , 1 IIrgII�'[ �i1112111` 211■11■=Csling'aV' • VIII L1=1�1,�■�1 _ •I 1 , -� 1 1 ' III I �� alio Limn.- En'sa..... _ ■ ��I� �1 rtt I E �' jrLi 111 I■1111■ I I - ` tun liwwuu'��1■mi1, �iI 1s' �. � � I. -.....l n■T',r.mN 12�' 121111 1 _■■.1, _ """,;:.111111=-IIII 1�1u'■.., "IIIIII:IIIIIIII: :i: 1 ..:.■.:� 111 LEGEND i 1■�' ��•''1I�1■ul1�l�l�� I 1111.■ 111 I■■ ■=11111■•� ul■■ IIII■. mu■■ lll■ ..� ... IIIn111 ..■Sill 1 11 III lir--op 1 111■1111■IIIIIIIIII-u.II\ 1-p 1.111 / i I'1�11� %lii ■ 111111111■1�,-LII■ '�MIRE r-r ■1 'III" r r-• .=n 11111111111\ 11t■11 .■■\\ in ,ll ' 'T 11'-=i rr.r . _ ■-•\r Lon r'III •- 111111tt■11t\�IIItIt �1■_r IA* `x1111::i i n I■1■■ 1•a 1g III Imo 1 11111111= r..-- ��e. �■•,\111'/� ■11�� 0 1 ` ......: luuw- !1 ii. ■u.1.....m l•mut !MU _�■�1111■■ pI11111111■ ■■ IIn■.,11....• 1 ,.-: ■r=i-�� ■■111111111111\=111111 MI.m• 90 r".'1C 11111■1 ■1■■■Il■■■■111:41nu■111111■i1111n1II,I11u iiII;:i'� r'1 .r�.,. ��nlllnlllll lI■n■1,:1111"�� 11 AND 1 lal •-- ,1::,.111■1■ :■11■llllp■p.■IIIII■pIIII=■■�i'+I111,�1111� -°i ��illi 111111 ill luuuuu\L:■\nnr� ■r Nth RTRANSIT ROUTE OUTE NUMBER -molt a 1�_ a. ■ `J •■,1 -uk.nom ILLlll■nnt• :■u - �. ■ .r••3 ' '--■id■111�■Ill 'III 111=-III■IL:IlLlllmo ■X11111\1111 I p...:11111�11��1111 j 1fpp11 j_-p rim 1.C•un 1111\11. 5n.Illlli:�\111\\111.ran` �X1111■VIII■ ■..• WE IIIIIIIIM NUM •_l•1111■111111 wins ItIII� 111\1:11 Ellin HEM VIII 111 1111111111\1. �\ 111.111\\111 ..•• _ lk ■••■\1■ IIIP11 IuIlIl II.IIIII.I11I1 , I..i...1111111i a....1.1E■\\\■HIM 1.111111••e=• 11..1111 - - - - - - FILL L En :•Q\111111■ 1111'ii \ , ru111lltlllt.I\llihu hill■.�r1 r 1 U! nil _ ■ItII1.I■\\■r-311.1.54,.� SIDEWALK IN • •11::11\1� .■._ ®IIIIII\11\\■■■l _ i1■ (PHASE 1) VW 1 ��.�11I111 11111.■c =>III \!■ unman■1■It1t■\1I1■ili■iI �■��_� 1 ��■■1111■\\\■\■11� in:, LI Q♦■■1111 -111!n ■!II\ 4Il�ull11111111.\.\1■■IIII - 'rola a F� IIII■Il•I■■ill Val IMO\\■\■■1■■ 1 L .II :\ Vit:1111.11-11:i 111II i■. ■■111 ■•n11■■1111 OnliiiIl\ ■1.■11111■■ Moini•II■111 IC:■ 11 11 11 FILL illllllll.u� _ ::i ��j i�♦� •=11■� �� ■■IIIInnl....a■111\.I/11-1. II.-... ■■ .n ■■■C1111r.11111■11■■■■■■■ i� 1■_r. HASE I SIDEWALK IN • ♦�I ♦ ... E. L__■:or,111--IIIIIE�ill■r,-...mum ilk 11 ■ m; r'II (P 2) AI•,_ ID -..- LLLLLL LLL 1 ,- -- ■ .. �-�.it r. . �\■■■ ■■■ l ;��,�...r 1 E. .•nip. ■ �r..=..1.a.- 1■m !\1\\r.. .■It■■.■■■= ,"nm• �■ 111/1111/ 11_1_-_ i.. ...no .r o �i� �I*, r♦♦♦ ;X111 1111 III:11111 -�� ■I'['�-gig,11•r... �■ I i1 '' lied. 'i;:::■C"1~_s),i%�m •� TRANSIT SHELTER �i ►�i♦ ♦� .111®MIC 1- . -,�...11\\� • ,I�IIIU'I\\.ui r �".• •iii 1.IIu MI:IIII�'2 IIIIII in us. -1=Ai el 'a=.ii Inn U'uu ■ Aril�i g■.mt1 * LOCATION O•. F,vl t u 1! C:Pawn .\ow\i.■. LO 2S ♦I nthinun 11:■11 1111111 Intl:111 CIII L III....SAM M-M.--O-OM:1 ■-Mr r.•r ••� TY �_�� 111111■I:.11 cum.0.0:n -• /A 1�1,4-i:i...az....m_ a X11■� LjaiHEM111- 12..atil_ga / . •1 r ..-..... ..-:� HIGH DEN �si. unnlmq i I r ♦Ir 1..\ 11 ap. �-....E��. !F v uummn -_ • 11♦1-- IIIIII1111\�1j.\�\.��_-- HOUSING '11,11 w ■p � ■n■n1.mull ■\nun 11 . ► . ... :�\1111■11■■�4101111 ■■.■1■MIMI ng■u1111I �."rm. .\. 1111 IIg1 1`111 111 •• � +A■ul M� Win.11.11 ..■..■OI/wa 7 G�q■-m uri U.nigu1\ ♦..\y1 �02%"...Hsi 1i 11111��••LLLL ♦Ginu■n■�� .nn now noon ....!.410,14,A.lel J.1li I a■r1■nq,� 1,1j1i NV. OA goo 101 j1 j,w17 Lu pum■■ �� .nu noW enwirCiatlaiw,►4 I p gi .h1 It p y11 to♦ un\v, VOIWOn■1,.►♦ 1WI IlI11nI Ln:iS,n 1■ 1111-r■.■■.♦♦♦ .1 1111 1 1 111 ♦♦� ■n■■ ♦p l pr1� , .i.i. 11■..p. i 1111 I`I■�1 11n■"♦i♦ ioII,z„, III1„ �i�. ir. lll �i IT N e tC.wsz1�1U ■-■nen anal slits • ��IIY■li:w mote ♦ r1► 11►*so ♦... �� x-11- �■...■■•1\II■�� ♦�♦♦ `IIII H.�.... 4:4-40-..7 �U. nasrii� ervell EEEElElEW.I11111111■ 010100 11 ♦1♦ IIII]/1111■n\:: ►.i1-■ ppp �� 1.,_��}�, (null `alto 11 ��.� ♦ \unu\IR CI II♦♦O�� 7 r■�.1. ►��YCL .n.1I/I�.II\J/•w��111■qli�♦♦♦ \I\I�me!III �.. e ll N ♦♦iQ�MIK ♦ I� llllll \��FMK moiJ�• iui.un■ nn. -":44-#741 nhn11d♦Q♦ : uunlupl .�� _�5. �: .■IIW unu.nnu 111!1!1 AIIL■11111111111111111 1�. �♦ , i i♦ ' • n ,�� ia ninon Wins n..11 mous C'/:111:1111111111111111- iln,04 unu■■::♦i, wan onc_----_. -■IIIIII 11111 ,11 is miss mnu mals u■m. .r♦i//I�q14.♦ uun� -hu m�pu ♦♦♦i�♦�♦♦i ism 1 NP WIZ lllllllllll 5 l ��'A lain omni�� 14• /4/ *warm= n1in1 m-� .,♦ •♦i♦♦i♦i♦i �I TQC �ii mn■ ® • nn■_ IfI SS/I//...41L • q1 bi: im� ♦ ■unmet _ `�■■■1111 w.■■ WWII ='I►� //I///I 11� r wits 4..�nnC C . het �■: Ill lie man mon uu■1 C�■�114141/17141/ / ■. q I•.piu■I. •. m♦ 0 1 Vill I nn1 Ines rr la umm�gllil/i Il Biu■.C. :him a1: i ri 1'1 : .■...■1■111 ln..11■.■..■ r��. , :1111111■111 `\I 1111 =1►•• =.....111\� .111 (IIII..1� ...---- :b•1 lIlP/i�:: ..■.. ..■I■1■1111111 SII�� Ills in : ..............-1 =. - SCITY ♦��.■ uml null ► ll umnmm■c'r;y �� -a■D� 0 11e 4�♦11h1 I 1_11:.1.1■' �IIIII111I....,.1I U • ....mom= 4'411411 1I _ _ PRREFFFE r-IrI�I1TtI7t11I I1lltnntlp■�7� 9 r.�„ i 1r r Hairin11111ii{��19�F1"5 QF-- 1■ ••'.L•1d Valley® Y UNIVERSITY 3 HIGH SCHOOL a4 a CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 9, 2014 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Thierman Traffic Analysis (between Sprague and Appleway) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Admin report June 3, 2014; Admin report June 24, 2014; Admin report August 26, 2014. BACKGROUND: A concerned citizen requested the City review the lane assignments on Thierman between Sprague and Appleway. Public Works/Traffic Engineering provided Council with an informational memo containing a brief summary of traffic signal impacts on March 18, 2014, and on June 3, June 24 and August 26, made presentations to Council of the traffic analyses which also included several alternatives for discussion. Council concurred with staff to prepare a more detailed analysis of the Sprague/Thierman and Appleway/Thierman intersections using the VISSIM traffic analysis software for two of the options presented. The results of the detailed analyses performed at the study intersections for existing conditions and the two options were presented to Council on August 26, 2014. The options analyzed were: • Existing Conditions; • Option 1 — Modifying the northbound through lane to a shared through-left-turn lane; no changes to Appleway/Thierman; and, • Option 2 — Modifying the northbound approach to have dual left-turn lanes and a single through lane; reducing the southbound left-turn lane length at Appleway/Thierman. The above options were analyzed, from an operations perspective, with VISSIM traffic analysis software. The VISSIM analyses revealed that the alternate lane configurations provide additional queue storage for the northbound left-turn traffic volumes; however it degrades the operations of both Sprague/Thierman and Appleway/Thierman intersections. The following sections focus specifically on existing conditions (with installation of flashing yellow arrows at Sprague/Thierman) in comparison to Option 1, as directed by Council on August 26, 2014. Operations: Vehicles traveling west on Sprague, which are 71% of the traffic through the Sprague/Thierman intersection, will experience more delay above and beyond the existing conditions from implementation of Option 1. The traffic signal progression along Sprague will also be negatively impacted by the implementation of Option 1. In other words, today's conditions allow for a westbound traveler to continue west without stopping at Thierman during the peak hours. This is good signal progression. The implementation of Option 1 will cause a traveler to stop at Thierman. This is bad progression and also adds pollution to the air from stopping and going. Page 1 of 4 Operations Summary: Option 1 provides more queue storage for northbound traffic than existing conditions. Option 1 will cause more delay to travelers on Sprague than existing conditions. The majority of traffic through the Sprague/Thierman intersection will experience added delay through implementation of the option in comparison to existing conditions. Implementing the option will cause poor signal progression leading to an increase in pollution from stopping at Thierman. Blocking: The 24-hour video recorded on Tuesday, April 1, 2014, did not show blocking of the Appleway/Thierman intersection. It is acknowledged that blocking may occur under the existing lane configurations. The implementation of Option 1 will not guarantee the blocking concern will be resolved. It is likely the utilization of the curb lane will increase and stacking will occur in both lanes which may prevent trucks from making their maneuvers accordingly. Please see below for examples of blocking with both existing conditions and Option 1. Existing Conditions Option 1 _ � t -�: _ - — ' �► rrrrrrrrr -, - "- - rlr _. �1: _ 1. I a- _ r:- n I • ,•F- - ^I Iw k rL,t aJ � _ .� N. f - -_:t ' -- ---.--_-117 � w ..Yr , '. -.._y. ', .- .. le Through vehicle Left-turning vehicle Blocking Summary: Non-reoccurring blocking is said and believed to occur under existing conditions. Non-reoccurring blocking may still occur with the implementation of Option 1. Niether condition can guarantee the absence of irregular blocking. Safety: A review of the crashes at Sprague/Thierman revealed that 36% of the crashes at the intersection were the result of left-turn crashes. The installation of flashing yellow arrows (FYAs) for the northbound approach would help mitigate these left-turn crashes with a reduction of 20% of left-turn crashes. In addition, FYA are commonly used throughout the City to allow permissive and protective left-turn operations. The installation of FYAs may also improve the operations of the intersection as drivers are more aware of the FYA and are accustomed to its operations. Page 2 of 4 The City currently has five arterial-to-arterial intersections with a dedicated turn lane next to an option lane. These intersections are: • University/Sprague — northbound approach (right-turn lane, shared through/right-turn lane) • Sullivan/Sprague —eastbound approach (left-turn lane, shared through/left-turn lane) • Evergreen/Indiana —westbound approach (left-turn lane, shared through/left-turn lane) • Argonne/Montgomery — westbound approach (left-turn lane, shared through/left-turn lane) • Mullan/Sprague— northbound approach (left-turn lane, shared through/left-turn lane) The total sideswipe percentages, from 2008 through 2013, at each of the intersections are as follows: • University/Sprague—28% of total intersection crashes • Sullivan/Sprague — 13% of total intersection crashes • Evergreen/Indiana — 12% of total intersection crashes • Argonne/Montgomery— 15% of total intersection crashes • Mullan/Sprague —8% of total intersection crashes Of these 5 intersections, none of the turn lanes enters into a trap lane. In fact, all of the inside turning lanes connect to a dedicated through lane that continues for thousands of feet. If Option 1 is implemented, a trap lane condition is created. If Option 1 is implemented, crashes will increase at a minimum of 8% and as much as 28% based on other intersections in the City with this lane configuration. It should be noted that the increase in sideswipe crashes could be as much as 41% based on national data. From a safety perspective, the creation of a dedicated left-turn lane adjacent to an option through/left-turn lane as depicted in Option 1 will degrade the safety of the intersection from the current configuration. Safety Summary: Option 1 will increase sideswipe crashes by a minimum of 8% and as much as 41%. The installation of FYAs will reduce left-turn crashes by 20%, and sideswipes from the left-turn movement will continue to be zero percent. Summary and Recommendations: Although Option 1 provides additional queue storage for the northbound left-turn movement, it is not guaranteed to prevent blocking at Appleway/Thierman. Patrons may utilize the northbound curb lane more since it will also allow for a left-turn thereby creating a larger problem for those trucks utilizing Thierman to travel from Appleway to Broadway. It is the recommendation of the Traffic Engineering Division that we proceed with installation of the flashing yellow arrows (FYAs) to help mitigate the left-turn crashes and perhaps improve the operations of the left-turn maneuvers. It is recommended that staff re-evaluate the intersection performance in 8 to 12 months from an operational, blocking, and safety perspective and compare to existing conditions. The approximate installation cost of the FYAs at the Sprague/Thierman intersection is $6,000, plus County and City staff time for installation. Option 1 is not recommended due to operational and safety considerations documented above — the additional queue storage does not outweigh the operational and safety aspects of the intersection. OPTIONS: 1) Approve the staff recommended FYA installation as presented, 2) Approve the installation of Option 1, or 3) Take other appropriate action. Page 3 of 4 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: 1) Staff recommendation is to install flashing yellow arrows (FYAs) at the intersection of Sprague and Thierman for approximately $6,000; or 2) Option 1 installation is anticipated to cost approximately $14,000. STAFF CONTACT: Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer Eric Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: n/a Page 4 of 4 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of September 4,2014; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings September 16,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 8] ACTION ITEMS: 1.Motion Consideration: Appleway Trail Construction Award—Eric Guth (10 minutes) NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Library Services—Sonia Gustafson,Managing Librarian (15 minutes) 3. Substance Abuse Awareness-Linda Thompson, Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council (30 min) 4.Admin Report: Community Development Block Grant Proposed Projects—Mike Basinger (15 minutes) 5. Care of Stormwater Swales—Eric Guth (20 minutes) 6.ADA(Americans with Disability Act)Transition Plan—Luis Garcia (10 minutes) 7. Capital Projects 2014—Mike Stone (10 minutes) 8. Draft Legislative Agenda—Mike Jackson (15 minutes) 9.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 130 minutes] September 23,2014,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 15] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Allocations for 2015—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Street Maintenance Contract—Eric Guth (10 minutes) 4.Admin Report Proposed 2015 Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Comp Plan Docket—Lori Barlow (20 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 7. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 65 minutes] September 30,2014—no meeting October 7,2014,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 29] 1. Commercial Vehicles in Residential Areas (trucks)—Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 2. Batch Code Amendments—Marty Palaniuk, Christina Janssen(see **) (40 minutes) 3. City Manager presentation of 2015 Preliminary Budget (30 minutes) 4.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 95 minutes] October 14,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 6] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2015 Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CDBG Proposed Projects—Mike Basinger (15 minutes) 3. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.Motion Consideration: CDBG Proposed Projects—Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 80 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 9/4/2014 2:06:19 PM Page 1 of 3 October 21,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 13] 1. STA Presentation of"Moving Forward"Plan—Karl Otterstrom,Brandon Rapez-Betty (20 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] October 28,2014,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 20] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Property Tax Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 5.First Reading Proposed 2015 Budget Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 7. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] November 4,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Oct 27] 1. Shoreline Master Plan Review of Findings,Draft Ordinance —Lori Barlow (60 minutes) 2.Admin Report: 2015 Fee Resolution—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 3.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 80 minutes] November 11,2014—no meeting—Veteran's Day November 18,2014,Formal meeting 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 10] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed 2014 Budget Amendment—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed 2015 Budget Ordinance—Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 4.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Shoreline Master Plan—Lori Barlow (30 minutes) 5. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution for 2015—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 7.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 90 minutes] November 25,2014—no meeting—Thanksgiving week December 2,2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Nov 24] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 2. Info Only: Dept Reports(normally due with the Nov 25 meeting) [*estimated meeting: minutes] December 9,2014,Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 1] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Shoreline Master Plan—Lori Barlow (20 minutes) 3.Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2015 (20 minutes) 4.Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] December 16,2014, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 8] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) December 23,2014 no meeting Draft Advance Agenda 9/4/2014 2:06:19 PM Page 2 of 3 December 30,2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Dec 22] ACTION ITEMS: 1.Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee; Planning Commission NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2.Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports *time for public or Council comments not included (** Batch amendments include the following proposed amendments: Change the Recreational Facility Definition; Remove the screening requirements for community facilities and public utilities; Delete shared access requirements for new development; Allow limited medical and dental clinic use in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones; Modify the development standards for Manufactured Home Parks; Modify the outdoor storage requirements. Modify the Vehicle Parking requirements Modify the Off-street Loading requirements Modify the Bicycle Parking requirements) OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Avista Electrical Franchise Beekeeping Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan Drug Education/Information Economic Incentives Governance Manual Updates Historic Preservation Mayoral Appts Councilmbrs to Committees(Dec/Jan) SEPA/NEPA Process—Eric Guth Setback Requirements Spokane Regional Transportation Mgmt Ctr Street Vacation/Connectivity Process Street Sweeping Bike Lanes Draft Advance Agenda 9/4/2014 2:06:19 PM Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 9, 2014 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Review Performance of a Public Employee GOVERNING LEGISLATION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)] PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I Move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately sixty minutes to review the performance of a public employee, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: