The URL can be used to link to this page

2014, 12-16 Study SessionAGENDA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET STUDY SESSION Tuesday, December 16, 2014 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: ACTION ITEMS: 1. Luis Garcia 2. Mark Calhoun NON -ACTION ITEMS: 3. Eric Guth, Sean Messner 4. Erik Lamb Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan [public comment] Lodging Tax Allocations for 2015 [public comment] Sullivan Road Corridor Study State and Local Marijuana Laws: Consumption/Possession by Minors 5. Erik Lamb, Mike Jackson Legislative Agenda for Medical Marijuana 6. Cary Driskell 7. Lori Barlow 8. Mayor Grafos 9. Mayor Grafos 10. Mike Jackson ADJOURN Study Session Agenda, December 16, 2014 Minor Code Amendments to Dangerous Dog Regulations Comprehensive Plan, Public Participation Program Advance Agenda Council Comments City Manager Comments Approve Resolution Motion Consideration Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 16, 2014 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution 14-015, Adopting Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Department of Emergency Management Services; Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 44 Section 201.6 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approved Resolution No. 07-002. Original Hazard Mitigation Plan. Discussion of updated plan held at the December 2, 2014 Council Study session. BACKGROUND: Compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act and the Countywide Disaster Mitigation Update will be undertaken by a multi -jurisdictional planning effort. The City of Spokane Valley initially approved the original plan in 2007 under Resolution No. 07-002. The plan required updating every 5 years. The original plan has since expired; the update is required to qualify for federal funding under the Disaster Mitigation Act. OPTIONS: Move to approve the Resolution; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. 14-015, adopting the Hazard Mitigation Update. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Doug Powell, Building Official Luis Garcia, Development Services Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 14-015 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 14-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE SPOKANE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane and Spokane County entered into a joint Resolution on or about June 25, 1979, under Spokane County Resolution No. 79-0873, establishing a joint Spokane City -County Department of Emergency Services. The City of Spokane Valley likewise entered into this joint venture on July 21, 2004 under the 2004 Amended Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Management Services; and WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") requires that "...local and tribal government applicants for sub -grants must have an approved local mitigation plan in accordance with 44 CFR 201.6 prior to receipt of a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program sub grant funding." The purpose of such local mitigation plans is to represent the multi jurisdiction's commitment to reduce risks from natural and man-made hazards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 44 CFR 201.6, the Spokane County Department of Emergency Management has prepared a plan entitled "Spokane County Multi -Jurisdictional All Hazards Mitigation Plan (the Plan)," which serves as a guide for decision -makers as they commit resources to reducing hazards; and WHEREAS, the Plan requires monitoring, evaluating, and updating to maintain eligibility for mitigation project grants; and WHEREAS, the Department of Emergency Management Services has prepared a Plan update entitled "Spokane County Mitigation Plan Update (Plan Update)," which utilized current data and technologies. The Plan Update further added planning partners, including additional jurisdictions and special districts, to increase the level of response. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: The Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Volume 1, and Chapter 10 of Volume 2 including all appendices, which are incorporated herein by reference without being attached, are hereby approved. A copy of the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Volume 1, and Chapter 10 of Volume 2 including all appendices shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk. Approved this 16th day of December, 2014. ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Dean Grafos, Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 14-015, Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Page 1 of 1 H.1Budgets120151Lodging Tax12014 12 16 RCA Admin Rprt LTAC motion.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 16, 2014 Department Director Approval: ix Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Allocation of Lodging Tax Funds. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State Law RCW 82.08, and Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.20 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Thus far in 2014 the Council has been presented with information pertaining to lodging tax on four separate occasions: • August 12 and 19 where we discussed: o Lodging tax in general — what it is and how it may be expended. o The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) — what it is and its role in the process. o The Council's role in the process o Council goals and priorities for the LTAC. • August 27, 2014 — where Council discussed and reached consensus on the goals and priorities that should be included in the lodging tax grant application and also communicated to the LTAC. • November 17, 2014 — Admin Report communicating to Council the results of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's October 27, 2014 meeting. BACKGROUND: In 2003, the City implemented a 2% hotel/motel tax, the proceeds of which are used to promote conventions and tourist travel to our City. The organizations to which the tax proceeds are distributed are ultimately determined by the City Council which receives a recommendation from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is comprised of five members who are appointed by the City Council. The Committee membership must include: • At least two representatives from businesses that are required to collect the tax, • At least two members from organizations involved in activities that are authorized to be funded by the tax, and • One elected city official who serves as chairperson of the Committee. The Advisory Committee makes its recommendations based upon a combination of written application materials and a presentation that is made to them by each applicant. On October 27, 2014, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee met to consider application materials and presentations from applicants for a portion of the City's 2% hotel/motel tax receipts which are estimated to be $510,000 in 2015. Presentations were made by Visit Spokane, City of Spokane Valley Parks & Recreation, Spokane County Fair and Expo, Valleyfest, Spokane Sports Commission, Spokane River Forum, Spokane Valley Heritage Museum and the HUB Sports Center. Following applicant presentations the Committee discussed the merits of making particular awards to various applicants and how they felt revenues should be allocated. Ultimately, the Committee recommended the following awards be advanced to the City Council for consideration: 1 H.:18udgets120151Lodging Tax42014 12 16 RCA Admin Rprt LTAC motion.docx 1) Visit Spokane - operations 2) Visit Spokane - visitor information center City of Spokane Valley Parks and Rec - volleyball 3) courts 120,000 0 4) City of Spokane Valley Parks and Rec - CenterPlace marketing to regional meeting planners 30,000 15,000 5) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - marketing 30,000 28,000 6) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - interim marketing 8,000 8,000 7) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - exotic animal display 6,000 2,000 8) Valleyfest - marketing 50,000 10,000 Valleyfest - bike celebration - operations 14,000 10,000 9) Spokane Sports Commission 200,000 185,000 10) Spokane River Forum 1,000 1,000 11) Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 28,209 15,000 12) HUB Sports Center 40,000 40,000 282,110 256,000 46,320 0 855,639 570,000 Noteworthy here is that at times some organizations apply for funding through both the Outside Agency and the Lodging Tax award processes. Valleyfest applied for Lodging Tax Funding for 2015, as well as for 2015 Outside Agency funding, and was awarded $19,714 in Outside Agency funding at the September 23, 2014 Council meeting. In previous years both the HUB and Museum have at times availed themselves of this option. OPTIONS: The City Council may only approve applicants and the recommended amounts from the list provided by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The City Council may choose to make awards to all, some, or none of the recommended candidates in the amounts recommended by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: / move to make the following allocation of Lodging Tax funds for calendar year 2015: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2015 Proposed Budget includes total revenues of $510,300 including $510,000 of lodging taxes. Total expenditures are budgeted at $600,000 including $30,000 to offset advertising at CenterPlace and up to $570,000 to be allocated through this award process. Total expenditures are expected to exceed total revenues by $89,700 and this will be offset through the use of a portion of the fund balance. The fund balance at the conclusion of 2015 is expected to be $100,527 which should be adequate to cover cash flow needs. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager 2 Amount LTAC Applicant Requested Recommend 1) Visit Spokane - operations 2) Visit Spokane - visitor information center City of Spokane Valley Parks and Rec - volleyball 3) courts 120,000 0 4) City of Spokane Valley Parks and Rec - CenterPlace marketing to regional meeting planners 30,000 15,000 5) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - marketing 30,000 28,000 6) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - interim marketing 8,000 8,000 7) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - exotic animal display 6,000 2,000 8) Valleyfest - marketing 50,000 10,000 Valleyfest - bike celebration - operations 14,000 10,000 9) Spokane Sports Commission 200,000 185,000 10) Spokane River Forum 1,000 1,000 11) Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 28,209 15,000 12) HUB Sports Center 40,000 40,000 282,110 256,000 46,320 0 855,639 570,000 Noteworthy here is that at times some organizations apply for funding through both the Outside Agency and the Lodging Tax award processes. Valleyfest applied for Lodging Tax Funding for 2015, as well as for 2015 Outside Agency funding, and was awarded $19,714 in Outside Agency funding at the September 23, 2014 Council meeting. In previous years both the HUB and Museum have at times availed themselves of this option. OPTIONS: The City Council may only approve applicants and the recommended amounts from the list provided by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The City Council may choose to make awards to all, some, or none of the recommended candidates in the amounts recommended by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: / move to make the following allocation of Lodging Tax funds for calendar year 2015: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2015 Proposed Budget includes total revenues of $510,300 including $510,000 of lodging taxes. Total expenditures are budgeted at $600,000 including $30,000 to offset advertising at CenterPlace and up to $570,000 to be allocated through this award process. Total expenditures are expected to exceed total revenues by $89,700 and this will be offset through the use of a portion of the fund balance. The fund balance at the conclusion of 2015 is expected to be $100,527 which should be adequate to cover cash flow needs. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager 2 H:\Budgetsl2015lLodging Tax42014 12 16 RCA Admin Rprt LTAC motion.docx ATTACHMENTS: • Chart reflecting a history of hotel/motel tax receipts from January 2005 through September 2014. • Fund #105 — Hotel/Motel Tax — history of revenues and expenditures — 2010 through 2013 Actuals and 2014 and 2015 Budgets. • Minutes of October 27, 2014, Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting. • June 11, 2013 RCA — Admin Report titled 'Funding Methodology for Lodging Tax" that provides a more detailed description of the elements of the Washington State Legislatures engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1253 which governs how lodging taxes must be allocated. • Separately distributed binder titled "Lodging Tax 2015" that was also utilized by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee at their October 27, 2014 meeting. 3 H:1Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax120141105 hotel motel tax 2014.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - September' Actual for the years 2005 through 2014 January February March April May June July August September 2005 1 2006 1 2007 1 -- 2008 1 2009 1 2010 J 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 20,691.03 19,976.81 22,828.15 29,748.41 29,017.66 35,330.35 43,841.82 46,852.10 46,746.18 20,653.49 20,946.09 24,308.48 34,371.82 32,522.06 34,256.71 49,744.62 45,916.16 50,126.53 25,137.92 25,310.66 29,190.35 37,950.53 31,371.01 36,267.07 56,281.99 51,120.70 57,260.34 28,946.96 24,623.06 27,509.99 40,406.02 36,828.53 46,659.88 50,421.37 50, 818.35 60,711.89 23, 280.21 23, 283.95 25,272.02 36,253,63 32, 588.80 40,414.59 43,950.26 50,146.56 50,817.62 22,706.96 23,416.94 24,232.35 39,463.49 34,683.32 39,935.36 47,385.18 54,922.99 59,418.96 22,212.21 22,792.14 24,611.28 38,230.49 33,790.69 41,403.41 49,311.97 57,451.68 58,908.16 21,442.32 21,548.82 25,654.64 52,130.37 37,478,44 43,970.70 52,818.60 57,229.23 64,298.70 24,184.84 25,974.98 27,738.65 40,979.25 40,560.41 47,850.15 56,157.26 63,816.45 70,794.09 25,425.40 26,013.62 29,383.93 48,245,81 41,122.66 52,617,63 61, 514.48 70, 383.93 76, 099.59 Total Collections 295,032.51 312,845.96 349,890.57 366,926.05 326,007.64 346,165.55 348,712.03 376,571.82 398,056.08 430,807.05 October 34,966.85 38,674.17 43,969.74 38,290.46 36,784.36 41,272.35 39,028.08 43,698.90 43,835.57 0.00 November 26,089.36 36,417.11 36,340.64 35,582.59 34,054.79 34,329.78 37,339.36 39,301.22 42,542.13 0.00 December 31,740.18 29,147.15 31,377.41 26,290.11 27,131.43 26,776.84 32,523.19 30,432.13 34,238.37 0.00 Total Collections 387,828.90 417,084.39 461,578.36 467,089.21 423,978.22 448,544.52 457,602.66 490,004.07 518,672.15 430,807.05 Budget Estimate 436,827.00 350,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 512,000.00 380,000.00 480,000.00 430,000.00 490,000.00 490,000.00 Actual over (under) budg (48,998.10) 67,084.39 61,578.36 67,089.21 (88,021.78) 68,544.52 (22,397.34) 60,004.07 28,672.15 (59,192.95) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 88.78% 119.17% 115.39% 116.77% 82.81% 118.04% 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% n/a % change in annual total collected 6.71% 7.54% 10.67% 1.19% (9.23%) 5.79% 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% n/a % of budget collected through September 67.54% 89.38% 87.47% 91.73% 63.67% 91.10% 72.65% 87.57% 81.24% 87.92% % of actual total collected through September 76.07% 75.01% 75.80% 78.56% 76.89% 77.18% 76.20% 76.85% 76.75% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of September 11112/2014 2014 lo 2013 Difference 4�p 1,241 5.13% 39 0.15% 1,645 5.93% 7,267 17.73% 562 1.39% 4,767 9.96% 5,357 9.54% 6.567 10.29% 5,306 7.49% 32.751 8.23% Page 20 500,000.00 450,000.00 September 400,000.00 350,000.00 !August _ !July 300,000.00 - _m_ ■June v=.. 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 ! May ■ April a, m March ® February 50,000.00 eJanuary -� 0.00 r.;. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Page 20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2014 Budget Amendment and 2015 Budget Fund #105 - Hotel / Mote! Tax Fund - Actuals for 2010 through 2013 - 2014 and 2015 Budgets Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax investment Interest Subtotal revenues Expenditures Tourism Promotion - contracted City directed marketing efforts Interfund Transfers - #001 CenterPlace Tourism Promotion Subtotal expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance H:\Budgets\2015\105 Rev and exp.xlsx Actual 2010 2011 1 2012 2013 448,544 457,603 490,004 518,672 1,018 454 592 387 449,562 458,057 490,596 519,059 362,302 0 37,500 0 472,481 0 0 0 511,756 30,000 0 30,000 0 0 458,904 2014 As Adopted 490,000 300 490,300 30,000 0 0 547,000 As Amended 8/5/2014 2015 Budget 530,000 510,000 300 300 530,300 510,300 30,000 0 0 547,000 30,000 0 0 570,000 399,802 472,481 541,756 488,904 577,000 577,000 600,000 49,760 (14,424) (51,160) 30,155 (86,700) (46,700) (89,700) 222,596 272,356 7 257,932 7 206,772 236,927 > 236,927 190,227 272,356 257,932 - 206,772- 236,927 / 150,22 190,227% 100,527 2014 Awards by Agency HUB Sports Center Spokane County Fair & Expo Center Spokane Regional Sports Commission Spokane Valley Heritage Museum Valleyfest Visit Spokane (Spokane Regional CVB) Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansi. CenterPlace 36,000 39,800 183,800 13,100 20,000 247,000 7,300 30,000 577,000 for LTAC MI UTES Spokane Valley Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Monday, October 27, 2015, 8:30 a.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206 Attendance: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Members: Chair: Councilmember Ben Wick Member Herrman Meier, Spokane Valley Heritage Museum Member Keith Backsen, Visit Spokane Member Jeff Finian, Sterling Hospitality/Quality Inn Member Lee Cameron, Mirabeau Park Hotel Staff Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Sarah Farr, Accounting Technician Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk [Prior to the meeting, Deputy City Attorney Erik Larnb gave the committee members a training session on the Open Public Meeting Act.] At 8:30 a.m., the meeting was called to order by Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Chair and City Councilmember Ben Wick who then welcomed everyone to the meeting. Chair Wick explained the process of today's meeting and of the presentations. He also made note of the new spreadsheets containing blank areas for the committee member's award recommendations. Chair Wick went over the City Council goals, which he explained remain much the same as the previous year, with the added goal to dedicate 5% of the awards toward funding new projects, activities and/or events. Chair Wick also noted as in previous years, Council chose to set aside $30,000 for CenterPlace Marketing. Deputy City Manager Calhoun briefly went over the financial aspects of the lodging tax resources and how that fits in with the City's budget; he explained that revenues for 2015 are estimated at $510,000; and said he anticipates total awards of $600,000, which includes the $30,000 to CenterPlace; and that once completed, approximately $100,000 will remain which will be needed for cash flow purposes. Mr. Calhoun said that Council will hear the results of today's allocation recommendations at Council's special Monday, November 17 Council meeting, followed by an actual motion for award scheduled for the Council's December 16 meeting. Mr. Calhoun also mentioned October 14, 2015 as the tentative date for next year's meeting. Applicant Presentations 1. Visit Spokane: City of Spokane Valley Tourism Promotion; Tourism Marketing Visit Spokane CEO Cheryl Kilday and Chief Marketing Officer Jeanna Hofmeister gave their presentation on their tourism marketing project. Ms. Kilday explained that Visit Spokane directly contacted and/or influenced people to stay and visit the City of Spokane Valley, and based on research, they estimated there were 220,68I overnight stay with over $155,000,000 in visitor spending; she mentioned the specific Valley map, online advertising for events, advertising in the Visitors' Guide, and Visit Spokane's support of the City of Spokane Valley's mobile app. After her presentation, there were a few questions from committee members about the project budget, and how they arrived at the 220,000 overnight stays. Ms. Kilday responded that some of the budget includes personnel for the visitor kiosk at the Valley mall, which she said in only staffed from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Concerning the overnight stay estimate, Ms. Kilday said they used a formula which included research from the Randall Report, and from Smith -Travels research about room demand; she said the formula was tested with Judy Randall to make sure it was credible and not over -estimating. Ms. Kilday said there is a possibility that another entity's numbers would touch their numbers, for example, if that other entity used Visit Spokane's website, so there could be some double -counting. LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 1 of 6 2. Visit Spokane: New Visitor Information Center, Operated by Visit Spokane Ms. Kilday explained that this proposal is to establish a visitor information center in Spokane Valley; said she has been working with a private company for a space; said the idea is to be open 360+ days a year, with a goal of getting people off the freeway and into our area; said they found a location where businesses are not yet built; said the area they have in mind has ample parking, space for good signage, and could connect with the services of the Valley Mall as well as the Argonne area. She also mentioned they plan to keep the kiosk at the Valley Mall. Mr. Meier said with today's age of electronics, he didn't understand why someone would leave the freeway to go to a visitor's center, as there are signs on the freeway about food, attractions, etc., and Smart Phones with numerous capabilities. Ms. Kilday responded that that concept has been a topic of debate since the Internet became more mobile; but it appears that "Generation X" and "Generation )(Millennium" actually frequent visitor centers snore so than previous older generations; she said it gives people the opportunity to get off the freeway as the center introduces people to what is nearby, which increases retail and dining even if people don't stay overnight. In response to a question about funding, Ms. Kilday replied that this request is only for a portion of a year. 3. Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation -- Browns Park Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Director Mike Stone and Recreation Coordinator Jennifer Papich, and Mr. Kyle Twohig of the Evergreen Volleyball Association discussed the Browns Park volleyball courts project. Ms. Papich explained that their $120,000 request is for the construction of three volleyball sand courts, she gave some history of how this proposal came about, of their desire to breathe some life back into the facility and make it more of a destination, of their partnering with Evergreen Regional Volleyball Association, and of how quickly it became apparent that the sport is extremely popular and gaining in popularity. Ms. Papich spoke about the Master Plan and some of the key issues which carne up as a result of that plan, such as an overall goal to increase the facilities as well as community pride and identity; she explained that the City has funding to construct five courts, and the more courts that could be constructed at one time means the less the overall time and construction cost; she said this should be able to be completed in 2015; adding that the closest other outdoor sand volleyball court is about 300 miles away; and said their goal is to make this a premier volleyball court. Mr. Twohig said that he has been amazed at the growth seen in the volleyball participation; said they held some tournaments which were filled within a week, so they increased the offerings for the following season; said there were over 3500 junior volleyball players in this region compared with about twelve in 2013; said they have invested about $20,000 and will continue to show their commitment by providing equipment and handling the operations; said they have a wonderful partnership and relationship with the City and the community. Mr. Cameron said he is happy to see the City's commitment to the park and growth and asked if infrastructure is included in this proposal. Mr. Stone explained that the courts will be tournament ready, but some aspects of the infrastructure such as the picnic shelter and restroom will not be ready when the courts are, as the focus is the courts; said the cost this fall of just the courts was in excess of $60,000, and that he feels $40,000 is an accurate figure; and said the City and Council are committed to this project, but it will take several years to build this with all the improvements; that if this project moves forward, he expects the community will support it as well and that we will see some sponsorships; said this will be a quality facility to attract out of state visitors. 4. Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation — CenterPlace Customer Relations/Facility Coordinator Carol Carter said they seek funding to target regional meetings to be held in Spokane Valley; said they are partnering with Visit Spokane to market to the two leading meeting planner associations in the region, i.e. Meeting Planners International, and the Certified Meeting Planner Association; said they would co-sponsor a booth at six regional conferences and advertise in meeting planner publications with a goal to increase CenterPlace's presence as well as other Spokane Valley tourism related facilities; she said in their meeting with Visit Spokane, they found five conferences in the Inland Northwest that they think are beneficial for Spokane; said they are targeting the two to three- LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 2 of 6 day conferences, they'll work with the Valley hotels and Visit Spokane to find ways to sell the Valley; said they need to work harder to market the Valley especially with the expansion of the new hotel downtown; said their goal is five conferences, but explained that these would not come in until 2016 because it takes a year to plan a conference. Mr. Stone added that this partnership with Visit Spokane is the two entities working to market the valley. Chair Wick asked if this is more for the Spokane Valley than a CenterPlace request, and Ms. Carter confirmed it is; and confirmed that the funds are intended to attend the events with Visit Spokane, and to have shared booth and promotional items for Spokane Valley, which includes trade booths. 5. Spokane County Fair and Expo Center — 2015 Spokane County Interstate Fair Marketing Campaign Fair Director Rich Hartzell and Marketing Sales Manager Erin Gurtel explained they are presenting three requests: the first request is for $30,000 to market and advertise to an audience outside of the Spokane area in order to increase attendees that will reserve over -night stays in conjunction with fair attendance. 6. Spokane County Fair and Expo Center — Interim Events Marketing 2015 Ms. Gurtel said that the Fair's second request is for $8,000 to market and advertise to an audience outside the Spokane area, for rentals and annual events held at the fair facility. 7. Spokane County Fair and Expo Center -- Exotic Animal Display, 2015 Interstate Fair Ms. Gurtel explained that the Fair's third request is for $6,000 for marketing and operations of a special event, the Exotic Animal Display. Concerning the $30,000 for advertising and marketing, it was noted that from the previous year, Fair attendance, food purchases, and carnival all increased about 1%, 10%, and 12% respectively; said they are confident they could sell 1,000 room nights over the week with visitors generally coming in from Canada, Seattle, and thirteen states. In response to Chair Wick's question about how the numbers were calculated, Ms. Gurtel explained that the figures are difficult to calculate, and they are working to get a better process, but still feels the numbers are conservative; she explained that people come to the fair for more than just the shows, that many people shop while here and said the fair is located in a central hub for shopping; she said activities at the fairgrounds include Custer's, and an RV and Boat Show, and she mentioned that the Farm Chicks brought in 1,000 room nights for people attending that two-day event. Mr. Hartzell added that the Quilt Show is also one of their largest attended events. A question arose about advertising, and it was explained that the vendors pay for their own advertising; and Ms. Gurtel said that this funding is for promotion aside from what the vendors do; with Mr. Hartzell adding that the vendors can see an increase, however, when they advertise and promote. Concerning the $6,000 for the Exotic Animal Display, it was explained that funding would be for all ten days of the fair, and would be included with the fair admission as an enhancement. Mr. Finan asked of the total $44,000 requested funding, how much tourism do they expect from people out of town; and the response was that they anticipate 50,000 people from out of town; stating that the amount requested is for the year and not just one event; and that the hope is that the exotic animals could be expanded later and further promoted. 8. Valleyfest — Valleyfest 2015 Executive Director Peggy Doering, Board President Rick Wilhite, and Board Member Stephanie Hughes gave a presentation concerning next year's Valleyfest celebration. Ms. Doering reported that they used the $20,000 allocated in 2014 for the webpage and made the advertising sized for tablets, iPad, and that they used the funds for design purposes as welI; said her understanding is they can apply for funding for operations, and that this year they are applying for $14,000 for office expenses in addition to $50,000 for marketing; said they are a non-profit organization; said their rental agreement for the rented space they use with Spokane Valley Partners has changed, and they are in the process of looking for office space; so part of that request is for outside office space in addition to paying outside vendors that they need to run their recreational events; and she reiterated that the $50,000 is for marketing the premier event in Spokane Valley, which she added, they have been doing for twenty-five years; and said since they have added the cycle celebration in July, that funding would be used for year-round marketing. LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Doering mentioned they have 26 committees for partnerships for Valleyfest, some of which include the Balloons Over the Valley, the Down Syndrome Walk, the Car Show, and they are now working with the River Keepers. She said the cycle celebration includes a family bike ride, triathlon, and other recreational activities. Concerning economic development, she mentioned the study of three years of data conducted by Eastern Washington University students, which shows an approximate $2 million impact in 2013. Mr. Wilhite added that the studies of the last two years indicate that the overall economic impact is $1.8 million in the Valley for their three-day event. They indicated marketing plans are contingent upon receiving funds, that they would like to have more of a year-round presence to draw interest groups to specific events, with Ms. Hughes mentioning that the sponsors are a big part of the event, and many are leaders in the community including banks, hospitals, the Inlander, and other businesses. They also noted they want to change how they promote the event by using the assets of the City such as the River, their Parade, trails, and hotels and are examining the use of social media in addition to television advertising. In response to several questions about marketing, Ms. Doering said the data shown on page 6 of 20 of their packet materials is as a result of Eastern Washington University's School of Business students' calculations, by interviewing people during the event, and using the formula noted. Ms. Doering also mentioned that they pay outside vendor fees to develop the events, and then those companies continue to market at trade shows and will eventually become self-sufficient. 9. Spokane Regional Sports Commission- Promotion and Marketing Activities Sports Commission President Eric Sawyer went over some of the trends in sports travel; said that there has been an increase in the number of participants 13 years old and younger; and that over 50% of youth participate in sports as a team or an individual; said the projection of sports related travel spending is up 12 to 15%; that they tried to identify projects which have had an impact on Valley room nights, and said approximately 12,000 room nights are due to a major recent tennis event; he mentioned next year's US Tennis Association's regionals, and other sports such as mountain skiing and biking, golf, and middle school basketball and volleyball. In response to a question about the Sports Commission investing in sand volleyball, Mr. Sawyer said they are working with Evergreen Regional Volleyball and that organization has seen significant growth; said that a one-time capital investment will hopefully last for generations; and he mentioned the participation as well from Eastern Washington University students; and regarding tennis, said that Spokane Valley has more than half of those qualifying needed courts because some of Spokane's courts do not qualify. The meeting briefly recessed at 10:05 a.m., and reconvened at 10:15 a.m. 10. Spokane River Forum — Spokane River Water Trail Project Mr. Andy Dunau explained that the Spokane River Forum was founded in 2008, and in 2009 they decided to develop the Spokane River Water Trail; and that this project will build on that highly successful website by providing links for tourists and to aid in their overnight stays; said they developed a new Stateline site in 2014 which has resulted in the restoration of Mirabeau and Barker Road; said the Barker Bridge is very popular and in 2016, the Valley will develop a new Sullivan Park access site as part of the City's rebuilding Sullivan Bridge, and they expect access under the Bridge for kayakers; he said outdoor monthly advertising is another component of their marketing and that they also use Visit Spokane; said they seek $1,000 to get this project started, which will be matched by three to four times that with other sponsors they already have; he said the plan is to have the kick-off event in May or June. In response to questions about sponsors, Mr. Dunau said they generally get $500 from each sponsor, and that they have approximately six to eight benefactors, as well as larger sponsors. 11. Spokane Valley Heritage Museum- Tourism Marketing Museum Director Jayne Singleton and Board Member Bill Crawford stated that the museum has served tourists for ten years; that their advertising and promotion of the museum's 2015 features includes the "Earth from Space" travelling Smithsonian Exhibit; said they provide education to the community LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 4 of 6 through group and school tours. In response to a question about visitor data, Ms. Singleton said that the 2013 figures are actual numbers; while the 2015 is of course a projection. 12. HUB Sports Center Mr. Phil Champlin, HUB Executive Director said that their events have demonstrated a positive impact on the community; he said that 75 to 80 % of the events are youth travelling with parents, siblings, and family members so the draw is larger than if it were simply adult events; he said they have partnered with AAU, YMCA, and Evergreen Regional Volleyball to bring in events; that they hosted their first middle school basketball event in 2014 with over 250 teams, and plan to expand that in 2015 to two weekends, one for girls, and one for boys. Mr. Backsen asked about the estimated overnights stays out of the 21,000 visitor count, and Mr. Champlin said they estimated 5,000 overnight stays. Chair Wick noted that most of the money they are asking for is the marketing, but the material includes information for operations, and Mr. Champlin explained that he would give discounts to groups to start their event and use operation funding for that purpose. There were no further presentations. Mr. Cameron gave an update from the Hotel/Motel meeting last Friday; said a majority of the Valley hotels were concerned; said that the Valley has traditionally benefitted from an overflow from downtown Spokane and Coeur d'Alene; but additional rooms in the Coeur d'Alene hotel and Airway Heights brings challenges to hotel stays in the Valley; said the Convention Center expansion will bring even more stays to downtown Spokane; said the recommendations were unanimous regarding funding requests and that not every request will be funded; said the intent is to hold back some funding and examine what can drive new business to Spokane Valley and how the hotel/motel tax fiends will be used; said there was concern about the downturn next year and they are thinking of meeting with Council to expand venues in the Valley that draw tourism. Mr. Finian added that it appears there was little or no increase in revenues and the question is, what can be created to bring in large revenues to benefit the community. Mr. Meier noted that there is a new hotel in the Valley which would not have come if they didn't think they would be profitable; said not everyone who comes in does so in connection with an event; said he feels 2014 will be one of the biggest growth years and doesn't think funds should be held back while they contemplate a long-term vision. Mr. Cameron said the data shows an increase but that it is primarily due to room rate increases and not an increase in occupancy; he said the hotels are Iooking for development potential. Mr. Finian mentioned that they need to look at what types of events will bring revenue to Spokane Valley, and that the HUB Sports Center's events bring tourism, but we keep doing the same thing and that isn't generating new revenue, but if it weren't for the HUB events, he feels Valley hotels would not be financially stable. Mr. Calhoun reminded the committee that today's meeting is informational, and based on that information, the Committee needs to forward a motion and a vote. Visit Spokane said it would withdraw their second item because it can't operate for that amount so those funds could be reallocated. Mr. Cameron noted that funds going to Visit Spokane are also for marketing other events, so it might be seen as a "double -dip;" said he thinks Visit Spokane promotes the Valley, and that sports events bring in tourism and funding, and Mr. Fiman concurred. Mr. Meier also agreed Visit Spokane does a good job; and said he supports Valleyfest as part of the City's mission to fund festivals. Chair Wick noted the need and demand for the volleyball courts; said the CenterPlace request was for marketing the Valley at events, not CenterPlace; that Valleyfest isn't just funding for that event, but they now have the triathlon and other recreational events that can grow and perhaps start something new; he said improvements are being made along the River with road projects, but they need to be marketed. Discussion moved to the individual funding requests. Mr. Cameron said he understands that the City approves the funding of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan; that the $30,000 CenterPlace already receives is for marketing CenterPlace, and now they are asking for another $30,000 for the same purpose; but said this is what we pay Visit Spokane to do and that's what they are doing. Further, Mr. Cameron LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 5 of 6 said seating will be needed for the volleyball tournament games , as well as restrooms, locker rooms, and office space. Mr. Backsen stated that he thinks putting in courts to hold tournaments is more for the local community rather than bringing in people from out of town, and Mr. Cameron said the hoteliers agree. Mr. Cameron said the hoteliers proposed not to fund the museum, but he would go up to $15,000 and said his concern is it puts his return on investment at over $100 per night so it costs more than there is to gain. Concerning Valleyfest, Chair Wick said he sees opportunities with the bicycle celebration and triathlon; while Mr-. Meier said the committee needs to keep in mind that Council doesn't want money to be used solely for room nights, but to include festivals and Valleyfest. Mr. Cameron stated that the hoteliers are against funding Valleyfest because they think it should be self-sufficient; and Mr. Fiman said the event does not bring in room nights yet they are funded each year; and both Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fiman said based on their meetings with hoteliers, they will not support funding Valleyfest. Chair Wick said that he doesn't think Council would accept not funding Valleyfest and that he would like to fund it at $20,000. After Committee members continued their discussion about the various amounts for the various entities, it was moved by Mr. Cameron, seconded and unanimously agreed, to recommend the following firnding distribution to Council: 1. Visit Spokane $256, 000 2. Visit Spokane Visitor Center $0 3. City Parks & Recreation Browns Park $0 4. City Parks & Recreation CenterPlace $15, 000 5. Fait & Expo Marketing $28, 000 6. Fair & Expo Interim Marketing $8, 000 7. Fair & Expo Exotic Animals $2,000 8. Valleyfest — marketing $10, 000 Valleyfest bike celebration $10,000 9. Sports Commission $185, 000 10. River Forum $1, 000 11. Heritage Museum $15,000 12. HUB Sports Center $40,000 TOTAL RECOMMENDED FUNDING $570,000 Mr. Calhoun noted that this topic will be presented to Council as an administrative report at the November 17 meeting, and then come back to Council for a motion consideration at the December 16 meeting, at which time the public will be permitted to make comment. There being no further business, it was moved by Mr. Cameron, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 1:12 pan. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 6 of 6 1-1:1City cepartments\Finance12013 Lodging TaxIf7CA 2013 06 11 Funding Opportunities for Lodging Tax.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 11, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information X admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Funding Methodology for Lodging Tax GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Imposition of tax, set-up of lodging tax advisory committee and determination of qualified expenditures is governed by RCW 67.28, as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1253, and SVMC 3.20. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Each year the annual budget development process includes the City Council determined allocation of Lodging Tax proceeds. The February 26, 2013 Council workshop also included an RCA that discussed developing a formal and repeatable methodology to guide the City Council in future tax allocation decisions but no action could be taken pending the Washington State Legislatures deliberations on this topic. BACKGROUND: City of Spokane Valley History Since its inception, the City has made annual distributions of lodging tax monies for the purpose of attracting visitors and tourists to our community. In that time however, no formal and repeatable methodology has been implemented to guide the City Council as to how it should proceed in these matters. At the February 26, 2013 Council workshop the Council discussed developing a funding methodology. Discussion of a formal funding methodology was placed on hold due to Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1253 (ESHB 1253). At that time, ESHB 1253 was being heavily debated and it was unknown whether it would pass and if it did, what the final provisions would say. Washington State Legislature Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1253 ESHB 1253 was passed and approved May 10, 2013, by the Washington State Legislature. ESHB 1253 addresses the expanded uses of lodging tax that were in place beginning in 2007. The expanded uses were set to lapse June 30, 2013. As adopted, ESHB 1253 amends the uses of lodging tax revenue, application process, selection process, and reporting requirements set forth in RCW 67.28.1816. ESHB 1253 specifically retains the City's authority to use lodging tax revenues to fund: • Tourism marketing. • The marketing and operations of special events and festivals. • The operations and capital expenditures of tourism -related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or public facility district. • The operations (but not capital expenditures) of tourism -related facilities owned or operated by non-profit organizations. 1 H:\City Departmenfs\Finance12013 Lodging Tax1RCA 2013 06 11 Funding Opportunities for Lodging T x.dOCx The primary change from the current allowable uses is to eliminate the use of lodging tax revenues to fund capital expenditures of tourism -related facilities owned or operated by non- profit organizations. Tourism marketing was also specifically added as an allowable use in ESHB 1253. Other allowable uses remain unchanged. ESHB also establishes new application and reporting procedures. In cities over 5,000 population, applicants must submit their applications to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, estimating how money received will result in increases in the number of people traveling for business or pleasure on a trip: • Away from their place of residence or business and staying overnight in paid accommodations; • To a place 50 miles or more one way from their place of residence or business for the day or staying overnight; or • From another country or state outside their place of residence or their business. Selection Process Once applicants submit their application, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee will review all applications (which must include the estimates listed above). The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee may only select candidates from the applicants. The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee will create a list of candidates and recommended amounts for City Council approval. The City Council may only approve candidates and the recommended amounts from the list provided by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The City Council may choose to make awards to all, some, or none of the recommended candidates in the amounts recommended by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Reporting Requirements Recipients must provide a report to the City describing the actual number of people traveling for business or pleasure on a trip: • Away from their place of residence or business and staying overnight in paid accommodations; • To a place 50 miles or more one way from their place of residence or business for the day or staying overnight; or • From another country or state outside their place of residence or their business. The report must be made available to the City Council and the public and must be furnished to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) and the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The JLARC will provide biennial reports to the Washington State Legislature. 2 H:4City Departments'Finance12013 Lodging TaxIRCA 2013 06 11 Funding Opportunities for Lodging Tax, docx 2013 Lodging Tax Appropriation Timeline The calendar we plan to follow in 2013 for 2014 lodging tax awards is as follows: Wed 9/4/2013 City runs notice in newspaper, places on web site, and sends letters to 2013 award recipients and others agencies that may have expressed interest. Fri 10/4/2013 Grant proposals are due to City by 4pm (no late submittals will be accepted). Fri 10/11/2013 Applications sent to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for review. Wed 10/16/2013 * 8:30 am Applicant presentations to Committee. Tues 11/5/2013 Council Study Session Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to City Council Tues 12/10/2013 * Formal Council Meeting City Council Motion Consideration: Award Lodging Tax for 2014 RCW 67.28.1817 requires that the City wait for a period of at least 45 days after the LTAC meeting before action can be taken by the City Coucil. * 12/10/2013 * 10/16/2013 55 days Because we currently anticipate the 2014 Budget will be adopted on October 22, 2013, it is possible the amount of lodging tax ultimately awarded on December 10, 2013 may differ from the amount appropriated in the budget. If this were to occur, just as we are doing with the lodging tax award in 2013, we will amend the 2014 Budget if necessary. Lodging Tax Appropriation Procedures. Discussion points for the Council to consider may be: • If Council should agree to some but not all of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee recommendations some money may be "left over". In such a case, would Council wish to have another application round or wait until the following year? • Would Council still like to receive the same application packets provided to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee? • At what point in the year should Council review Lodging Tax Committee appointments and consider making changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: This is a discussion topic and no Council action is being sought at this time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The Lodging Tax appropriation ranges from approximately $450,000 to $500,000 per year. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun; Erik Lamb ATTACHMENTS: • Lodging Tax awards — 2008 through 2013. • Hotel/Motel Tax revenue history — 2003 through 2012. 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 16, 2014 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sullivan Road Corridor Study GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 2012 Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Call for Surface Transportation Program (STP) projects motion to approve on July 10, 2012; 2012 SRTC Call for STP projects administrative report on June 26, 2012; 2012 SRTC Call for STP projects informational item on June 12, 2012 BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley applied for STP funding in 2012 for the Sullivan Road Corridor Study inlight of the Spokane County plans for completion of Bigelow Gulch and the partial completion of the North-South Corridor (NSC). The purpose of the study was to evaluate the capacity on Sullivan Road and assess the impacts of regional projects and localized growth to the transportation system. The City of Spokane Valley was successful in receiving STP funding for the study in 2012 and contracted with HDR in 2013 to prepare the study. The consultant team and the City have been involved with the study over the last year. The study evaluated existing conditions, projected and evaluated future conditions, and identified both motorized and non -motorized improvements for consideration that will enhance the transportation system along the Sullivan Road Corridor. A series of business stakeholder public outreach events has occurred, most recently in October of 2013. The study reflects and incorporates input from the stakeholders. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of the process and findings documented within the report. The intent is to finalize the report this year. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Sullivan Road Corridor Study Administrative Report 12/16/14 Background tt • Planned Regional Roadway Projects Impacting Sullivan Road Corridor — Bigelow Gulch — North South Corridor (NSC) • Bigelow Gulch - Spokane County Project — Generally widen corridor from Francis to Evergreen • 2 -lanes each direction with a turn lane — Construct direct connection from Forker to Sullivan — Construction estimated to occur near 2022 • North South Corridor - Washington State Department of Transportation — Currently completed to Francis (Bigelow Gulch connection) — Planned to connect with 1-90 — Construction timing is funding dependent Background • Sullivan Road between 1-90 and SR 290 one of busiest freight routes • Sullivan Road connects to Spokane Industrial Park • Large impact on corridor expected by completion of Bigelow Gulch — Spokane County identified need for Sullivan Road corridor to be 3 -lanes each direction • City wanted to re-evaluate needs of the corridor and validate impacts from Bigelow Gulch and NSC • City applied for STP funding in 2012 — Successfully awarded study funding in 2012 • $173,000 STP funding / $27,000 City match ($200,000 total) — City contracted with HDR in June of 2013 Purpose and Goals • Develop a Corridor Plan (20+ year vision) that addresses transportation, community, and system preservation needs. — Determine whether the Sullivan Corridor should be widened (7 vs. 5 lanes) — Determine whether other intersection capacity improvements are needed — Quantify impacts of regional projects (and timing) on Sullivan Corridor traffic — Validate/Confirm current planned projects (Bridging the Valley and concrete paving projects) — Evaluate and provide recommendations on multimodal (transit and non - motorized) transportation, access management and traffic safety future projects Study Area Map Wellesley Ave Key Study Elements and General Process Data Collection 4 Stakeholder Meetings SRTC Model and Traffic Analysis TAC Meetings Recommendations and Final Report Existing Conditions Summary Existing Conditions: Typical Sections 4=4 - Travel cd Lane Travel Lane a Turn Lane/ Median Travel Lane t Travel Lane t Right Turn Lane Landscape Buffer South of SR -290 / Trent Avenue North of SR -290 / Trent Avenue Existing Conditions: Hourly Traffic Distribution 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 _ Northbound i oo o o o o 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nl sr7 er; 0 ry • ry m C• 1:.:5 LD N 66 65 Between Euclid Avenue and 1-90 (6/25/2012) Existing Conditions: AM Peak Hour LOS r _ Sullivan X CD `) a\*9 Ex) Intersection LOS Approach LOS Mr FB C D E Fj LOS Color Scheme Existing Conditions: PM Peak Hour LOS Jl _ Intersection LOS Approach LOS A BCDEF LOS Color Scheme Existing Transit Route 96 Evcvyrwrrr RJ to Vatter,* sprtal & Mediae Center Spokane Vinay 4i&rory =r !mitre rs ty S lirrpprn.. t {enter 44rffey trans rt r eate r f hlrrtt {, f 7 lr 63 /.7 IWfreillswirlAhdttirbff r yl} 1 ii !tamerAroumrnrrrrr Sullivan Rd Pre -Mier Mbe STUDY AREA 5 o Q G Rams hnQdstrfaf Par' FREQUENCY OF SERVICE (h 1waenVallayyTrnncitfantpramaS1iIllvon/WiIlrslay)- 5.30.1 r i 12pr1 i 6pill PM Peak Service Mid Ddso" Eveninq Peak Souls hay fiL5LtYI.Le F30 -min Headway 30 -min Headway 1 rnr 447frry Mulrlre Schnell East Moe ma- qft 5cfrool I FC.FIJ E) ±,>t Bus Stop ( - Parlatd-I 11P iwry ui Min atm • EveiT%4Miiiuln 9Wf.M Route stops at NB MiedUeau Pauli P&R llu1IIilrsrurttII iiIy %PA Route slaps at SB Mieatired PuII II P&R SuuNUtru aluiily Existing Conditions: Pedestrian and Bic cle Access =} = MEW. _ ➢ Sidewalks along both sides of Sullivan Road ➢ No bike lanes along Sullivan Road or cross streets N÷ Non -Standard Sidewalk Missing sidewalk an both sides Missing sidewalk on one side riT CD Existing Conditions: 5 -Year Crash Data Summaryt 35 30 �, 25 u 20 46 as 15 E z 10 5 2 0 29 10 1 Intersections Segment between 27 Intersections 14 6 4 sc, , Existing Deficiencies • Sullivan southbound at Indiana reaches capacity in PM peak hour (due to short turn lanes) — Capacity currently being added with west bridge construction • Traffic accidents clustered at Indiana Avenue, SR 290 ramp terminals generally congestion related • Wellesley/Sullivan stop controlled intersection reaches capacity in both AM and PM peak hour • Incomplete and non-standard sidewalk segments Future Conditions Summary Travel Forecast tit • SRTC 2010 base year and 2040 interim travel demand models are used as the basis. • Modeling Process — Future traffic volumes generated through coordination with SRTC, WSDOT, Spokane County, and the City — 3 models generated with regional improvements modeled • With NSC only • With NSC, Bigelow Gulch, Et Bridging the Valley (BTV) • With Bigelow Gulch Et BTV (without NSC) Worst -Case Existing ADT vs. 2040 AD' Location Between Wellesley and SR 290_ Between SR 290 Ramps Between SR 290 Eastbound ramps and Kiernan Between Kiernan and Euclid Between Euclid and Marietta Between Marietta and Pre -Mix Between Pre -Mix and Indiana Existing ADT 2040 ADT 11,300 20,000 21,600 26,500 21,900 24,800 27,000 3 3, 600 94% 24% 25% 27% 2040 No -Improvement Intersection LOS Intersection Sullivan Road and Wellesley Avenue Sullivan Road and SR 290 WB Off -Ramp Traffic Control AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS All- Way Stop Sullivan Road and SR 290 EB Off -Ramp Sullivan Road and Kiernan Avenue Sullivan Road and Euclid Avenue Sullivan Road and Marietta Avenue Sullivan Road and Pre -Mix Signal Signal F C Signal C Signal Signal Signal Sullivan Road and Indiana Avenue Sullivan Road and 1-90 WB Ramps Signal Signal C B PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS F F D C C Corridor Improvements Summary Sullivan Road West Bridge Re • lacement Project 1> a EXPANDED PARK OPEN SPACE AND NEW PICNIC SHELTER WITH ADA ACCESS DANCE 1-1ALL KRISPY KREME q RIVER OVERLOOK WITH STAIR AND ADA ACCESS TO CENTENNIAL TRAIL 6 -FOOT WIDE RIVER ACCESS 14 -FOOT WIDE MULTI -USE PATH 10 -FOOT WIDE MULTI -USE PATH OVERLOOK AT CFNTRAI BRIDGE PIER RIVER OVERLOOK -FOUR LANE $OUTS B•051NDDRaGE SULLIVAN ROAD s' RESTORED TRAFFIC BARRIER, EIRIDGE RAILING, AND SIDEWALK ON NORTH BOUND BRIDGE SWALE IEIY OTHER51 6 -FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK CENTRAL PREMIX ONCRETE t{+ r1,-. I �'y Source: City of Spokane Valley- Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project Marietta and Sullivan Improvements: Add Capacity (Channelization) on East Leg Reconfigure intersection with two westbound left turn lanes at Marietta Avenue Proposed Sidewalk rroposeu smewalk Euclid and Sullivan Improvements: Add capacity (channelization) on west leg Restripe west leg as an eastbound left -turn lane and a shared through/right tur If Proposed Sidewalk Bridging the Valley Sullivan Road Over • ass Geometr Chan•es- Bridge widening Bridge widening SULLIVAN RD Improvements North of SR 290 • Intersection improvements at Wellesley and Sullivan • Widen to 5 lanes and install two-way left -turn lane (TWLTL) • Installation of continuous illumination 2040 Intersection LOS with All Proposed Imkrovemen Traffic Control AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Intersection Sullivan Road and Signal C C Wellesley Avenue Sullivan Road and SR 290 WB Off -Ramp Signal B C Sullivan Road and Sullivan Road and Sullivan Road and Sullivan Road and Sullivan Road and SR 290 EB Off -Ramp Signal B C Signal C C Kiernan Avenue Signal C C Euclid Avenue Signal B D Marietta Avenue Sullivan Road and Pre -Mix Signal C B Signal C D Indiana Avenue Sullivan Road and Signal C C 1-90 WB Ramps PM Peak Hour Intersection L05 Key Questions and Answers 1. How will the Sullivan Road Corridor be impacted by the regional NSC and Bigelow Gulch projects? • Timing/Completion of the remaining NSC project does not have a significant or measurable impact on traffic volumes that are anticipated to use the Sullivan Corridor. • However, completion of the final phase of the Bigelow Gulch Road project between Forker Road and the proposed new connection to Sullivan Road will have a more measurable impact to traffic volumes on Sullivan Road between SR 290/Trent and the Wellesley intersection. Key Questions and Answers 2. Does Sullivan Road Corridor need to be widened to a 7 -lane arterial? • No, keep as a 5 -lane arterial with spot intersection improvements based on the latest travel demand forecasts. Key Questions and Answers 3. Should the Bridging the Valley (BTV) improvements on the Sullivan Road overpass at SR 290 be built before the Bigelow Gulch Road /Porker Road project completed? • Yes, BTV improvements at Sullivan (and associated interchange capacity improvements of the SR 290/Sullivan Road Interchange) should be programmed/prioritized ahead of the completion of Bigelow Gulch Road/Porker Road Project. Key Questions and Answers 4. Confirm/validate that the BTV improvement plans (developed in 1997) for the Sullivan/SR 290 interchange are appropriately scoped to accommodate 2040 demand based on updated regional traffic model. • The right turn pocket/ lane for north -to -eastbound traffic is not necessary based on the latest 2040 traffic forecast and operations analysis. However, consideration should be given to including width for a multiuse (pedestrian and bike) shared -use path in this area. Current Improvements t' 1. Sullivan Road West Bridge (Under Construction) 2. Sullivan Road and Euclid Avenue Intersection Improvement (Under Design) 3. Corridor Signal Coordination and ITS Investments (Funded) 0-6 Year Improvements t' 1. Intersection Improvements at Sullivan and Wellesley 2. Install Continuous Roadway Lighting (Wellesley to Trent) 3. Shared -use path upgrade (Marietta to Euclid) 4. ADA Sidewalk Upgrades 5. Bridging the Valley -Sullivan Road/BNSF Grade Separation Improvements >6 Year Improvements t' 1. Sullivan Road and Marietta Avenue Intersection Improvement 2. ADA Sidewalk Upgrades (carry-over from short term) 3. Transit Stop Improvements 4. Construct Two Left turn lane and Shared use path between SR 290 WB Ramp Et Wellesley 5. Construct park-and-ride facility in the vicinity of the SR 290 6. Construct remaining segments of shared use path throughout corridor Funding Sources FEDERAL: Tiger STP CMAQ HSIP FTA LOCAL: • Private Sector funding Sources • Local Organizations • Land Trusts • Businesses • Community Fundraising Et Partnering STATE: • New Washington State Transportation Package • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) - Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grants • State of Washington TIB Funding Programs for Urban Customers - Urban Sidewalk Program • Safe Routes to School Mini -grants Next Steps t 1. Prioritize near and long term improvements (citywide) 2. Identify and refine funding needs 3. Prioritize TIP projects with Council direction 4. Identify funding and partnering opportunities 5. Coordinate TIP and STIP Questions? Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action December 16, 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: State and Local Marijuana Laws: Consumption/Possession by Minors GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 69.50 (Initiative 502 has been codified as RCW 69.50) and WAC 314-55; RCW PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council heard a presentation from Linda Thompson, Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council on September 16, 2014 and Spokane Valley Police Chief Van Leuven on October 21, 2014; Council adopted its Legislative Agenda for the 2015- 2017 Legislative Session on November 4, 2014. BACKGROUND: In 2012, voters passed Initiative 502 (1-502), which was codified primarily in RCW 69.50, and which legalized recreational marijuana for persons over the age of 21. Under RCW 69.50.4014, "any person found guilty of possession of forty grams or Tess of marihuana (sic) is guilty of a misdemeanor." However, RCW 69.50.4014 is limited by its terms to "possession" of marijuana. There are no State laws prohibiting minors from consuming or exhibiting the effects of having consumed marijuana. However, it is possible the State may consider and adopt regulations in the upcoming 2015 Legislative session. If the City desired to adopt a provision that prohibited minors from consuming or exhibiting the effects of having consumed marijuana, there is a State law (RCW 66.44.270) prohibiting minors from consuming liquor that the City could use as a starting basis and structure. RCW 66.44.270 provides, in pertinent part: (2)(a) It is unlawful for any person under the age of twenty-one years to possess, consume, or otherwise acquire any liquor. A violation of this subsection is a gross misdemeanor punishable as provided for in chapter 9A.20 RCW. (b) It is unlawful for a person under the age of twenty-one years to be in a public place, or to be in a motor vehicle in a public place, while exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor. For purposes of this subsection, exhibiting the effects of having consumed liquor means that a person has the odor of liquor on his or her breath and either: (i) Is in possession of or close proximity to a container that has or recently had liquor in it; or (ii) by speech, manner, appearance, behavior, lack of coordination, or otherwise, exhibits that he or she is under the influence of liquor. This subsection (2)(b) does not apply if the person is in the presence of a parent or guardian or has consumed or is consuming liquor under circumstances described in subsection (4), (5), or (6) of this section. RCW 66.44.270 further provides several exceptions for: (1) liquor given to a minor by a parent or guardian and consumed in the presence of the parent or guardian, (2) liquor consumed by a minor for medicinal purposes, (3) liquor consumed as part of a religious service and the amount consumed is the minimal amount necessary for the religious service, and (4) persons who are or who assist with someone seeking medical attention for alcohol poisoning, if the evidence for the charge was obtained as a result of the need for medical assistance. The City of Liberty Lake recently adopted a provision that largely mirrors RCW 66.44.270, but which is specific to marijuana. It provides an exception for medical use only, however. Staff has not identified any other city that has adopted any similar marijuana prohibitions relating to consumption by minors. Due to limitations in State law, the penalty for any provision prohibiting minors from consuming or exhibiting the effects of having consumed marijuana would likely have to be limited to a civil infraction instead of a criminal misdemeanor. With City Council consensus to proceed with a provision substantially similar to RCW 66.44.270, staff will work with the Spokane Valley Police and the Spokane County Prosecutor's Office (which prosecutes City criminal and civil infraction provisions) to craft an appropriate provision for consideration and adoption by the City Council at a future City Council meeting. OPTIONS: Discussion; consensus for staff to prepare an ordinance that makes consumption of marijuana by minors illegal. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion; consensus for staff to prepare an ordinance that makes consumption of marijuana by minors illegal. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: N/A Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action December 16, 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: Legislative Agenda for Medical Marijuana GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 69.50 (Initiative 502 has been codified as RCW 69.50) and WAC 314-55; RCW 69.51A (governing medical marijuana) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted its Legislative Agenda for the 2015- 2017 Legislative Session on November 4, 2014. BACKGROUND: In 2012, voters passed Initiative 502 (1-502), which was codified primarily in RCW 69.50, and which legalized recreational marijuana for persons over the age of 21 and established a regulatory system with the Washington Liquor Control Board (the "LCB") as the State agency authorized to establish rules to license and regulate recreational marijuana production, marijuana processing, and marijuana retail sales shops. In the spring of 2014, the LCB established rules and began licensing production, processing, and retail sales stores for recreational marijuana. In addition to 1-502 and recreational marijuana, RCW 69.51A, which was initially passed as an initiative in 1998, provides a structure for qualified patients to obtain a medical marijuana card that permits them to obtain, possess and use medical marijuana. In 2011, the legislature attempted to fully legalize medical marijuana dispensaries and provide a State registry for qualified patients, collective gardens, and designated providers. However, Governor Gregoire vetoed all sections that would have created legalized medical marijuana dispensaries and the State registry, thereby leaving an uncertain structure in place for medical marijuana. As it currently stands, RCW 69.51A does not permit legal dispensaries and provides an affirmative defense to qualified patients, designated providers, and collective gardens. There is no licensing of any medical marijuana by the LCB as there is for recreational marijuana under 1-502. 1-502 further made it illegal to consume marijuana in view of the general public. However, there are apparent gaps that allow private consumption businesses to operate. These businesses are not regulated or licensed by the LCB. In 2014, the Washington Legislature considered, but did not pass, a bill that would have reconciled both recreational and medical marijuana. On November 4, 2014, City Council adopted its Legislative Agenda for the 2015-2017 Legislative Biennium. It its agenda, Council included an item that provided: Reconciliation of Medical and Recreational Marijuana The City of Spokane Valley supports the reconciliation of the recreational and medical marijuana statutes. Medical marijuana remains unregulated and is not subject to the same excise tax as recreational marijuana. There also continues to be a strong incentive for individuals to abuse the medical marijuana system to avoid the higher prices and limited availability of the recreational marijuana. The City would support development of one system that would regulate medical and recreational marijuana, (including the elimination of medical marijuana), in Washington State. Additionally, the City would support State regulations which close gaps within current legislation: Vaping, edibles, oils and "private" consumption/facilities; and under age possession and consumption. Based on the direction provided within Council's marijuana agenda item, staff crafted and provided input to the City's State Legislative lobbyist, Briahna Taylor (with Gordon Thomas Honeywell), on numerous marijuana -related legislative issues that are expected to be considered by the Washington Legislature in its upcoming 2015 session. A copy of the comments is attached. At this time, though many issues have been identified that are likely to be discussed by the Washington Legislature (such as reconciling the medical and recreational marijuana systems, directing marijuana tax revenue to local jurisdictions, preemption of local bans, and minor -in - possession provisions), no specific legislation on any issue has been released yet. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson, City Manager; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Comments for Legislative Response, originally provided to Briahna Taylor on November 21, 2014 Marijuana Comments — City of Spokane Valley Provided to Briahna Taylor, Gordon Thomas Honeywell on November 21, 2014 1. Retain local authority to adopt land use, building, fire, and other public health and safety regulations for all forms of recreational and medical marijuana production, processing and retail up to and including bans. 2. Eliminate all marijuana uses not currently licensed pursuant to existing Recreational Marijuana laws (Chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC). Eliminate the idea of licensed "medical" retail (as was provided in 2014 under E3SSB 5887) as everyone will have access to marijuana at existing licensed marijuana retail shops. Eliminate unlicensed designated providers, collective gardens, cooperatives, and all other forms of medical operations because without strict licensing and oversight, the same abuses will continue that we are seeing today. We must close the opportunities for abuse of the system. Closing these unlicensed loopholes meets the requirements from the Federal government as well, since it further strengthens the regulatory regime, both on paper and in fact. 3. Charge same fee and tax for all marijuana whether for medical or recreational use. OR 4. If legislature absolutely feels that there needs to be tax exemption for medical marijuana: i. Develop state license/registry for qualified doctors/physicians that are authorized to issue medical marijuana and state registry of qualified patients to define and control issuance of medical marijuana cards. ii. Create a tax exemption for marijuana for medical purposes. 5. Develop state legislation to address underage consumption of marijuana. See RCW 66.44.270 for existing laws prohibiting underage consumption of alcohol. This could form a basis for the underage marijuana consumption law. 6. Develop state legislation to control sale and distribution of human urine through marijuana dispensaries. 7. Develop state legislation to more clearly restrict public consumption of marijuana. We would look to existing state "no smoking" regulations under chapter 70.160 RCW to assist in development. This is necessary to control "private lounges" where marijuana is vaped, burned or consumed in the form of edibles through the formation of "private", "members only" clubs, wherein they operate as a club, but charge a "membership" fee to gain entrance. Currently these lounges are uncontrolled and unregulated. 8. If legislature intends to allow "vaping" or "consumption" lounges, then license the allowance of consumption just as they do for liquor licenses at bars. 9. No modifications to existing buffers. 10. Local jurisdictions are bearing the brunt of the impact of marijuana, especially in the form of increased property crimes as people try to steal marijuana, DUIs, and crimes involving minors who have consumed or are consuming marijuana. This has placed additional burden on law enforcement, as well as local educational efforts to better inform the public about the negative effects of marijuana on youth and the community. Thus, it is absolutely necessary and appropriate for cities to receive a portion of the existing state tax revenues. In addition, cities should be authorized to impose their own special excise taxes on marijuana production, processing, and retail sales to respond more particularly to local circumstances. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 16, 2014 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed changes to SVMC 7.30 — Animal Regulations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 7.30; Spokane County Code 5.04 and 5.12. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of regulations in 2003; amendments in 2007; amendments in 2012. BACKGROUND: The City contracts with Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service (SCRAPS) for animal control services within the City. One of the terms of that contract requires the City to adopt and update as appropriate regulations that are substantially similar to those adopted by Spokane County. The "substantially similar" language allows for some minor variations to account for our form of government or some local preference. The City has adopted by reference portions of the County Code in their entirety, but has separate provisions specifically relating to dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs under SVMC 7.30.035, 7.30.040, and 7.30.045. The purpose for this requirement to have code provisions substantially similar is so SCRAPS officers don't have to try to learn and apply numerous enforcement provisions for its various partners, which would be very difficult to do. In late 2013, Spokane County made a number of revisions to its relevant code provisions to reflect that the regional partnership would be expanding under the new interlocal agreement, and to make various updates to their code as appropriate. As a result, some minor modifications became necessary to ensure SVMC 7.30 accurately cited to the County Code. This is seen on the proposed amendment to SVMC 7.30.045(E). Additionally, the County added some requirements for certain dog owners who are required by law to register a dog after it is declared to be dangerous, which are found under the proposed amendment to SVMC 7.30.045(A). These additional requirements relate to humane treatment and living conditions for dogs deemed dangerous. The remaining proposed amendments are housekeeping, and reflect a particular way we reference things in our Code. As we amend any part of our Code over time, our office has been also adding similar changes. For example, rather than referencing partial Code section, the full reference is provided, or consistent use of a terms like "shall" for mandatory actions, and similar types of changes. OPTIONS: (1) place on future agenda for a first reading; (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place on future agenda for an ordinance first reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: proposed draft amendments to SVMC 7.30. Chapter 7.30 ANIMAL REGULATIONS Sections: 7.30.010 Animal control regulations. 7.30.020 Copy to be available. 7.30.030 Repealed. 7.30.035 Declaration of dangerous dog determination — Appeals relating thereto. 7.30.040 Declaration of potentially dangerous dog determination — Appeals relating thereto. 7.30.045 Registration of dangerous dogs — Requirements — Annual fee. 7.30.010 Animal control regulations. A. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020 and 35A.12.140, the City of Spokane Valley adopts by reference Gchapter 5.04, entitled "Dogs and Cats," and Chapter 5.12, entitled "Inherently Dangerous Mammals/Reptiles," of the Spokane County Code as now in effect and as subsequently amended as the animal control regulations for the City of Spokane Valley, except as specifically set forth in SVMC 7.30.035 relating to appeals of decisions of whether a dog is dangerous, and except as specifically set forth in SVMC 7.30.040 relating to appeals of decisions of whether a dog is potentially dangerous, and except as specifically set forth in SVMC 7.30.045 relating to registration of dangerous dogs, and repealing the City's adoption of Spokane County Code Sections 5.04.032, 5.04.033 and 5.04.035; any reference to "Spokane County" in Gchapters 5.04 and 5.12 of the Spokane County Code shall be construed to refer to the City of Spokane Valley. B. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020 and 35A.12.140, the City of Spokane Valley adopts by reference Section 5.04.030 of the Spokane County Code, entitled "Cat License — Required," as now in effect and subsequently amended. Any reference to "Spokane County" shall be construed to refer to Spokane Valley. 7.30.020 Copy to be available. One copy of Gchapters 5.04 and 5.12 of the Spokane County Code shall be available in the office of the city clerk for use, inspection and copying by the public. 7.30.035 Declaration of dangerous dog determination — Appeals relating thereto. Page 1 of 9 I I A. When the animal control director or designee has sufficient information to determine that a dog is dangerous pursuant toas defined by Spokane County Code Section 5.04.020, the animal control director or designee shall make a preliminary declaration that the dog is dangerous. In the event a preliminary determination is made that the dog is dangerous, animal control shall notify the dog owner or keeper in writing, either by personal delivery, or by regular mail and certified mail, return receipt requested. Any notice or determination mailed pursuant to SVMC 7.30.035this section shall be deemed received by the party to which it is addressed on the third day after it is placed in the mail, as set forth by declaration of the sender. B. The notice shallmust state: 1. The statutory basis for the proposed action; 2. A description of the dog for which the declaration is sought (breed, color, sex and license number, if any); 3. The reasons the animal control director or designee considers the animal dangerous; 4. If the dog has been determined to be dangerous, then the controls stated in SVMC 7.30.045 shall apply; and 5. An explanation of the owner's or keeper's rights and the proper procedure for appealing a declaration that a dog is dangerous, including an appeal form. C. Administrative Review After Preliminary Administrative Determination. 1. Preliminary Determination of Dangerous Dog. Prior to the animal control director or designee issuing a final determination that a dog is dangerous, the animal control director or designee shall notify the owner or keeper in writing that he or she is entitled to an opportunity to meet with the animal control director or designee, at which administrative review meeting the owner or keeper may give, orally or in writing, any reasons or information as to why the dog should not be declared dangerous. The notice shall state the date, time, and location of the administrative review meeting, which shall occur prior to the expiration of 15 calendar days following receipt of the notice. The owner or keeper may propose an alternative meeting date and time, but such administrative review meeting shall occur within the 15 -day time period set forth in SVMC 7.30.035this section, and shall be on a date and time acceptable to the animal control director or designee. 2. After such administrative review meeting, the animal control director or designee shall issue a final determination, in the form of a written order, within 15 calendar days of the administrative review meeting. In the event the animal control director or designee declares a dog to be dangerous, the order shall include a recital of the authority for the action, a brief Page 2 of 9 concise statement of the facts that support the determination, and the signature of the person who made the determination. 3. An order declaring a dog dangerous shall be delivered to the dog owner or keeper in writing either by personal delivery, or by regular mail and certified mail, return receipt requested. D. Any dog that is declared dangerous by the animal control director or designee, whether preliminary or final, shall be immediately impounded until the owner or keeper registers the dog as dangerous pursuant toin accordance with SVMC 7.30.045. The owner or keeper shallwi11 have 15 days from the date the dog was declared dangerous to register the dog or appeal the determination pursuant to SVMC 7.30.035(F)subsection F of this section. If the owner or keeper fails to register the dog or appeal the determination, the dog shallwi14 be euthanized at the direction of the animal control director or designee. If the owner or keeper appeals the dangerous dog declaration, pursuant toas set forth in SVMC 7.30.035(F)subsection F of this section, pending the outcome of the appeal, the dog shallwill be held pending the outcome of the appeal at the shelter at the owner's expense at a rate established by the animal control authority. E. The owner or keeper of a dog subject to a declaration that their dog is dangerous may appeal the final written determination to the hearing examiner within 15 days after issuance of the decision by filing a notice of appeal with the animal control authority. The hearing examiner may adopt appropriate hearing procedures where procedures are not otherwise provided herein. The hearing shall be held within 20 days after receipt of the notice of appeal, unless it is continued for good cause shown. The animal control director or designee shall notify the owner or keeper in writing of the date, time and location of the appeal hearing before the hearing examiner, and said notice shall be received at least five days before the hearing. The appeal hearing shall be recorded, and the hearing examiner may allow testimony and documents that are relevant to the administrative determination that the dog is dangerous. The owner or keeper of the dog may require, by at least two days' written notice, for the officer compiling the record to be present at the hearing. The owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence and examine witnesses present. The burden shall be on the animal control director to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the dog is a dangerous dog. F. The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision, and mail a copy of the decision to the dog owner or keeper, and to the animal control director or designee, within 15 days of the appeal hearing. The hearing examiner's decision shall accept, reject or modify the administrative determination that a dog is dangerous, and shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law that support the decision. The hearing examiner may modify the determination that a dog is dangerous to a determination that the dog is potentially dangerous, if the facts warrant, and impose any of the requirements pursuant toset forth in SVMC 7.30.040(D). The decision shall be given the effect of a final decision by the eCity eCouncil, and shall state that the decision may be appealed to superior court pursuant to Gchapter 7.16 RCW within 20 days from the date the decision was received. If the decision upholds the administrative determination that a dog is dangerous, and the dog owner or keeper fails to timely register the dog or appeal the decision to superior court, the dog will be euthanized at the direction of the animal control director or designee. If the dog owner or keeper timely appeals the dangerous dog declaration, the dog shall Page 3 of 9 be registered provisionally pursuant to SVMC 7.30.045(G) or pending the outcome of the appeal, the dog will be held pending the outcome of the appeal at the shelter at the owner's expense, at a rate established by the animal control authority. G. A dangerous dog's owner or keeper An owner or keeper of a dangerous dog who violates any condition& imposed under SVMC 7.30.035this section shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. 7.30.040 Declaration of potentially dangerous dog determination — Appeals relating thereto. A. When the animal control director or designee has sufficient information to determine that a dog is potentially dangerous pursuant toas defined by Spokane County Code Section 5.04.020, the animal control director or designee shall make a preliminary declaration that the dog is potentially dangerous. In the event a preliminary determination is made that the dog is potentially dangerous, animal control shall notify the dog owner or keeper in writing, either by personal delivery, or by regular mail. Any notice or determination mailed pursuant to SVMC 7.30.040this section shall be deemed received by the party to which it is addressed on the third day after it is placed in the mail, as set forth by declaration of the sender. B. The notice shallmust state: 1. The statutory basis for the proposed action; 2. A description of the dog for which the declaration is sought (breed, color, sex and license number, if any); 3. The reasons the animal control director or designee considers the animal potentially dangerous; 4. A statement that the registration and controls pursuant toset forth in SVMC 7.30.040(D)subsection D of this section may apply; 5. An explanation of the owner's or keeper's opportunity and right, pursuant to SVMC 7.30.040(C)(1)subsection (C)(1) of this section, to participate in an administrative review with the animal control director or designee to present information on why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous; 6. A statement, pursuant to SVMC 7.30.040subsection (C)(2) of this section, that a failure by the dog owner or keeper to request and attend an administrative review with the animal control director or designee shall constitute a failure to exhaust all administrative remedies, and that such failure to exhaust all administrative remedies shall preclude any appeal of the administrative determination to the hearing examiner or to court; and 7. An explanation of the owner's or keeper's rights and the proper procedure for appealing a declaration that a dog is potentially dangerous, including an appeal form. 1 Page 4 of 9 C. Administrative Review After Preliminary Administrative Determination. 1. Preliminary Determination of Potentially Dangerous Dog. Prior to the animal control director or designee issuing a final determination that a dog is potentially dangerous, the animal control director or designee shall notify the owner or keeper in writing that he or she may request in writing to meet with the animal control director or designee for an administrative review meeting within 15 calendar days following receipt of the notice, at which administrative review meeting the owner or keeper may give, orally or in writing, any reasons or information as to why the dog should not be declared potentially dangerous. Once an administrative review meeting is requested in writing by the owner or keeper, the animal control director or designee shall provide written notice to the owner or keeper of the date, time and place of the administrative review meeting. Administrative review meetings may be conducted telephonically. 2. A failure by the dog owner or keeper to request and attend an administrative review meeting with the animal control director or designee shall constitute a failure to exhaust all administrative remedies, and such failure to exhaust all administrative remedies shall preclude any appeal of the administrative determination to the hearing examiner or to court. 3. After such administrative review meeting, the animal control director or designee shall issue a final determination, in the form of a written order, within 15 calendar days of the administrative review meeting. In the event the animal control director or designee declares a dog to be potentially dangerous, the order shall include a recital of the authority for the action, a brief concise statement of the facts that support the determination, and the signature of the person who made the determination. 4. An order determining a dog is potentially dangerous shall be delivered to the dog owner or keeper in writing, either by personal delivery or by regular mail. D. The owner or keeper of a dog determined to be potentially dangerous pursuant to SVMC 7.30.040undcr this chapter shall comply with certain requirements, which may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Erection of new or additional fencing to keep the dog within the owner's or keeper's property; 2. Construction of a dog -run consistent with the size of the dog within which the dog must be kept; 3. Microchip identification, pursuant toas set forth in Spokane County Code Section 5.04.036; 4. Keeping the dog on a leash adequate to control the dog or securely fastened to a secure object when left unattended; 1 Page 5 of 9 5. Keeping the dog indoors at all times, except when on a leash adequate to control the dog and under the actual physical control of a competent person at least 15 years of age; and 6. The posting of the premises with at least one clearly visible warning sign that there is a potentially dangerous dog on the property. In addition, the owner shall conspicuously display a sign with a warning symbol that informs children of the presence of a potentially dangerous dog. E. The owner or keeper of a dog subject to a declaration that their dog is potentially dangerous may appeal the final written determination to the hearing examiner within 15 days after issuance of the decision by filing a notice of appeal with the animal control authority, subject to the limitation pursuant tostated in SVMC 7.30.040(C) subsection C of this section. The hearing examiner may adopt appropriate hearing procedures where procedures are not otherwise provided herein. The hearing shall be held within 20 days after receipt of the notice of appeal, unless it is continued for good cause shown. The animal control director or designee shall notify the owner or keeper in writing of the date, time and location of the appeal hearing before the hearing examiner, and said notice shall be received at least five days before the hearing. The appeal hearing shall be recorded, and the hearing examiner may allow testimony and documents that are relevant to the administrative determination that the dog is potentially dangerous. The owner or keeper of the dog may require, by at least two days' written notice, for the officer compiling the record to be present at the hearing. The owner or keeper of the dog may present evidence and examine witnesses present. The burden shall be on the Spokane County animal control director to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the dog is a potentially dangerous dog. F. The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision, and mail a copy of the decision to the dog owner or keeper, and to the animal control director or designee, within 15 days of the appeal hearing. The hearing examiner's decision shall accept, reject or modify the administrative determination that a dog is potentially dangerous, and shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law that support the decision. The decision shall be given the effect of a final decision by the eCity eCouncil, and shall state that the decision may be appealed to superior court pursuant to Gchapter 7.16 RCW within 20 days from the date the decision was received. G. A potentially dangerous dog's owner or keeperAn owner or keeper of a potentially dangerous dog who violates any of the conditions imposed under SVMC 7.30.040this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 7.30.045 Registration of dangerous dogs — Requirements — Annual fee. A. The owner or keeper of a dangerous dog shall obtain a certificate of registration for such animal from Spokane County animal control within 15 days of a declaration of dangerous dog or within 15 days of the appeal decision if appealed pursuant toas provided in SVMC 7.30.035. No dangerous dog shall be returned by Spokane County animal control to anyone prior to the issuance of the certificate of registration. The certificate of registration shall be issued only if the owner or keeper of the dangerous dog presents sufficient proof at the discretion of the animal control director of some or all of the following: Page 6 of 9 1. A proper enclosure to confine a dangerous dog and posting of the premises with a clearly visible sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property. In addition, the owner shall conspicuously display a sign with a warning symbol that informs children of the presence of a dangerous dog; 2. A surety bond pursuant toas required by RCW 16.08.080 as adopted or amended, issued by a surety insurer qualified pursuant toundcr cchapter 48.28 RCW in a form acceptable to Spokane County animal control in the sum of at least $250,000, payable to any person injured by the dangerous dog, regardless of whether the injury occurs on or off the owner's or keeper's premises. Said surety bond shall provide for prior written notification to Spokane County animal control of cancellation or material change; or A policy of liability insurance pursuant toas required by RCW 16.08.080 as adopted or amended, such as homeowner's insurance, issued by an insurer qualified pursuant Wunder RCW Title 48 in the amount of at least $250,000, with a maximum $500.00 deductible, insuring the owner or keeper for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous dog regardless of whether the injury occurs on or off the owner's or keeper's premises. Said policy of liability insurance shall provide for prior written notification to Spokane County animal control of cancellation or material change, payable to any person for personal injuries; Prior to the issuance of a certificate of registration, In addition, the owner or keeper of a dangerous dog shall also furnish to Spokane County animal control a complete copy of the surety bond or policy of liability insurance pursuant tospecified in this SVMC 3.70.045(A)(2) subsection, and shall allow Spokane County animal control a reasonable time to review the bond or policy to determine whether the liability coverage is sufficient, prior to issuing the certificate of registration; 3. A muzzle and leash for the dangerous dog which has been approved by Spokane County animal control; 4. Keeping the dog indoors at all times, except when on a leash approved by Spokane County animal control, and under the actual physical control of the owner or keeper or a competent person at least 15 years of age; 5. Keeping the dog muzzled in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration, but will prevent it from biting any person or animal when outside a proper enclosure; 46. A microchip implant injected for identification purposes pursuant to Spokane County Code Section 5.04.036; and �7. The dangerous dog shall be spayed/neutered at the owner's expense to complete the registration. If the dangerous dog has previously been spayed/neutered, the owner or keeper of the dangerous dog shall provide sufficient proof of such spaying/neutering promptly to Spokane County animal control. Any impounded dangerous dog may be transported by Paae 7 of 9 Spokane County animal control to a veterinarian for spaying/neutering as part of the registration process. B. In addition to the regular dog licensing fees pursuant toset forth in Spokane County Code Section 5.04.030, the owner or keeper of a dangerous dog shall pay an annual registration fee in the amount of $100.00. The registration shallwi14 be valid for 12 months. Dangerous dog registration shall be renewed every 12 months. A re=inspection of the facility is required prior to renewal. Prior to re -registration, tfhe owner or keeper shall also provide Spokane County animal control proof of proper insurance or a surety bond pursuant toas specified in SVMC 7.30.045(A)subsection A of this section prior to re registration. C. SVMC 7.30.045This section shall not apply to police dogs as defined in RCW 4.24.410. D. The owner or keeper of a dangerous dog shall notify Spokane County animal control, in writing, if the dog is deceasedfer if the dangerous dog is to be relocated,. or if there is a change in ownership. In the event of a change of ownership and/or relocation of the dangerous dog, the owner or keeper shall provide Spokane County animal control with at least 10 day's prior written notice that includes the complete address and phone number of the new owner or keeper prior to the change of ownership and/or relocation of the dangerous dog. The owner or keeper of the dangerous dog under this subsection shall also notify any subsequent owner or keeper of the dog's designation as a dangerous dog. If change of ownership and/or relocation of a dangerous dog is within Spokane County, all conditions imposed pursuant to SVMC 3.70.045under this section shall be in place for the new owner and at the new location prior to such change. E. Dogs deemed dangerous by other jurisdictions in the state of Washington shall be subject to the same regulations as if they have been deemed dangerous in Spokane County. Dogs deemed dangerous by jurisdictions outside of the state of Washington, whose owner or keeper and seeksing to relocate to the City, shall be present such dog ed for evaluation by the Spokane County animal control director or designee, who and may, be on an individual basis, declared the animal dangerous pursuant toby the animal control director or his or her designee on an individual basis, taking into account the criteria established by Spokane County Code Section 5.04.020(g9). Dogs meeting the requirements of a dangerous dog pursuant tounder Spokane County Code Section 5.04.020(49) shall be registered as such, and are subject to all other restrictions imposed pursuant tounder SVMC 7.30.045 this section. F. An owner or keeper of a dog previously deemed dangerous by Spokane County animal control and subsequently relocated outside Spokane County, shall register the dog pursuant to SVMC 7.30.045this section prior to bringing the dog into the City. Such dogs are prohibited from re- entering the City without prior written consent from Spokane County animal control and/or full re -registration. G. Notwithstanding any other provision in SVMC 7.30.045this section, the animal control director may issue a provisional registration certificate under the following circumstances: 1 Page 8 of 9 1. The dangerous dog declaration has been appealed pursuant to SVMC 7.30.035, provided all conditions pursuant toef SVMC 7.30.045this section have been met,. with the exception of SVMC 7.30.045(A)(5)Jubsection (A)(5) of this section requiring spay/neuter; or 2. The owner is relocating the dangerous dog outside Spokane County and all conditions pursuant toef SVMC 7.30.045this section have been met with the exception of subsection SVMC 7.30.045(A)(2) of this section requiring surety bond or liability insurance. A provisional permit issued pursuant to subsectionSVMC 7.30.045(G)(1) of this section shall expire 15 days following the appeal decision. A provisional permit issued pursuant to subsection SVMC 7.30.045(G)(2) of this section shall be valid for the sole purpose of immediate transport and relocation of the dangerous dog from the shelter to a location outside Spokane County. H. A dangerous dog's owner or keeper An owner or keeper of a dangerous dog who violates any conditions imposed pursuant to SVMC 7.30.045under this section shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Page 9 of 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: December 16, 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: Comprehensive Plan Legislative Update — Public Participation Program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: Per RCW 36.70A.130(1), every county and city in the state is required to conduct an update of its comprehensive plan and development regulations every eight years. Although the City of Spokane Valley's update is due no later than June 30, 2017, the City prefers to begin this process in 2015. RCW 36.70A.140 of the Washington Growth Management Act requires that each city "establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development" of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff and consultants have taken the first steps to begin the update process and have developed the Public Participation Program. Consistent with the recommendations of the GMA which emphasize the involvement of the broadest cross-section of the community, a citizen participation program has been developed. The program outlines the general steps in the planning process: Staff will be present to discuss the Public Participation Program. OPTIONS: Consensus to approve the Public Participation Program, modify the program, or provide other direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to approve the Public Participation Program. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Director and Lori Barlow, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Public Participation Program and PowerPoint Presentation Spokane .,,.•' Valley COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Public Participation Program Project Overview: The City of Spokane Valley is updating its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), governed by RCW 36.70A. The Comprehensive Plan is the City's official statement concerning its vision for future growth and development. The Plan comprises several individual elements, some of which are required and others optional. The City of Spokane Valley amends its Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis as permitted by State law. In addition to these regular amendments, the GMA requires counties and cities to periodically conduct a thorough review of their plans and regulations to bring them in line with any relevant changes in the GMA and to accommodate updated growth targets. Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2006. Spokane Valley's next periodic update is required to be adopted by June 30, 2017. The City's Comprehensive Plan is outdated and needs revision to reflect the needs of our community and the City desires to begin this process in 2015. Public Participation Objectives: The specific public participation objectives for the Comprehensive Plan update are to: 1. Enhance the quality of and support for the Comprehensive Plan through meaningful public and agency participation in the preparation of the Plan update 2. Balance the interests of our community with the interests of the State and region 3. Identify issues early and evaluate options for resolution during the planning process 4. Comply with all state laws and regulations related to public participation Public Participation Program: RCW 36.70A.140 of the Washington Growth Management Act requires that each city "establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development" of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with the recommendations of the GMA which emphasize the involvement of the broadest cross-section of the community, including the involvement of groups not previously involved, the City of Spokane Valley adopts the following program for citizen participation in the planning process: 1. Visioning Process. This process provides Spokane Valley citizens an opportunity to establish a framework and context upon which the comprehensive plan update will be based. Public and stakeholder meetings will provide the forum for the initial community visioning process. A minimum of four (4) meetings will be held at community facilities for this purpose. A draft "Vision" will be tested for consistency during the development of the Plan as the community identifies priorities and implementation strategies and updated accordingly. The ultimate "Vision" will be established at the conclusion of the planning process as a result of community participation. 2. Community Workshop. Conduct community workshop(s) to encourage citizen participation in the development of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will evaluate information provided by the community and develop recommendations for submission to the City Council. 4. Public hearings and deliberation. Public Hearings will be held before the Planning Commission to discuss the draft Plan, take public comment, and formulate a recommendation. It is anticipated that at least one public hearing will be held by the City Council prior to adoption of the Plan. An additional public hearing will be held if substantive changes are made to the Plan document. 5. Written Comment. The public will be invited to submit written comments throughout the update process. Comments will be specifically solicited from residents, special interest organizations and business interests. Comments may be in the form of letters and other correspondence to the City regarding the plan or comments received electronically on the City's website. Staff will log in all written comments received according to specific area of comprehensive plan. Solicitation of comments will be emphasized at certain points in the update process, including during visioning, EIS scoping (if necessary), and at the issuance of the Draft Plan. 6. Communications Programs & Informational Services. As staff and budgetary resources allow, the activities will be undertaken to ensure broad-based citizen participation: a. Comprehensive Plan website — Create a dedicated webpage for the update process, which will provide necessary information to the public and will remain active for the duration. b. Comprehensive Plan e -newsletter — Circulate an e -newsletter which will update the community on planned meetings, public workshop(s) or other significant comprehensive plan events. The e -newsletter may also include requests for feedback from the community on specific topics related to the plan. The e -newsletter will be disseminated via the City's website and emailed to a mailing list of interested parties. Hard copies will be available at certain community facilities (e.g. library). c. Interest Groups — Contact local interest groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, home builders, environmental, neighborhoods, etc.) requesting participation and maintain a list of interested parties. Develop a database of interested parties and provide regular correspondence concerning the status of Plan development. d. Identify key resource personnel representing agencies and groups whose plans influence the development of the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to fire districts, utilities, libraries and school districts. e. Informational Public Meetings — Conduct a series of public meetings on the preliminary draft comprehensive plan. These meetings may be in the form of a public workshop, an informational session, or other. f. Press Releases & Public Service Announcements — Work with the local newspapers, radio stations, televisions stations, and local organizations) to advertise and promote significant events related to the comprehensive plan update process. Maintain a log of all public participation meetings, events and actions that the City engages in to provide documentation on the City's effort to meet the requirements of the GMA. g. Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update I Public Participation Program 1 12/16/2014 1 2 Public Participation Procedures: Notice Procedures The City will provide notice of all meetings and hearings pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.020, .035, and .140 and SVMC 17.80.120. Citizen Amendment Request Process The Comprehensive Plan update process will provide the opportunity for all individuals, property owners, neighborhood organizations, or others to submit an application for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, land use map, zoning map, or development regulations pertaining to a specific property or properties. These requests are referred to as Citizen -initiated Amendment Requests (CARs) and will be evaluated by City staff, Planning Commission, and City Council. CARs are required to be submitted no later than March 31, 2015. Complete CAR applications will be reviewed and processed based upon established criteria and the City's ability and level of resources necessary to review the proposal. Unless a proposed amendment fulfills a particular duty under the GMA, the City has broad discretion to take one of the following actions: • Accept the CAR(s) for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan periodic update process; or • Defer the CAR(s) to a future amendment docket per SVMC 17.80.140; or • Deny the CAR(s) from inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan update process. Plan Update and Public Meeting Schedule*: The Comprehensive Plan update process is anticipated to take more than one year to complete. The ability to proceed and adhere to the timeframe in this document is dependent upon two factors: (1) confirmation of population data from Spokane County, and (2) the scope of environmental review (i.e. whether or not an EIS will be required). Outlined below is the projected timeframe during which the update will take place. The City has chosen to take a three -phased approach; the phases generally break out as: data collection and visioning, Draft EIS and Draft Comprehensive Plan, and Final EIS and Final Draft Comprehensive Plan. As more detailed scoping takes place, the update schedule will be revised and posted to the City's webpage. Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update I Public Participation Program 1 12/16/2014 1 3 *schedule is subject to change At certain phases of the update process the public and stakeholders will be engaged for community visioning, consultation and informational purposes, and substantive discussions about elements of the Comprehensive Plan. At each of the public meetings, the City will encourage the public to submit comments to be considered in the update process. Below is a list of the type of each meeting, including the topic, as well as the anticipated meeting date. Public Meetings or Open Houses Task Anticipated Timeframe Phase 1 Project Start -Up: Data Collection and Strategy Now - 1Q 2015 Community Vision Phase 2 EIS Scoping 1Q 2015 - 3Q 2015 Draft Comprehensive Plan Elements Draft EIS Phase3 Final EIS 3Q 2015 - TBD Final Comprehensive Plan Elements Council Workshops and Hearings 4Q 2015 - TBD *schedule is subject to change At certain phases of the update process the public and stakeholders will be engaged for community visioning, consultation and informational purposes, and substantive discussions about elements of the Comprehensive Plan. At each of the public meetings, the City will encourage the public to submit comments to be considered in the update process. Below is a list of the type of each meeting, including the topic, as well as the anticipated meeting date. Public Meetings or Open Houses Task Anticipated Meeting Date Community Visioning January 2015 and February 2015 EIS Scoping (if necessary) May 2015 Preliminary Draft Plan - Open House June 2015 Draft Plan - Open House August 2015 Final Draft Plan - Open House October 2015 Planning Commission Task Anticipated Meeting Date Citizen Amendment Request May 2015 Planning Commission Workshop - Draft Plan August 2015 Planning Commission Workshop - Final Draft Plan October 2015 Planning Commission Hearing — Recommendation December 2015 City Council Task Anticipated Meeting Date Citizen Amendment Request May 2015 City Council Workshop - Final Draft Plan December 2015 City Council Workshop - Final Draft Plan 2016 City Council Hearing — Adoption 2016 *schedule and number of meetings are subject to change In accordance with RCW 36.70A.035(2)(a), if a change is proposed after the opportunity for review and comment has passed, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed change shall be provided before the City Council votes on the proposed change. Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update I Public Participation Program 1 12/16/2014 1 4 Public Participation Program City Council December 16, 2014 Update necessary background information, inventories, and existing conditions Implement the Public Participation Program to ensure continuous participation Create a vision for the development of the community Update Process Develop goals, policies, and objectives consistent with the vision Amend the Zoning Code and other development regulations as needed to ensure consistency with updated Comprehensive Plan Public Participation Statutory Requirements RCW 36.7011.140 Each city shall "establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. " [excerpt] WAC 365-196-600 Each city shall "establish procedures for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive plans and development regulations." [excerpt] Phases of Update Process Phase 1 • Visioning Phase 2 • Draft Comprehensive Plan Phase 3 • Final Draft Comprehensive Plan and Development of Regulations Public Meetings (4) -initiate public participation and visioning process January and February 2015 Required Visioning Process Citizen Amendment Request (CAR) Meeting CARs must be accepted; community workshop is optional May 2015 Potential Optional EIS Scoping Meeting if EIS needed May 2015 Phase 1 Draft Comprehensive Plan Issuance of preliminary Draft Comprehensive Plan - public workshop Working Draft June 2015 Phase 2 Additional public Issuance of Draft meeting(s) to review Comprehensive Plan major amendment(s) - public workshop outside of original scop if needed with EIS; Draft sent to Dept. of Commerce RCW 36.70A.035(2)(a) Required Potential August 2015 Optional TBD 1 i Final Draft Comprehensive Plan Issuance of Final Draft Comprehensive Plan - public workshop Required October 2015 Potential Phase 3 Additional public meeting(s) to review major amendment(s) outside of original scope RCW 36.70A.035(2)(a) TBD Optional Planning Commission Citizen Draft Final Draft Public Hearing - Amendment Comprehensive Comprehensive recommendatio Request (CAR) Plan Workshop Plan Workshop to Council Recommended and included in Draft PPP if EIS, this is a hearing • May 2015 August 2015 October 2015 December 2015 Required Potential Optional P.C. Recommended Draft Citizen Amendment Comprehensive Request (CAR) Plan Workshop Recommended and included in Draft PPP May 2015 December 2015 Required Potential City Council P.C. Recommended Draft Comprehensive Plan Workshop Additional mtg. if necessary 2016 Optional Public Hearing - recommendation t Council • 2016 Anticipated Breakdown of Meetings City Council • Min. 1 - 4 public meetings Planning Commission • Min. 1 - 4 public meetings l Planning Staff and Consultant Team • Min. 4 - 12 public meetings Note: these are anticipated to be in addition to briefings at regularly scheduled City Council and Planning Commission meetings Next Steps to Implement PPP • Create a project webpage on the City's website • Staff to conduct planning for Community Visioning • Hold Community Visioning meetings DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of December 11, 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 December 23, 2014 no meeting December 30, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Mayoral Appointments- Planning Commission NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports January 6, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda 2. Info Only: CTR (Commute Trip Reduction) Plan Update [due Mon, Dec 22] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] [due Mon, Dec 29] (5 minutes) January 13, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Jan 5] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Dangerous Dog Code Regulations — Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments, Lodging Tax Advisory Cmte Appt — Dean Grafos 10 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments, Councilmembers to Committees — Mayor Grafos (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: CTR Plan Update — Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] January 20, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Review of Various City Marijuana Regulations and Bans Statewide 2. Governance Manual Discussion/Review — Chris Bainbridge 3. Advance Agenda [due Mon, Jan 12] (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] January 27, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Jan 19] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Marijuana Moratorium — Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Dangerous Dog Code Regulations — Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Council Approval of CTR Updated Plan — Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] February 3, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Jan 26] 1. Advance Agenda February 10, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Draft Advance Agenda 12/11/2014 7:59:47 AM (5 minutes) [due Mon, Feb 2] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Page 1 of 2 February 17, 2015, Special Meeting Winter Workshop (8:30 a.m. — 4:30 p.m. [due Mon, Feb 9] Tentative topics: CenterPlace State and Federal Legislative Updates City Hall Coal trains Marijuana Tree City USA February 17, 2015 — 6:00 p.m. meeting cancelled in lieu of Special Workshop meeting February 18-19, 2015 AWC City Action Days Legislative Session February 24, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Comp Plan, Site Specific Amendments 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 4. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports March 3, 2015, Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda March 10, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda *time for public or Council comments not included [due Mon, Feb 16] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] — Marty Palaniuk, Christina Janssen OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Avista Electrical Franchise Bid Process, Explanation of Public Works Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Economic Incentives Historic Preservation Public Safety Quarterly Costs SEPA/NEPA Process — Eric Guth Setback Requirements Sidewalks and Developments Spokane Regional Transportation Mgmt Ctr Street Sweeping Bike Lanes Draft Advance Agenda 12/11/2014 7:59:47 AM [due Mon, Feb 23] (5 minutes) [due Mon, March 2] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Page 2 of 2