2015, 02-17 Workshop Packet AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
WORKSHOP
Tuesday,February 17,2015 8:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
11707 E. Sprague, Spokane Valley,Washington
Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting
WELCOME: Mayor Grafos
ROLL CALL
Overview: Discussion Topics—Mike Jackson
1) Information Items -
• Work Plan
• Legislative Agenda
• 2015 Business Plan [under separate cover]
2) Economic Development Update (incentives, etc.) —John Hohman,Erik Lamb
3) Law and Justice Council —Cary Driskell
4) Law Enforcement Cost Breakdown—Morgan Koudelka
5) Legislative Update—Mike Jackson; Briahna Taylor [approximately 11:00 a.m.]
• Telephone call from Briahna Taylor — State Legislative Updates
LUNCH BREAK 12:00— 12:30
(Note: Council& Staff move to a separate room for lunch. Reconvene in Council Chambers)
6) Railroad Quiet Zones—Mark Calhoun
7) Civic Facility Capital Projects Fund —Mike Jackson; Mark Calhoun
8) Public Works Projects (Sullivan Bridge,etc.) —Eric Guth
How are projects historically paid: grant vs. matching funds
Capability of City to pay for projects
9) Historic Buildings and the Building Codes- Doug Powell
10) New City Hall—John Hohman
11) Miscellaneous Items—
• Marijuana—Erik Lamb
• Oil and Coal Trains—Mike Jackson, Eric Guth, Ben Wick
• Gambling Tax—Mark Calhoun
• Existing City Hall Renovations—John Hohman, Mike Jackson, Mark Calhoun
• Other
12) Council Brainstorming— open discussion
Adjourn
Note: There will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions or Workshops. During meetings held by the
City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council reserves the right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently
added to the agenda. The term"action" means to deliberate,discuss, review, consider,evaluate, or make a collective
positive or negative decision.
Workshop Agenda 02-17-15 Page 1 of 1
0°°.°\0■1
Sjö1
ne
.•011FVlley®
ask II
ikvIntc. r; T.:
Irt
U
Annual Work Plan for 2015
2015 Budget Goals
Including Tasks & Timeline
and
Department Objectives
Executive &Legislative Support
Operations &Administrative Services
Community Development
Public Works
Parks &Recreation
Public Safety I Police
2015 Work Plan
Table of Contents
2015 Budget Goals 1
Department Objectives
City Clerk 2
Finance Division 2
Deputy City Manager 3
Human Resources 4
Community & Economic Development 5
Public Works 6
Parks & Recreation 10
Public Safety 14
2015 Budget Goals
The 2015 budget reflects the distribution of resources consistent with the Coun-
cil's determination of core services priorities.
The following goals, listed in no particular order of priority, represent broad areas
of concentration important to the well-being of the community.
The City Manager works with the departments to ensure necessary resources are
available and to ensure development and execution of the work plan toward
achievement of the goals.
1. Pursue a legislative capital budget request for possible financial assis-
tance for the Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation (overpass/underpass);
the Appleway Trail Project; and parkland acquisition.
2. Pursue the Bridging the Valley concept at state and federal levels, in-
cluding long-term funding for grade separation and corridor consolida-
tion.
3. Continue and expand, where possible, economic development efforts,
including review and evaluation of Spokane Valley's development regula-
tions and how they compare with other jurisdictions; and including com-
pletion of the City Hall Plan.
4. Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Street Preser-
vation program, to include sustained funding in the City's Street Fund to
address concerns beyond the year 2019.
5. Evaluate and discuss increasing costs to public safety, including law
enforcement. Seek long-term solutions to keeping costs in check while
better serving the community.
6. Work toward completion of the Comprehensive Plan review.
Department Objectives
Executive & Legislative Services
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
City Clerk Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Complete and submit application to become a Passport
Acceptance Facility for the U.S.Department of State. 4
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Finance Division Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Close the 2014 books and prepare the related annual
financial report with a CAFR opinion which will allow <
the City to issue an annual report under our own cov-
er.
2 Successfully undergo an annual audit conducted by
the State Auditor's Office and receive a clean opinion.
3 Implement additional State Auditor suggestions and
improve financial statement process and accuracy.
4 Continue the process of virtualizing servers including
setting-up clusters at both City Hall and CenterPlace.
This configuration will ultimately provide much need- O +
ed fail-over/redundancy in the event of a server fail-
ure as well as reduce the number of physical servers.
(ONGOING)
5 Coordinate 2016 Budget Development process
2014 Complete the 2015 Budget development process,2014
Budget amendment,property tax ordinance,fee reso- COMPLETED
lution,outside agency funding process and lodging tax
award process.
2014 Replace 30 leased computer workstations that will
reach the end of their life cycle. COMPLETED
2014 Replace 3 servers and 1 storage area network(SAN)
that will reach the end of their life cycle. COMPLETED
2014 Close the 2013 books and prepare the related annual
financial report with a CAFR opinion which will allow COMPLETED
the City to issue an annual report under our own cov-
er.
2014 Complete the process of hiring a Help Desk Techni-
cian and meet the stated intent of reducing contractor COMPLETED
costs enough to cover the additional personnel cost.
2
Department Objectives
Operations & Administrative Services
Deputy City Manager Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Division Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Provide support to Administration in the advance- $ o
ment and completion of Council Goals.
2
Evaluate and discuss increasing costs to public safe-
ty,including law enforcement. Seek long-term solu- ,
tions to keeping costs in check while better serving
the community.(Council goal)
3 Evaluate Public Defender service, identifying the
most efficient way to accommodate caseload stand- $ o
ards.
4 Develop and implement methodology to account for
Public Defender investigative standards.
5 Evaluate Public Safety contracts and agreements •
6 Provide public information support for Council goals
to pursue a legislative capital budget request or other
grant/funding for the Appleway Trail project,City 4 o
Hall,parkland acquisition,the Barker Road grade
separation,and other major projects to be identified.
(Council Goal)
7 Continue public information support that informs and
engages the public for Sullivan Bridge Replacement ` - '- -
(continued from 2014)
8 Work with staff to complete the move of the Finance
Department and Permit Center to new locations in • S
the main building.
9 Coordinate efforts of the City Hall construction team. 4
10 Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the
City's Street Preservation program,to include sus- 4
tained funding in the City's Street Fund to address
concerns beyond the year 2019.(Council Goal)
3
Department Objectives
Operations & Administrative Services, continued
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Human Resources Division Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Enhance Wellness Program for the City
2 Evaluate the City's Labor and Industries'programs to 4 0
reduce labor costs
3 Continue to refine the City's Mobile App to market
the City's attributes ONGOING 4
4 Successfully negotiate a successor labor agreement
that continues to reward employees for high levels of 4 0
performance and supports the City's financial goals.
2014 Review City Employment Policies for needed updates COMPLETED
2014 Provide support for the City's ADA Self Evaluation COMPLETED
and Plan
2014 Implement City-wide safety related training as identi- COMPLETED
feed in the Accident Prevention Program
4
Department Objectives
Community & Economic Development
Community & Economic Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Development Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Update the Comprehensive Plan 4
2 Manage Design process for City Hall
3 Economic Development 4 !
a Develop marketing plan 4
•
b Business recruitment and retention
4
c Develop historic preservation program 4 !
d Meet with Regional Partners 4
•
e Continue to expand Express Permitting
4 !
4 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 !
5 Complete Floodplain restudies
4 •
6 Update Engineering Standards
4 0
7 Update UGA boundaries through regional process
4
8 Emergency Management 4
9 Prepare an annexation process and forms for the City
of Spokane Valley 4 !
10 Develop GIS content,standards and workflows o 0
11 Explore opportunities for regional partnering with Spo-
kane County and the City of Spokane 4 !
12 Wellhead Protection Committee 4 _
2014 Implement Counter Review COMPLETED
2014 Implement Permit Tracking System—web portal COMPLETED
2014 Develop a Shoreline Master Program COMPLETED
&SUBMIT-
TED TO D.O.E.
5
Department Objectives
Public Works
Administration Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Pursue a legislative capital budget request for the
Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation, the Appleway 4 i p
Trail and parkland acquisition.(Council Goal)
2 Pursue the Bridging the Valley Concept
M_ (Council Goal)
3 Develop 2016 annual PW budget to provide all neces-
sary services and programs within the parameters set •
�j by the budget team and City Council.
4 Develop and Manage the Fleet Management Program 4 O
5 Manage the Solid Waste Program I
4 4
Stormwater Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Update six-year Stormwater Capital Improvement
Plan(2016-2021)
2 Renew and manage contracts with private contractors
for Stormwater maintenance services(landscape and 4
storm drain cleaning)
3 2015 Small Works projects 4
4 Lead the EW Stormwater Efficiency Studies Project
on behalf of Eastern Washington Communities and 4
Counties
5 Broadway Project—Design and construct improve- 4
ments from Havana to Fancher
6 Continue to implement the Ecology Phase II
Stormwater permit
7 Finish development and document the City's storm-
water inspection program
8 Complete Stormwater assessment rolls—update
commercial impervious surfaces map for 1/5 of corn- 4
mercial parcels
9 Appleway Landscaping—Monitor plant growth and
final acceptance 4 e
ff 2014++ Design and construct a vactor liquid decant facility COMPLETED
LTJ •
2014 SE Yardley Project—Design&construct improve- COMPLETED I
ments south of Broadway,east of Fancher
2014 Develop&Bid contract for street sweeping services COMPLETED
for 2015
6
Department Objectives
Public Works, continued
Capital Improvement Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Update six-year Transportation Improvement Plan for
arterial roadways
Identify&recommend new projects
Public hearing on draft plan
Seek Council approval of plan
Submit CMAQ,TA,CDBG,TIB&other grant re-
quests as available
2 Implement approved Capital Projects
Argonne Rd.Corridor Upgrade—(Construction) i •
Broadway/Argonne/Mullan Concrete Intersection
(Design&ROW)
Citywide Safety Improvements(Bike/Ped)
Mansfield Ave.Connection—(ROW&Construction) i
Mission Avenue reconstruction—Flora to Barker
(Design&ROW)
Pines(SR27)&Grace Ave.Intersection Safety 0
(Design&Construction)
Sidewalk Infill Project—Phase 2(Design&Construc-
tion) •
Sullivan/Euclid Concrete Intersection(Design)
0 0
Sullivan Road W.Bridge Replacement(Construction)
4 •
2015 Street Preservation—Sullivan Rd/Sprague to a
Mission(Design&Construction)
Valley—Millwood Trail—Phase 1 (Design)
4
Appleway Trail—University to Pines(Construction) •
•
Citywide Bike/Ped Safety Improvements o
Sprague/Long Sidewalk(Design&Construction) O •
Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access Improvements 0
7
Department Objectives
Public Works, continued
Capital Improvement Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
continued Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
3 Overlay Projects,Arterials and Collectors 4
Sullivan Trent to Wellesley 4 4
Argonne—Sprague to Appleway ♦
Montgomery—Dartmouth to University o _ _ 0
Broadway—Herald to University 4 0
32nd Ave—Bowdish to Pines 4
16th Ave—Herald to University
4 ResidentiaVLocal Street Overlay and
Reconstruction
I
Maxwell—Pines to Houk •
Houk—Sinto to Mission P
Sinto—Pines to Houk 4- 0
Blake-12th to 16th 4 0
Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS)Infill— Delayed to 2016
Broadway,Fancher,University
N.Sullivan Corridor Intelligent Transportation Sys- Delayed to 2016
tems(ITS)
2014 2014 Street Preservation Project-8th Ave.recon- COMPLETED
struction—McKinnon to Fancher Street Preservation
2014 2014 Street Preservation Project Appleway Ave. COMPLETED
resurfacing
2014 2014 Street Preservation Project—Sprague Ave/Vista COMPLETED
to Herald
2014 Adams Rd.resurfacing—Sprague to 4th COMPLETED
2014 2014 Street Preservation Project—Euclid/Flora to COMPLETED
Barker resurfacing
2014 2014 Street Preservation Project—Mullan/Dishman to COMPLETED
I l Broadway resurfacing
2014 Bates Rd.Improvements at Ponderosa Dr. COMPLETED
2014 Citywide Traffic Sign project COMPLETED
2014 Vista—BNSF Crossing Safety Improvements COMPLETED
8
Department Objectives
Public Works, continued
Street Fund Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Operations & Maintenance Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Update the 2014 Street Master Plan ® 4
2 Issue/Renew annual contracts for Street Maintenance
activities o
3 Manage the Bridge Maintenance Program
4 Bid and construct bridge maintenance projects on City •
•
Bridges and overpasses
Traffic Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Optimize traffic signals on selected corridors and •
implement timing plans
2 Sullivan Rd Corridor Traffic Study--I90 to Wellesley ®
3 Attend monthly TTC,CMP&SRTC Board meetings 4 •
4 Review and assist with traffic on all capital projects •
5 University/I-90 overpass Study 4
6 Yellow Backplate Installation 4 0
7 Setup and Implementation of City Transportation
Management Center
8 Apply for grants and install school zone beacons 4 •
9
Department Objectives
Parks & Recreation
Administration & Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
1, Maintenance Division Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun, Jul Aug Sep ;Oct Nov Dec
1 Construct Sand Volleyball Courts at Browns Park
Develop plans and specifications �♦
Bid project
Complete Master Plan update
• ` I
2 Develop listing of Potential Park Properties
L.---d
Research and locate potential properties 4
3 Replace Edgecliff Picnic Shelter
MOVED TO 2015 WITH NEW TIMELINE
Produce plans&specifications
Bid out construction project •-•
Complete construction •
4 Construct Pocket Dog Park
Seek public input on design
Complete plans,specification&bid process
Complete construction
e �
5 Develop Centennial Trail
Capital Repair Program
1 Create new draft agreement and work with other juris- ! 0
dictions to approve
2014 Complete Browns Park Master Plan Process COMPLETED
2014 Explore development of a dog park COMPLETED
2014 Discovery Playground Improvements COMPLETED
2014 Develop and finalize Centennial Trail Maintenance COMPLETED
Agreement
10
Department Objectives
Parks & Recreation, continued
Recreation/Aquatics Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Division Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ,Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 "Make A Splash!"and Spokane Parks Foundation
ONGOING ANNUALLY
Continue to provide free swim passes to children of
low income families
Continue to work closely with Spokane Valley Part-
•
ners to ensure program continues
2 Connectivity at our Pools
Research potential Wi-Fi upgrades 4
Install upgrades at our pools
3 Sponsorships for the summer outdoor movies
Solicit movie sponsors
4 Swimming Pool Improvements
Paint Park Road Pool 4
Install stairs and railing at Terrace View Pool 4
5 Maintain full summer swimming program
ONGOING ANNUALLY
Work with 2015 Budget to ensure swimming program
remains intact
2014 Design in-house professional marketing materials for COMPLETED
Recreation&Aquatics Divisions
2014 Solicit Sponsorships for the summer outdoor movies COMPLETED
2014 Continue to collect information or expand program COMPLETED
marketing to social media sites
11
Department Objectives
Parks & Recreation, continued
Senior Center Division Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ,Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
a .._!�
1 Offer annual resource and referral fair to provide
information to the senior population
ONGOING ANNUALLY
Develop materials for Fair
Conduct resource and referral Fair �0
2 Partnerships
Continue relationship with YMCA to offer reduced 0
daily rates for senior center members
3 Continue to offer day bus trips in conjunction with
area senior centers
ONGOING ANNUALLY
Explore regional day bus trip options 40--•
Work with area Senior Centers on trips o
4 Advertise and offer activities and trips through other
senior centers
ONGOING ANNUALLY
Continue to promote activities through various Senior
Centers in Spokane are via newsletters,direct mail, 4
etc.
5 Research and develop classes and training for seniors
needing IT assistance
Work with Community Colleges to develop program
and curriculum
Implement program on a trial basis
4 e
2014 Continue to provide annual training options for front COMPLETED
desk volunteers
2014 Continue to work with the Board of Directors regard- COMPLETED
ing their training and educational responsibilities
12
Department Objectives
Parks & Recreation, continued
CenterPlace Division Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Ian Feb Mar lApr May Jun',Jul Aug Sep ,Oct Nov Dec
1 Increase awareness of CenterPlace as a full-service
wedding&reception venue
ONGOING ANNUALLY
Advertise for consultants ♦,
Consultant research/development of draft update
Complete marketing plan&update 4-0
2 Repair Leaks in CenterPlace roof
Develop repair plans and complete repairs
• •
3 Continue to increase regional&business events
ONGOING ANNUALLY
Maintain a presence at trade&tourism shows
Implement concepts from updated marketing plan
Continue to partner with local tourism outlets for in-
creased exposure
4 Renovate Lounge kitchen and replace Lounge carpet
Research&renovate kitchen
Replace carpet
2014 Developed new lower cost lunch/dinner menus with COMPLETED
Red Rock
2014 Developed a list of meeting planners to promote Cen- COMPLETED
terPlace through target marketing
13
Department Objectives
Public Safety/Police
Build Upon Our Multi-jurisdictional Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Working Partnerships Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Continue to enhance departmental,regional and com-
munity public safety efforts in cooperation with citi- 4 0
zens and businesses,with assistance of Crime Check
2 Increase interest in community involvement in pro-
grams such as SCOPE,Neighborhood Watch,Crime 4 •
Prevention,Reserves,Explorers,etc.
3 Continue involvement in Inland Northwest Law En-
forcement Leadership Group,sharing intelligence with 4
state,federal and other public safety agencies.
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Continue to Work Toward Disaster Preparedness Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Continue progression of the implementation of our
communications interoperability plan including train- �— 0
ing and equipment installation.
2 Continue involvement in public safety table top
exercises with other agencies, including Spokane Val- 4 0
ley departments and Department of Emergency Man-
agement.
2013 Complete multi-agency community full-scale exercise COMPLETED
of active shooter training at Spokane Valley Mall.
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Staff Goats
Jan Feb Mar dApr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Identify and implement specific training needs for
Spokane Valley Police Department. 4 0
2 Continue to provide effective leadership training to all
supervisors to enhance our mission. 0
3 Continue to implement crime prevention efforts to
keep Spokane Valley a"safe city"to live and work. 4
4 Continue to participate on the Problem-Solving Task COMPLETED-
Force addressing a wide variety of issues the depart- ONGOING
ment faces.
5 Maintain the principles of Intelligence Led Policing
through the use of Spokane Crime Analysis Team to
identify crime trends and high collision areas to better 4 - 0
utilize resources,and strengthen the relationship be-
tween Patrol and Detectives
6 Enhance the public's perception of law enforcement
through community education on recognized police 4 •
best practices regarding accredited police services.
7 Be more proactive in tracking stolen property with
crime prevention techniques and databases. 0
14
Department Objectives
Public Safety/Police
Staff Goals,continued Q12015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
8 Continue to review accreditation files and focus on
reaccreditation in 2015. • •
9 The Traffic Unit will place a proactive emphasis on
drivers who are texting/talking on cell phones while • •
O
driving.
10 Maintain best practices with WASPC accreditation
standards for the Spokane Valley Police Department •
to enhance public safety services.
11 Implementation of EmPERFORM evaluation program • •
that has meaningful merit to our employees.
12 Continue to improve the false alarm program with
Public Safety Corporation/Cry Wolf in an effort to •
further reduce false alarms within the City of Spokane
Valley.
13 In compliance with the National Incident Based Re-
porting System(NIBRS),maintain a high degree of
report writing to accurately reflect the crimes occur- •
ring in the City of Spokane Valley and values of prop-
erty associated with those crimes.
14 Maintain supervision and leadership development of
personnel within Spokane Valley Precinct. •
15 Implement a collaborative active shooter emergency
response tem with Spokane Valley Fire Dept. 4 •
16 Continue to plan and implement effective succession
planning to ensure essential leadership positions are • •
filled
17 Implement a new CAD/RMS System to efficiently
and accurately record crime stats and work load per- 4
formance measures.
15
Valley
Council Notes/Talking Points
2015-17 Legislative Agenda
Appleway Trail Project
Seek $1,000,000 in funding in the 2015-2017 Capital Budget for the next phase of development of
the former Milwaukie Railroad right-of-way as a unique, five and three-quarter mile green space
and trail in the heart of Spokane Valley's commercial district. The $1,000,000 would assist in
funding the section from Evergreen to Sullivan. The project is expected to increase use of the
commercial corridor, benefit the economy and create new jobs. The project will provide a much
needed route for non-motorized travel along Spokane Valley's principle east-west commercial
arterial, connecting the Spokane Transit Authority Transit Center, business districts, schools, and
medium-high density housing. Community members have been actively involved in development
of a Conceptual Design for the project, which includes: a paved trail, plazas, play spaces and
gathering places, public art, perennial gardens, space for community gardens, mountain bike trail,
and lighting and safety crossings. The estimated project cost is $1,330,500 and the City will provide
the balance of the necessary funding to complete this segment of the Appleway Trail.
Talking Points:
• The City would like to request$1 million in capital funding for the portion of the trail from
Evergreen Road to Sullivan Rd. The City will contribute$200,000 to this portion of the
trail.Additionally, the city has been constructing portions of Appleway Trail utilizing local
funding starting in 2014.
• The city made this request last legislative session, but the Legislature did not adopt a capital
budget. We are hopeful that this year the Legislature will adopt a capital budget and will
invest in local communities.
• Sen. Padden has already indicated that he is willing to make the request—we want to thank
him for that. We would like to ask that Rep. Shea and Rep. McCaslin request the funding in
the House.
• In a recent survey, 70%of residents responded that the biggest factor keeping them from
walking or bicycling was a lack of facilities.
• This project is about economic development.The section from Evergreen Road to Sullivan
Road connects residential neighborhoods to schools,jobs,businesses, and a regional transit
hub.
• The project also provides neighborhood-friendly business opportunities. The project has
been designed to accommodate cafés and other small businesses along the route.
Funding History Reference
• Balfour to University—Unfunded, $1,200,000.*
• University to Pines —Under construction and is completely funded through City designated
sources; Paths and Trails Fund #103 - $50,000 and Capital Reserve Fund #312 - $1,420,300
for a total of$1,470,300.
• Pines to Evergreen — Funded for construction in 2017. This section will be funded by the
City's Capital Reserve Fund#312 in the amount of$256,398 and federal grant funding from
Spokane Regional Transportation Council's Transportation Alternatives Program in the
amount of$642,852; and Surface Transportation Program in the amount of$1,000,000 for a
total of$1,899,250.
• Sullivan to Corbin—Unfunded, $1,743,500.*
*Figures are estimates from the Transportation Improvement Program(TIP).
Protect the Local State Shared Revenues
The City of Spokane Valley encourages the state to preserve local state-shared revenues, and restore
funding to those accounts revised and reduced during the last legislative session. These funds
include the Liquor Excise Tax Account, Liquor Board Profits, Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation,
Municipal Criminal Justice Assistance Account, and City-County Assistance Account. In 2013,the
Legislature permanently reduced local Liquor Excise Tax distributions to cities. In Spokane Valley,
this resulted in approximately a 75% reduction ($437,486 in 2011 to $108,900 in 2014). The
Legislature also capped the local government share of Liquor Board Profits at a fixed rate. The City
supports restoring shared Liquor Excise Tax revenues; restoring growth in local Liquor Board
Profits so that cities can share in the increasing liquor revenues; and, protecting and maintaining
funding to other state-share revenue accounts. The City also requests consideration for receiving
shared revenues in any and all new state programs where the City would have operating,
enforcement,or financial obligations associated with the activities of these new programs.
Talking oin.s:
We want to emphasize that all local/state shared revenues are important to Spokane Valley. We
know that the state faces significant budget challenges, but cutting local revenues cannot be the
answer. The City relies on them-Liquor Excise Tax and profits, Streamlined Sales Tax mitigation,
Municipal Criminal Justice Assistance, and City/County Assistance accounts-to fund services. 2/3
of the City budget funds public safety-we could not provide the services we do right now without
these accounts.
• Liquor Revenue: State reduced share in 2013,which has led to a 75%reduction in payments
to the City. This funding was used to fund public safety, including crime related to liquor
sales and consumption. The City supports restoring shared liquor excise tax revenues and
restoring growth of liquor board profit-sharing so we can continue to protect our
community.
• Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation: The City receives approximately $570,000 in SST
mitigation annually. Spokane Valley, like many other cities, initially opposed the
streamlined sales tax revenue concept due to the resultant reduction in sales tax revenues;
however,withdrew that opposition based on the State's promise that the SST Mitigation
Program would prevent negative impacts.
o SST is more than 25%of Spokane Valley's total shared revenues
o The City participated in a meeting with the Governor's Office asking that these funds
not be cut. We have heard that it is very likely the Governor's Book 1 Budget will
cut the account entirely.We hope that the Legislature will NOT do that, and will
fully fund the account.
Additional Authority to Recoup Code Enforcement Costs
The City of Spokane Valley seeks legislation to provide cities with additional tools to recoup costs
for enforcing code compliance when a court order has been issued and a city performs the
abatement itself or through a contractor.
Talking Points:
• For the third year,the city would like to ask the state's help in recovering costs for code
enforcement. We would like to ask the legislative delegation to help us this year,by
sponsoring and co-sponsoring this legislation.
• In the last few months,the Spokesman Review has published a number of articles outlining
how challenging it is to clean up properties.
• We have used Spokane Valley residents' hard-earned tax dollars to remove health hazards
from private property. It's unfair to the rest of the community that,through a loophole,the
property owner can avoid paying the community back.
• The legislation does not make it any easier to abate a nuisance property—the city still has to
go to superior court and get a warrant to complete an abatement. This legislation just
addresses the ability to recover the public funds once the nuisance has been abated.
• Our proposal last year would have allowed the city to put a first priority lien on the property.
The community banks opposed this because they have a philosophical opposition to any
changes to first priority liens (they did not have any arguments specific to city abatements).
The average cost of an abatement is around $2,000, and relatively few properties are
abated... in other words, this would not have a significant impact on the banks. Yet,they
opposed the bill for philosophical reasons.
• We've expressed a willingness to compromise on the bill, but the community banks aren't
willing to work with us.
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.
Talking Points:
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) The City of Spokane Valley has adopted permanent regulations governing where licensed
recreational marijuana producers,processors, and retailers may locate. The City has adopted
a moratorium on unlicensed uses in order to review appropriate regulations on such uses
given the high potential for abuse and access to minors due to the lack of state regulatory
oversight.
4) Charge same fee and tax for all marijuana whether for medical or recreational use.OR
5) 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.
6) 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.
7) Develop state legislation to control sale and distribution of human urine through marijuana
dispensaries.
8) 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.
9) If legislature intends to allow "vaping" or "consumption" lounges, then license the
allowance of consumption just as they do for liquor licenses at bars.
10)No modifications to existing buffers.
11)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.
Long Range Legislative Agenda Item
Transportation Project—Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation
The City of Spokane Valley supports identifying future funding opportunities for the Barker
Road/BNSF Grade Separation project. As the state experiences an increase in rail traffic,this
particular intersection will become increasingly congested and dangerous.This project will separate
vehicle traffic from train traffic and remove the at-grade rail crossing.The total anticipated cost is
$29.2 million. The City has secured$5.84 million from the Washington State Freight Mobility
Strategic Investment Board and the project has been identified as regionally significant by the
Inland Pacific Hub Study.The City is able to contribute$2,909,000. Long-term,the City is seeking
$20,451,000 in future funding for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation. Additional benefits
include: Improve the Level of Service (LOS)of'F' at this intersection,allowing for new
development in the industrial-zoned portion of the City; improve emergency access; and help to
address concerns about coal trains, including impeded traffic flow, increased whistle noise,and
train-vehicle conflict safety.
Talking Points:
• Currently,there are 16 oil trains per week that go through Spokane Valley. By 2035,that
number is expected to rise to as many as 113. With all of these additional trips,there is a
need for grade separation to address both safety and congestion.
• This project would improve the"F"level of service at Barker/Trent, and open up several
hundred acres for development and growth in one of the largest business/industrial parks in
the country.
• We are also very concerned about rail safety generally, and have been participating in the
DOE rail safety study.
The City supports the Association of Washington Cities'legislative agenda items
that serve the best interests of Spokane Valley.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Review
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015 Department Director Approval
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑old business ❑ new business ❑public hearing
❑ information ® admin.report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Economic Development Discussion
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Various state statutes apply to some elements of economic
development.
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Council discussions on this subject have occurred on several
occasions including, but not limited to, the following dates 2/09/10 Council Workshop; 06/14/11
Council Workshop; 07-05-11 Council meeting; 11/01/11 Council Meeting; 12/11/12 Economic
Development Ad hoc Committee presentation to the Council; 03/19/13 Council meeting;
07/30/13 Council Meeting, and the 02/18/14 Council Workshop.
BACKGROUND: Staff will update City Council on our current economic development
activities. This is an ongoing discussion to address economic development in the City of
Spokane Valley.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
PowerPoint slides
1 of 1
Economic Development Incentives
General. Economic development tools fall into a variety of categories, including tools that
require direct expenditures by the City, City tools that incentivize economic development
without use of City funds, developer driven tools that primarily rely on developer initiative or
require developer contributions, and various Washington State resources, such as State tax
credits or loan or grant programs for businesses.
Return on Investment: One of the key concerns with any economic development program is
that the City fully understands the likely return on the City's investment("ROP")in that program.
Returns may take many forms which may be either financial or non-financial, including
increased tax revenue to the City, job creation within the City, and improvements to the quality
of life for the City's citizens.
Analyzing ROI is critical because some incentives, such as tax exemptions, remove tax revenues
from the City for an extended period of time (up to 12 years in some instances). The benefits
should be well defined and weighed carefully with regard to the lost revenue.
The City has already begun looking at ROI in particular economic development programs, such
as the review of the benefits of Appleway Trail, and an analysis of the north-east undeveloped
industrial land.
How Economic Development Activities are Funded in Washington State. Because of
constitutional limitations, cities in Washington State have limited options for direct participation
in economic development projects. Article VIII, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution
directs that a city or county may not directly give or loan money to private businesses for
economic development. Const. art. VIII, § 7.
However, under RCW 35.21.703, i t is a valid public purpose for cities to expend money on
economic development, subject to the constitutional prohibitions on direct loans or gifts. RCW
35.21.703 provides:
It shall be in the public purpose for all cities to engage in economic development
programs. In addition, cities may contract with nonprofit corporations in furtherance of
this and other acts relating to economic development.
While economic development options are limited by the State Constitution, there are still viable
opportunities for the City to promote economic development. As part of the economic
development strategy, City Staff are in the process of compiling economic development tools for
quick reference of possible incentives and tools available to assist the City, developers and
businesses on any given type of project. We have provided a listing and brief overview of some
of the tools that are available to the City and developers.
Page 1 of 4
Direct City incentives — no or limited direct expenditure of City funds — may impact tax
revenues received
• General City Taxes: Low City property taxes (no tax increase in six years); no City
business and occupation tax.
• Streamlined Permitting Process: Allows quick and easy permit processing.
• Provide and maintain transportation and park infrastructure to support business growth.
• Development impact fees: No impact fees.
• Utility taxes: Currently the City only has telephone utility tax to fund street maintenance;
could consider solid waste utility tax with revenues used for general City purposes, including
street preservation or other economic development programs.
• Certified Site Program: Allow developers to quickly assess economic viability for
development of particular parcels. Most effective if certified by an independent national
firm.
• Focusing economic development efforts in targeted geographic area.
• Permit Fee Modification: Develop criteria to allow permit fee modification based on
beneficial economic impact of projects to the City.
• Provide flexible development codes.
• Multi-family tax exemption program: City may designate area as "residential targeted
area" and allow certain multi-family housing a property tax exemption on improvements for
up to twelve years. City loses tax revenues for that area for that period of time.
Direct City Financing or Funding
• General Obligation or Revenue Bonds: Used to finance infrastructure or other public
capital projects. There must be an existing revenue source to repay general obligation bonds
or seek voter approval for increased tax levy; revenue bonds are repaid from revenues of
revenue generating project(typically utility-type project such as water).
• Tax increment financing (TIF): Used to finance public infrastructure and repaid from
incremental increases in property taxes within the tax increment area as a result of increased
development. Limited benefit due to limited incremental taxes available.
• Creation of Public Development Authority (PDA): PDAs are quasi-municipal corporations
that manage specific public projects (Pike Place Market is operated by a public development
authority). No independent funding sources, so funding must come from revenue generating
project or City funds.
• Transportation Benefit District (TBD): A TBD is a quasi-municipal corporation with
independent taxing authority that is created to fund transportation improvement projects.
• City Expenditures on Outside Agencies: Since 2003, the City has provided partial funding
for selected local economic development and social service agencies.
Page 2 of 4
▪ City Housing Authority: A housing authority is a public body providing affordable housing
to low income residents. Note there already exists a Spokane County Housing Authority.
▪ Local Hotel-Motel Lodging Tax: An excise tax of 2% credited against the State sales tax
on lodging. It may only be used for tourism promotion. An additional amount of up to 2%
may be levied, provided the total excise taxes on lodging do not exceed 12%. The City
currently levies the first 2% of lodging tax. The current total excise taxes (including City,
PFD, and other taxes) equals 10.7%, so the maximum additional amount the City could levy
would be 1.3%.
▪ Tourism Promotion Area Assessment: A charge of up to $2.00 on lodging that is separate
from the lodging tax and which is used for funding convention and tourism promotion.
Currently the City is part of the regional Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area pursuant
to an interlocal with Spokane County and the City of Spokane.
▪ Local admissions tax: Tax on price of paid for admission to any place or event (e.g.,
movies, fair, recreational facilities). Funds to be used for City public purposes and could be
reinvested into other City economic development programs.
▪ Use of Loans and Grants through Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB):
CERB offers a loan/grant program for loans and grants for public infrastructure
improvements on certain economic development projects.
▪ Community Renewal: Various programs that allow the City to designate certain areas as
blighted areas to then allow limited types of financing of public improvements. Financing is
typically paid through incremental increased tax revenues due to the revitalization of the
area.
Developer Driven Incentives/Expenditures
• Benefit Assessment Districts:
Local Improvement Districts: Method of financing public infrastructure improvements
where the benefited properties primarily pay for the improvements.
Business Improvement Area: Method of financing certain business-related improvements
such as parking facilities, decorations of public places, and maintenance or security of
common public areas where the benefitted businesses, multifamily residential or mixed-
used developments pay for the improvements.
▪ Conduit Financing Authorities: Separate municipal corporations or State agencies that
provide tax-exempt financing to private developers for manufacturing, solid waste,
processing, certain non-profit, and affordable housing projects.
• Assessment Reimbursement Areas (e.g., latecomer agreements): Allows developers (or the
City) to complete street improvements and then recoup expenses from any resulting new
development that occurs within the area within a prescribed time period. Spokane County
may be able to provide late comer agreements for sewer improvements.
Page 3 of 4
State Incentives/Programs
▪ Small Business Programs: Various programs that provide capital access to small business
that may not otherwise qualify for traditional financing.
▪ Small Business State Business and Occupation Tax Credit: Tax credit against the State
business and occupation tax for certain qualifying small businesses. Administered by
Washington Department of Revenue.
• Main Street Tax Credit: Provides certain tax credits for private contributions to eligible
district revitalization organizations for downtown and neighborhood commercial district
revitalization efforts.
▪ Customized Employment Training: T ax credit or benefit based on a mounts of certain
types of employee training.
▪ Other Tax Exemptions/Credits: Numerous exemptions/credits exist on particular industry
or business types, such as machinery and equipment purchases, high technology, and
aluminum smelting.
Page 4 of 4
Cit of oka,ne ''arlle
P
Economic C Plan U
BRING YOUR BUINE TO SPOKANEVALLEY City Council Workshop
Well Get You Through The Process Rapidly! February 17, 20 15
John Hohman, CED Director
fte -
. "'. ,
•
•
sook...00;\„
(EDI
313 li4 I
S,,,�, C ECEkN9M�C REVELAPM#NT + r
Spokane �,+)'
Walley®
Community of Opportunity
Topics for Discussion
® Five levels of Economic Development
® Comprehensive Plan Update
® Information Technology
® Retail recruitment strategy
® Partners
® Economic studies and analysis
Li Infrastructure investments and funding
® Streamline permitting
® Marketing
o Incentives
Spokane
'Dalley
Comrnunih' f Opportu fl-
Washington Department of Commerc
Five Levels of Economic Development
Organizational - Creating and maintaining forum for exchanging ideas and addressing the needs of the
community. Develop strategy, raise funds, work with partners in efficient manner.
Product - investments of labor and capital to improve the community. Infrastructure, gateway, permit
program, law enforcement, parks , etc.
Market - Activities to recruit individuals such as retired citizens to enhance the economy and enlarge the
market area in which they could receive products and services.
Business - Business Growth and Investment. The "core" of economic development. Business attraction,
retention and expansion, tourism, and start up and emerging business.
Workforce - Policies that build the skills of the local workforce. Partnerships between business, education,
and government so that all residents can be contributing members of the local economy.
Spokane
1 M lley.
Community of Opportunity
Comprehensive PUpdate
Step I : Data Gathering and Community Vision
Update Economic Development Chapter
Develop policy framework for E.D.
Update appropriate elements to reflect policy initiatives for E.D.
Land Use
Transportation
Capital Facilities
Step II: Implementation
Develop a strategic plan based on policy framework
Supports investment in the City
Encourages envisioned development
Attracts visitors, customers, and businesses
Spokan
Valley®
Community of Opportunity
1117;: r:ation
gy
® Continue to update the City's website
® Update the City's Geographical Information System (GIS)
Interoperability with SmartGov (permit system)
Enable a system that works across the Internet
Provide interactive maps for citizens, businesses, council,
and staff
Spokane`
Walley®
Community of Opportunity
Develop a Retail
® Market to retailers to fill identified gaps
o Support property owners, brokers and retailers
® Increase retail tax base
• Be more competitive
Spokane`
.Va11ey®
Community of Opportunity
•
o rate wit r n r
GSI,Visit Spokane, SpokaneValley Chamber, Site Selector, DOC, etc.
® Participate in meetings and events
• Participate in studies
• Promote partner services such as business assistance
® Continue to assist in recruitment efforts
Spokane
.Valley®
Canmunih'of Opportunity
Economic
® Determine Return on Investment (ROI) & project benefits
® Support grant and lobbyist efforts
® Prioritize projects
® Analysis to date
Appleway Trail
Industrial Area
Spokane`
.Va11ey®
Community of Opportunity
pursue Fundinv - Infrastructure
Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB)
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Other grant sources
SOlane
fln.Y!Ift?:,:t,mty
Streamline r Processes
® Continue to provide excellent customer service
Quick plan reviews
Thorough technical assistance
® Code text amendments
Restaurant online tool
® Integrate GIS with SmartGov
Spokane
.Va11ey®
Community of Opportunity
Marketing
® Promote the City as business friendly
® Create a sense of identity
® Develop marketing materials for tradeshows
Spokane
.0010Valley.
Community of Opportunity
rnicentive Tooth.'7—",
® Identified a list of potential incentives
® Select incentives consistent with strategic plan
® Develop policies to administer incentives
® Lobby for incentives at the State level
Sp ikane
.Va11ey®
Community of Opportunity
-""'"'•IIlIlI.
Questions
Visit the city OPPORTUNITY
of Spokane� Valley for making great memories!
• •
z.
a.• r of
1.4
E . ffi— :
., },- )
, ,ii>riefre."-:....- l' . .'
i:wiiitp)„
_i tfr'it " _ No;
iati
1 , let , '
ii,„. , . . _ .
7 . .
Spokan ``
-
Valley
Community of Opportunity
Aug.2014
Spokane Regional Law and Justice Council (LJC)
-- NOTE: LJC members required by RCW 72.09.300 in RED t LE-erre-b. ..... Vii=
County Commissioner -Chair N _ &. V TmieIke@Spokanecounty.org
County Commissioner-Co Chair f SOQuinn@Spokanecounty.org 4-
Sheriff _ ovielil Oknezovich@Spokanesherifforg .
Municipal Police Rep. Rick VanLeuven(Spokane Valley) Rvanleuven( Spokanesheriff.org
County Prosecutor Prosecutor "Weingtoill Lhaskell@Spokanecountv.org .
Municipal Prosecutor Rep. Justin Bingham(City of Spokane) Jbingham@SpokaneCity.org
Spokane Council President Wardiat0 Bstuckart@a,Spokanecity.org
City Legislative Authority(not Spok;Cary Driskell(City of Spokane Valley)Cdriskell@Spokanevalley.org
Superior Court al Scozza@Spokanecounty.org 44—
Superior Court cSINAMO—rinc41 Mmoreno@Spokanecounty.org 44
Juvenile Court Bonnie Bush BBUSH@Spokanecounty.org
District Court IMMINer1 Pwalkerna,Spokanecounty.org 4(,.
Municipal Courts Rep. Jennifer Fassbender(Airway Heights) Jlfassbender@Jcooney.com
Jail Administrator John McGrath Jmcgrath@Spokanecounty.org
t
Superior Court Clerk ,y _ • d� Tfitzgerald@Spokanecounty.org -X-
Risk Manager Steve Bartel Sbartel@Spokanecounty.org
Secretary of Corrections Debra Conner Daconner@DOCl.WA.Gov
Public Defender Tom Krzyminski Tkrzyminski@spokanecounty.org
Spokane Mayor RAWCPiOn ' Dcondon@SpokaneCity.org -1-
Pre-Trial Services Director Cheryl Tofsrud Ctofsrud@Spokanecounty.org
Spokane Regional Law and Justice Council (SRLJC)
February 11, 2015
12:15 p.m.
Spokane Regional Health District Building
1101 W. College Ave. Spokane WA 99201
1St Floor Board Room
AGENDA
1) Welcome and Introductions
2) Approval of January 14, 2015 SRLJC minutes
3) Announcements
a. March 12-13: Glen Harris Workshop (Center for Social Inclusion)
b. Others?
4) Proposed renewal and extension of Dr.Jacqueline van Wormer's contract with WSU
through May 15, 2016
5) Subcommittee Updates:
a. Process/Planning - Judge Sam Cozza/Chief Rick Van Leuven
i. Review recommended SRLJC By-Laws
b. Risk/Needs Responsivity- Bonnie Bush/Cheryl Tofsrud
c. Facilities- Commissioner O'Quinn/Jack Driscoll
d. Technology- Justin Bingham/Tim Fitzgerald
e. Evidence Based Practices - Judge Maryann Moreno/Larry Haskell
f. Performance Measures - Judge Patti Walker/Judge Fassbender
6) SRLJC Strategic Planning Subcommittee formation
a. Review proposed process (shared with our Admin Committee)
b. Select two (2) co-chairs
7) Blueprint for Reform Exercise
8) Summary
9) Adjourn
Spokane Regional Law & Justice Council
Meeting Report — Municipal Entities Except Spokane
Date of Meeting: February 11, 2015
Attended By: Cary Driskell, Spokane Valley City Attorney
• • • Likely Financial Outcome or Benefit
General Topics Discussed J Impacts Sought
1. Announcements included a workshop for social inclusion 1.vote approved to 1.would not appear 1. provide funding for the
conducted by Glen Harris March 12-13; motion to authorize authorize the BoCC to to have any cost to anticipated system
the SRUC to request that Spokane County apply for two apply for two large members. changes.
grants (from the McArthur Foundation and the National grants, one for$2
Institute for Justice)to fund the development of this review million per year for two 2.The total cost is 2.The renewed contract
process and revisions to our systems—approved. years from McArthur anticipated to be with Dr.Van Wormer is
Foundation, and one $88,000,which is intended to be a bridge so
2. Discussion about renewal and extension of Dr.Van from NIJ for$500 K per $62,000 more than that the SRUC can finish
Wormer's contract to act as the interim SRUC Director from year. currently costing. the process of drafting an
current expiration April 1,2015 to May 15, 2016. Current appropriate job
cost is$26,000 annually,which does not cover actual cost 2.vote approved to description,then recruit
of her time being committed. Proposed new cost is authorize the BoCC to for and hire a permanent
$88,000 for the new contract period,would not include execute an agreement UC Director. It is
assistant. Moved and approved. with WSU for 13.5 anticipated that this will
months of Dr.Van take some time, and then
3. Subcommittee updates: Wormer's full time work still allow some period of
a. Law and Justice Process: discussion regarding draft until May 15,2016. time(up to May 15, 2016)
By-laws, including how specific the Mission Statement to transition to the new
should be; discussion on who should be subcommittee Director.
chair.
b. Risk/Needs/Responsivity: discussed analyzing
different offender risk assessment models currently
available.
c. Facilities:current focus is on the condition of jail and
Page 1 of 2
Spokane Regional Law & Justice Council
Meeting Report — Municipal Entities Except Spokane
Geiger relative to future need,then will look at other
facilities. Will soon focus on need for a Criminal Justice
Center as a centralized focus of the system.
d.Technology: looking at issues of connectivity of
systems to all involved have access to data. Currently,
many different systems cannot access data in other
systems. Should have subcommittee member(rotate)
at all other subcommittee meetings due to the fact
technology is interwoven into everything all other
committees are considering.
e. Evidence-based practices:they are just getting
started because they had to wait until the other groups
began to move forward.
f. Performance measurement:they also got a late start
in their committee work, and will be beginning in
earnest in the very near future.
Page 2 of 2
4
NO. /y—03°1 a
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF RE- )
ESTABLISHING THE SPOKANE )
COUNTY LAW AND JUSTICE )
COUNCIL ORIGINALLY ) RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHED UNDER SPOKANE )
COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 92-0769 )
AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED )
THERETO )
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington (sometimes hereinafter referred to as the
"Board" or "Board of County Commissioners") has the care of County property and the
management of County funds and business;and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 70.48.020, the Board of County
Commissioners passed and adopted Spokane County Resolution No. 91-0235 wherein the Board
established a Confined Population Management and Review Board and clothed the Confined
Population Management and Review Board with certain powers and duties; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 72.09.300, the Board of County
Commissioners passed and adopted Spokane County Resolution No. 92-0769 wherein the Board
re-designated the Confined Population Management and Review Board as the Spokane County
Law and Justice Council(the"Council') and provided for other matters related thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and City of Spokane formed the
Spokane Regional Criminal Justice Commission (the "Commission") with a mission of
conducting a comprehensive review of the entire Spokane regional criminal justice system by
examining the entire spectrum from pre-arrest (prevention programs), arrest, prosecuting and
defense, sentencing, incarceration (including alternatives to incarceration), re-entry and
recidivism. The goal of the Commission was to make specific recommendations to the City of
Spokane and County which would address the reduction of crime, the efficiency and
effectiveness of the criminal justice system, the effective use of detention and alternatives to
detention, the effectiveness of re-entry programs, and ultimately to put in place a criminal justice
system which is efficient, effective and guarantees strict adherence to the mandates of the
Constitution of the United States and the State of Washington. Recommendation 5.1(2) of the
Commission's "A Blueprint for Reform" is to "Re-establish the Law and Justice Coordinating
Committee& Supporting Workgroups";and
WHEREAS,as provided in RCW 72.09.300 and recommended by the Spokane Regional
Criminal Justice Commission, the Board of County Commissioners desires to re-establish the
Law and Justice Council, clothe it with certain responsibilities, and provide for other matters
Page 1 of 6
related thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Spokane County, Washington, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6) and RCW
72.09.300, that the Board of County Commissioners does hereby modify Spokane County
Resolution No. 92-0769 as more particularly set forth in Attachment "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and is so doing does re-establish the Law and Justice Council
and provide for other matters related thereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this aL /�p�,
day of /nag ,2014.
co k.sZP.e, � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
4y�o' g c°L.,% �ti OF S.126 COUNTY,WASHINGTON
1 y
rd
%-. • s AL FRENCH, Chair
ATTEST: ` '`` c ` '' 7,44:dt_ •
TODD MIELKE,Vice-Chair
k9;16(IAV..f.) 1,71 _ _
A Al
Daniela Erickson / S IL Y O'QUINN, Commdssioner
Clerk of the Board
•
•
Page 2 of 6
ATTACHMENT"A"
Section 1: ESTABLISHMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY LAW AND JUSTICE
COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
There is created a board, to be known as the Spokane County Law and Justice Council,
hereinafter referred to as the "Council", which shall supersede and repeal all prior measures
regarding bodies established pursuant to RCW 72.09.300.
The Council shall have the following composition (the 13 italicized members are required by
RCW 72.09.300):
a. Two (2) members of the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners selected by
the Board of County Commissioners;
b. Spokane County Sheriff;
c. A representative of Municipal Police Departments to be selected by the Municipal Police
Departments;
d. Spokane County Prosecutor;
e. A representative of Municipal Prosecutors to be selected by the Municipal Prosecutors;
f. City of Spokane Council President;
g. A representative of the City Legislative Authorities, other than the City of Spokane, to be
selected by the City Legislative Authorities;
h. A representative of Spokane County Superior Court to be selected by the Spokane County
Superior Court;
i. A representative of Spokane County Juvenile Court to be selected by the Spokane County
Superior Court;
j. A representative of Spokane County District Court to be selected by the Spokane County
District Court;
k. A representative of Municipal Courts to be selected by the Municipal Courts;
1. Spokane County Jail Administrator(Detention Services Director);
m. Spokane County Superior Court Clerk;
n. Spokane County Risk Manager;
o. Secretary of Corrections;
p. Spokane County Public Defender;
q. City of Spokane Mayor;
r. Spokane County Pre-Trial Services Director; and
s. Such other member(s), including at-large member(s), as the Board of County
Commissioners may hereinafter determine to be beneficial.
Any member of the Council may in writing appoint a designee. All designees shall be speaking
representatives on behalf of the member and a voting member on any matter corning before the
Council.
Page 3 of 6
There is also created a Spokane County Law and Justice Administrative Committee,herein after
referred to as the "Administrative Committee", which will have up to a maximum of seven (7)
members.
The Administrative Committee shall be members of the Council and have the following
composition:
a. The two (2)members of the Spokane County Board of County Commissioner;
b. City of Spokane Mayor;
c. City of Spokane Council President;
d. A representative of Spokane County Superior Court; and
e. Up to two (2) additional members with agreement from the majority of the
Administrative Committee.
The role of the Administrative Committee is to(1)receive the process,policy, administrative and
budgetary recommendations of the Council members, (2) analyze, authorize and implement
resource allocations in alignment with those priorities, and (3) advocate for priority reforms
recommended by the Council members and the community at large.
Section 2: PURPOSE
The purpose of the Council is to provide a permanent on going forum and structure to coordinate
and enhance the administration of justice in Spokane County.
Section 3: TERMS
The terms of the members of the Council and Administrative Committee who are elected shall
run as long as such individual retains the prerequisite elected position.- The terms of members of
the Council and Administrative Committee who are designated by a selecting authority shall be
renewed by the selecting authority every four(4)years. The selecting authority has the ability to
designate a different representative provided that the underlying qualifications for the position
are satisfied. Members may be removed by their selecting authority. Except in the case of
removal, each member shall continue to serve until a successor has been appointed. Any non-
elected official member shall have a four year term.
Section 4: COMPENSATION
Members of the Council and Administrative Committee shall serve without compensation and/or
per diem of any kind or nature whatsoever, including compensation for travel to and from the
usual places of business to the place of a regular or special meeting of the Council or
Administrative Committee.
Page 4 of 6
Section 5: MEETINGS,RULES AND REGULATIONS
The Council and Administrative Committee shall hold meetings as deemed necessary by the
Chairperson or a majority of the Council or Administrative Committee, respectively. The
Council and Administrative Committee may adopt rules and regulations governing the
transaction of business. The Council and Administrative Committee shall keep public records of
all actions as may be required by applicable laws. 'All meetings of the Council and
Administrative Committee shall be open and accessible to the public as provided by law.
A quorum for doing business by the Council or Administrative Committee shall be established
by the presence of at least 50%of the members or their authorized designees.
Section 6: OFFICERS
The chairperson of the Council and Administrative Committee shall be a Spokane County Board
of County Commissioner member. The vice-chairperson of the Council and Administrative
Committee shall be a Spokane County Board of County Commissioner member. The
chairperson(s) shall preside over all meetings, and in the absence of such chairperson, the vice-
chairperson shall preside.
Section 7: MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the Council is to coordinate the criminal justice system through the collaboration
and shared responsibility of criminal justice and elected officials by (1) reviewing significant
information relative to immediate and future needs, and by (2) identifying and recommending
alternatives to total incarceration which are consistent with the law and community objectives of
public safety, accountability, punishment, treatment and public awareness so as to reduce
recidivism in the community.
Section 8: POWERS AND DUTIES
The Council, in conjunction with carrying out the above mission statement, shall make
recommendations to the appropriate elected officials and the Administrative Committee on the
following issues:
(a) Maximizing local resources including personnel and facilities, reducing duplication of
services, and sharing resources between local and state government in order to
accomplish local efficiencies without diminishing effectiveness;
(b) Reviewing data and reports with a goal of ensuring that departments are reducing
recidivism, increasing program completion, engaged in more efficient practices,
generating cost savings, expediting cases when appropriate, and contributing to a
reduction in crime;
(c) Jail management;
(d) Mechanisms for communication of information about offenders,including the feasibility
of shared access to databases;
Page 5 of 6
(e) Partnerships between the department and local community policing and supervision
programs to facilitate supervision of offenders under the respective jurisdictions of each
and timely responding to an offender's failure to comply with the terms of supervision;
and
(f) Developing a Local Law and Justice Plan for Spokane County. The Council shall design
the elements and scope of the Plan, subject to final approval by the Spokane County
Board of County Commissioners. The general intent of the Plan shall include seeking
means to maximize local resources, reduce duplication of services, and share resources
between local and state government.
The Council may establish work groups and/or subcommittees to assist in carrying out its powers
and duties.
The Council has no authority to appropriate/expend any moneys or execute any agreements.
Section 9: STAFF SUPPORT
Spokane County shall provide staff support for the Council and Administrative Committee as is
deemed necessary.
•
Page 6 of 6
Spokane
.i Valley
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 2015
LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS
Presented at 2015 Winter Budget Workshop
February 17, 2015
Prepared by Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst
Spokane Valley Law Enforcement Costs 2015
LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS BY YEAR
$18,500,000
$18 210,873
$18,000,000
$17,709,872
$17,500,000 - 17,420,905
$17,000,000 $16,636,941 17,053,167
• 16,687,516
$16,500,000
$16,000,000
$15,500,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
$ $16,636,941 $16,687,516 $17,053,167 $17,420,905 $17,709,872 $18,210,873
%Change 0.30% 2.19% 2.16% 1.66% 2.83%
• 2015 Costs include addition of two patrol officers and loss of Drug Task Force funding mid-year.
• Years 2011-15 do not include potential COLA settlement.
Spokane Valley Costs by Source
Spokane Joint Use,
$710,340,4%
Countywide
Indirect,
$2,095,625 ,
11%
Sheriff's Office
Indirect,
$1,601,968,9%
Sheriff's Office
Direct,
$13,802,979,76%
1411111.1t.__
Total Costs$18,210,873
Spokane Valley Law Enforcement Costs 2015
Sheriff's Office Direct Service Cost (Total Spokane Valley Portion $13,802,979)
Direct Service Units %of Direct Costs SV$
Patrol 55.7% $ 7,681,824
Property/ Drugs 15.4% $ 2,129,480
Persons - Crimes Against Persons 5.5% $ 755,415
Dispatch 5.4% $ 751,607
Traffic 5.3% $ 734,083
School Resource Deputies 2.5% $ 349,825
K-9 2.3% $ 323,260
Valley Administration- Commissioned Officers 2.2% $ 299,502
Forensic Unit 1.5% $ 209,400
Crime Check 1.2% $ 166,769
Community Services 0.9% $ 130,231
SCOPE -Agency 288 0.9% $ 119,576
Emergency Operations Team 0.8% $ 108,864
County Match Grants 0.1% $ 17,434
Helicopter 0.1% $ 11,123
SIRT-SCOPE Incident Response Team 0.1% $ 8,892
Extra Duty- Off Duty Employment (admin.) 0.0% $ 5,384
Explorers/Reservists 0.0% $ 3,928
County Local Contracts and Grants 0.0% $ -
Contracts 0.0% $ (828)
Explosive Disposal - County Costs 0.0% $ (2,790)
TOTAL 100.0% $13,802,979
Top 5 Direct Cost Units
$9,000,000 -
$8,040,000
$7,531,324
$7,000,000
$5,0111,000
$5,000,000
$4,003,000
$3,.000,000 $2,129,480
$2,003,000
$1f $734,083 $751,607 $755,4-15
$-
TrafficInv Dispatch Crimes Against Property/ Patrol
Persons Drugs
Spokane Valley Law Enforcement Costs 2015
Countywide Indirect Costs (Total Spokane Valley Portion $2,095,625)
Countywide Indirect Departments % SV Costs I
Insurance (General Fund) 28.84% $ 604,364
ISD Gen Fund Support 23.31% $ 488,393
Equipment Depreciation 14.03% $ 294,001
Facilities Maintenance 8.65% $ 181,323
Civil Service 4.77% $ 100,012
Human Resources 2.90% $ 60,817
Changes in Accrued Leave 2.65% $ 55,441
Admin Srvcs - General 2.47% $ 51,774
Prosecutor- Civil 1.33% $ 27,769
Auditors Fin Srvcs - Gen Accounting 1.18% $ 24,711
Admin Srvcs - Direct Support 1.13% $ 23,653
Central Services Department Specific Grants 1.12% $ 23,567
Labor Relations 1.03% $ 21,578
Auditors Fin Srvcs - Gen Fund Accounting 0.93% $ 19,529
Auditors Fin Srvcs - Payroll 0.73% $ 15,371
Purchasing- Direct Purch 0.73% $ 15,287
Building Usage 0.62% $ 12,991
Purchasing- Mail Center 0.50% $ 10,389
Central Services Cost Recovery 0.42% $ 8,895
Treasurer- Cashiering 0.34% $ 7,147
Purchasing- General Purch Services 0.29% $ 6,154
Public Information/Communications 0.26% $ 5,502
State Auditor 0.26% $ 5,355
Auditors Fin Srvcs - Fixed Assets 0.22% $ 4,574
Admin Srvcs - Criminal Justice 0.22% $ 4,533
Steam Plant Incoming 0.21% $ 4,325
Idle Capacity 0.18% $ 3,754
Clerk of the Board 0.18% $ 3,673
Auditors Fin Srvcs -Accts Payable 0.16% $ 3,340
Campus Security and Employee ID 0.16% $ 3,295
Central Services Financial Assistance Admin 0.09% $ 1,924
Treasurer- Finance 0.05% $ 955
Campus Security Outside Night 0.03% $ 700
Resource Conservation 0.02% $ 351
Admin Srvcs - Monroe Ct. Building Lease 0.01% $ 175
TOTAL 100.00% $ 2,095,625
Spokane Valley Law Enforcement Costs 2015
Sheriff's Office Indirect Costs (Spokane Valley Portion is $1,601,968)
Indirect Unit % SV Cost
Administration 44.3% $ 710,239
Training 22.1% $ 353,862
Fleet Services 11.9% $ 190,460
LEIS 6.9% $ 110,555
Professional Standards 5.9% $ 95,034
Communications 4.8% $ 76,568
UnderSheriff 3.3% $ 53,556
Fleet Lease 0.7% $ 11,694
TOTAL 100.0% $ 1,601,968
Sheriff's Office Indirect Costs
$sao.o44
$710,239
$700.004
$600,0004
$500.004 -- —
$400,000 — $353,862
$300,000
$::4,:4 $190,460
$100000 $ ,556 $76568
$95,034 $143, 55
11111 MIL
s-
11s ■ I
",,ev fi, u .1,6' *g5 aha `�. �'°r
P
ke
00
(
Spokane Valley Law Enforcement Costs 2015
Joint Use Charges — Services Provided by City of Spokane
Spokane - Joint Use Charges
Expi Disposal,
/- $1,128,0%
Property Room,
$130,481, 18%
Records,
$578,591,82%
Total SV Joint Use $710,300
Spokane Valley Law Enforcement Costs 2015
Total Sheriff Office Costs by Type
Sheriff Office Costs by Type
M&O %
8%
Benefits%
23%
Regular Salary
S1%o
�x#Ta Pay&
Overtime
$%
1
Spokane Valley Law Enforcement Costs 2015
Spokane Valley Commissioned Officer FTE
Dedicated
Admin 3
Patrol 58
Traffic 7
Property and Drug Crimes 12
Community Services 1
Domestic Violence 1
School Resource Deputies 4
TOTAL DEDICATED 86
Sha red
Major Crimes 4.9
Sex Crimes 4.4
Investigative Task Force 0.5
CIU &JTTF 1.1
Drug Task Force 2.0
Gang Enforcement 1.6
Intelligence Led Policing&
Marine/Search and Rescue 1.4
K-9 3.3
TOTAL SHARED 19.1
Administrative
Undersheriff 0.5
Public Information Officer 0.5
Training/Professional Standa 0.5
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE 1.5
TOTAL OFFICER FTE 106.6
■ Includes Grant Funded Positions
■ Includes Administrative Positions in Support Roles
Spokane Valley Law Enforcement Costs 2015
Shared Civilian Positions
Civilian Position Sheriff's Office Total Spokane Valley Portion
Business Operations Director 1 0.5
Senior Accountant 1 0.5
Administrative Manager 1 0.5
Administrative Staff 5 2.5
Grants and Contracts 1 0.5
Fleet Services 4 2.0
Sheriff Assistant 1 0.5
Planning, Research, and Analysis Unit 4 2.0
Forensics 14 2.8
Investigations Administrative Staff 1 0.5
Major Crimes Administrative Staff 3 1.5
Valley Police Chief Assistant 1 0.5
Valley Administrative Staff 2 1.0
Training Staff 1 0.5
Dispatch 17 8.4
SCOPE 1 0.5
Neighborhood Watch 1 0.5
TOTAL 59 25.0
Ilig Le islative
a i Iletin
ASSOCIATION
OF WASHINGTON
Giii ES
February 6, 2015
From the Legislative Director
A debate that might help build bridges to craft a budget?
AWC's 2015 priorities are primarily about protecting and enhancing the fiscal
sustainability of cities. Our success relies on convincing lawmakers to:
1. Avoid new unfunded mandates,
2. Maintain and enhance tools allowing cities to manage their own affairs, and
3. Continue to support a state/local government fiscal partnership that guarantees
some of the revenues generated within cities are returned home to support the
services and infrastructure needed to sustain vitality.
By the end of this 105-day session, the only thing required of the Legislature is to
adopt a balanced budget by July 1, and there's more revenue projected to help
them accomplish that.
The problem is the needs and demands on this budget outweigh projected
revenues. Some of those "needs"aren't agreed to across the aisle, Capitol rotunda
or between the floors where the Governor and legislators do their work. It's also
difficult to find agreement on what's driving demands. Legislative budget leaders
are quietly trying to figure this all out while most legislators go about the business
of holding hearings and meetings about a range of other policy matters.
In the midst of all of this, and following last fall's close statewide vote passing
1-1351 (K-12 Class size), uncommonly bi-partisan groups of legislators are
introducing a series of bills aimed at helping voters connect the dots between what
they might like as ideas and how to pay for them. Diverse opinions are surfacing
on what changes, if any, to make to laws governing how measures get to the ballot
and what's included as voter information once there. Legislators who often can't
agree with one another are finding themselves on the same side-whichever side
that might be.Are changes warranted? Do they help or hinder the fundamental
parts of the initiative and referendum process available in Washington since
1912?For those measures with fiscal impacts above a certain level, how can those
impacts best be determined and described?
Under current law, after citizen initiatives or referenda are filed, there's a
specified amount of time for signatures to be collected to qualify for statewide
consideration at the polls. For those measures qualifying, the Office of Financial
Management must prepare (as of changes to the law in 2004) a fiscal analysis of
the impacts on state or local governments. That information is summarized in the
voter pamphlet for measures that qualify.
AWC supported that 2004 change and has carefully weighed in on initiative reform
legislation in the past. Our direction to do so comes from a membership-approved
Statement of Policy that is reviewed and updated every few years. Previous
versions of it have directly addressed this issue, particularly following the passage
of initiatives impacting state and local revenues, such as the 1-695 repeal of the
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax and the 1-747 1%property tax cap.
continued
The current AWC Statement of Policy, reviewed and adopted during our June
2014 Annual Meeting, articulates that we support the "objective review of
the impact of statewide ballot measures and initiatives on local governments,
both before and after passage of such measures."
We're interested in some level of engagement in this debate as it unfolds and
will be seeking direction on how best to do that when our Board of Directors
meets in Olympia on February 17 in advance of our City Action Days gathering.
The initiative and referendum process is a cornerstone of how Washingtonians
are governed and govern themselves and it must be protected. That doesn't
mean citizens don't deserve ways to improve transparency, nor should
legislators shy away from debating how best to make that happen. Who
knows, maybe in the process of doing so, they'll find agreement on budget
priorities.
Budget and finance
REET flexibility bill gets hearing
HB 1789, sponsored by Rep. Larry Springer (D-Kirkland), is being heard on
Tuesday, February 10 at 10 am in the House Local Government Committee.
This bill, a priority for AWC, would harmonize the allowable expenditure
of Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET). Under current law there are different
allowable uses for the first 0.25% (REET 1)vs. the second 0.25%(REET 2)
that is collected on real estate transactions in the majority of cities. In
addition, the bill allows REET proceeds to be used for on-going operation
and maintenance of capital facilities. That use of the funds is currently set
to expire in 2016.AWC and the Washington State Association of Counties are
highly supportive of this bill.
If your Representative sits on the House Local Government Committee now
would be a good time to contact them and express your support for this bill.
Energy
Bill proposes new criteria and process for changes to
state energy code
SB 5804 makes a number of changes to the process the State Building Code
Council uses to adopt and amend our state energy code, including:
• Specifies that amendments to the Code for non-residential buildings may
be adopted if they increase energy efficiency and promote a competitive
business climate based on economic, technical, and process factors.
• Specifies that amendments to the Code for residential buildings may be
adopted if they increase energy efficiency, promote a competitive business
climate, and are technically feasible, commercially available, and cost-
effective to building owners and tenants.
• Requires the Council to adopt rules that are consistent with Chapter 19.85
RCW, the Regulatory Fairness Act.
The bill is currently scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Government
Operations Et Security Committee at 10:00 am on February 9. If you have
comments or concerns with this bill please share them with Carl Schroeder.
continued
2 AWC Legislative Bulletin
Enivronment and land use
New approach for septic to sewer bills
AWC has been working to find a compromise in response to bills which would
have required cities to pay for all sewer infrastructure costs in public right of
way when a septic system fails and a city requires mandatory hookup to public
sewer.
Two new bills, HB 2010 and SB 5871 have been introduced that would replace
the earlier bills, with the first being heard next Thursday in the House Local
Government Committee.The new proposal would require cities to offer an
administrative appeal when septic repair or replacement of existing single
family systems are denied and sewer hookup is required. Cities will be able to
use an existing appeal mechanism and may still choose to require hookup. There
are also a series of considerations that the appeal must consider, including cost
to the homeowner, system and financing issues, and environmental issues.
Given the significant change in approach and retention of local authority,AWC
intends to be supportive of this compromise. Please contact Carl Schroeder if
you have feedback or concerns.
Impact fee deferral bill is back again
Like a bad penny, the impact fee deferral bill (HB 1709) has shown up once
again.As before, the building industry is advocating for a uniform system
for deferral of impact fee collection until either the time of closing or 18
months after issuance of a building permit, whichever is earlier. The proposal
contains a few of the provisions that we had successfully negotiated in previous
iterations, including a limitation to only the first 20 homes per builder/
developer, and only for single family or condominium units.
The bill has an effective date of July 2016.AWC has been opposing this bill for
many years, and we will oppose again.That said, the proponents of the bill
continue to pick up support and this proposal has come very close to becoming
law for several years in a row. If there are ways you can see to make this more
workable they would be very welcome. Please contact Carl Schroeder.
Revision of latecomer fees for water and sewer
infrastructure
HB 1911, supported by AWC and a number of our member cities would provide a
new tool for cities to finance water and sewer infrastructure.
The proposed legislation would amend chapter 35.91 RCW to provide
municipalities with the authority to solely finance water/sewer facilities
and recoup (rate-payer)infrastructure investments through latecomer
reimbursements to the municipality. Exercise of this authority would
require establishment of an assessment reimbursement area, limitations on
reimbursable costs, notification of affected property owners and public hearing
procedures.
This legislation parallels existing municipal authorities for street improvements
under chapter 35.72 RCW. Chapter 35.91 RCW currently limits municipality
participation in water/sewer facility latecomer reimbursement only to
situations where they are partnering with a private developer.
The bill is currently scheduled for public hearing in the House Local Government
Committee at 1:30 pm on February 12. continued
AWC Legislative Bulletin 3
Infrastructure
Changes to Public Works Board membership and
process proposed
The Public Works Board has introduced legislation regarding administration of
the public works assistance account (HB 1959).The proposal includes several
elements, including:
• Adding legislators to the Public Works Board;
• Requiring policies that maximize the use of federal funds; and
• Requiring the board to consider a number of factors when setting interest
rates including market rates.
At this point we recognize the need to maximize the use of federal funds
while acknowledging that federal funds come with additional requirements
that can be especially burdensome for smaller cities. We remain concerned
about too-closely pegging the interest rates to the market rate.We believe
adding legislators to the board would be a positive outcome and build long
term support within the legislature for this program.
We welcome feedback on this proposal. Please share your comments with Carl
Schroeder
General government
Fiscal impacts of initiatives and referenda
Several bills and a constitutional amendment have been introduced that
would add fiscal impact information disclosure requirements on Initiatives and
Referenda. Late last month, three bills with different approaches were heard
in the House State Government Committee. HB 1228 and HB 1229 expand
requirements for information needed about fiscal impacts. HB 1364 creates
a citizens' initiative review oversight committee that, at a minimum, must
consider the fiscal impact of up to two measures, the availability of funds to
conduct the review, the significance of other impacts on the public, and other
criteria established by the committee. This approach is modeled on a similar
process in Oregon.
Other measures have also emerged. SB 5535 establishes a citizens' initiative
review pilot program and SJR 8201/HJR 4204 propose a Constitutional
Amendment that prohibits initiatives that cause the state budget to violate
the statutory balanced budget requirements. None of these bills have been
scheduled for hearing.
Finally, another proposal, SB 5715, requires any initiative impacting the state
budget by more than $25 million to include the following statement in the
ballot title: "The state budget office has determined that this proposal would
have a net impact of(amount) on the state general fund. This means other
state spending may need to be reduced or taxes increased to implement the
proposal."The Senate Ways it Means Committee will hear the bill on Monday,
February 9 at 3:30 pm.
continued
4 AWC Legislative Bulletin
Voting Rights Act gets public hearing
HB 1745, Rep. Luis Moscoso (D-Mountlake Terrace), establishing a Washington
State Voting Rights Act, had a public hearing Thursday, February 5 in the
House State Government Committee.AWC's Victoria Lincoln was on hand to
provide testimony outlining some of the outstanding concerns AWC has with
the legislation. You can read about those in last week's Bulletin here.
In addition to Victoria's testimony the counties, school directors and a few
cities voiced both support and concerns around the bill.
Next week the Senate will hear its version of the bill, SB 5668, Sen,
Cyrus Habib (D-Seattle), in the Senate Government Operations Et Security
Committee on February 10 at 10 am.
Law and justice
Slew of fire bills making their way through the
Legislature
Over the past few weeks a number of fire service and firefighting bills
have had public hearings. Here are a few of the bills AWC is paying special
attention to this legislative session:
HB 1368: Removing disincentives to the voluntary formation of regional fire
protection service authorities by equalizing certain provisions with existing
laws governing fire protection districts and by clarifying the formation
process, Rep. Chris Reykdal (D-Olympia)
HB 1368: Had a public hearing and executive action was taken in the House
Local Government Committee on February 5.
HB 1368:Allows regional fire protection service authorities (RFAs)to
continue to impose benefit charges with a ballot measure approved by
a majority, rather than 60%, of the voters voting on the measure. It also
establishes financial protections for the authorities by allowing up to $0.25
per$1,000 of assessed value of a RFAs levy to be exempted from pro-rationing
requirements, and by extending future levy capacity protection provisions to
RFAs that impose benefit charges.
HB 1389 Et SB 5181:Addressing the scope of state fire service mobilization
and ensuring compliance with existing state and federal disaster response
policies, Rep. Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland), Sen. Kirk Pearson (R-Monroe)
HB 1389: Had a public hearing and executive action taken in the House
Public Safety Committee on January 21 and a public hearing in the House
Appropriations Committee on February 4.
SB 5181: Had a public hearing and executive action taken in the Senate
Government Operations Et Security Committee. It has been referred to Ways Et
Means.
Currently the state Fire Service Resource Mobilization Plan can be
implemented to provide resources from around the state when a wild land fire
exceeds firefighting capacity of local jurisdictions. Non-host fire protection
authorities are eligible for reimbursement of expenses when mobilized under
the plan.
continued
AWC Legislative Bulletin 5
Following the Oso landslide a commission was formed to review the landslide
and the collective response to it.Among the commission's recommendations
was that the Legislature clarify the definition of all-hazards mobilization
under the plan. SB 5181 and HB 1389 do that by authorizing mobilization
of risk resources regularly provided by fire departments, fire districts and
regional fire protection authorities, including but not limited to wild land
fires, landslides, earthquakes, floods, and contagious diseases. Non-host
fire protection authorities are eligible for reimbursement of expenses if a
mobilization meets requirements identified in the mobilization plan.
HB 1606 Ft SB 5537: Establishing regional fire protection service authorities
within the boundaries of regional cities, Rep. Joan McBride (D-Kirkland), Sen.
Cyrus Habib (D-Seattle).
HB 1606: Had a public hearing in the House Local Government Committee on
February 4.
SB 5537: Had a public hearing in the Senate Government Operations Ft
Security Committee on February 3.
Spearheaded by the Firefighters and Fire Chiefs, HB 1606 and SB 5537
authorize regional fire protection service authorities to be formed within a
single regional city rather than only within an area that is coextensive with
two or more fire protection jurisdictions. "Regional city"is defined as a city
with not less than either 40%of the total population of the county in which
the city is located, or 50,000 residents.
HB 1382 Et SB 5455:Addressing the delivery of basic firefighting training and
testing, Rep. Dan Griffey(R-Allyn), Sen.Ann Rivers (R-La Center)
HB 1382: Had a public hearing in the House Local Government Committee on
February 3.
SB 5455: Had a public hearing in the Government Operations Ft Security
Committee on February 3.
HB 1382 and SB 5455: Obligate the Director of Fire Protection to develop
and adopt a plan for the WA State Patrol's Fire Training Academy to deliver
basic firefighting training and testing to all public firefighting agencies in the
state. Under the proposed legislation firefighting agencies have the option to
seek reimbursement for their firefighting training expenses in lieu of obtaining
training from the Academy.
Marijuana
More activity on marijuana related legislation
On Monday, February 9, the Senate Commerce Ft Labor Committee is
scheduled to take executive action to advance SB 5417,AWC's priority
marijuana revenue sharing bill. This is an important step in the continued
effort to secure revenue sharing for local governments. If you have a Senator
on the Commerce Ft Labor Committee, please let them know how important
this bill is before the hearing at 1:30 on Monday.
The Commerce a Labor Committee is also hearing a number of marijuana
related bills on February 13 at 8 am.
continued
6 AWC Legislative Bulletin
• SB 5398 defines public place for the purposes of prohibiting consumption of
marijuana as equivalent to the prohibitions on consuming liquor in public.
Public place generally includes the following: streets, alleys, and roads;
public buildings; the halls, lobbies, and dining rooms of hotels, restaurants,
and other businesses used by the public; public conveyances; publicly
owned beaches, parks, and playgrounds; and, all other places where the
general public has unrestricted right of access, and which are generally
used by the public.
• SB 5402 makes it a misdemeanor for an adult to help a minor purchase
marijuana and creates a civil infraction for someone under 21 to try to
purchase marijuana.
• SB 5519 focuses on medical marijuana. It eliminates collective gardens
effective August 2016 and directs the Liquor Control Board to reopen the
license application process to allow for additional recreational marijuana
licensees. SB 5519 also creates a medical endorsement for those selling to
qualified patients.Additionally, the proposal allows for home grows of up
to six plants for recreational use, and up to 15 plants for qualifying medical
patients or their designated providers. SB 5519 would also require a public
vote for a jurisdiction to prohibit marijuana businesses.
We also saw the introduction of another proposal to share revenue with local
governments. Rep. Carlyle(D-Seattle)introduced HB 2008 which would
provide for revenue sharing with cities and counties once the State's General
Fund has received $25 million in excise tax revenue. One this occurs point
cities and counties would receive 30%of the revenue going to the General
Fund (which is equal to about 18.7%of the revenue). Revenue sharing would
be capped at$20 million per year and end in 2022. Jurisdictions that prohibit
marijuana businesses would not receive any revenue sharing. The bill makes
revenue sharing contingent on passage of HB 1461 which is currently an
omnibus bill with numerous provisions. It is expected that the contents of
HB 1461 will be narrowed as it comes out of committee and will contain a
new flattened tax structure instead of the current 25%excise tax at each
transaction point. We are appreciative of Rep. Carlyle's efforts and hope to
continue the revenue sharing conversation.
Liquor control board issues warning about marijuana
scam
The Liquor Control Board (LCB) has issued an advisory for marijuana license
applicants.Applicants have been receiving scam solicitations from a company
about an impending universal February deadline for applicants to "get set up"
and that the LCB will "no longer wait for your plan to come together."These
claims are not true.
The LCB writes, "While some individual applicants may be facing deadlines
in February those are not universal to every applicant.Any changes to the
status of an individual application will be conveyed to the applicant by their
investigator and universal changes regarding the implementation of 1-502
will be communicated via official WSLCB channels including this Listserv.
Applicants should be skeptical about any mass communications claiming to
have inside information and treat them as hearsay or rumor until they speak
with their WSLCB representative."
continued
AWC Legislative Bulletin 7
Open Government
Public Records round-up
As reported in previous Bulletin articles,AWC is tracking several public
records bills this session.
HB 1086, Rep. Jim Moeller(D-Vancouver), would provide a cost recovery
mechanism so that local governments are no longer subsidizing commercial
activity through public records. HB 1086 had a public hearing on Tuesday,
January 20, at 10 am in the House State Government Committee and is
scheduled for executive session in the same committee on February 12.
AWC supports this proposal and continues to work on efforts to move the bill
forward.
HB 1431/SB 5395, Rep. Steve Bergquist (D-Renton)and Sen. Pam Roach
(R-Auburn), deals with real estate transactions and confidentiality.
Specifically, HB 1431 and SB 5395 exempt disclosure relating to an agency's
consideration to purchase or sell przoperty where public knowledge would
likely affect the property price. HB 1431 had a public hearing on February
4 and executive action taken on February 5 in the House State Government
Committee. SB 5395 had a public hearing in the Senate Government
Operations&Security Committee on February 3.AWC supports this proposal.
HB 1554/SB 5396, Rep. Melanie Stambaugh (R-Puyallup)and Sen. Pam Roach
(R-Auburn), exempts information of guardians or family members of children
enrolled in child care, early learning, parks and recreation, after-school, and
youth development programs. HB 1554 had a public hearing in the House
State Government Committee on February 3. SB 5396 had a public hearing in
the Senate Government Operations & Security Committee on January 29.AWC
supports this legislation as an important technical fix to protect children.
HB 1684 & SB 5533, Rep. Dean Takko (D-Longview) and Sen. Steve Hobbs
(D-Lake Stevens), establishes charges for providing electronic data under the
public records act. In recognition of the trend towards requestors asking for
records electronically in lieu of paper copies, agencies will be allowed to
charge a reasonable fee for transmitting electronic copies. Currently there
is no authority for an equivalent per page cost for electronic transmission,
yet there are costs associated with producing electronic copies of records in
response to public records requests similar to those of making a paper copy.
HB 1684 had a public hearing in the House State Government Committee on
February 3. SB 5533 has yet to have a public hearing.AWC supports both of
these bills and is working with the sponsors on improving the language.
HB 1189, Rep. Sam Hunt (D-Olympia), deals with the hours of availability
of cities, towns and special purpose districts for inspection and copying of
public records. The bill would clarify when a local government with limited
office hours (open less than 30 hours per week) has to respond to a public
records request. HB 1189 had a public hearing and executive action taken in
the House Local Government Committee and has been referred to the Rules
Committee for review.
continued
8 AWC Legislative Bulletin
WA State Archives seeking participants
Washington State Archives is seeking subject matter experts to assist
with updating the Human Resource Management (HR) section of the Local
Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE). They will also
review the Payroll activity, which is currently located in Financial Management
(and may be moved to HR, depending on feedback.)
In order to encourage statewide participation, and out of respect for
everyone's budgets, most input will be gathered by e-mail, but an occasional
"in-person" meeting will be held for discussion purposes.Attendees are
welcome to participate via PolyCom from any one of the regional branch
archives (Bellingham, Ellensburg, Bellevue, Cheney, Olympia).
It begins early in February and will likely take between 4 and 8 months,
depending on how energetically the Reference Group is able to provide
necessary input.
If you are interested in reviewing and providing feedback on the CORE
function of Human Resource Management (benefits, misconduct/
discipline, occupational health Et safety, performance management,
personnel, recruitment/hiring, etc.), and/or the Payroll section (employee
compensation, retirement, time sheets, etc.), please do the following:
4. Email: recordsmanagement®sos.wa.gov, with a subject line of "Request for
Reference Group Participants - CORE/Human Resource Management (and
Payroll)"
5. Enter the information requested in the table provided so it can be copied
and pasted it into a spreadsheet.
6. Indicate how you wish to participate:
• Actively (as a subject matter expert, reviewing drafts, providing
feedback via email, and attending meetings when possible); or
• Reviewer (staying "in the loop"by receiving significant drafts as the
project progresses and sending feedback only if inclined).
• In the "Area(s) of interest"column, let them know if you would like to
contribute to the entire project or to specific areas-such as retirement,
misconduct, payroll, labor relations, etc.
Body camera legislation up for debate in Legislature
Two separate bills addressing body camera protocol and policies have been
introduced over the past week. The first, HB 1917, is the result of work done
by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.
HB 1917, concerning video and/or sound recordings made by law enforcement
or corrections officers, Rep. Drew Hansen (D-Bainbridge Island), is scheduled
for public hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, February 12
at 1:30 pm.
continued
AWC Legislative Bulletin 9
HB 1917 outlines provisions surrounding the disclosure of video (dash/body
cameras, etc.)and/or sound recordings by a uniformed law enforcement
or corrections officer while in the course of his or her official duties.The
provisions include:
1. A request to specifically identify the name of the person or persons
involved, and the incident or case number, or the specific date, time and
location of the incident. In addition, the request must be made by a person
directly involved in the incident recorded, be an attorney representing the
individual involved in the recording, or if a court finds that it is within the
public's interest to disclose the video or sound recording. Law enforcement
responding to such requests must require any person requesting a video or
sound recording to identify his/herself to ensure compliance.
2. Any person requesting data is prohibited from displaying or disclosing the
video or sound recording without first providing direct third-party notice to
each non-law enforcement individual in the recording. Each individual in
the recording shall also first be afforded an opportunity to obtain an order
from the court to enjoin all or some of the content.
3. A law enforcement agency responding to a request for a recording may
require the requestor to pay the costs of redacting any portion of the
recording before disclosure.
HB 1910/SB 5732: Encouraging effective oversight of law enforcement
conduct, Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline), Sen. Pramilia Jayapal (D-Seattle). HB
1910 is scheduled for public hearing in the House Judiciary Committee at 1:30
pm on February 12. SB 5732 is currently not scheduled for public hearing.
Specifically, the bills require:
1. Any oversight recorder, when mounted in a vehicle or to a law enforcement
officer, to be operated continuously while the officer is on duty. This
excludes periods of time when the officer uses the restroom or is on a
break.
2. Officers to communicate with the public when a recording is being made.
3. A retention schedule for flagged or un-flagged recordings. Flagged
recordings are those where the incident involved use of force, or when a
complaint, formal or informal, is registered. Subjects of a recording may
also flag the footage. Flagged recordings shall be kept for three years, or
the duration of any investigation, whichever is longer. Flagged recordings
are subject to the Public Records Act, but are only to be disclosed if the
subject of the recording consents. If it is impossible to gain consent from
all subjects in a recording because there are too many, their identities
must be redacted. Un-flagged recordings only need to be kept for 60 days.
4. Any jurisdictions that utilize recording devices are subject to audits and
evaluations by the law enforcement oversight recorder program. The audit
and evaluation must be conducted at least biennially.
continued
10 AWC Legislative Bulletin
Transportation
Local transportation revenue options bill gets hearing
HB 1593 sponsored by Rep. Joan McBride (D-Kirkland)was heard in the
House Transportation Committee on February 4. Mayor Shane Bowman of
Battleground, Deputy Mayor Larry Smith of Vancouver, Councilmember
Dave Asher of Kirkland, and Covington City Manager Regan Bolli all testified
in support. These city officials shared the transportation needs of their
communities and how these tools would help them meet these needs.
Another local options bill, HB 1757 sponsored by Rep. Jake Fey (D-Tacoma),
will be heard on Thursday, February 12 at 3:30 in the House Transportation
Committee. The Senate version, SB 5813 sponsored by Sen.Annette Cleveland
(D-Vancouver) has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. We would welcome
testifiers on either of these bills and encourage cities to communicate with
their legislators about how important these tools are for maintaining local
transportation systems.
Feedback needed on concrete recycling bill
HB 1695 sponsored by Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island)would require
WSDOT and local governments to meet concrete and construction aggregate
recycling standards. It is being heard in the House Environment Committee
on Monday, February 9 at 1:30 pm. Its companion, SB 5480 sponsored by Sen.
Curtis King (R-Yakima), was heard in the Senate Transportation Committee on
January 27.
The bills have the laudable goal of increasing the reuse and recycling of
construction aggregate and concrete.AWC has identified concerns with
how the requirements would be implemented and the potential to increase
the cost of local transportation projects.AWC staff is working with the bill
proponents and would appreciate feedback on the bill. Please contact Alison
Hellberg.
Bill provides for expedited permitting and contracting
for local bridge repair
HB 1851 provides for expedited permitting of local government bridges that
are rated as structurally deficient. In particular the bill exempts repairs to
those bridges from SEPA in certain circumstances, and provides authority
for cities to use expedited bidding procedures by selecting three competent
bidders rather than a full public bidding process.
The bill is scheduled for public hearing in the House Environment Committee
at 1:30 pm on February 9 where AWC intends to express support for the bill.
continued
AWC Legislative Bulletin 11
Bill would exempt certain AWC Legislative Contacts
WSDOT projects from local During the legislative session,AWC's lobbyists often are unable to return
shoreline permitting your phone calls immediately. If you have a legislative or specific issue
HB 1850 exempts a wide range of question, please request AWC's analyst staff, or send them an email
WSDOT projects from local shoreline directly.
permitting if the project occurs within Call AWC at (360)753-4137 or 1-800-562-8981
the right-of-way of state highway
facilities or a ferry terminal. The
replacement of structures must be Dave Williams Dave Catterson
comparable to the original structure Director of Government Relations Government Relations Analyst
except to meet current engineering or davew@awcnet.org davec@awcnet.org
environmental permitting requirements. Issue areas- Economic
This exemption would apply to Candice Bock development, energy, environment
maintenance, repair and reconstruction Et water, housing, infrastructure,
Government Relations Advocate land use,
and replacement of any road, highway, candiceb@awcnet.org telecommunications,
bridge, tunnel, or transit facility transportation
including ancillary facilities such as
Issue areas- Law Et justice,
bike paths or pedestrian lanes. This pensions, personnel, public
bill has been discussed as a component records, social services Serena Dolly
of a statewide transportation revenue Government Relations Analyst
package as a reform and efficiency Alison Hellberg serenad@awcnet.org
Issues areas- Federal, municipal
proposal. We would like to be measured Government Relations Advocate
finance, pensions, personnel, state
in our response. Please share your alisonh@awcnet.org
concerns with Carl Schroeder. Issue areas- Economic
budget
development, infrastructure,
transportation Jane Wall
Government Relations Analyst
Victoria Lincoln janew@awcnet.org
Issue areas- General government,
Government Relations Advocate law Et justice, public records,
victorial@awcnet.org social services
Issue areas- Energy, general
government, municipal finance, AWC Interim CEO
state budget, telecommunications
Luann Hopkins, luannh@awcnet.org
Carl Schroeder AWC Officers
Government Relations Advocate President Francis Benjamin,
carls@awcnet.org Councilmember, Pullman
Issue areas- Environment Et water, Vice President Paul Roberts,
housing, infrastructure, land use,
social services Councilmember, Everett
Secretary James Restucci, Mayor,
Sunnyside
Immediate Past President Craig
George, Mayor, Dayton
Past President Don Gerend,
Councilmember, Sammamish
For a complete list of AWC Board of
Directors, visit www.awcnet.org/
boarddirectors.
12 AWC Legislative Bulletin
P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Web12015Iagendapacket 2015, 02-1711tem 6 RR 2015 02 17 Council Workshoop-RR
Quiet Zones.docx
Council Workshop
February 17, 2015
Railroad Quiet Zone Discussion
• A combination of either Information or Administrative Reports have been considered by
Council on railroad quiet zones at meetings held 10/26/2010, 12/7/2010, 3/22/2011,
4/19/2011, 7/26/2011, 8/92011, 8/23/2011, 10/25/2011 and 11/1/2011.
• At their 8/23/2011 meeting, Council considered executing a contract with David Evans and
Associates for approximately $83,000 that consisted of a scope of work including
stakeholder and neighborhood meetings, coordination with Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), evaluation of different improvement options, 90%
design and cost estimates for the work, and filing of the preliminary paperwork with the FRA
to establish the quiet zone. After much discussion Council elected to reject the motion.
• Historically, railroads have sounded locomotive horns or whistles in advance of grade
crossings and under other circumstances as a universal safety precaution. In 1994,
Congress enacted a law that required the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) to issue a
Federal regulation requiring the sounding of locomotive horns at public highway-rail grade
crossings and also gave FRA the ability to provide for exceptions to that requirement by
allowing communities under some circumstances to establish "quiet zones".
• At those public grade crossings where no quiet zone exists:
o Locomotive horns must be sounded 15-20 seconds before entering the crossing but not
more than one-quarter mile in advance.
o The horn blast consists of two long, one short and one long, repeated as necessary until
the locomotive clears the crossing.
o The engineer may do more based upon their judgment.
o Train whistles must be between 96-110 decibels.
• Quiet zones are simply grade level highway crossings of railroad tracks that have
implemented traffic warning and control devices which have been certified by the Federal
Railway Administration (FRA) to be safe enough that a train whistle is not required. In order
to install a quiet zone:
o The local government must first authorize the establishment.
o It must include all crossings for a least one-half mile (1/4 mile in either direction from the
intersection).
o It must not "risk threshold" above "Nationwide Significant Risk Index" (a specific analysis
is required).
o Usually includes multiple crossings and average risk index calculations over that length
of track.
o Must be professionally engineered and use specific technology.
o Must be installed by the Railroad at the expense of the local jurisdiction.
• There are two main east-west track routes in Spokane Valley, Union Pacific (UP) and
Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF). UP has eight at-grade crossings within the City and
two more in Millwood, and BNSF has seven at-grade crossings within the City. There are
also several side tracks in industrial areas and a little used north-south route within the City.
A list of the crossings is as follows:
1. UP - Park Road. Does not have an existing gate.
2. UP - Vista Road.
3. UP - Marguerite (Millwood). Has no existing warning system or gates.
1
P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Web12015Iagendapacket 2015, 02-1711tem 6 RR 2015 02 17 Council Workshoop-RR
Quiet Zones.docx
4. UP - Argonne (Millwood). Would require a quad-gate system.
5. UP - Montgomery (west).
6. UP - Montgomery (east).
7. UP - Pines Road at Indiana.
8. UP— Mirabeau Parkway at Indiana.
9. UP— Flora Road.
10. UP— Barker Road.
11. BN — Park Road.
12. BN —Vista Road.
13. BN — University. Existing quiet zone utilizing extended medians.
14. BN — Pines Road at Trent.
15. BN — Evergreen Road at Trent.
16. BN — Flora at Trent.
17. BN — Barker Road at Trent.
• According to City public works department personnel, they have had discussions with BNSF
that suggest a quiet zone around Park/Vista may not be possible due to the rail yard and the
switching of trains from the mainline to the yard line, where train horns are sounded to alert
workers of approaching trains. So for this particular area, even if the City were to go
through all of the necessary steps up to and including the installation of quiet zones, horns
might be sounded anyway.
• Under Federal law an alternative to reducing the impact of routine locomotive horn sounding
where trains approach public highway-rail grade crossings is the use of a wayside horn. A
wayside horn may be installed at highway-rail grade crossings that have flashing lights,
gates, constant warning time devices, and power out indicators. The wayside horn is
positioned at the crossing and will sound when the warnings devices are activated. The
sound is directed down the roadway, which greatly reduces the noise footprint of the audible
warning.
• The City has no firm sense of the cost to install quiet zones and if Council were interested in
pursuing this matter we would recommend engaging outside assistance in developing
realistic estimates. With that said:
o In 2011 the Public Works Department developed a rough estimate that suggested the
cost of each quiet zone would range from $65,000 to $180,000 depending upon the
crossing. This did not include the cost of design, construction inspection, or in the case
of Park, the cost to install gates. Once complete the City would also incur annual
maintenance costs.
o The cost of wayside horns is roughly estimated to range from a low of $30,000 to as
much as $100,000 for a full crossing installation with necessary gate upgrades.
• The 2015 Budget includes no appropriation for railroad quiet zones nor has money been
identified within existing budgets to cover such an expense.
Attachment:
• August 23, 2011 RCA addressing question of whether to approve contract with David Evans
and Associates to proceed with a scope of work to identify the improvements, policies and
strategies needed to accomplish quiet zone implementation.
2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 23, 2011 Department Director Approval: ❑
Check all that apply: ❑consent ®old business ❑ new business ❑public hearing
❑information❑admin. report ❑pending legislation ❑executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Tabled Motion Consideration: Request for Quiet Zone at Park Rd and
Vista Rd Union Pacific Railroad Crossings
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion at 10/26/2010,12/7/2010, 3/22/11, 7/26/11,
8/9/11 Council Meetings
BACKGROUND: A group of neighbors in the northwest part of Spokane Valley submitted a
petition in 2010 asking for the installation of a Quiet Zone at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
crossings of Park Road and Vista Road. A Quiet Zone is a crossing that has been enhanced with
additional safety measures and has been approved by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
as a location where trains are not required to blow their whistle.
At the 12/07/2010 Council Meeting staff was asked to move forward by preparing a scope of work
with an engineering firm to further evaluate the quiet zone. We selected a consultant from our
roster and have attached their scope of work and fee. The scope of work includes stakeholder and
neighborhood meetings, coordination with UPRR and FRA, evaluation of different improvement
options, 90% design and cost estimates for the work, and filing of the preliminary paperwork with
the FRA to establish the quiet zone. This scope would take the City to the point where a decision
would need to be made on how to fund the required crossing improvements. The estimated fee for
this work is$82,551,
Staff has had some dialogue with the City of Millwood. Their Council is aware that we may move
forward with the design and would like to be kept involved in the process and solutions. They are
not interested in closing their crossing at Marguerite. They also have concerns about how a quiet
zone at Vista would impact traffic flow on Euclid between the two jurisdictions. Concern was also
expressed about the cost/benefit of the project as some citizens in the area have gotten used to
the noise and are not bothered by the trains. Even if Park and Vista are made into quiet zones the
trains would still use horns for the Marguerite and Argonne crossings.
If the City desires to move forward with construction, then additional engineering, construction
inspection, and coordination with UPRR and FRA would be required. This stage is not covered in
the attached scope of work.
At the July 26, 2011 Council meeting, council voted to table the motion. At the 8/9/11 Council
meeting a request was made for additional information on the cost of wayside horns. Staff has
made inquires with two suppliers. The cost is heavily dependent on the number of approaches that
require horns, and for these locations, horns may be needed on Utah and Rutter in addition to Park
and Vista. One company estimated installations at $65,000 to $180,000 per crossing. This does
not include the cost for design, construction inspection, maintenance or the cost to install gates at
Park.
OPTIONS: Proceed with recommended motion as written or modified; or give other direction.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
1. First Motion: I move to remove from the table, the motion to authorize the City Manager or
designee to finalize and execute a contract with David Evans and Associates for approximately
$82,551 to proceed with their scope of work to identify the improvements, policies and strategies
needed to accomplish quiet zone implementation. [This motion must be seconded, is not
debatable, not amendable, and requires a majority vote.]
2. Based on the outcome of the first motion, discussion could then continue on the original motion.
3. After discussion, Council may vote on the original motion, which was to "authorize the City
Manager or designee to finalize and execute a contract with David Evans and Associates for
approximately $82,551 to proceed with their scope of work to identify the improvements, policies
and strategies needed to accomplish quiet zone implementation."
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $82,551 currently not budgeted. May require a budget
amendment to transfer from end of fund balance.
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; Ings Note, Senior Traffic Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Scope of Work and Estimate
2. Excerpt from July 26, 2011 Council Meeting Minutes:
5.Motion Consideration:Railroad Quiet Zone—Neil Kersten
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to
finalize and execute a contract with David Evans and Associates for approximately$82,551 to proceed with
their scope of work to idents the improvements, policies and strategies needed to accomplish quiet zone
implementation. Traffic Engineer Note went over the background of this proposal as explained previously.
Council/staff discussion included mention of the cost estimates and that they could be as much as one-half
million dollars; that the entire process could take as long as five years and one to one and one-half years just
to acquire the approval to proceed; mention that a citizen commented previously that they felt the railroad
has softened the situation and perhaps this would not be necessary,with mention from Ms.Note that she has
not heard that or similar comments,and a reminder from Ms.Note that regardless of acquiring a"quiet zone"
the railroad would still be required to blow their whistles. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann,
seconded and unanimously approved to table this issue until more information can be obtained. Ms.Note
said staff will do additional research in an effort to determine whether the areas can be monitored for
compliance,and if possible determine if citizens feel the situation has improved.
OLD BUSINESS:
3.Tabled Motion of July 26.2011:Railroad Quiet Zone—Inga Note
It was moved by Councilmember Grafos and seconded to remove from the table the motion to authorize
the City Manager or designee to finalize and execute a contract with David Evans and Associates far
approximately $82,551 to proceed with their scope of work to idents the improvements,policies and
strategies needed to accomplish quiet zone implementation. Traffic Engineer Note then explained that
council had previously asked for additional information on the option of a wayside horn; she said she
spoke with those who specialize in the wayside horns and obtained two quotes which range between
Council Regular Meeting 08 23-2011 Page 2 of 6
Approved by Council: 09-27-2011
$65,000 to $180,000 per crossing; and said the cost varies because if we have several roads at the
crossing,sometimes more than one horn would be needed; so we might need horns not just for Vista or
Park but for other streets,and said further analysis would be needed.
Mayor Towey invited public comment,and Tony Lazanis, 10626 E.Empire,said everything is ready and
the thing needed to do to stop the horns is put the public signs on Trent which indicate the area is a quiet
zone,and said other than that, it is ready for a quiet zone since the center barrier and markers are already
in place. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that the place at issue is the railroad that runs beside Felts
Field.
Council discussion included wanting more details on the horns and an explanation of how it is different
from quiet zones; mention of citizen expectations; of the need to hire the engineering firm to make the
analysis, which is the purpose of the David Evans proposal; and Councilmember Woodard discussed
information contained in his handout from AHS (Automated Horn System), and questioned the process
for selecting a consultant. City Manager Jackson explained that the city staff selects a consultant or
engineer based on qualifications,and once selected a fee is negotiated;but that staff is responsible for that
aspect and that staff is required to follow certain procedures and state regulations in selecting a
consultant,while council approves contracts;and said if council wants to broaden the scope of the project,
to let him know. Councilmember Grassel suggested if having quiet zones is something council is
interested in,that Council should take a look at the entire city. Vote by Acclamation to remove the item
from the table: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Hafner,
Grassel, Gothmann and Grafos. Opposed: Cozrncilznenzber Woodard. Motion passed and the previous
motion was opened for discussion. Several councilmembers mentioned that the$82,000 is not budgeted,
and that they would like further information.
Mayor Towey invited public comment. Joe McGrath. 9320 E. Montgomery, said the Greater Northern
horns go off toward his house but he doesn't hear the BP trains very much;said the concern about BP is
far less than the horns of the Greater Northern which sound almost every 5 minutes,and he said the horns
are especially disturbing at night. Tony Lazanis, 10626 E.Empire said he thinks Council should have the
right to get a specialized firm;that there shouldn't be anything to stop council from getting information,
including help from Olympia Lobbyists;and said he doesn't think Mr.Jackson should say Council can't
do it. Mayor Towey said there is a distinction between the responsibility of the council and that of the
staff and it is Council's responsibility to ask for more information,but it is not Council's responsibility to
choose the consultant and the fees that they charge. Councilmember Gothmann agreed and said the rules
are in place so that elected officials can't tell their friends that the Council will get them a contract; but
rather the choice is up to the city administrator which makes for good checks and balances.
Councilmember Hafner called for the question,and there was unanimous agreement in favor of calling for
the question. Vote by acclamation on the original motion to authorize the City Manager or designee to
finalize and execute a contract with David Evans and Associates for approximately$82,551 to proceed
with their scope of work to ident fy the improvements,policies and strategies needed to accomplish quiet
zone implementation: In Favor: Councilmember Gothmann. Opposed: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor
Schimmels,and Councilmembers Hafner,Grassel, Grafos,and Woodard. Motion failed.
City of Spokane Valley, WA
,. Spokane V Zone Study
i
cope and Fee Estimate
•I - ,..., _
, ..,-,.- .•
g'
! . ,..,. _ /.,,
... 4'. - - ' • Vi- .
+ a;
� - - ....of _ "—^r .22' S t4�. 7�;
. i
"SO' ( _i ., ,, _ - ';;,'
A-
N
•
r ` _' • . 11•:.,A,r* '. • Lam.
41t a'
Prepared by: , •_'',, g , � L.,..,- _ F
1°
•
1
0 t •
DAVID EVANS =`'..a
AND ASSOCIATES INC A _ ;� AIL w '' March 7, 0
F,: .. �' i -rr .�'.14'.
^4 � r --' I.
0 'DAVID EVANS
"I'ASSoCIATrg�
INTRODUCTION
David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) staff blends the skills, resources, and expertise necessary to evaluate the
feasibility of establishing a quiet zone for the City of Spokane Valley. DEA offers highly qualified individuals with
established experience in quiet zones and railroad crossing operational studies and design, as well as specific
experience with complex railroad coordination. DEA also offers the most responsive project personnel available to
provide the best client service. Led by Quiet Zone Project Manager, Susan Grabler, DEA will approach this project
with enthusiasm,focus, and commitment. DEA will provide the City of Spokane Valley with comprehensive railroad
operations and design experience, familiarity with railroad policies and practices,and a practical background in the
implementation and funding of railroad projects.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
DEA understands that the City of Spokane Valley wishes to reduce train whistle noise in Union Pacific Main Line
corridor at the Park and Vista crossings. A quiet zone study will identify the improvements, policies and strategies
needed to accomplish quiet zone implementation while meeting federal and railroad requirements and given
realistic potential funding sources. The timeline for the establishment of a quiet zone is highly variable, depending
on the FRA, UPRR<and road authority requirements unique to each crossing. The schedule for the initial work up to
the preliminary design is expected to be completed within six months of the start date for this project.
Project Objectives
DEA's approach to the quiet zone study will focus on early definition of project goals and identification of critical
project elements that will need to be addressed in order to achieve these goals.
Project objectives may include:
• Building a strong and effective agency/public coordination program with all of the key stakeholders,
such as the City of Spokane Valley and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (WUTC),and affected property owners. Project Manager Susan Grabler has
a strong relationship with the UPRR.
• Evaluating the critical elements associated with the project and developing solutions that will
successfully address those issues and achieve the project goals.
• Identifying potential project constraints,such as special railroad requirements, right-of-way constraints,
utility impacts, and public concern early and developing a plan of action to efficiently comply with all
regulations with minimal impact on the primary project objectives and schedule.
• Developing an overall project design that achieves the project goals and provides the City of Spokane
Valley with an enhanced transportation district.
Recommended Project Phasing
Phasel—Quiet Zone Study and Preliminary Design
Phase one includes the work covered by this contract. The DEA team will analyze all of the FRA supplemental safety
devices for each Phase of the quiet zone study to determine the best and safest alternate for each crossing.
DEA will assist the UPRR and all regulatory agencies necessary to obtain approvals for the quiet zone. Project
Manager Susan Grabler spent 24 years as the Public Project Manager for the UPRR. In that position Susan has
worked with and negotiated numerous public projects through the regulatory agencies in several states and
numerous public agencies.
1 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
m O
Y DAVID EVANS
0"A'SSOCMATES°" •
Susan is familiar with the processes at each agency and has a track record for successfully completing several
challenging projects throughout her career. Susan will be able to provide the City of Spokane Valley with a"Letter of
Intent",which needs to be filed with the FRA once the quiet zone corridor has been selected.
DEA will assist the City with the implementation of the quiet zone by making sure the preliminary analysis of each
crossing is complete and concise before the actual diagnostic meetings are held. Once the diagnostic meetings are
completed, DEA will compile the information and run the FRA calculations for each crossing,and prepare the"Letter
of Intent" to be filed with the FM. Susan Grabler has the experience and knowledge to keep the project moving
along,and will also work with the stakeholders to make sure there are no unknown issues; as any unknown issues
can derail the quiet zone process and delay the implementation.
DEA will provide preliminary design plans to 90%completion for the improvements needed to complete the quiet
zone. With such modifications as raised medians with channelizing devices, new crossing systems and gates, and
potential road closures, DEA will complete a set of plans for review by the City and UPRR for submittal to the FRA.
In conjunction with the analysis and preliminary design, DEA will coordinate the approval process through the
railroad company and the FRA. The FRA reviews and analyzes all quiet zone projects and proposed changes
annually with statistical information as well as input from stakeholders during the quiet zone process.
Phase 2-Implementation
Subsequent to the completion of the items contained within this scope of work,the City may select a consulting firm
to develop final design drawings, and provide construction assistance as necessary for the City and railroad
approved improvements to implement the quiet zone. DEA is a multi-disciplined engineering and planning firm and
we can plan, design, estimate and support a quiet zone project during design and construction after the City has
received approvals from the FRA,WUTC, UPRR and other stakeholders on the required improvements.
Critical Issues
There are several critical issues/challenges associated with this project that must be successfully addressed in order
to achieve the project objectives and goals,as addressed in the following tasks. Our approach to the City of Spokane
Valley Quiet Zone Study is to work collaboratively with the City and other stakeholders to develop a document that
achieves the technical, fiscal, and implementation objectives. Our key staff has successfully completed many
projects similar in scope. Through this experience, we have developed a technical and management approach that
blends our understanding of jurisdictional and agency procedures with specific project requirements. Because we
see the "big picture" of both the immediate tasks at hand and the overall objectives,we can provide an approach to
meet project schedules within fiscal constraints while delivering the highest quality work.
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1—Data Collection and Assessment
The project will begin with the collection and inventory of data relating to the crossings from the Federal
Railroad Administration(FRA) and the UPRR. This information will be used in subsequent tasks to evaluate the
crossings for improvements to bring them in compliance with Quiet Zone requirements.Also during this task,an
assessment of the adjacent crossings in the City of Millwood (Margeurite and Argonne) will be conducted and
coordination will take place to determine if the crossings will be included in the quiet zone. In the event that the
Margeurite and Argonne crossings are to be included, negotiations would be necessary with the City of
Millwood to provide funding for the analysis of those crossings.
2 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
QF Q
iO
K}AvIp MIANS
ANO A SSOCIATIEBINa_
Task 2—Field Review
Engineering and design personnel will visit the sites to familiarize themselves with geometric,safety,operational
and environmental conditions related to the crossings prior to beginning the design of proposed improvements.
There is currently a planned shared use pathway (Millwood Trail) that will interact with this section of the
railroad. The field review would include consultation with Craig Aldworth to determine the location and impact
of the proposed trail.
Task 3—Summary of Legal Issues
DEA will develop a summary of the legal issues that accompany the establishment of a quiet zone. This
summary will be submitted to the City for review and included as an appendix in the final report. The legal
summary will include such topics as indemnification and the City's liability in relation to the crossings in the
quiet zone provided as a list and not intended as legal advice.
Task 4—Survey
Also to be completed prior to the design tasks,a topographic survey will be conducted to establish a base from
which to begin design of proposed improvements. The survey will gather data related to road edges,
centerlines, train rails, signals, traffic control, and one-call utility locates for the two crossings In the City of
Spokane Valley: Park Road and Vista Road. It is assumed that coordination with the railroad will be done by the
DEA Project Manager. Through coordination with the City of Millwood, additional survey efforts may be
necessary and would be funded through the City of Millwood.
Task 5—Documentation
Based on the field review and data collection, the sites will be documented within the FRA database for
compliance with the Quiet Zone requirements. A brief technical memorandum will be prepared summarizing
the sites and their requirements.
Task 6—Analysis of Safety Measures
Once components of the crossings have been entered into the FRA system, potential safety measures will be
identified and evaluated for inclusion in the Quiet Zone. Potential measures include Supplementary Safety
Measures(SSM)and Alternative Safety Measures(ASM)as included in the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-
Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule. The five SSMs include temporary closure, four-quadrant gates, gates with
medians or channeiization,and one-way street with gates,and permanent closure. ASMs are a safety system or
procedure other than an SSM that is reviewed and decided to be an effective substitute for the locomotive horn.
Examples include modified SSMs, non-engineering ASMs (enhanced enforcement), or engineering ASMs. it is
understood that it is the City's intention to keep adjacent street open to travel if possible. As such,
combinations of SSMs and ASMs will be considered to accomplish this.
Task 7—Quiet Zone Feasibility Evaluation
Based on the evaluation of the safety measures and site-specific information, the feasibility of a Quiet Zone at
the crossings will be evaluated. This includes data entry to the FRA database for a safety rating based on the
proposed safety measures.
With the current configuration of the UPRR crossings it will be difficult to meet all Federal regulations to
establish a quiet zone without some modifications to the crossings. One of the Federal requirements to
establish a quiet zone is that all driveways within 60-feet of a railroad-highway crossing must be closed. Several
options will need to be evaluated as potential solutions to mitigate the issue and meet the quiet zone
requirement at each of the actual roadway crdssings. Curb and gutter or a concrete barrier may be constructed
on the approaches to the tracks.
3 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
O
- --- vavIp Evnrrs
s""'ASSOCIATES eac.
Due to the proximity of the adjacent crossings in Millwood, the train horns would still be heard through the
quiet zone at a reduced volume. Although they are far enough away not to be included, the feasibility of their
inclusion will be evaluated and subsequent coordination with Millwood officials will be pursued,if necessary.
The FRA rules and regulations require that all crossings in a proposed quiet zone corridor be funded 100%by the
local entity requesting the quiet zone. Typically, Federal funding has not been used to fund quiet zone
improvements. Further research will be necessary to investigate all funding options.
DEA has successfully worked with other communities on creative strategies which may be negotiated with the
railroads. For example, the City and DEA may identify existing at-grade crossings which could be closed and
approach the railroad with this proposal. The railroad has a program whereby they will pay the road authority
for the closure of redundant public at-grade crossings,thereby offsetting a portion of the cost of improvements
to the remaining crossings.
Task 8—Diagnostic Review and Agency Coordination
DEA's Project Manager will coordinate contact with the FRA and UPRR throughout the project to identify
conflicts or concerns and effectively address them.
A full diagnostic review is required with all of the major stakeholders at each of the at-grade highway-railroad
crossings in any proposed quiet zone corridor. If it is determined at the diagnostic review that a railroad signal
installation or roadway improvements are required, then the railroad signal system design and estimate as well
as actual installation can typically take 12-18 months from the date of the on-site diagnostic. In addition, any
roadway improvements, including installation of curb and gutter, driveway closures, utility relocations and other
civil improvements, must be designed,estimated and installed before a quiet zone can be implemented.
Coordination and effective communications with the UPRR throughout the process is critical. Project Manager,
Susan Grabler will facilitate this process and keep It moving to meet the City's timeline.
Task 9—Conceptual Railroad Signal Cost Estimate
As part of the upgrades to the crossings, a new signal and gates will be necessary at Park Road to meet Quiet
Zone requirements for gates, lights, constant warning time devices and power out indicators. In addition,
depending on the age and functionality of the components of the Vista Road crossing, it is possible that a new
signal or additional gates would need to be installed there, as well. UPRR will provide a cost estimate for the
signal components necessary to meet these criteria.
Task 10—Conceptual Roadway and Crossing Improvements
Potential improvements to the site to meet Quiet Zone requirements include some aspects of roadway
improvements, such as a raised median and channelizing devices. In order to establish a quiet zone, the
roadway must be improved in such a way that vehicles cannot enter the crossing when a train is present and the
signal is active. The recommended improvements at the crossings will be displayed in a conceptual design for
presentation to the Client for approval.
Task 11—Draft and Final Reports
A draft report will be submitted to the City In electronic form summarizing the Quiet Zone study process and
results. It is expected that the City will have two weeks to review the draft report and return comments to DEA.
In turn, DEA will prepare a final report for submittal. The Final Report will consist of two hard copies as well as
an electronic copy.
4 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
1
am
m DAVID EVANS
,AwoASSOCIATES owc.
Task 12—Presentations and Public Involvement
During the early stages of the project, DEA will conduct a stakeholders meeting;most likely in coordination with
the field review task. In conjunction with the completion of Task 9, DEA will present the conceptual design and
cost estimate to the City Council for comment and approval prior to completing the preliminary design. In
addition, DEA will lead one public meeting to inform residents of the process and address comments and
concerns of the residents. It is possible that the improvements may include street closures at intersections
immediately adjacent to the crossing. DEA will provide alternative options to the closures and facilitate
discussion regarding the options at the public meeting. It is expected that the meeting will occur in conjunction
with Task 6—Quiet Zone Feasibility Evaluation, so that public comment may be considered prior to the
commencement of the design phase
A key to the success of this project will be to engage the many affected stakeholder agencies in an open,
coordinated project development process that begins with mutual project definition and continues through
completion of the project. Coordination, communication, and documentation are essential. This approach
requires that each entity that has jurisdictional approval authority, such as the FRA, WUTC, SRTC, and
emergency service providers, participate in a committed and consistent manner throughout the entire project
development process. This is an essential element in creating an efficient process. Our first priority in agency
coordination will be to seek a thorough understanding of all of the project issues. Our approach seeks effective
and efficient agency coordination through an early and continuous communications process. We will keep all
agencies and stakeholders "in the loop"throughout the project in order to minimize procedural oversights and
to avoid overlooking significant project elements or requirements. Regular coordination meetings with the City
and other agencies and stakeholders will be held throughout the duration of the project.
The coordination process must be effective and focus dually on keeping the City staff and the UPRR informed
and building consensus on the study. Based on our prior experience with similar projects, we envision close
interaction with City staff, including formal preliminary and final reviews of the quiet zone study. It is
anticipated that three meetings will be scheduled to be integrated strategically within the study process.
Task 13—Preliminary Design and Cost Estimate
As presented in the approved conceptual design, the 90% preliminary design of crossing improvements will
include the plan sheets necessary to construct the improvements and a project cost estimate. The preliminary
design will be contingent upon a defined set of improvements and it may be necessary to delay the completion
of this task until after the approval process is compiete. It is assumed that the improvements included in the
design will include all or part of the following: raised median with channelizing devices, active warning systems
with crossing gates,four quadrant gate systems, concrete curb and gutter, asphalt pavement, roadway closure
and obliteration, and advanced warning signage. This submittal will inciude a detailed engineering estimate
based on the recommended improvements to be installed.
Task 14—Coordination of Approval Process
Foliowing the submittal of the letter of intent to the FRA, DEA will continue administrative support of the quiet
zone process as it progresses through agency approval. Susan will be available during this period to address
concerns by either the City or the UPRR until the final decision has been made by the FRA.
Based on DEA's prior experience on similar quiet zone projects, we know that we need to identify the City's
public safety concerns as well as the Railroad's safety concerns, making sure that the safest quiet zone possible
is established. Additionally, we will make sure that all Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) processes are
considered and in place for the City to file its quiet zone "Letter of Intent" with the FRA. Identifying and
establishing positive solutions to the railroad's infrastructure are a critical element to this process as are the
5 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
ax
" 0.
aAv{o Evans
ai:®ASSOC IATES14G.
I
unique processes that the railroads use to implement public projects. DEA will coordinate the process with the
railroad agencies throughout this process for the City.
In addition, it is likely that the City of Millwood will want to include their crossings in the quiet zone. This task
will also encompass the coordination with that jurisdiction as needed to complete the quiet zone process.
Task 15—Miscellaneous Tasks
Other task such as accounting and administration, preparation of presentation materials, and travel to the site
will be completed commensurate with project progression. If required, Susan Grabler would make up to two
trips for meetings with City staff. It is anticipated that these trips will be coordinated with the public
involvement efforts.
KEY PERSONNEL
Susan Grabler,Project Manager
Susan Grabler is the Mountain West Regional Rail Manager in the DEA Denver office and will serve as the Project
Manager and the administrative point of contact for this project. She will be responsible for team coordination,
project schedule, and overall management of the tasks within this project. Susan has experience with all aspects of
the project, including railroad engineering, quiet zone documentation, railroad coordination, and railroad project
funding. This hands-on experience will provide project efficiency as Susan can usefully contribute to the team tasks
as well as manage the overall project. She also has strong interpersonal skills that will prove to be invaluable for the
success of this project. Other key personnel and their anticipated roles are described below. Our team organization
chart is located at the end of this section.
Ms.Grabler has more than 38 years of railroad engineering experience both working for a Class 1 Railroad and in the
private sector. Her experience includes ten years of railroad track design, as well as general railroad engineering
experience. She has managed hundreds of public projects over a 24 year period working as a Manager of Industry
and Public Projects for UPRR in nine states and has facilitated the administration of at-grade and grade separation
public projects from inception to completion.She has participated in all phases of the railroad process and assisted
city, county, and state authorities to move their projects through the railroad administration and construction
process. Susan has served on several technical advisory committees where the railroad was an integral part of the
transportation studies. She is an active member of Committee 36 (Communications and Signal Committee) of the
American Railroad Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association.Susan has managed several quiet zone studies
including San Diego, California, Sheridan, Wyoming, and Douglas County, Colorado. While working for the UPRR,
Susan participated in several on-site diagnostic reviews of proposed Quiet zones for the Town of Winter Park, the
City of Brighton and the City of Arvada,
Jerremy Clark,PE, Traffic Engineering
Mr.Clark has led the efforts to date for the proposed quiet zone projects as part of his three years of ongoing traffic
work with the City of Spokane Valley. With a background of nine years in the engineering field, he has extensive
experience in a range of projects from sidewalks to highways.Through the past five years of his experience in traffic
engineering, Jerremy has served both planning and design roles in numerous projects including traffic signals and
roadways. Through his work with the City of Spokane valley, Jerremy has led such tasks sight distance studies,
operational analyses and coordination optimization along City corridors, and traffic design relative to Capital
Projects. Jerremy will be the primary local contact for the project, assisting DEA's project manager and providing
support and coordination through preliminary design. Jerremy will also staff any needed City Council interaction.
6 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
MEW=
FV.e Nti
AHrhAssoLAAT En �.
3
Kevin Picanco,PE, Traffic Engineering
Mr. Picanco is a senior transportation engineer with more than 17 years of engineering and transportation planning
experience. His professional experience spans many aspects of transportation including roadway and freeway
transportation planning, traffic engineering, and roadway and freeway design. His recent professional focus has
been on roadway and channelization design, transportation planning studies, traffic operational analysis, traffic
impact studies, traffic signal design, and site access and circulation evaluation. Kevin has managed numerous
roadway design projects including projects with railroad crossing improvements.
Carole Richardson, PE, Quality Assurance
Ms. Richardson has 23 years of experience in transportation planning, engineering and management, emphasizing
multi-modal studies and projects. Richardson is a talented group facilitator and skilled presenter, capable of
explaining complex Issues in terms that decision-makers and the public can easily understand. She is also a
seasoned veteran in the realm of transportation funding, and her prior experience with the Bridging the Valley
project provides her with a good handle on crossing issues related to the Union Pacific Corridor. As DEA's quality
assurance manager,Carole's role Is to ensure that the City gets the best from the DEA team,and that DEA's quality
and value exceed the City's expectations.
7 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
LI DAVID eVAN s
+owASSOCIATES r+c.
REFERENCES
Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR) "I have had the pleasure of working with David Evans and
John Trumbull Associates'railroad, bridge, and roadway engineers an
Retired Industry and screrrut occasions. In each instance,DEA coordinated with
Public Projects Manager (IPRI?to prepare designs that were sensitive to our
2020 South West 4th Avenue,3rd Floor standards,procedures,requirements and operations. This
Portland,OR 97201-4958 included close communication with railroad personnel
(503)736-4135 throughout each project.
DEA's creativity in finding solutions that keep the project's
BNSF Railroad best interests a!heart, Mule meeting our needs and those of
Andy Amparin,Manager Public Projects their clients in each case, has gone above and beyond the
4515 Kansas Avenue of duty."
Kansas City, KS 66106
(913)551-4964
-John'Trumbull
Town of Sheridan, Wyoming
Nic Bateson
PO Box 848
Sheridan,WY 82801
(307)674-6483 extension 248
Douglas County,Colorado
Fred Cook
100 Third Street
Castle Rock,CO 80104
(303)660-7490
8 City of Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Quiet Zone Study
1
P:\Clerk\Agenda Packets for Web\2015\agendapacket 2015,02-17\Item 7 civic facility cap projects fund potential and pending projects.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA I 2/2/2015
Pending I Potential Projects Worksheet
Project Financing
Estimated Grant Financed Cit Financed
Total Potential1 Fund 001 Fund 103 Fund 310 Fund 312 Fund 301/302
Project Secured Anticipated General Paths& Civic Buildings Capital Bond
Cost Grants Grants Fund Trails Capital Projects' Reserve REET Financed Total Unfunded
Capital Protects
4-6,380800 46,350,000 43030,000 0 0 0 0 2,320,000 0 0 15440,,000 0 0
-Balfour Park development 3,866,000 3,866,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,866,000 3,866,000
-Appleway Trail-University to Pines 1,502,100 1,502,100 0 0 0 50,000 0 1,452,100 0 0 1,502,100 0 0
-Appleway Trail-Pines to Evergreen 1699,250 1,899,250 1,642,852 0 0 0 0 256,398 0 0 1699,250 0 0
-Appleway Trail-Evergreen to Corbin 3,074,000 3,074,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,074,000 3,074,000
-Appleway Trail-Balfour to University 1,200,000 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,200,000
-Phase 1-Appleway Landscaping(Dora to Park) 2484= 268,009 0 0 0 0 0 268,0080 0 268,000 0 0
-Phase 2&3-Appleway Landscaping(Park to University) 2,400,000 to 3,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,400,000 to 3,500,000
-8usiaess-ReuteSignage 21439 24,439 0 0 0 0 0 21,139 0 0 21,130 0 0
67,804 67,,664 0 0 0 0 0 67-,644 0 0 57,601 0 0
-City Hall 14,400,000 14,400,000 0 0 0 0 4400,000 5,202,331 0 0 6.302.331 8,097,669 8,097,669
-Sewer and roads at industrial property east of Flora Rd. 10,500,000 10,500,000 0 2,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
-Park land acquisition 900,000 to 1,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 900,000 1,100,000
Bridging the Valley
-Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation" 29,200,000 29,200,000 5,840,000 20,451,000 0 0 0 700,000 2,209,000 0 29,200,000 0 0
-Pines Road Underpass" 17,527,752 17,527,752 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,527,752 17,527,752
-Railroad Quiet Zones study 85,000 85,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85,000 85,000 .
Total of Capital Projects 102,250,842 to 103,550,842 20,512,852 22,95.1,000 0 50,000 1,100,0.0.0 10,2776660 2,209,000 - 0 57,100,421 45,150,421 to 46,450,421
`included in 6-year TIP A ---
Convert City Hall Lease Payment to a Bond Payment _ --
-Convert annual lease payment for City Hall to an LTGO bond issue for the
construction of a City Hall(assumes the$434,600 annual lease payment
for City Hall space is converted to a bond payment with bonds issued for
30-years at 4.50%with an issue cost of 2%)
This won't be an option for the City before April 1,2016 which Is the first
opportunity the City will have to exit its'current lease. 6,940,000
Future Potential Recurring General Fund Expenditures
-Balfour Park maintenance 211,000 _
(3 acres @$15,000 each+8.3 acres @$20,000 each) .
-Appleway Trail maintenance(approximately$20,000 per mile)
Phase 2-University to Evergreen(2 miles) 40,000
Phase 3-Evergreen to Corbin(2 miles) 40,000
-Appleway Landscaping maintenance(per acre estimate) 9,500
300,500
-Future bond payments(cost per$1 million issued) 62,650
(assumes a 30-year LTGO issue at 4.50%with an
issue cost of 2%)
Capital Reserve Fundiele2 r
Sources
General Fund-2013 7,826,207
General Fund-2014 2,443,507
Developer contribution(Library District)-2013 3,180
Developer contribution(Library District)-2014 4,675
10,277,569
Uses
Business route signage 21,139
Balfour Park Library Development 57,601
Appleway Landscaping 268,000
Sullivan Rd.West Bridge Replacement 2,320,000
Appleway Trail-University to Pines 1,452,100
Appleway Trail-Pines to Evergreen 256,398
Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation' 700,000
City Hall 5,202,331
10,277,569
Difference 0
2015 02 17
Public Works Projects Update
#0060 —Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrades
• Description of work
o Reconstructs signal & intersection at Knox/Argonne
o Constructs northbound right turn lane at Montgomery
o Installs ITS
■ Connects signals via fiber on Argonne from 1-90 to Trent
■ Installs 2 new CCTV cameras (Montgomery,Trent)
• Funding
o $1.106 million CMAQ
o $616,860 City
• Bids opened in December, awarded to Cameron-Reilly
• Construction to start in spring 2015; estimated completion by end of August 2015
#0156 — Mansfield Ave Connection
• Description of work
o Relocated occupants of an apartment building and demolished the building
o Connects two separated parts of Mansfield Ave into a single, continuous roadway
between Pines Road & Mirabeau Parkway
• Funding
o $887,500 CMAQ(PE/RW only)
o $792,700 TIB (CN only; funds expire 7/1/2015 if not obligated)
o $197,700 Private Developer contribution
o $124,450 City
• Right of way acquired for 6 of 7 parcels; seeking final parcel acquisition by end of February
• PS&E will be at 100% by end of February
• Preparing to request release of TIB funds at Board's next available meeting in May
• Construction would occur in summer 2015; estimated completion by end of September 2015
• Construction to start in spring 2015; estimated completion by end of August 2015
#0155 — Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement
• Description of work
o Staging areas established in Sullivan Park
o Detour route established along Indiana Avenue for Centennial Trail
o Temporary modifications to East Bridge completed
o Interfering above-ground power and utilities relocated beneath East Bridge
o Interfering 75' deep monitoring well relocated
• Funding
o $8,000,000 BR Grant
o $3,500,000 TIB Grant
o $1,500,000 FMSIB Grant
o $2,300,000 City
• Contractor preparing for next construction phases
• Traffic signal modifications and median work to be completed
• Timing of West Bridge closure and traffic transition uncertain: likely March or April
• Demolition scheduled late May or early June
• All traffic lanes currently reopened
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report- Historic Buildings and the Building Codes
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Revised Code of Washington RCW 19.27
Washington Administrative Codes Title 51 WAC
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion on Historic Preservation and Buildings at
February 3, 2015 Study Session.
BACKGROUND: During the February 3, 2015 Study Session, members of the Council
commented on the Building Codes and how they apply to Historic Buildings. The attached
presentation was created to outline the authority provided by the State of Washington on the
enforcement of the Building Safety Codes, including the limitations to local amendments. The
focus of this discussion is how the state and local provisions apply to Historic Buildings.
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Doug Powell, Building Official
Luis Garcia, Development Services Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS: Power point
RCW 19.27.020
RCW 19.27.040
RCW 19.27.050
Chapter 51-04 WAC
Sjx1kn �
�Ualley
Historic Buildings and the
Building Codes
City Council Workshop
February 17, 2015
1
f[15 OF
Sll'Ukarle Historic Buildings/ Building Codes
...0•00.Valley®
Applicable Codes:
Washington State Building Code
RCW 19.27
State Building Code Act
2012 2012 2012
International International International
Building Code* Existing Building Residential Code*
Code*
*As Amended by the Washington State Building Code Council ( 2 )
CISI'Y OF
ane
p0 Historic Buildings/ Codes
Valley
® Building
Authority:
RCW 19.27.020 Purposes-Objectives-Standards
"To promote the health, safety and welfare of the occupants or users of buildings
and structures and the general public by the provisions of building codes throughout
the state. "
• To require minimum performance standards and requirements for construction and construction
materials, consistent with accepted standards of engineering, fire and life safety.
• To provide for standards and specifications for making buildings and facilities accessible to and
usable by physically disabled persons.
• To consolidate within each authorized enforcement jurisdiction, the administration and
enforcement of building codes. ( 3 )
01000°Ntin
Sp"I‘0" kane Historic Buildings/ Codes
Valley
® Building
RCW 19.27.040 Cities and counties authorized to amend state
building code- Limitations.
The governing body of each county or city is authorized to amend the state
building code as it applies within the jurisdiction of the county or city. The
minimum performance standards or the codes and the objectives enumerated in
RCW 19.27.020 shall not be diminished by any county or city amendments.
The state building code required by this chapter shall be enforced by the counties and
cities. (RCW 19.27.050 Enforcement) C 4
0111111111°11.1 111111111111111,
CII
l 0OF0ane Historic Buildings/ Building Codes
V .11ey�
lis • -
NT@ANATIONAL AMMal04.41;
BUILDING ii RESIDENTIAL " rus"fI<dG&ADM
%MICODE ODIX vim OW
MI ITMI was mi
N Bc
Hierarchy of the International Family of Codes 1 5
SC!I5 OF
p00ane Historic Buildings/ Building Codes
Valley®
International Residential Code
(IRC) 2012 Edition: },Y.
Note: The term "Historic Buildings" is not t
CODF
iwywoloam,
contained in the Residential Code.
R101.2 Scope. Apply to the construction, 'N
alteration, movement, enlargement,
replacement, repair, equipment, use and
occupancy, location, removal and
demolition of detached one-and two
family dwellings and townhouses. . .
IRC Appendix J pursuant to SVMC 24.40 [ 6
Existing Structure.
01010"Ntam.
Spokane Historic Buildings/ Codes
Building
Valley
International Building Code
(IBC) 2012 Edition: Intent and ill. ..,:
1[1.
Scope the same as Residential g ;,� ; ,
Code. coDE
Chapter 34 Existing Buildings.
Note: Discretion isg iven to the code
professional to ensure a minimum
level of life safety is retained.
Any alteration, repairs, etc. shall
not diminish the level of safety.
2015 IBC will defer to IEBC. [ 7
0•00"1"\%,
Spc"bkane Historic Buildings/ Building Codes
Valley®
International Existing
Building Code (IEBC) 2012
Edition: x ,c
Chapter 12 Historic Buildings. `
pOiggc
Purpose- To make the rehabilitation
process easier for Historic Buildings,
this chapter allows for a controlled
departure from full compliance with
the technical codes, without
compromising the minimum
standards for fire prevention and life
safety features. [ 8
SpcHb" kane Historic Buildings/ Codes
Valley
® Building
Appeals to the Hearing Examiner (SVMC):
Appeals- Appeal proposals are to be heard and decided by the Hearing
Examiner in accordance with the Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.90
Limitations on authority- Appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent
of the code adopted has been incorrectly interpreted. The Hearing Examiner
shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code.
C 9
Spo(111 IN
kane Historic Buildings/ Building Codes
.000.00.Valley®
Summary:
While there are exemptions on a limited basis for Historic Buildings,
life safety shall never be compromised.
Where there is believed to be an incorrect interpretation of how the
code is to apply, the Appeal process may be used for clarification.
International Building Code (2015 Edition) will eliminate chapter 34
Existing Buildings. The International Existing Building Code will be
governing reference. 10
�„,
Spokane .
Historic Buildings/ Building Codes
COMMENTS / QUESTIONS
( n )
Historic Buildings/ Building Codes
J001F Valley
THANK YOU !
Contacts :
Doug Powell, Building Official
Luis Garcia, Development Services Coordinator
( 12
RCW 19.27.020: Purposes—Objectives—Standards. Page 1 of 1
('y4.�
, , � �''�►��\4 WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLArURY
�• c �„�-; earch i Help I
inside the Legislature RCWs>Title 19>Chapter 19,27>Section 19.27,020
Find Your Legislator 19,27.015 {< 19.27.020 » 19.27.031
* Visiting the Legislature
* Agendas, Schedules and
Calendars RCW 19.27.020
W Bill Information Purposes — Objectives — Standards.
* Laws and Agency Rules
* Legislative Committees
* Legislative Agencies The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and welfare of
* Legislative Information the occupants or users of buildings and structures and the general public by
Center the provision of building codes throughout the state. Accordingly, this
+t E-mail Notifications chapter is designed to effectuate the following purposes, objectives, and
* Civic Education standards:
It History of the State
Legislature (1) To require minimum performance standards and requirements for
Outside the Legislature construction and construction materials, consistent with accepted standards
* Congress-the Other of engineering, fire and life safety.
Washington
• Tvw (2) To require standards and requirements in terms of performance and
* Washington Courts nationally accepted standards.
* OFM Fiscal Note Website
(3) To permit the use of modern technical methods, devices and
Access
4.A.A.Washingtone improvements.
4n..t.1 t..r.a.•...nm.ui N'nu..
(4) To eliminate restrictive, obsolete, conflicting, duplicating and
unnecessary regulations and requirements which could unnecessarily
increase construction costs or retard the use of new materials and methods
of installation or provide unwarranted preferential treatment to types or
classes of materials or products or methods of construction.
(5) To provide for standards and specifications for making buildings and
facilities accessible to and,usable by physically disabled persons.
(6)To consolidate within each authorized enforcement jurisdiction, the
administration and enforcement of building codes.
[1985 c 360 § 6; 1974ex.s. c96 § 2.1
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.27.020 2/10/2015
RCW 19.27.040: Cities and counties authorized to amend state building code—Limitatio... Page 1 of l
16'4 WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATbR:E
,�. ` .fj , earch I Help
RCWs>Title 19>Chapter 19,27> Section 19.27.040
Inside the Legislature
* Find Your Legislator 19.27.035 << 19.27.040 >> 19.27.042
it Visiting the Legislature
Agendas, Schedules and
Calendars RCW 19.27.040
lit Bill Information Cities and counties authorized to amend state
* Laws and Agency Rules
it Legislative Committees building code — Limitations.
* Legislative Agencies
• Legislative Information The governingbodyof each countyor cityis authorized to amend the state
Center
11 E-mail Notifications building code as it applies within the jurisdiction of the county or city. The
* Civic Education minimum performance standards of the codes and the objectives
* History of the State enumerated in RCW 19.27.020 shall not be diminished by any county or city
Legislature amendments.
Outside the Legislature Nothing in this chapter shall authorize any modifications of the
* Congress-the Other requirements of chapter 70.92 RCW.
Washington
• TVW [1990 c 2 § 11; 1985 c 360 § 8; 1977 ex.s. c 14 § 12; 1974 ex.s. c 96 § 4.[
41 Washington Courts
• OFM Fiscal Note Website Notes:
Access Effective dates -- 1990 c 2: "Sections 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of
AlLii.Washingtone this act are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,
VX1a1.1 OW%Ci ...mn.nl YI.H11
health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing
public institutions, and shall take effect March 1, 1990. Sections 11 and
12 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1991. Section 8 of this act shall
take effect July 1, 1991."[1990 c 2 § 14.]
Findings -- Severability --1990 c 2: See notes following RCW
19.27A.015.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.27.040 2/10/2015
RCW 19.27.050: Enforcement. Page 1 of 1
`•` WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLA�f JR:E 1_p
earch I Help
RCWs>Title 19>Chapter 19.27>Section 19.27.050
Inside the Legislature
Find Your Legislator
19.27.042 « 19.27.050 >> 19.27.060
* Visiting the Legislature
yr Agendas, Schedules and
Calendars RCW 19.27.050
' Bill information Enforcement.
' Laws and Agency Rules
'e Legislative Committees
/4 Legislative Agencies The state building code required by this chapter shall be enforced by the
w Legislative Information counties and cities. Any county or city not having a building department
Center shall contract with another county, city, or inspection agency approved by
it E-mail Notifications the county or city for enforcement of the state building code within its
* Civic Education jurisdictional boundaries.
* History of the State
Legislature [1985 c 360 § 9; 1974 ex.s. c 96 § 5.]
Outside the Legislature
* Congress-the Other
Washington
* TVW
* Washington Courts
• OFM Fiscal Note Website
Acc
AIL W hington.
Ual41d 11.tt+Q 09+ray+111 W01161.-
http:l/apps.leg.wa.govlrcw/default.aspx?cite=19.27.050 2/10/2015
Chapter 51-04 WAC: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ST... Page 1 of 9
i ;: : I4117/V. WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLAT1IRE -1p]
r�.
earch I Help
WACs>Title 51 >Chanter 51-04
Inside the Legislature
e Find Your Legislator Last Update: 7/13/07
'4 Visiting the Legislature Chapter 51-04 WAC
w Agendas, Schedules and POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR
Calendars
• Bill Information CONSIDERATION OF STATEWIDE AND LOCAL
* Laws and Agency Rules AMENDMENTS TO THE STATE BUILDING CODE
* Legislative Committees
' Legislative Agencies Chapter Listing
.- Legislative Information
Center WAC Sections
�+ E-mail Notifications
a Civic Education 51-04-010 Declaration of purpose.
x History of the State 51-04-015 Definitions.
Legislature 51-04-018 Petition for preliminary review.
Outside the Legislature $1-04-020 Policies for the consideration of proposed statewide amendments.
51-04-025 Procedure for submittal of proposed statewide amendments.
Congress-the Other 51-04-030 Policies for consideration of proposed local government residential
Washington amendments.
* TVW 51-04-035 Procedure for submittal of proposed local government residential
at Washington Courts amendments.
- OFM Fiscal Note Website 51-04-037 Preapproved local government residential amendments.
51-04-040 Reconsideration.
Access 51-04-050 Ex parte communications.
AWashington•
ilMialN fI km 067vMT.111 51-04-060 Opinions.
51-04-070 Council mailing address.
51-04-010
Declaration of purpose.
The Washington state building code council, hereinafter called the
council, is required by chapter 266, Laws of 1988, to adopt and maintain
the state building code, hereinafter referred to as the building code, as
provided in chapters 19.27, 19.27A, and 70.92 RCW, and the state
legislature.
The primary objective of the council is to encourage consistency in the
building code throughout the state of Washington and to maintain the
building code consistent with the state's interest as provided In RCW
19.27.020.
The building code shall be as defined in WAC 51-04-015(8).
The council is also required by RCW 19.27.074 to approve or deny all
city and county amendments to the building code that apply to single family
or multifamily buildings as defined in RCW 19.27.015.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish policies and procedures for
submittal and council review and consideration of proposed statewide and
city and county amendments respectively, to the building code.
(Statutory Authority: RCW 19,27,035, 19.27.074 and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW, WSR 07-15-043, § 51-04-010, filed 7/13/07, effective 8/13107.
Statutory Authority: Chapters 19.27 and 34,05 RCW and 1989 c 348. WSR
http://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/tlefault.aspx?cite=51-04&full=true 2/10/2015
Chapter 51-04 WAC: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ST... Page 2 of 9
90-02-108, § 51-04-010, filed 1/3/90, effective 2/3/90; Order 76-02, § 51-
04-010, filed 9/1/76.]
51-04-015
Definitions.
(1) "Supplements and accumulative supplements" mean the
publications between editions of the model codes and standards which
include changes to the current edition of the model codes and standards.
(2) "Council" means the Washington state building code council.
(3) "Emergency statewide amendment" means any proposed statewide
amendment, the adoption of which is necessary immediately in order to
protect life, safety or health of building occupants; preserve the structural
integrity of buildings built to the state building code; to correct errors and
omissions; or by the direction of the Washington state legislature or federal
legislation. Emergency statewide amendments to the state building code
must be adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act,
chapter 34.05 RCW.
(4) "Local government amendment" means any amendment to the state
building code, as adopted by cities or counties for implementation and
enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.
(5) "Local government residential amendment" means any amendment
to the state building code, as adopted by cities or counties for
implementation and enforcement in their respective jurisdictions, that
applies to single and multifamily buildings as defined by RCW 19.27.015.
(6) "Model codes" means the codes developed by the model code
organizations and adopted by and referenced in chapter 19.27 RCW.
(7) "Model code organization(s)" means the national code-promulgating
organizations that develop the model codes (as defined herein), such as
the International Code Council, International Association of Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials, and National Fire Protection Association.
(8) "State building code" means the codes adopted by and referenced
in chapter 19.27 RCW; the state energy code; and any other codes so
designated by the Washington state legislature as adopted and amended
by the council.
(9) "Statewide amendment" means any amendment to the building
code, initiated through council action or by petition to the council from any
agency, city or county, or interested individual or organization, that would
have the effect of amending the building code for the entire state of
Washington. Statewide amendments to the state building code must be
adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter
34.05 RCW.
(10) "State building code update cycle" means that period during which
the model code and standards referenced in chapter 19.27 RCW are
updated and amended by the council in accordance with the Administrative
Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW hereinafter referred to as the "adoption
period" and those additional periods when code changes are received for
review as proposed amendments to the model codes, hereinafter referred
to as "submission periods."
http://appleg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspecite=51-048cfull=true 2/10/2015
Chapter 51-04 WAC: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ST... Page 3 of 9
[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.190, 19.27.020, and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW. WSR 05-23-104, § 51-04-015, filed 11/17/05, effective 1/1/06.
Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074. WSR 04-01-107, § 51-
04-015, filed 12/17/03, effective 7/1/04. Statutory Authority: RCW
19.27.035 and 19.27,074. WSR 98-24-077, § 51-04-015, filed 12/1/98,
effective 7/1/99. Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.074. WSR 98-02-048, §
51-04-015, filed 1/5/98, effective 7/1/98. Statutory Authority: RCW
19.27.035 and chapter 34.05 RCW. WSR 94-05-058, § 51-04-015, filed
2/10/94, effective 3/13/94. Statutory Authority: Chapters 19.27 and 34.05
RCW and 1989 c 348. WSR 90-02-108, § 51-04-015, filed 1/3/90, effective
2/3/90.]
51-04.018
Petition for preliminary review.
An agency, city or county, or other interested individual or organization
wishing to submit statewide or local government residential amendments to
the building code for council consideration, may file with the council a
petition for preliminary review of the statewide or local government
residential amendment, in order to solicit comments from council members
and interested parties, prior to council action.
The council may refer a petition for preliminary review to one of the
council standing committees for review and comment.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.035 and chapter 34.05 RCW. WSR 94-05-
058, § 51-04-018, filed 2/10/94, effective 3/13/94. Statutory Authority:
Chapters 19.27 and 34.05 RCW and 1989 c 348. WSR 90-02-108, § 51-04-
018, filed 1/3/90, effective 2/3/90.]
51-04-020
Policies for the consideration of proposed statewide amendments.
Statewide and emergency statewide amendments to the state building
code shall be based on one of the following criteria:
(1) The amendment is needed to address a critical life/safety need.
(2) The amendment is needed to address a specific state policy or
statute.
(3) The amendment is needed for consistency with state or federal
regulations.
(4) The amendment is needed to address a unique character of the
state.
(5) The amendment corrects errors and omissions.
Statewide and emergency statewide amendments to the state building
code shall conform to the purposes, objectives, and standards prescribed
in RCW 19.27.020.
The council will accept and consider petitions for emergency statewide
amendments to the building code at any time, in accordance with RCW
19.27.074 and chapter 34.05 RCW.
http://app.leg.rva.gov/WAC/defauit.aspx?cite=51-04&full=true 2/10/2015
Chapter 51-04 WAC: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ST... Page 4 of 9
The council will accept and consider all other petitions for statewide
amendments in conjunction with the state building code update cycle, in
accordance with RCW 19.27.074 and chapter 34.05 RCW, and WAC 51-
0.4-015 and 51-04-020 as follows:
The state building code council shall publicize the state building code
amendment process in January of each year. Proposed state amendments
must be received by March 1 to be considered for adoption by December 1.
The state building code council shall review all proposed statewide
amendments and file for future rule making those proposals approved as
submitted or as amended by the council. State amendments as approved
by the council shall be submitted to the appropriate model code
organization, at the direction of the council, except those adopted for
consistency with state statutes or regulation and held for further review
during the adoption period of those model codes by the council. The
effective date of any statewide amendments shall be the same as the
effective date of the new edition of the model codes, except for emergency
amendments adopted in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW and deemed
appropriate by the council.
The adoption period of new model codes commences upon availability
of the publication of the new edition of the model codes and concludes with
formal adoption of the building code as amended by the council and final
review by the state legislature. For the purposes of this section, the
publication of supplements shall not be considered a new edition. The
council will consider state amendments to:
The model codes provided that the proposed amendments shall be
limited to address changes in the model codes since the previous edition;
or, address existing statewide amendments to the model codes; or,
address portions of the state building code other than the model codes.
The state building code council shall consider the action of the model
code organizations in their consideration of these proposals.
Within sixty days of the receipt of the new edition of the model codes
the council shall enter rule making to update the state building code.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.035, 19.27.074 and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW. WSR 07-15-043, § 51-04-020, filed 7/13/07, effective 8/13/07.
Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.190, 19.27.020, and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW. WSR 05-23-104, § 51-04-020, filed 11117/05, effective 1/1/06.
Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074. WSR 04-01-107, § 51-
04-020, filed 12/17/03, effective 7/1/04. Statutory Authority; RCW
19.27,035 and chapter 34.05 RCW. WSR 94-05-058, §51-04-020, filed
2/10/94, effective 3/13/94. Statutory Authority: Chapters 19.27 and 34.05
ROW and 1989 c 348. WSR 90-02-108, § 51-04-020, filed 1/3190, effective
2/3/90; Order 76-02, §51-04-020, filed 9/1/76.]
51-04-025
Procedure for submittal of proposed statewide amendments.
All proposed statewide amendments shall be submitted in writing to the
council, on the form provided by the council.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/WACldefault.aspx?cite=51-04&full=true 2/10/2015
Chapter 51-04 WAC: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ST... Page 5 of 9
Petitions for statewide amendments to the building code shall be
submitted to the council during the submission period and the adoption
period in accordance with WAC 51-04-020.
Petitions for emergency statewide amendments to the building code
may be submitted at any time, in accordance with RCW 19.27.074 and
chapter 34.05 RCW, and WAC 51-04-015 and 51-04-020.
The council may refer a proposed statewide amendment to one of the
council standing committees for review and comment prior to council action
in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW,
The council shall deal with all proposed statewide amendments within
the time frames required by chapter 19.27 RCW, RCW 34.05,330, and all
other deadlines established by statute.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.035, 19.27.074 and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW. WSR 07-15.043, § 51-04-025, filed 7/13/07, effective 8113/07.
Statutory Authority: RCW 19,27.035 and chapter 34.05 RCW. WSR 94-05-
058, § 51-04-025, filed 2110/94, effective 3/13/94. Statutory Authority:
Chapters 19.27 and 34,05 RCW and 1989 c 348. WSR 90-02-108, § 51-04-
025, filed 1/3/90, effective 2/3/90.]
51-04-030
Policies for consideration of proposed local government
residential amendments.
All amendments to the building code, as adopted by cities and counties
for implementation and enforcement in their respective jurisdictions, that
apply to single and multifamily buildings as defined by RCW 19.27.015,
shall be submitted to the council for approval.
The council shall consider and approve or deny all proposed local
government residential amendments to the building code within ninety
calendar days of receipt of a proposal, unless alternative scheduling is
agreed to by the council and the proposing entity.
All local government residential amendments to the building code that
require council approval shall be submitted in writing to the council, after
the city or county legislative body has adopted the amendment and prior to
implementation and enforcement of the amendment by the local
jurisdiction. All local amendments submitted for review shall be
accompanied by findings of fact adopted by the governing body of the local
jurisdiction justifying the adoption of the local amendment in accordance
with the five criteria noted below in this section.
It is the policy of the council to encourage joint proposals for local
government residential amendments from more than one jurisdiction. Local
government residential amendments submitted to the council for approval
shall be based on:
(1) Climatic conditions that are unique to the jurisdiction.
(2) Geologic or seismic conditions that are unique to the jurisdiction,
(3) Environmental impacts such as noise, dust, etc., that are unique to
the jurisdiction.
(4) Life, health, or safety conditions that are unique to the local
jurisdiction.
(5) Other special conditions that are unique to the jurisdiction.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=51-04&full=true 2/10/2015
Chapter 51-04 WAC: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ST... Page 6 of 9
EXCEPTION: Local government residential amendments to administrative provisions(departmental
operational procedures)contained within the state building code need not be submitted to the
council for review and approval provided that such amendments do not alter the construction
requirements of those chapters.
Those portions of the supplement or accumulative supplements that
affect single and multifamily residential buildings as defined by RCW
19.27.015 that are not adopted by the council shall be submitted to the
council for consideration as local government residential amendments to
the building code.
Local government residential amendments shall conform to the
limitations provided in RCW 19.27.040.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.035, 19.27.074 and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW. WSR 07-15-043, § 51-04-030, filed 7/13/07, effective 8/13/07.
Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.190, 19.27.020, and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW. WSR 05-23-104, § 51-04-030, filed 11/17/05, effective 111106.
Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074, WSR 04-07-193, § 51-
04-030, filed 3/24/04, effective 7/1/04. Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.035
and 19.27.074, WSR 98-24-077, § 51-04-030, filed 12/1/98, effective
7/1/99. Statutory Authority: Chapter 19.27 RCW. WSR 95-01-127, § 51-04-
030, filed 12/21/94, effective 6130/95. Statutory Authority: Chapters 19.27
and 34.05 RCW and 1989 c 348. WSR 90-02-108, § 51-04-030, filed
1/3/90, effective 2/3/90.]
51-04-035
Procedure for submittal of proposed local government residential
amendments.
All proposed local government residential amendments to the state
building code shall be submitted in writing to the council, on a form
provided by the council, along with findings of fact as required in WAC 51-
04-030 for the proposed amendment. Local government residential
amendments to administrative provisions (departmental operational
procedures) contained within the state building code need not be submitted
to the council for review and approval provided that such amendment does
not affect the construction requirements of those chapters.
The council shall accept and consider all applications for review of local
government residential amendments submitted to the council in a proper
manner.
The council may refer a proposed local government residential
amendment to one of the council standing committees for review and
comment prior to council action in accordance with RCW 19.27.074.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.190, 19.27.020, and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW. WSR 05-23-104, § 51-04-035, filed 11/17/05, effective 1/1/06.
Statutory Authority; Chapters 19.27 and 34.05 RCW and 1969 c 348. WSR
90-02-108, § 51-04-035, filed 1/3/90, effective 2/3/90.]
http://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=51-04&full=true 2/10/2015
Chapter 51-04 WAC: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ST... Page 7 of 9
51-04-037
Preapproved local government residential amendments.
Any local government residential amendment, that the council
determines to be appropriate for adoption by other local governments, may
be designated as a preapproved local government residential amendment.
A preapproved local government residential amendment may be
adopted by any local government upon notification of the council.
[Statutory Authority: Chapters 19.27 and 34.05 RCW and 1989 c 348. WSR
90-02-108, § 51-04-037, filed 113/90, effective 2/3/90.]
51-04-040
Reconsideration.
(1) When the council denies a statewide or local amendment to the
building code, the party proposing the amendment may file a petition for
reconsideration. The petition must be received by the State Building Code
Council, P.O. Box 42525, Olympia, Washington 98504-2525, within ten
calendar days of the date of the denial, The petition must give specific
reasons for why the council should reconsider the amendment for approval
or denial.
(2) Within sixty calendar days of receipt of a timely petition for
reconsideration, the council shall in writing:
(a) Grant the petition for reconsideration and approve the amendment;
(b) Deny the petition for reconsideration, giving reasons for the denial;
or
(c) Request additional information and extend the time period for not
more than thirty calendar days to either grant or deny the petition for
reconsideration.
(3) The council's denial of a proposed statewide or local government
amendment, or the council denial of a petition for reconsideration under this
section, is subject to judicial review under chapter 34.05 RCW.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.035, 19.27.074 and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW. WSR 07-15-043, § 51-04-040, filed 7/13/07, effective 8/13/07.
Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.190, 19.27.020, and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW, WSR 05-23-104, § 51-04-040, filed 11/17/05, effective 1/1/06.
Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.035 and chapters 19.27 and 34.05 RCW.
WSR 02-01-113, § 51-04-040, filed 12/18/01, effective 7/1/02. Statutory
Authority: Chapters 19.27 and 34.05 RCW and 1989 c 348. WSR 90-02-
108, § 51-04-040, filed 1/3/90, effective 2/3/90.]
51-04-050
Ex parte communications.
All written communications received by council members during council
rule-making proceedings, shall be forwarded to staff for inclusion in the
public record.
http://appieg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=51-04&fuII=true 2/10/2015
Chapter 51-04 WAC: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ST... Page 8 of 9
[Statutory Authority: Chapters 19.27 and 34.05 RCW and 1989 c 348. WSR
90-02-108, § 51-04-050, filed 1/3/90, effective 213/90.]
51-04-060
Opinions.
RCW 19.27.031 grants the council authority to render opinions relating
to the building code at the request of a local code official.
For the purposes of this section, the term "code official" means the local
or state official, or their designee, responsible for implementation and
enforcement of the specific code provision on which the opinion is
requested.
At the request of a code official, the council will issue opinions relating
to the codes adopted under chapters 19.27, 19.27A, and 70.92 RCW,
including the state energy code, the state ventilation and indoor air quality
code, and council amendments to the model codes. At the request of a
local code official, the council may issue opinions on the applicability of
WAC 51-04-030 to a local government ordinance regulating construction.
Council related opinions may be developed and approved by a standing
committee of the council.
Opinions approved by a standing committee may be reviewed and
modified by the council.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.035, 19.27.074 and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW. WSR 07-15-043, § 51-04-060, filed 7/13/07, effective 8/13/07.
Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.031 and 19.27.074. WSR 04-01-107, § 51-
04-060, filed 12/17/03, effective 7/1/04. Statutory Authority: RCW
19.27.035 and 19.27.074. WSR 98-24-077, § 51-04-060, filed 12/1/98,
effective 7/1/99. Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.035 and chapter 34.05
RCW. WSR 94-05-058, § 51-04-060, filed 2/10/94, effective 3/13/94.
Statutory Authority: Chapters 19.27 and 34.05 RCW and 1989 c 348. WSR
90-02-108, § 51-04-060, filed 1/3/90, effective 2/3/90.]
51-04-070
Council mailing address.
All requests for information, documentation, etc., should be submitted
to:
Washington State Building Code Council
906 Columbia St SW
Post Office Box 42525
Olympia, Washington 98504-2525
360-725-2966
[Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.190, 19.27.020, and chapters 19.27 and
34.05 RCW. WSR 05-23-104, § 51-04-070, filed 11/17/05, effective 1/1/06.
Statutory Authority: RCW 19.27.074. WSR 98-02-048, § 51-04-070, filed
1/5/98, effective 7/1/98. Statutory Authority: Chapters 19.27 and 34.05
littp://app.legma.gov/WAC/defaultaspx?eite=51-04&full=true 2/10/2015
Chapter 51-04 WAC: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ST... Page 9 of 9
RCW and 1989 c 348. WSR 90-02-108, § 51-04-070, filed 1/3/90, effective
2/3/90.]
http://app.1eg.wa.gav/WAC/default.aspx?cite=51-04&full=true 2/10/2015
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Review
Meeting Date: February 17, 2015 Department Director Approval
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑public hearing
❑ information ® admin.report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: City Hall Progress Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None
BACKGROUND: Developing options for a permanent City Hall building has been a Budget
Goal for the past several years. Staff will provide an update on the status of the project which
will include a discussion on 1 and acquisition and the selection process for firms to design the
building.
OPTIONS:
STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: n/a
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 9, 2015 Department Director Approval: IE
Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑ new business ❑public hearing
® information ❑admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Marijuana— Regulation/Issues
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 69.50 (Initiative 502 has been codified as RCW 69.50) and
WAC 314-55; RCW 69.51A; SVMC Title 19.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Staff has provided numerous administrative reports
on the legalization of marijuana since March, 2013. City Council adopted regulations regarding
restrictions on recreational marijuana on July 22, 2014 and a moratorium on the unlicensed
marijuana uses on December 9, 2014.
BACKGROUND:
Information on Marijuana for Joint Spokane Valley—Spokane County meeting on
February 9, 2015
1. City Regulations on Marijuana
Recreational:
In July 2014, the City adopted permanent regulations governing the siting of licensed
recreational marijuana production, processing, and retail shops. The City is allocated three
retail shops and currently 2 are open and in operation.
Production and Processing: Under the City's regulations, the City permits marijuana production
in industrial zones and allows indoor production only in the community commercial and regional
commercial zones.
The City permits all processing, including extraction processes, in industrial zones. It permits
the packaging and labeling of useable marijuana only in the community commercial and
regional commercial zones.
Further, the City prohibits marijuana production and processing within 1,000 feet of any
undeveloped school, library, or City property (other than right-of-way or stormwater property),
City Hall, and CenterPlace.
Retail Sales: The City permits recreational retail shops only in the mixed use center, corridor
mixed use, community commercial and regional commercial zones.
The City prohibits marijuana retail sales within 1,000 feet of any undeveloped school, library, or
City property (other than right-of-way or stormwater property), City Hall, CenterPlace, Appleway
Trail, and the Centennial Trail.
Unlicensed Marijuana Uses (Medical):
In December 2014, the City adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses. These
include any marijuana use that is not licensed by the Washington Liquor Control Board, which
primarily includes medical marijuana businesses. The moratorium will be in effect until
December 9, 2015, or permanent regulations are adopted, whichever is earlier. The City will
begin processing permanent regulations during the course of 2015. The moratorium will allow
the City to take into consideration the increase in the number of medical marijuana business
applications and anticipated state regulations to reconcile medical marijuana and recreational
marijuana.
Copies of the Recreational Marijuana regulations and Ordinance No. 14-021 establishing the
moratorium are attached for reference.
City Council's Adopted Legislative Agenda—Marijuana Item:
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.
Facts Regarding Recreational Marijuana in Washington and Spokane Valley
Statewide:
Bans (47)
Moratorium (60)
Interim Regulations (20)
Various levels of direct new regulations (62)
Use of Existing Regulations (44)
-Approximately 100 recreational marijuana retail stores have been licensed (out of 334
allocated) statewide.
-Approximately 270 recreational marijuana producers have been licensed.
- Ongoing issues with competition between recreational marijuana stores and black market and
unregulated medical marijuana due to lower prices (no State special excise taxes on
unregulated medical marijuana so it is cheaper than regulated and taxed recreational marijuana)
-Approximately $75,760,000 in sales since July, 2014. Washington State has collected
approximately$18,940,000 in taxes on those sales. Currently, none of the State taxes are
directed back to local jurisdictions.
City of Spokane Valley
-Three recreational marijuana retailers allocated within Spokane Valley
• Two are open and in operation
- 14 marijuana producer licenses granted by the Liquor Control Board in Spokane Valley
- 16 marijuana processor licenses granted by the Liquor Control Board in Spokane Valley
• All producers also have processor licenses, which means that instead of 30 separate
businesses, there are only 16 separate marijuana producer/processor businesses
licensed. Staff has not conducted on-the-ground review to determine how many are
open.
- Staff has identified issues with Liquor Control Board approving marijuana extraction processes
(like butane extraction)that do not meet local fire and mechanical code requirements.
-The City processed 5 medical marijuana-related business registrations in 2013 and 10 medical
marijuana-related business registrations in 2014 prior to the moratorium, One business
operates a "private" marijuana consumption lounge that is not regulated by any State agency,
-City staff members are reviewing and developing for Council consideration a local ordinance to
regulate consumption of marijuana by persons under the age of 21 (similar to what was adopted
by Liberty Lake in 2014).
OPTIONS: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Copy of City Recreational Marijuana Regulations; Ordinance 14-021 adopting
moratorium on unlicensed marijuana use.
City of Spokane Valley Recreational Marijuana Regulations
SVMC 19.85 (buffers and zoning restrictions)
SVMC 19.120.050 (selected portions of permitted use matrix)
Appendix A (definitions)
Chapter 19.85
MARIJUANA USES
Sections:
19.85.010 Marijuana production standards.
19.85.020 Marijuana processing standards.
19.85.030 Marijuana retail sales standards.
19.85.010 Marijuana production_standards..
A. Marijuana production shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line,
measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana production facility to the nearest property line of any
one or more of the following uses:
1.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title
28A;
2.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter
27.12 RCW;
3.Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be
excluded from consideration under this section:
a.Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and
designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan or
program adopted by the city council; and
b.The Appleway Trail;or
4. a.Any facility, building,campus,or collection of buildings designated or identified in any
document, plan,or program adopted by the city council as"Spokane Valley City Hall"or other
similar term that identifies such facilities, buildings,campus, or collection of buildings as the
city's primary administrative and legislative location;or
b. CenterPlace.
B. Marijuana production in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall only be permitted
indoors. (Ord. 14-008§4,2014).
19.85.020 Marijuana processing standards. „ _........w...._.._.
A. Marijuana processing shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line,
measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana processing facility to the nearest property line of any
one or more of the following uses:
1.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title
28A;
2.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter
27.12 RCW;
3,Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be
excluded from consideration under this section:
a.Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and
designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan or
program adopted by the city council;and
b.The Appleway Trail; or
4. a.Any facility, building,campus,or collection of buildings designated or identified in any
document, plan, or program adopted by the city council as"Spokane Valley City Hall"or other
similar term that identifies such facilities, buildings,campus,or collection of buildings as the
City's primary administrative and legislative location;or
b. CenterPlace.
B. Marijuana processing in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall be limited to
packaging and labeling of usable marijuana. (Ord. 14-008§4,2014).
19,85.030 Marijuana retail sales standards.
Marijuana sales shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured
from the nearest property line of the marijuana sales facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of
the following uses:
A. Centennial Trail;
B.Appleway Trail;
C.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts as established in RCW Title 28A;
D.Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts as established in Chapter 27.12 RCW;
E.Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City;provided any stormwater facility or right-of-way
parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any
document, plan or program adopted by the city council shall be excluded from consideration under this section;
or
F. 1.Any facility, building, campus, or collection of buildings designated or identified in any document,plan,
or program adopted by the city council as"Spokane Valley City Hall"or other similar term that identifies such
facilities,buildings, campus,or collection of buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative
location; or
2.CenterPlace. (Ord. 14-008 §4, 2014).
19.120.050 Permitted use matrix.
Permitted Use Matrix
Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Supplemental
Use Category/Type
Districts Districts Conditions
R- R- R- R- MF- MF
MUG CMU GO 0 NC C RC P/OS I-1 1-2
1 2 3 4 1 2
Agriculture and
Animal
Permitted Use Matrix
Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Supplemental
Use Category/Type
Districts Districts Conditions
R- R- R- R- MF- MF-
MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC PbOS I-1 1-2
1 2 3 4 1 2
***
See zoning districts
Kennel S S S S S P P
for conditions
Chapter 19.85
Marijuana production S S S S
SVMC
Orchard, tree farming,
P P
commercial
***
Industrial, Light
***
Manufacturing, light P P P
Chapter 19.85
Marijuana processing S S S S
SVMC
Plastic injection
P P P P P P
molding,thermoplastic
***
Retail Sales
***
Manufactured home
P P P
sales
Marijuana sales S S S S Chapter 19.85
Permitted Use Matrix
Residential Zone Commercial and Industrial Zone Supplemental
Use Category/Type
Districts Districts Conditions
R- R- R- R- MF- MF-
MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC NOS I-1 1-2
1 2 3 4 1 2
SVMC
Market, outdoor P P PP P P
A=Accessory use,C=Conditional use, P=Permitted use
R=Regional siting, S= Permitted with supplemental conditions
T=Temporary Use
(Ord. 14-017§6,2014;Ord. 14008§3,2014;Ord.14-003§3(Aft.A),2014).
APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS
A. General Provisions.
1. For the purpose of this code, certain words and terms are herein defined.The word"shall"is always
mandatory.The word"may"is permissive,subject to the judgment of the person administering the code.
2.Words not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
3.The present tense includes the future,and the future the present.
4.The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular.
5. Use of male designations shall also include female.
B. Definitions.
Marijuana processing: Processing marijuana into usable marijuana,marijuana-infused products,and
marijuana concentrates, packaging and labeling usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana
concentrates for sale in retail outlets,and sale of usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products,and marijuana
concentrates at wholesale by a marijuana processor licensed by the State Liquor Control Board and in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 69.50 RCW,as now adopted or hereafter amended. See"Industrial,
light use category."
Marijuana production: Production and sate of marijuana at wholesale by a marijuana producer licensed by the
State Liquor Control Board and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 69.50 RCW,as now adopted or
hereafter amended. See"Agricultural and animals, use category."
Marijuana sales:Selling usable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana concentrates in a retail
outlet by a marijuana retailer licensed by the State Liquor Control Board and in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended.See"Retail sales,use category."
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.14-021
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON,ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL
MARIJUANA USES OTHER THAN MARIJUANA PRODUCERS, MARIJUANA
PROCESSORS, AND MARIJUANA RETAIL SALES AS LICENSED BY THE
WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
69.50 RCW AND REGULATED BY CHAPTER 19.85 SPOKANE VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE AND SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
19.120.050,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS,since 1970,federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana
as a Schedule I drug, based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high
potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in
medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v.Raich,545 U.S. 1, 14(2005), Controlled Substance Act, 84
Stat. 1242,21 U.S.C.801 et seq;and
WHEREAS, Initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of Washington State on
November 3, 1998, and now codified as chapter 69.51A RCW, created an affirmative defense for
"qualifying patients"to the charge of possession of marijuana;and
WHEREAS, in 2011,the Washington State Legislature considered and passed ESSSB 5073 that,
among other things, (1) authorized the licensing of medical cannabis dispensaries, production facilities,
and processing facilities, (2) permitted qualifying patients to receive certain amounts of marijuana for
medicinal purposes from designated providers, (3) permitted collective gardens by qualifying patients
whereby they may, consistent with state law, collectively grow marijuana for their own use, (4) and
clarified that cities were authorized to continue to use their zoning authority to regulate the production,
processing, or dispensing of marijuana under ESSSB 5073 and chapter 69.51A RCW within their
respective jurisdictions;and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2011, former governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions of
ESSSB 5073 that would have provided the legal basis for legalizing and licensing medical cannabis
dispensaries,processing facilities,and production facilities,thereby making these activities illegal;and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative
Measure No.502("I-502"), now codified in chapters 69.50,46.04,46.20,46.21,and 46.61 Revised Code
of Washington("RCW"),which provisions, (1) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of
marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (2) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence
of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana;and(3)established a regulatory system
licensing producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and
older, and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (the "LCB") to adopt procedures and
criteria by December 1,2013 for issuing licenses to produce,process,and sell marijuana;and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo
providing updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of I-502. Several
ongoing federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing
distribution of marijuana to minors. Further, the memo provided that the Department would not seek
ongoing prosecution of marijuana providers,users,and local officials in states that authorized marijuana,
provided that those state and local governments "implement strong and effective regulatory and
enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public
Ordinance 14-021 Page 1 of 5
health, and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust
controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice;"and
WHEREAS, the LCB has established a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the licensing,
operation,and enforcement of recreational marijuana production, processing,and retail sales shops under
chapter 314-55 WAC;and
WHEREAS, in 2014, the Washington State Legislature considered, but did not adopt E3SSB
5887 that would have reconciled the comprehensive state regulatory scheme for recreational marijuana
under 1-502 and the lack of regulatory oversight and controls over medical marijuana under chapter
69.51A RCW;and
WHEREAS, the possession of medical marijuana, operation of collective gardens, and services
provided by designated providers remain illegal under chapter 69.51A RCW and Cannabis Action
Coalition v. City of Kent, 180 Wn.App.455(2014),cert.granted,with such activities only entitled to an
affirmative defense;and
WHEREAS, RCW 69.50.445 prohibits the opening of a package containing marijuana, useable
marijuana, or a marijuana-infused product, or consumption of marijuana, useable marijuana, or a
marijuana-infused product"within view of the general public,"but does not otherwise regulate operation
of any "private" marijuana consumption facility, "vaping" of marijuana extracts or oils, or other
unlicensed marijuana operations;and
WHEREAS,unlike recreational licensed marijuana production,processing,and retail sales under
chapter 69.50 RCW, all other marijuana uses, including medical marijuana and businesses offering
"private"consumption or"vaping,"remain unlicensed marijuana uses that are largely unregulated and are
not subject to review, licensing,or enforcement by the LCB;and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature is likely to propose and consider legislation on
medical marijuana in the upcoming 2015 Legislative session, but the City cannot determine what that
legislation may provide or when or if it will be passed;and
WHEREAS,the City of Spokane Valley Police have informally documented 45 marijuana-related
crimes since November 13,2013,with at least 30 of those involving persons under the age of 21;and
WHEREAS on July 22, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-008, which established in
chapter 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC') and SVMC 19.120.050 regulations,
zoning, buffers,and other limitations on marijuana producers,processors,and retail sellers licensed under
chapter 69.50 RCW,but which did not regulate unlicensed marijuana uses;and
WHEREAS, as of October 28, the City had at least 18 medical-marijuana related businesses
registered within the City, all of which provide marijuana outside of the licensing, regulation,
enforcement of the LCB, none of which are licensed marijuana producers, processors, or retail outlets
under chapter 69.50 RCW, and none of which are subject to the City's regulations under SVMC 19.85 or
SVMC 19.120.050;and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of
Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and
other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations
governing land uses within the City;and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a
•
Ordinance 14-021 Page 2 of 5
public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim
official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim
zoning ordinance,or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption,whether or not the
governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department.
If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the
governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map,
interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not
longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related
studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or
interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing
is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;"and
WHEREAS,a moratorium enacted under RCW 35,4,63,220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method
by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be
rendered moot by intervening development;and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A390 both authorize the enactment of a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a
public hearing;and
WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the
requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act;and
WHEREAS, the lack of regulatory oversight at any level over unlicensed marijuana uses,such as
medical marijuana collective gardens, designated providers, and "private" marijuana consumption
businesses, (1) creates a market for marijuana that is inconsistent with the highly regulated market
established by licensed producers, processors,and retail sales by the LCB, (2)allows increased access to
marijuana by minors,and(3) creates a risk to the public health,safety and welfare because of the lack of
regulatory oversight and potential for abuse; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council adopted its 2015-2017 Legislative Agenda,
which included an item wherein the City Council stated it would "support the reconciliation of the
recreational and medical marijuana statutes," "support development of one system that would regulate
medical and recreational marijuana, (including the elimination of medical marijuana), in Washington
State,"and would"support State regulations which close gaps within current legislation:Vaping,edibles,
oils,and `private'consumption/facilities;and under age possession and consumption;"and
WHEREAS, additional time is necessary to allow the City to conduct appropriate research to
analyze the allowance, siting, and necessary land-use regulations for unlicensed marijuana uses under
existing state law, and to determine what, if any, regulations may be passed by the Washington State
Legislature in the upcoming 2015 legislative session regarding unlicensed marijuana uses and the impact
of such laws on unlicensed marijuana uses within the City;and
WHEREAS, a moratorium will provide the City with additional time to review and amend its
public health, safety, and welfare requirements and zoning and land use regulations related to the
establishment and operation of unlicensed marijuana uses;and
WHEREAS, Washington State law, including RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390,
authorizes the City to adopt a moratorium,provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium
within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium;and
WHEREAS, the City has authority to establish a moratorium concerning the establishment and
operation of unlicensed marijuana uses as a necessary stop-gap measure: (1) to provide the City with an
Ordinance 14-021 Page 3 of 5
opportunity to study the issues associated with allowing,siting,and regulating unlicensed marijuana uses,
including determining what, if any, regulations are passed by the Washington State Legislature in the
upcoming 2015 legislative session and the impacts of those laws upon unlicensed marijuana uses;(2)to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley by avoiding and
ameliorating negative impacts and unintended consequences of additional unlicensed marijuana; and (3)
to avoid applicants possibly establishing vested rights contrary to and inconsistent with any revisions the
City may make for its rules and regulations as a result of the City's study of this matter,and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this
Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health,public safety,public property
and public peace.
NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows:
Section 1. Preliminary Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as
findings of het in support of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Moratorium Established.
A. The City Council hereby declares and imposes a moratorium upon the submission,
acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for
unlicensed marijuana use.
B. For purposes of this moratorium, "unlicensed marijuana use" means the production,
growing,processing, manufacturing, extraction,infusion into edible solids, liquids or gummies,allowing
consumption on the premises of, sale, distribution,or delivery of marijuana,marijuana-infused products,
extracts, concentrates, oils, or any other form of product containing or derived from marijuana and
intended for human use by any business, association or other for-profit or not-for-profit establishment,
including but not limited to collective gardens,designated providers, medical marijuana dispensaries, or
private marijuana "vaping," smoking, or consumption clubs;provided, however, "unlicensed marijuana
use" shall not include any marijuana producer, marijuana processor, or marijuana retailer that has
received and holds a valid marijuana producer,marijuana processor,or marijuana retailer license from the
Washington Liquor Control Board pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC;provided,
further, if a building permit for work within a business is necessary in order for a business to obtain a
valid marijuana license from the Washington Liquor Control Board under chapter 69.50 RCW,the City
may accept and process such permit prior to the applicant receiving its license from the Washington
Liquor Control Board.
C. "Unlicensed marijuana use"does not and shall not include any personal possession or use
of marijuana, marijuana-infused products, marijuana extracts, marijuana concentrates, marijuana oils, or
other form of product containing or derived from marijuana and intended for human use by any person
pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW or by any qualifying patient pursuant to RCW 69.51A.040.
D. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already-
submitted complete land-use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as
provided under Washington law.
Section 3. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted to address the issues involving
the City's regulation of,and the establishment of unlicensed marijuana uses:
A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to
hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements, testimony,positions,
Ordinance 14-021 Page 4 of 5
and other documentation or evidence related to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of
unlicensed marijuana uses.
B. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to
work with City staff and the citizens of the City,as well as all public input received,to develop proposals
for regulations pertaining to the establishment of unlicensed marijuana uses, which regulations may
provide provisions restricting or limiting unlicensed marijuana use up to and including bans, to be
forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration.
Section 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 35A,63.220 and 36.70A.390,the City Council
shall conduct a public hearing on January 27,2015 at 6:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter maybe
beard,at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall,11707 East Sprague,Spokane Valley,99206,City Council
Chambers, to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public
hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance.
Section 5. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall be in effect as of the
date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect for a period of 365 days from the date of this
Ordinance,unless repealed,extended,or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s)
and entry of appropriate findings of fact,pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390.
Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 7. Severability. If any section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 8. Declaration of Emergency: Effective Date. This Ordinance is designated as a
public emergency necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and therefore shall
take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council.
Passed by the City Council this 9th day of December,2014,
ATTS ' Dean Grafos. yc�r
tty Clerk,Christine Bainbridge
Approved as orm:
,Afakt1
Office he Ci ttorney
Date of Publication:December 12,2014
Effective Date: December 9,2014
Ordinance 14-021 Page 5 of 5
Inslee says state will act on oil trains I Local Business I Tri-CityHerald.com
Tri-CityHerald.com
Inslee says state will act on oil trains
By Andy Hobbs
Staff writerNovember 21, 2014
• . , tip.— „r, . 4 kr....4 - „vs. , . ,,, Iiiii
-y�. h
JV
!:
k , f 9' -iF 1
•
- , -..'.. kK-. .. ; t,
; � ? t ` rt .' I
f' i''Val X � , ",+. >< ,-c � t .r t+SJfi
`b ; ti A. °rl4' { n If itt/`-
• `Z , f t ; , .} t �
c :.thJ }y : zL S '1 r .21:'(I L,: �I ;yi- f!Nf
4411.V
i:14,-; t )' �4, tIn0. i - hT kyr -TAtikcc<tVii,- kC +y ,T . Y , ' > '^tj ' p 4:V.;,..%':.' :. .,ru-.'�tS31t-'
•
i e •r' ; 1, -- .. , ! k } a, e:�E+t i,,w' —'Ztn KiS '1.-,'$‘.7;.t
r ' r' AY {r . +. . .Plity ' ."' tS{r4iy=/'- g4";Lil. c 4qn }rf. r ii' ,.. fv -
-,,‘„,,•,,,-...,,,,,, '. � � aC • r 4 . xr .t ,Y ", c, '`,A:t11". S :Cx ;
r ^Y'�7 �i a'"� t.::..„7,11,,,,,,p2..,,:. Jµ,N4, ay� 1w,J1�"'i�`+adfi ::' '
-C �,x . i; - , 7te ..4'''
' � 1
Representatives from Washington and Oregon gather at Olympia City Hall for the Safe Energy Leadership
Alliance summit on Friday, Nov. 21, 2014. TONY OVERMAN — Staff photographer
The number of oil trains running across Washington is unacceptable, and the Legislature will consider bills in the
upcoming session that mandate advance notification of oil shipments by rail as well as more funding for railroad
crossings and emergency response training, Gov. Jay inslee said Friday.
King County Executive Dow Constantine added that oil companies are raking in profits while "the rest of us are
picking up the costs."
"Those who are profiting should shoulder the financial burden," Constantine said.
They were speaking to the Safe Energy Leadership Alliance that met Friday at Olympia City Hall to address the
surge of oil and coal trains passing through Washington.
The alliance is a coalition of local, state and tribal leaders from the Northwest who say the trains threaten the
environment, economy and public safety.
As shipments of oil increase in the Puget Sound region, so does the likelihood for spills and accidents. The
Department of Ecology reports that 19 fully loaded oil trains crisscross the state every week, with the number
expected to reach 59 oil trains if current refinery proposals are approved. Each train hauls about 3 million gallons
of crude oil in 100 tanker cars. Between 11 and 16 trains pass through rural and suburban areas of Thurston and
Pierce counties every week, according to reports from BNSF Railway.
Participants in Friday's meeting included elected officials from across the state along with Oregon and Canada.
"It is clear that we have to take significant action including being better prepared to handle an oil train explosion or
large scale spill," Inslee said.
Inslee says state will act on oil trains I Local Business I Tri-CityHerald.com Page 4 of 5
Although the federal government is the main regulator of the railroads, Inslee said there are some actions the
state can take now, such as lowering speed limits of the trains.
"We don't want vehicles speeding through school zones, and we shouldn't let oil trains speed through
Washington cities," said Inslee, noting that changes in state permits are at least a year away.
Friday's meeting included a detailed report on the coal industry by Tom Sanzillo, finance director of the Institute
for Energy Economic and Financial Analysis. Sanzillo encouraged states and cities to keep putting pressure on
the coal industry, which has seen demand and prices decline worldwide in the past few years,
"The U.S. coal industry is shrinking," said Sanzillo, adding that the industry needs "robust growth" to meet its
potential and compete in the global market despite record demand for coal by nations like China. "Hooking your
wagon to the coal industry is not a particularly promising outlook right now."
At the local level, Olympia Mayor Stephen Buxbaum said the City Council will seek a resolution next week to add
Olympia to the list of cities that oppose the increase in crude oil transport.
"We are at a crossroads," Buxbaum said Friday. "We could see up to 60 trains a day and 4,000 supertankers in
our waters."
As for the coal issue, Buxbaum recently co-authored a guest column titled "You might be surprised by Puget
Sound Energy's coal power supply" that ran Nov. 19 in The Seattle Times. Also signing the article were
Bainbridge Island Mayor Anne Blair and Mercer Island Mayor Bruce Bassett, and all three mayors' respective city
councils endorsed it.
The article urges Puget Sound Energy to take immediate action and plan for a "post-coal future." About one-third
of PSE's power supply comes from coal that's shipped from out of state, according to the article. The mayors also
cite Gov. Inslee's recent executive order to reduce pollution and transition away from coal power.
"The bottom line is that we don't need coal," the article states. "The potential is there for Washington to meet its
energy needs with efficiency programs, wind, solar and other technologies. We just need to rise to the occasion."
Andy Hobbs: 360-704-6869 ahobbs@theolympian.com @andyhobbs
• Facebook
• Twitter
D
• Google Plus
• More
• Linkedin
• Reddit
• YouTube
O
• E-mail
• Print
O
Join The Conversation
Tri-City Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about
what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We
encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech,
personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
Commenting FAQs I Terms of Service
_ -__- . _.]„ 1 •1/101/01111C
P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Web12015Iagendapacket 2015, 02-1711tem 11.3 gambling tax Council Workshop-
gambling tax.docx
Council Workshop
February 17, 2015
Gambling Tax Discussion
• In 2003 the City of Spokane Valley adopted an ordinance which authorized certain
gaming/gambling activities and imposed related taxes, the proceeds of which are used to
partially offset law enforcement costs. Since that time a number of businesses that offer
gambling as a form of entertainment have opened and closed and revenues have fluctuated
from year to year with an overall downward trend, which is conceivably due to a combination
of competition from both regional and on-line gaming establishments There are currently
thirty businesses in Spokane Valley that offer gaming.
• Gambling tax revenues for the period 2010 through 2014 as well as the 2015 Budget
projection are as follows:
Actual Revenues
Type of Gambling Activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 Budget
Punch Boards &Pull Tabs 71,778 64,310 64,771 70,504 49,742 71,000
Bingo&Raffles 825 1,260 1,802 638 1,023 1,200
Amusement Games 10,063 10,882 10,125 10,799 8,453 10,800
Card Games 563,477 447,778 541,696 446,497 338,011 446,000
Total 646,143 524,230 618,394 528,438 397,229 529,000
Inc. (Dec.)from previous yr. $ (80,861.18) $(121,913.00) $ 94,164.00 $ (89,956.00)
-11.12% -18.87% 17.96% -14.55%
*2014 revenues currentlyincude the first three quarters of the year. Fourth quarter payments are due on January31,2015.
• At the September 23, 2014 meeting, Council heard public comment from a business owner
who operates a local gaming establishment. He stated that the gambling taxes on social
card playing in the City of Spokane Valley are a significant expense to his business and that
he believes these taxes have been a factor in why other gaming establishments within the
City have closed over the last several years. He requested that Council consider either
eliminating or reducing gambling tax rates and noted that the City of Spokane was at that
time considering reducing their own social card game tax rate. On November 3, 2014, the
City of Spokane did in fact approve an ordinance reducing rates effective in both 2015 and
2016.
1
P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Web12015Iagendapacket 2015, 02-1711tem 11.3 gambling tax Council Workshop-
gambling tax.docx
• Listed below is gambling tax rate information which includes the maximum allowed by State
law, the current rates in Spokane Valley, and rates in the City of Spokane:
Gambling Tax Rates
Maximum
Allowed by City of City of Spokane (3)
State of Spokane Through Effective Effective
Type of Gambling Activity Washingtor Valley 12/31/2014 1/1/2015 1/1/2016
Punch Boards & Pull Tabs (1) 10.0% 5.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
Bingo & Raffles (1) 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Amusement Games (1) 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Card Games (2) 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 8.0% 2.0%
(1) Rates are applicable to gross receipts,less amounts awarded as cash or merchandise prizes.
(2) Rates are applicable to gross revenue.
(3) City of Spokane rates were changed via the adoption of their Ordinance C35153 on 11/3/2014.
• The 2015 Budget includes a revenue estimate of$529,000 in gambling taxes including:
o $ 71,000 Punch Boards and Pull Tabs
o $ 1,200 Bingo and Raffles
o $ 10,800 Amusement Games
o $446,000 Card Games
• Given that a 10% tax on card games is estimated to generate $446,000 in 2015:
o Each 1% reduction in the tax rate would cause General Fund revenues to decrease by
$44,600.
o If the City were to reduce rates as Spokane has done, our revenue losses would be as
follows:
■ A reduction in the rate to 8% would result in revenues of $356,800 and an $89,200
loss.
■ A reduction in the rate to 5% would result in revenues of $223,000 and a $223,000
loss.
■ A reduction in the rate to 2% would result in revenues of $89,200 and a $356,800
loss.
2