2015, 03-10 Regular MeetingAGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FORMAL FORMAT MEETING
Tuesday, March 10, 2015 6:00 p.m.
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
11707 E Sprague Avenue
Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting
CALL TO ORDER:
INVOCATION: Pastor Sid Johnson, Spokane Valley Baptist Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
MAYOR'S REPORT:
PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on
this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW
BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When
you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to
three minutes.
1.PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2015 Transportation Improvement Program—Steve Worley
2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any
member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered
separately.
Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of claim vouchers on March 10, 2015 Request for Council Action Form Totaling -$784,287.62
b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 5, 2015: $411,708.28
c. Approval of February 17, 2015 Council Workshop, Special Meeting Minutes
d. Approval of February 24, 2015 Council Formal Meeting Minutes
e. Approval of March 3, 2015 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes
NEW BUSINESS:
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-004 Street Vacation Old Mission Avenue — Karen Kendall
[public comment]
4. Proposed Reimbursement Resolution 15-001 — Erik Lamb [public comment]
5. Proposed Drainage Easement Release Resolution 15-002 — Chad Riggs [public comment]
6. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Allocation of Funds — Mark Calhoun
[public comment]
7. Motion Consideration: Browns Volleyball Contract — Mike Stone [public comment]
8. Motion Consideration: Kitsap County Purchase Interlocal - Eric Guth [public comment]
Council Agenda 03-10-15 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on
this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW
BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When
you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to
three minutes.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
9. Comprehensive Site Specific Amendments — Marty Palaniuk, Christina Janssen
10. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Call for Projects — Eric Guth
11. Lodging Tax Committee Request for Additional Lodging Tax — Erik Lamb, Mark Calhoun
12. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos
INFORMATION ONLY: n/a
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change)
Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m.
The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2"—d and 4th Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time
allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item.
The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 03rd and 51 Tuesdays.
Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are
included, comments are permitted after those specific action items.
NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate
physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as
possible so that arrangements may be made.
Council Agenda 03-10-15 Formal Format Meeting
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 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: PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2015 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council Adopted the 2015-2020 Six Year TIP on
June 24, 2014, Resolution #14-006; Council approval for the HSIP (Highway Safety
Improvement Program) Grant Applications was received July 8, 2014; Council adopted the
Second Amended 2014 TIP on October 14, 2014, Resolution 14-010. Council received an
Administrative Report RCA outlining the changes proposed for amending the 2015 TIP on
March, 2015.
BACKGROUND: Council adopted the 2015-2020 TIP based upon information staff had at that
time relative to available funds and how those funds could be utilized for transportation projects.
Since the adoption of the 2015-2020 TIP, staff submitted grant applications for the following
projects that were selected for funding that will begin in 2015:
• McDonald Rd Safety Improvement Project (PE), 16th to Mission (HSIP)
• Reflectorized Signal Backplate Project (PE), 10 Intersections Citywide (HSIP)
• Seth Woodard Elem Sidewalk Imp Project (PE), Mission Ave - Lily to Park (CDBG)
[Community Development Block Grant]
The City received funds from the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) to upgrade pedestrian
facilities at the Evergreen and Indiana intersection:
• Evergreen/Indiana Transit Access Improvement Project
Additional proposed changes identified in the Amended 2015 TIP include the following:
Removed projects:
• Bowdish Sidewalk - 8th to 12th
• Fancher Bridge over BNSF RR Expansion Joint Repair
• Park Road Sidewalk Project
• Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation
• Spokane Valley/Millwood Trail
Added Projects:
• Pines Rd Underpass at BNSF & Trent (RW Only)
During the 2015 Budget process the City identified the following projects for the Pavement
Preservation Fund 311:
• Argonne, Sprague to Appleway
• Montgomery, Dartmouth to University
• Maxwell, Houk, and Sinto, Pines (SR -27) to Houk
• Sullivan Rd Preservation Project w/ WSDOT, Trent to Wellesley
Carryover projects from 2014:
• Mission Ave Improvement Project (PE/RW Only)
• Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (PE Only)
• Mansfield Ave Connection Project
• University Rd/I-90 Overpass Study
• Pines (SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project
• Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study
• Appleway Trail Phase 2
Based on this information, it is recommended that the 2015 TIP be amended to reflect the
deletion of the projects that did not receive funding, include those projects that were not
completed in 2014 and have carried over to the 2015 construction season, and include those
added projects to the 2015 construction season.
Since the City uses Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) monies as matching funds for state and
federal grants, this amendment to the current -year TIP is necessary to meet the state law that
requires REET funds to only be used on projects that have been identified in an adopted plan.
Attached is a summary of the proposed changes. A public hearing on these changes to the
2015 TIP is currently scheduled for March 10, 2015. Adoption of the Amended 2015 TIP is
currently scheduled for March 24, 2015.
OPTIONS: Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Public Hearing
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The projects costs shown in the draft Amended 2015 TIP are
preliminary and may be adjusted. There are sufficient capital project funds to cover the local
match for these projects.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Amended 2015 TIP
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
Adopted 2015 Transportation Improvement Program
Proj. # Project
From
To
Primary
Source
City
Amount
Total 2015
Project Costs
1 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements
2 0145 Spokane Valley -Millwood Trail (PE Only)
3 0155 Sullivan West Bridge
4 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped.)
5 0201 ITS Infill Project
6 0205 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements (PE Only)
7 0206 Sprague / Long Sidewalk Project
8 2015 Street Preservation Project
9 0143 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation
10 Bowdish Sidewalk - 8th to 12th
11 Fancher Bridge over BNSF RR Expansion Joint Repair
12 Park Road Sidewalk Project
13 Sullivan Corridor ITS (PE Only)
14 0188 Sullivan Rd Resurfacing Project (PE Only)
1-90
SCC
Sullivan
Various locations
Various locations
Sprague @
Sprague
Various locations
Barker
12th Avenue
Fancher @
Sinto
1-90
Sprague
Trent
Valley Mall
@Spokane River
Barker
Long
Trent (SR 290)
8th Avenue
BNSF RR
Indiana
Trent (SR 290)
Mission
CMAQ
STP(E)
BR
HSIP
CMAQ
City
CDBG
City
Fed/State
SRTS
FedBR
SRTS
CMAQ
STP(U)
All Projects
Funded Projects
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
DRAFT AMENDED 2015 Transportation Improvement Program
Resolution 15-0xx, (x-xx-2015 )
$ 253,000 $ 630,000
$ $ 248,000
$ 893,000 $ 8,440,000
$ $ 31,000
$ 41,000 $ 301,000
$ 12,000 $ 12,000
$ $ 236,000
$ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000
$ 308,000 $ 1,988,000
$ 6,000 $ 52,000
$ 40,000 $ 201,000
$ 8,000 $ 61,000
$ 14,000 $ 105,000
$ 156,000 $ 1,156,000
$ 3,731,000 $15,461,000
$3,665,000 $ 15,147,000
Proj. # Project
From
To
Primary
Source
City
Amount
Total 2015
Project Costs
1 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements
2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project (PE/RW Only)
3 0141 Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (PE Only)
4 0155 Sullivan West Bridge #4508
5 0205 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements (PE Only)
6 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection Project
7 0159 University Rd/I-90 Overpass Study
8 0166 Pines (SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project
9 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped.)
10 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study
11 0176 Appleway Trail Phase 2 (CN)
12 0201 ITS Infill Project
13 2015 Street Preservation Projects
Argonne
Montgomery
Maxwell, Houk, & Sinto
14 0211 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project
15 0216 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project (WSDOT)
16 Sullivan Corridor ITS (PE Only)
17 0206 Sprague / Long Sidewalk Project
18 McDonald Rd Safety Improvement Project (PE Only)
19 Reflectorized Signal Backplate Project
20 Evergreen/Indiana Transit Access Imp Project
21 Seth Woodard Elementary Sidewalk Imp Project
22 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF & Trent (RW Only)
1-90
Flora
Sullivan
Sullivan
Sprague @
Pines (SR 27)
University
Pines (SR 27) @
Various locations
1-90
University
Various locations
Various locations
Sprague
Dartmouth
Pines (SR -27)
Sprague
Trent (SR -290)
1-90
Sprague
16th
Various locations
Evergreen
Lily
Mirabeau Pkwy
Trent
Barker
Euclid
@Spokane River
Barker
Houk St.
1-90
Grace Ave
Wellesley
Evergreen
Appleway
University
Houk
Mission
Wellesley
Trent (SR -290)
Long
Mission
Indiana
Park
N Cement Rd
CMAQ
STP(U)
STP(U)
BR
City
TIB -UCP
CMAQ
HS IP
HSIP
STP(U)
CMAQ
CMAQ
City
City
City
City
STP(U)
City
CMAQ
CDBG
HSIP
HSIP
STA
CDBG
City
548,000
55,000
12,000
1,220,000
12,000
2,100
51,700
74,600
12,100
677,000
40,700
1,295, 700
$ 1,185,000
$ 407,000
$ 87,500
$ 7,200,000
$ 12,000
$ 1,176,000
$ 13,400
$ 664,000
$ 470,000
$ 74,800
$ 677,000
$ 327,500
$ 1,295,700
$ 152,300 $
$552,000
$ 14,300 $
$ $
$ 6,000 $
$ 800 $
$ $
$ 17,000 $
$ 10,000 $
1,128, 500
$552,000
105,500
236,000
60,000
8,000
85,000
37,000
10,000
All Projects
$ 4,753,300 $ 15,811,900
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making
development decisions.
Funded Projects Added Projects 2014 Carry Over Projects
\\svfsl\Public Folders\Public Works\Capital Projects\CIP-TIP Funding \2015-2020 TIP Amended 2015-2020 Amended 2015 TIP (Final Draft 2-12-2015).xlsx 2/18/2015
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 2015
Department Director Approval: IZI
Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers:
❑ public hearing
VOUCHER LIST
02/19/2015
02/19/2015
02/19/2015
02/26/2015
02/27/2015
03/04/2015
VOUCHER NUMBERS
6052-6057
34727-34745
34746-34791
34792-34824
34825-34840
5076, 5088-5091; 34841-34842
GRAN
TOTAL AMOUNT
$769.00
$70,024.14
$216,902.90
$175,703.04
$47,907.25
$272,981.29
D TOTAL: $784,287.62
#001 - General Fund
001.011.000.511
001.013.000.513.
001.013.015.515.
001.016.000.
001.018.013.513.
001.018.014.514.
001.018.016.518.
001.032.000.
001.058.050.558.
001.058.055.558.
001.058.056.558.
001.058.057.558.
001.076.000.576.
001.076.300.576.
001.076.301.571.
001.076.302.576.
001.076.304.575.
001.076.305.571.
001.090.000.511.
001.090.000.514.
001.090.000.517.
001.090.000.518.
001.090.000.519.
001.090.000.540.
001.090.000.550.
001.090.000.560.
001.090.000.594.
001.090.000.595.
Explanation of Fund Numbers found on
City Council
City Manager
Legal
Public Safety
Deputy City Manager
Finance
Human Resources
Public Works
Comm. Develop.- Administration
Comm. Develop.— Develop.Eng.
Community Develop.- Planning
Community Develop.- Building
Parks & Rec—Administration
Parks & Rec-Maintenance
Parks & Rec-Recreation
Parks & Rec- Aquatics
Parks & Rec- Senior Center
Parks & Rec-CenterPlace
General Gov't- Council related
General Gov't -Finance related
General Gov't -Employee supply
General Gov't- Centralized Services
General Gov't -Other Services
General Gov't -Transportation
General Gov't -Natural & Economic
General Gov't -Social Services
General Gov't -Capital Outlay
General Gov't -Pavement Preservation
Voucher Lists
Other Funds
101 — Street Fund
103 — Paths & Trails
105 — Hotel/Motel Tax
106 — Solid Waste
120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve
121— Service Level Stabilization Reserve
122 — Winter Weather Reserve
123 — Civil Facilities Replacement
204 — Debt Service
301 — Capital Projects (1st 1/4% REET)
302 - Special Capital Proj (2'd 'A% REET)
303 — Street Capital Projects
304 — Mirabeau Point Project
307 — Capital Grants
309 — Parks Capital Grants
310 — Civil Bldg Capital Projects
311 — Pavement Preservation
312 — Capital Reserve
402 — Stormwater Management
403 — Aquifer Protection Area
501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement
502 — Risk Management
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as
part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.]
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists
vchlist
02/19/2015 2:16:08PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code : pk-ref
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
6052 2/19/2015 004167 ANDERSON, AMY PARKS REFUND
6053 2/19/2015 004169 BELISLE, JESSICA PARKS REFUND
6054 2/19/2015 000812 MIRABEAU CHAPEL PARKS REFUND
6055 2/19/2015 003547 RIVER CITY CHIROPRACTIC PARKS REFUND
6056 2/19/2015 004168 ROTARY CLUB OF SPOKANE VALLEY PARKS REFUND
6057 2/19/2015 004147 STUBBORN GIRL PRODUCTIONS PARKS REFUND
6 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref
6 Vouchers in this report
Fund/Dept
Description/Account
Amount
001.237.10.99 REGISTRATION REFUND FATHER [
Total :
001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM
Total :
001.237.10.99 PRESENTATION SYSTEM REFUND
Total :
001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 109
Total :
001.237.10.99 CANCELLATION REFUND GREAT R
Total :
001.237.10.99 CREDIT FOR ROOM RENTAL
Total :
Bank total :
Total vouchers :
45.00
45.00
210.00
210.00
131.00
131.00
52.00
52.00
210.00
210.00
121.00
121.00
769.00
769.00
Page: 1
vchlist
02/19/2015 2:56:23PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34727 2/19/2015 001081 ALSCO
34728 2/19/2015 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC
34729 2/19/2015 003229 BARGREEN ELLINGSON
LSPO1574307
INV011370
007038274
34730 2/19/2015 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9617493
S0101269
34731 2/19/2015 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
34732 2/19/2015 002920 DIRECTV INC
34733 2/19/2015 000278 DRISKELL, CARY
34734 2/19/2015 002308 FINKE, MELISSA
34735 2/19/2015 000007 GRAINGER
34736 2/19/2015 002882 HOFFMAN MUSIC COMPANY
34737 2/19/2015 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6
34738 2/19/2015 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 836221
840587
February 2015
24858021485
Expenses
2015B
9647351213
SI -266240
Jan 2015
Fund/Dept
001.016.000.521
001.016.000.521
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.058.056.558
101.042.000.543
001.011.000.511
001.076.301.571
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.300.576
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
Description/Account
Amount
FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC
Total :
JANITORIAL SVCS: JANUARY 2015
SUPPLIES FOR CP
20.39
20.39
2,386.87
Total : 2,386.87
Total :
LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C
LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C
Total :
PETTY CASH: 12386,87,88,90,91,94
Total :
CABLE SERVICE MAINT SHOP
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
INSTRUCTOR PMT CORRECTION
Total :
SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
Total :
A/V SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
Total :
UTILITIES: PARKS
Total :
472.93
472.93
198.24
20.63
218.87
26.44
26.44
53.99
53.99
221.31
221.31
39.00
39.00
135.67
135.67
39.10
39.10
182.60
182.60
EVENT SVCS FOR CENTERPLACE 158.03
EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 84.28
Page: �I"
vchlist
02/19/2015 2:56:23PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34738 2/19/2015 001635 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES (Continued)
34739 2/19/2015 001944 LANCER LTD 0451056
34740 2/19/2015 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER 09-254202
34741 2/19/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 5894286
6429877
6449912
6449913
6458354
6460459
6463451
34742 2/19/2015 000474 SPOKANE CO PARKS, REC, & GOLF 22000039
34743 2/19/2015 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES Feb 2015
34744 2/19/2015 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 52813
34745 2/19/2015 000167 VERA WATER & POWER Feb 2015
19 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
19 Vouchers in this report
Fund/Dept
001.018.013.513
001.076.305.575
001.076.300.576
001.016.000.521
001.076.300.576
001.076.300.576
001.016.000.521
001.016.000.521
001.016.000.521
001.076.301.571
001.076.302.576
001.016.000.521
101.042.000.542
Description/Account
Amount
BUSINESS CARDS
Total :
Total :
SUPPLIES FOR BRIDAL FAIRS
Total :
CONTRACT MAINT: PARKS JAN 20'
MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC-
SNOW REMOVAL GATEWAY PARK
SNOW REMOVAL AT BALFOUR PAF
MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC-
MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC-
MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC-
Total :
SWIM PASS GIFT CARD FOR SUMA
Total :
SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: FEI
Total :
JANUARY 2015 MONTHLY MAINT P
Total :
UTILITIES: FEB 2015
242.31
36.14
36.14
8.98
8.98
58,934.26
380.46
73.92
69.57
298.93
81.47
190.23
60,028.84
683.00
683.00
1,577.31
1,577.31
605.46
605.46
3,044.93
Total : 3,044.93
Bank total : 70,024.14
Total vouchers : 70,024.14
Page:
vchlist
02/19/2015 3:22:43PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 11
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34746 2/19/2015 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC
34747 2/19/2015 002993 BROADWAY SPLICING SUPPLY
34748 2/19/2015 002562 CD'A METALS
34749 2/19/2015 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION
34750 2/19/2015 000840 CLARY, AARON
34751 2/19/2015 003795 CLEARWATER SUMMIT GROUP
34752 2/19/2015 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY
34753 2/19/2015 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES
34754 2/19/2015 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
34755 2/19/2015 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC
34756 2/19/2015 004165 EXPRESS SERVICES INC
53188
618608
406633
861621
606106083
606107226
606107622
606108391
606109534
606109904
EXPENSE
PAY APP 1
48950
353463
RE 46 JG6416 L002
115-0464
1535844-2
Fund/Dept
101.042.000.542
402.223.40.00
101.000.000.542
101.000.000.542
101.000.000.542
101.000.000.542
101.042.000.543
101.000.000.542
101.000.000.542
101.042.000.543
402.402.000.531
309.223.40.00
001.013.000.513
311.000.188.595
311.000.211.595
303.303.166.595
Description/Account
Amount
SWEEPING SERVICE
RETAINAGE RELEASE
SUPPLIES: PW
SUPPLIES: PW
Total :
Total :
Total :
SUPPLIES PW ACCOUNT 02356
SUPPLIES PW ACCOUNT 02356
SERVICES PW ACCOUNT 02384
SUPPLIES PW ACCOUNT 02356
SUPPLIES PW ACCOUNT 02356
SERVICES PW ACCOUNT 02384
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
RETAINAGE RELEASE
MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE
Total :
Total :
Total :
SPV TRAFFIC SERVICES 2014
Total :
PROJECT COSTS FOR DECEMBER
Total :
0166 - PINES RD & GRACE AVE INT
Total :
001.058.057.558 EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
593.44
24,508.33
25,101.77
221.65
221.65
39.44
39.44
111.40
97.96
195.33
101.83
100.17
226.73
833.42
441.03
441.03
2,119.50
2,119.50
197.10
197.10
2,500.00
2,500.00
431.25
431.25
4,235.29
4,235.29
368.13
Page: er"_
vchlist
02/19/2015 3:22:43PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: ",
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34756 2/19/2015 004165 004165 EXPRESS SERVICES INC
34757 2/19/2015 001232 FASTENAL CO
34758 2/19/2015 002507 FASTENERS INC
34759 2/19/2015 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC
(Continued)
ID LEW 102226
S4174421.001
43282
43283
34760 2/19/2015 000007 GRAINGER 9658095477
9658232799
34761 2/19/2015 004159 GREENACRES CHRISTIAN CHURCH
34762 2/19/2015 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD
34763 2/19/2015 001296 H.D. FOWLER CO INC
FEBRUARY 2015
821602
13842755
34764 2/19/2015 004089 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL, CONSULT/ 36155
34765 2/19/2015 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS
34766
2/19/2015 004171 INHS
34767 2/19/2015 001987 JENKINS, ART
115983
116180
265
EXPENSE
Fund/Dept
101.000.000.542
101.000.000.542
001.013.000.513
001.058.056.558
402.402.000.531
402.402.000.531
303.303.123.595
101.042.000.542
101.043.000.542
402.000.193.531
Description/Account
Amount
SUPPLIES: PW
SUPPLIES: PW
LEGAL PUBLICATION
LEGAL PUBLICATION
SUPPLIES: PW
SUPPLIES: PW
TOWN HALL MEETING
5-202- SERVICE
SUPPLIES: PW
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW
101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW
001.018.016.518 HEALTH TRAINING
402.000.193.531
Total : 368.13
30.69
Total : 30.69
90.79
Total : 90.79
30.60
74.80
Total : 105.40
42.34
164.01
Total : 206.35
50.00
Total : 50.00
523.47
Total : 523.47
38.39
Total : 38.39
21,318.09
Total : 21,318.09
451.71
20.15
Total: 471.86
253.00
Total : 253.00
71.51
Total: 71.51
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Page:
vchlist
02/19/2015 3:22:43PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: c4°
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
34768 2/19/2015 003251 MDI MARKETING 10151 106.000.000.537 NOVEMBER 2014- SECOND PORT!, 3,625.00
Total : 3,625.00
34769 2/19/2015 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS JANUARY 2015 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 1640259 74.92
Total : 74.92
34770 2/19/2015 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO 86583 402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: PW 59.79
Total : 59.79
34771 2/19/2015 004172 NEXUS INLAND NW 42482 001.018.016.518 INTERPETING SERVICES 115.00
Total : 115.00
34772 2/19/2015 003090 NORTH 40 OUTFITTERS 060734/3 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 71.54
060825/3 101.043.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 59.64
Total : 131.18
34773 2/19/2015 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 753047923001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 39.12
753047978001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 56.69
754017899001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 78.96
754799846001 001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 28.25
755026838001 001.013.015.515 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 8.61
755108533001 001.013.015.515 SUPPLIES: LEGAL 202.34
Total : 413.97
34774 2/19/2015 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER JANUARY 2015 001.016.000.586 STATE REMITTANCE 47,520.42
Total : 47,520.42
34775 2/19/2015 000881 OXARC INC R321839 101.042.000.542 CYLINDER RENTAL MAINT SHOP 96.88
Total : 96.88
34776 2/19/2015 003607 PHOENIX COMPANY 309 101.043.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 378.28
Total : 378.28
34777 2/19/2015 002510 POHL SPRING WORKS INC 164547 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 1,834.40
Total : 1,834.40
34778 2/19/2015 003014 RON TURLEY ASSOC. 43272 101.000.000.542 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AGREEME 904.35
Page:
vchlist
02/19/2015 3:22:43PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 7 ...4,.. --
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34778 2/19/2015 003014 003014 RON TURLEYASSOC.
34779 2/19/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC.
34780 2/19/2015 000318 SHAMROCK PAVING INC
34781 2/19/2015 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC
34782 2/19/2015 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC
34783 2/19/2015 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY
34784 2/19/2015 004131 SPOKANE CO SOLID WASTE MGMT
34785 2/19/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
34786 2/19/2015 004005 STONE CREEK LAND DESIGN & DEV
34787 2/19/2015 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL
34788 2/19/2015 000093 THE SPOKESMAN -REVIEW
34789 2/19/2015 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 44313
44700
(Continued)
6468409
3237
5-725262-1
9300
JANUARY 2015
20150205-0006-30930
51502548
PAY APP 3
830065
417118
34790 2/19/2015 000255 WFOA
63768434
Fund/Dept
001.090.000.518
101.042.000.542
101.000.000.542
303.303.156.595
001.016.000.586
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
309.000.176.595
101.042.000.542
001.013.000.513
303.303.155.595
303.303.123.595
001.018.014.514
Description/Account
Amount
Total :
DE-ICE SIDEWALKS CITY HALL
Total :
SUPPPLIES: PW
SUPPLIES: PW
Total :
Total :
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SER'
Total :
CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F
Total :
SPOKANE CO TRANSFER STATION
Total :
JANUARY 2015 WORK CREW INVC
Total :
0176 APPLEWAY TRAIL 2A CONSTF
Total :
TRANSFER STATION CHARGES
Total :
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT 42365
Total :
MAILING SERVICES
MAILING SERVICES
Total :
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL. R. NIMRI
Total :
904.35
97.83
97.83
630.55
630.55
205.44
205.44
512.40
512.40
755.45
755.45
5.00
5.00
3,895.04
3,895.04
91,657.90
91,657.90
63.33
63.33
771.66
771.66
1,513.21
807.90
2,321.11
50.00
50.00
Page: —'
vchlist
02/19/2015 3:22:43PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: i ,-6"
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
Fund/Dept Description/Account
Amount
34791 2/19/2015 004170 YOUNKER BROS INC 45833 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 1,134.87
Total : 1,134.87
46 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 216,902.90
46 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 216,902.90
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid
obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that
I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim.
Finance Director Date
Council member reviewed:
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
Page:
vchlist
02/26/2015 3:55:13PM
Voucher List Page: 9 i
Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34792 2/26/2015 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY
34793 2/26/2015 000135 APA
34794 2/26/2015 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC
34795 2/26/2015 000322 CENTURYLINK
SVC1104559
096840-1514
SPO -070284
JANUARY 2015
34796 2/26/2015 000603 CONTRACT DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC 35893
34797 2/26/2015 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC
34798 2/26/2015 002568 GRANICUS INC
34799 2/26/2015 000917 GRAYBAR
34800 2/26/2015 002559 GREATER SPOKANE ELKS #228
34801 2/26/2015 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC
34802 2/26/2015 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC.
43319
43320
62205
977419238
REFUND
101984
287006
287007
287350
287351
287354
287355
Fund/Dept Description/Account
001.090.000.518
001.058.051.558
001.090.000.518
001.076.000.576
001.090.000.519
001.058.056.558
001.058.056.558
001.011.000.511
001.090.000.518
001.000.000.316
001.011.000.511
001.058.057.558
001.058.057.558
001.018.014.514
001.018.014.514
001.013.000.513
001.013.000.513
Amount
SERVICE CITY HALL
Total :
2015 MEMBERSHIP M. BASINGER
Total :
PHONE MAINTENANCE
Total :
2015 PHONE SVCS: ACCT 509 Z14-
Total :
TORSA 6023Y CHAIR COUNCIL CHS
Total :
LEGAL PUBLICATION
LEGAL PUBLICATION
Total :
SOFTWARE MAINT BROADCASTIN
Total :
SUPPLIES: IT
Total :
GAMBLING TAX Q3 2014 REFUND
Total :
2015 REGIONAL D.0 FLY -IN: B WIC
Total :
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
Page:
269.09
269.09
441.00
441.00
145.65
145.65
474.19
474.19
5,935.63
5,935.63
90.10
90.95
181.05
719.59
719.59
51.53
51.53
133.40
133.40
2,300.00
2,300.00
16.59
2.48
88.68
59.68
114.60
15.94
vchlist
02/26/2015 3:55:13PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
/0
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34802 2/26/2015 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC.
34803
34804
2/26/2015 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD
2/26/2015 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO
34805 2/26/2015 002810 INLAND NW PARTNERS ASSOC
34806 2/26/2015 004184 INNOVATIVE HAIR BY RAVEN
34807 2/26/2015 004174 KEARNEY CLINIC PC
34808 2/26/2015 004183 MONSTER WORLDWIDE INC
34809 2/26/2015 000435 NCW CHAPTER OF ICC
(Continued)
287356
287357
287362
287363
287372
287373
287374
287375
287428
287429
287457
EXPENSE
600441764
600441765
600443966
SPRING 2015
SPRING 2015.
CSV REFUND
589845
5912244
SPRING 2015
Fund/Dept
001.032.000.543
001.032.000.543
001.013.015.515
001.013.015.515
001.058.050.558
001.058.050.558
001.018.016.518
001.018.016.518
001.076.000.576
001.076.000.576
001.058.057.558
001.011.000.511
001.090.000.548
001.090.000.548
001.090.000.548
001.011.000.511
001.011.000.511
001.000.000.321
001.018.016.518
001.018.016.518
001.058.057.558
Description/Account
Amount
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
COPIER COSTS
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
SCHEDULE 572DD016 2/11-3/10/15
SCHEDULE 572E3651 02/11-3/10/1;
SCHEDULE 572DA494 1/19-2/18/15
Total :
SPRING MEETING 2015 FEE- R. HI(
SPRING MEETING REGISTRATION
Total :
CSV ENDORCEMENT REFUND
Total :
PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAM
JOB POSTING ADVERTISING
Total :
Total :
223.06
48.25
98.07
23.59
118.21
17.41
38.94
13.66
257.18
17.28
6.39
1,160.01
103.88
103.88
745.84
830.28
839.80
2,415.92
40.00
40.00
80.00
13.00
13.00
107.00
107.00
270.00
270.00
ANNUAL BUILDING SHORT COURS 295.00
Total : 295.00
Page:
vchlist
02/26/2015 3:55:13PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
r/
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34810 2/26/2015 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
34811
34812
34813
754163571001
754163615001
754621294001
754621317001
754621318001
754827665001
755475564001
756303482001
756303495001
756730152001
756730160001
757306901001
757307117001
2/26/2015 000437 PERIDOT PUBLISHING LLC, LIBERTY LA 2015
2/26/2015 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL
2/26/2015 004173 POWDERTECH
34814 2/26/2015 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS
34815 2/26/2015 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS
34816 2/26/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
34817 2/26/2015 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
1428301-FB15
27849
27865
IN22889
50312317
42000104
51502517
35241.4101
45093.0646
45103.0405
Fund/Dept
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.090.000.519
001.090.000.518
001.090.000.518
001.076.000.576
001.090.000.519
001.018.014.514
001.018.014.514
001.018.014.514
001.018.014.514
001.018.014.514
001.018.014.514
001.018.013.513
001.090.000.518
101.000.000.542
101.000.000.542
001.058.057.558
001.090.000.518
001.016.000.554
001.016.000.523
001.076.000.576
001.076.000.576
101.042.000.543
Description/Account
Amount
SUPPLIES: PARS AND REC
SUPPLIES: PARKS AND REC
SUPPLIES: IT
SUPPLIES: IT
SUPPLIES: IT
SUPPLIES: PARKS AND REC
SUPPLIES: IT
SUPPLIES: FINANCE
SUPPLIES: FINANCE
SUPPLIES: FINANCE
SUPPLIES: FINANCE
SUPPLIES: FINANCE
SUPPLIES: FINANCE
Total :
THE CURRENT, SUBSCRIPTION FC
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
POSTAGE METER RENTAL
5-203 SERVICE
SERVICE PW
COPIER COSTS
COUNTY IT SUPPORT JANUARY 2C
Total :
FEBRUARY ANIMAL CONTROL SEF
JANUARY 2015 HOUSING INVOICE
Total :
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQI
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
110.97
10.82
6.86
85.20
45.90
25.33
21.22
96.08
71.83
71.72
96.76
607.11
3.03
1,252.83
12.00
12.00
275.00
275.00
46.20
54.02
100.22
831.88
831.88
11,722.97
11,722.97
20,496.17
117,234.00
137,730.17
127.45
873.99
120.00
Page:
vchlist
02/26/2015 3:55:13PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: /A-•
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34817 2/26/2015 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
34818 2/26/2015 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
34819 2/26/2015 002110 TARGET MEDIA NORTHWEST
34820 2/26/2015 001464 TW TELECOM
34821 2/26/2015 002291 WACE
34822 2/26/2015 001792 WHITEHEAD, JOHN
34823 2/26/2015 002960 WICK, BEN
34824 2/26/2015 002651 WOODARD, ARNE
(Continued)
45105.9010
45114.9015
45121.9118
45162.0327
45174.9059
45182.9132
45222.0227
45271.9007
45271.9008
45273.9036
45332.1517
55073.3101
55182.1553
55182.1623
55182.1624
3256106935
48239
06833592
SPRING 2015
EXPENSE
EXPENSE
EXPENSE
Fund/Dept
001.076.000.576
001.076.000.576
101.042.000.543
001.076.000.576
001.076.000.576
001.076.000.576
001.016.000.521
001.076.000.576
001.076.000.576
001.076.000.576
001.076.000.576
402.402.000.531
001.076.000.576
001.076.000.576
001.076.000.576
001.011.000.511
001.018.013.513
001.076.305.575
001.058.056.524
001.090.000.517
001.011.000.511
001.011.000.511
Description/Account
Amount
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQI
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQI
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQI
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQI
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQI
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQl
1ST HALF 2015 STORMWATER/AQI
Total :
SUPPLIES: COUNCIL
Total :
HOT TOPIC WINTER ADVERTISING
Total :
PHONE/INTERNET CITY HALL & CE
Total :
WACE SPRING CONFERENCE. B. f.
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
1,412.58
371.52
411.85
552.72
28.39
214.45
357.60
81.03
151.20
218.91
102.00
3.50
30.00
173.00
30.00
5,260.19
75.76
75.76
676.30
676.30
1,247.16
1,247.16
15.00
15.00
794.51
794.51
144.51
144.51
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 468.60
Page:orr
vchlist
02/26/2015 3:55:13PM
Voucher List Page:/3 ..6�
Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
34824 2/26/2015 002651 002651 WOODARD, ARNE (Continued) Total : 468.60
33 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 175,703.04
33 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 175,703.04
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid
obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that
I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim.
Finance Director Date
Council member reviewed:
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
Page:
vchlist
02/27/2015 11: 30:30AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34825 2/27/2015 000030 AVISTA
34826 2/27/2015 003229 BARGREEN ELLINGSON
34827 2/27/2015 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC
January 2015
007043514
S0101609
34828 2/27/2015 004132 COBBLESTONE CATERING & EVENTS 1021
34829 2/27/2015 002662 DAVID'S BRIDAL INC
34830 2/27/2015 003500 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES
34831 2/27/2015 003136 GIBSON, CARLY
34832 2/27/2015 000007 GRAINGER
34833 2/27/2015 001732 GREATER SPOKANE SUBSTANCE
34834 2/27/2015 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT
7002015
106882
Expenses
9655776509
Feb 2015
January 2015
34835 2/27/2015 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC March 2015
34836 2/27/2015 001860 PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY
G119722
G119751
Fund/Dept
001.076.300.576
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.018.014.514
001.076.305.575
001.090.000.560
001.076.305.575
001.090.000.518
001.076.305.575
001.016.000.521
Description/Account
Amount
UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA
Total :
SUPPLIES FOR CP
Total :
LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C
Total :
SERVICES FOR CATERING AT CEN
Total :
ANNUAL VENDOR PROGRAM FEE:
Total :
COFFEE SERVICE AT CENTERPLAI
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
Total :
2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI
Total :
OPERATING SUPPLIES: CENTERPI
Total :
CITY HALL RENT
Total :
CREDIT MEMO FOR CP
SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT
Total :
9,051.76
9,051.76
481.15
481.15
107.41
107.41
32.61
32.61
1,800.00
1,800.00
170.12
170.12
22.43
22.43
14.83
14.83
800.00
800.00
211.71
211.71
34,000.00
34,000.00
-19.57
48.92
29.35
Page:
vchlist
M127/2015 11:30:30AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
/5—
Page: i-2---
'Bank
-Y
CBank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
34837 2/27/2015 000119 PLESE PRINTING & MARKETING
34838 2/27/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC.
34839 2/27/2015 003312 TAYLOR, CHELSIE
34840 2/27/2015 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE
16 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
16 Vouchers in this report
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid
obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that
I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim.
Finance Director Date
Council member reviewed:
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
1330056768
6468410
Expenses
Jan 2015
Fund/Dept
001.076.302.576
001.016.000.521
001.018.014.514
001.090.000.560
Description/Account
Amount
SWIMMING LESSON REGISTRATIC
Total :
DE-ICE SIDEWALKS PRECINCT
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI
Total :
474.10
474.10
190.23
190.23
20.36
20.36
501.19
501.19
Bank total : 47,907.25
Total vouchers : 47,907.25
Page:
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
03/04/2015 11:49:44AM Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
5076 3/5/2015 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben59696 001.231.15.00 PERS: PAYMENT 73,493.52
Total : 73,493.52
5088 3/5/2015 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben59698 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 30,143.64
Total : 30,143.64
5089 3/5/2015 000682 EFTPS Ben59700 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 31,281.81
Total : 31,281.81
5090 3/5/2015 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL/ Ben59702 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 7,173.47
Total : 7,173.47
5091 3/5/2015 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC PL Ben59704 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,172.35
Total : 1,172.35
5101 3/5/2015 000682 EFTPS Ben59710 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 963.57
Total : 963.57
34841 3/5/2015 000120 AWC
34842 3/5/2015 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES
Ben59692 403.231.16.00
Ben59708 001.231.16.00
HEALTH PLANS: PAYMENT
HEALTH PLANS (COUNCIL): PAYMENT
Total :
115,565.19
10,708.99
126,274.18
Ben59694 403.231.21.00 UNION DUES: PAYMENT 2,478.75
Total : 2,478.75
8 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 272,981.29
8 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 272,981.29
Page:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 03-10-2015 Department Director Approval :
Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing
['information ❑admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending March 5, 2015
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
Budget/Financial impacts:
Employees Council Total
Gross: $ 254,667.59 $ 5,475.00 $260,142.59
Benefits: $ 146,707.98 $ 4,857.71 $151,565.69
Total payroll $ 401,375.57 $ 10,332.71 $411,708.28
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of
the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.]
STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri
DRAFT
MINUTES
SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers
11707 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, Washington
February 17, 2015
Attendance:
Councilmembers
Staff
8:30 a.m.
Dean Grafos, Mayor
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Bill Bates, Councilmember —via phone
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Rod Higgins, Councilmember
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Ben Wick, Councilmember
Others in attendance:
Mike Huffman, Valley News Herald
Matt Lyons, Spokane Valley Police Dept.
Tom Towey
Mike Jackson, City Manager
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Morgan Koudelka, Sr Administrative Analyst
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all
Councilmembers were present, with Councilmember Bates participating via conference phone.
Overview: Discussion Topics — Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson explained that today's meeting is one of two annual workshops; that it is a time for
casual conversation and to get some direction from Council. [Items were discussed in the order shown
below.]
1. Information Items: Work Plan, Legislative Agenda, 2015 Business plan [under separate cover
Mr. Jackson mentioned the Workplan under Tab #1, which includes budget goals for Council and major
projects for all departments; said that this document is the department's timeline to keep things on track
throughout the year; and said he uses it as a reference for how we are doing. Concerning the Business
Plan, Mr. Jackson said that each year at this time departments submit their performance measures and
workload indicators as we work to finalize this plan, even though we always consider it a draft as the
material contained within the Plan gets refined over time. Mr. Jackson said if Council has any questions
about who does what or about the organizational structure, that information can be found in the Business
Plan, adding that it builds a good history of how we're handling the workload. He said that in the next
week or so, staff will start to build the new business plan for 2016; that we lead the budget with this
business plan, so before we do the budget, each department considers the resources needed and anything
they propose will be included in the business plan. Mr. Jackson said it has been a good process, that we
use a lot of the same language year after year rather than try to do a complete re -write each time. Mr.
Jackson also noted the Legislative Agenda, which can be found under Tab #1 immediately after the
Workplan, and which can be referenced when we telephone Lobbyist Briahna Taylor at 11:00 a.m. today.
Mr. Jackson said we will work our way through the agenda and have plenty of time at the end for
brainstorming; and that Council can stay with an item as long as desired as there are some items which
will likely generate more discussion than others.
2. Economic Development Update (incentives, etc.) — John Hohman, Erik Lamb
Mr. Jackson said that this is an opportunity to discuss incentives, and noted a recent interesting article
concerning the State of Washington considering holding back some of the tax breaks they had previously
given Boeing, if the company reduces its overall Washington state workforce. In reality, Mr. Jackson said,
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 1 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
these types of issues can end up being a "double-edged sword" as whenever an incentive or tax break is
given, someone needs to pay those taxes, or you do without the service. Mr. Jackson said coming up soon
on an agenda, staff will bring an incentive "toolbox" to Council for adoption consideration.
Director Hohman explained that the PowerPoint slides included in the packet, are to give Council an
overview of some of staffs different work items, and to get a feel for how the program is maturing. He
mentioned that part-time employee Gloria Mantz is now working with Economic Development
Coordinator Mike Basinger. As noted on the slides, Mr. Hohman explained the Washington Department
of Commerce's Five Levels of Economic Development, followed by the steps for the Comprehensive Plan
Update. Mr. Hohman said we want a very detailed, vibrant chapter of the comp plan that will give an
overview and policies of where we are going, and then devise a strategic plan; said he hopes to get into a
detailed plan that supports investments, encourages envisioned development, and attracts visitors,
customers, and businesses. Mr. Hohman also noted that information technology will continue to be
updated to ensure interoperability with the permit system of SmartGov, enable a system that works across
the Internet, and provide interactive maps; he said there are additional internal aspects that we looking at
as staff works to develop a tool to help customers as they come in the door, and have it available on the
web for easy public access.
Concerning retail business, Mr. Hohman explained that our City has a tremendous retail source, and that
staff is working to identify some of the gaps; he said GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) is also focused on high-
tech; said we want to be more active in facilitating retail to fill any identified gaps and support property
owners, brokers, and retailers, all of which will increase our retail tax base. Mr. Jackson stated that we
realize GSI doesn't work with retail, and our City economic development will focus on retail; that we
realize manufacturing brings retail, we also realize people want to locate in a community with a wide
variety of retail services and restaurants, and said this is a step forward, and that over the next year we
will see the City develop more of a plan. Mayor Grafos agreed with the importance of retail and in
identifying gaps, and Deputy Mayor Woodard commented that we might want to look at what Missoula is
doing and track their retail; he said they don't do a lot of manufacturing but their retail is diverse. A
question came up about personnel, and Mr. Jackson said we are soliciting for an Economic Development
Specialist, which once hired, would give us 2.5 people dedicated to economic development. There was
some brief discussion about personnel, and Mr. Hohman said that we would not use only those 2.5
people, but others with various areas of expertise when needed. Deputy City Manager Calhoun
commented that the 2.5 personnel has been included in the 2015 budget with no net increase of employees
as the change was accomplished through re -organization. Keeping in mind the importance of and need
for retail, Councilmember Wick said we do not want to lose the focus on manufacturing. Mr. Hohman
explained that we want to collaborate with our partners such as GSI, Mycroft, Visit Spokane, the
Chamber of Commerce and others to recruit manufacturing and promote our City; said staff is also
working on certified sites to move to the next level for a national person or entity to do the certification.
Mr. Hohman said that staff is reviewing the different aspects of the comp plan, including criteria, zoning,
permitting, SEPA, utilities, traffic, and other areas to see if there is anything we can do for specific areas,
such as the property to the west of Mansfield, or the Mirabeau area; that staff is working to identify traffic
concerns so projects can come in with relative ease. A previously noted, Mr. Hohman said we don't rely
solely on internal staff as we have an on-call contract with EcoNorthwest and are working with them on
an economic analysis of different projects; he said they did an analysis for us on the Appleway Trail, and
they are working on the industrial area as well, in areas such as between Flora and Barker; said if we are
going to invest, we want to make sure we get a return on our investment, and consultants such as
EcoNorthwest help with their careful and analytical research, and they get the data to make sure we are on
the right track.
The subject of funding mechanisms came up including loans, grants such as from CDBG (Community
Development Block Grants), or the DOC (Department of Commerce), private participation, or various
combinations, all in an effort to spur economic development and/or development of public infrastructure
which aids in stimulating job growth and development. Mr. Jackson noted that some of these issues
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 2 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
would include terms where the developer makes payments, adding that it would take an extraordinary
project for the City to make the investment, and that generally we are looking at tools to help the
developer obtain financing. Mr. Hohman said that in several of these cases, the City would be the
applicant so it would be a type of public/private cooperation.
Continuing through the PowerPoint slides, Mr. Hohman said that streamlining the permitting process
continues to be part of their big focus in their efforts to provide excellent customer service; and he
mentioned that Jenny Nickerson had received over sixty complimentary letters, e-mails and phone calls.
After Mr. Hohman discussed staffs continued work with code text amendments, and working on an
online tool to help restaurants, Councilmember Pace asked if staff is or could research ways to lower the
inspection costs with the health permit business, and said one option would be for the city to pay into that.
Mr. Hohman explained that the Health Department is involved from a regulatory point, that he is not
familiar with that process, but can do some research. Mr. Hohman also said that they continue to
integrate GIS with our existing permitting software, that it works well but is not graphical, and they
would like to be able to show the customer more graphically, all the different information about the
properties; he mentioned they continue working with the marketing consultant, that they have had some
good commercials last year, and mentioned the billboard advertisements, which he said appear to be
working as we have heard from people in Moses Lake and elsewhere about our marketing efforts. After
Mr. Hohman noted the items in the "Incentive Toolbox," the discussion moved to the "Economic
Development Incentives" memo behind tab 2. Mr. Jackson invited Council's feedback on the toolbox
idea, and encouraged Council to let him know if there is something more they would like added to that
toolbox.
A question came up concerning financial assistance to developers, and Deputy City Attorney Lamb
explained that we are limited by our State Constitution from just giving money to developers for them to
construct a building or bring business here, which in turn led to discussions about incentives in general;
that we are limited as we have no local B&O (Business and Occupation) tax, no impact fees, and the only
utility tax we have is on telephones. Mr. Hohman said staff will be coming to Council in the future with a
more in-depth look at some of the developer driven incentives/expenditures listed in the memo; that the
goal is as we identify particular areas in the strategic plan on which to focus, like retail, we will work to
determine what tools we can use to assist businesses locating here, and said the idea is to have a quick and
easy reference material. Mr. Hohman stated that we want a flexible development code, and as we work
through that code, we want to make sure it works for customers and staff, and to simplify things as much
as possible, and he gave the example of the recent ordinance amendment concerning extensions to file
plats, as well as eliminating some of the criteria for a plat extension. On the top of page 2 concerning the
Direct City Incentives, Mr. Lamb explained that the City is not spending money as a budget line item, but
that those items could represent a loss of City revenues; he mentioned the last bulleted item concerning
multi -family tax exemptions, and said for example, this could be an eight-year exemption, which means
the City would lose those revenues for future years. Mayor Grafos said this might be something to merge
into the comp plan as we look at areas north of Trent where there is apartment activity. Deputy Mayor
Woodard said he would like to encourage revitalization along Sprague and Appleway; that with these
incentives, we don't lose current taxes and haven't lost anything, but more that we would not yet have
started to realize those revenues. Mr. Jackson added that it would also depend on the investment the City
would have to make as well; and said that developers are looking for that quick permitting process and
turn -around time; and Mr. Lamb concurred that an expedited process is important as developers realize
that time is money.
Further discussion included focusing development on a specific area, like Trent; the pros and cons of a
TIF (tax increment financing); that the idea would be to entice a developer; mention from Mr. Calhoun
that our current property tax levy each year while static for the last several years, still includes new
construction so we would not want to change that; talk of the use of general obligation or revenue bonds
to finance infrastructure or other public capital projects, noting that there must be an existing revenue
source to repay those bonds or seek voter approval for an increased tax levy. The Hotel -Motel Lodging
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 3 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Tax was also discussed, including the maximum additional amount of 1.3% the City could levy; and
Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like to have further discussion and more information at a future
study session. The "Local Admissions Tax" was discussed as well, including questions about what could
or could not be included, with Councilmember Pace asking for example, if that could be applied to
fairgrounds and not movies. Mr. Lamb explained that this would be more of a class and not a specific
business or location. It was agreed that should be included in a future discussion as well. A question
arose concerning the TPA (Tourism Promotion Area) and if there are any areas not at that $2.00
rate/charge, and that too will be included in future discussions.
Discussion continued concerning the information in the remainder of the memo, including the various
aspects of forming Local Improvement Districts (LID); the idea of including a trail into an LID was
brought up and Mr. Lamb said that would need further research. [At approximately 10:00 a.m.,
Councilmember Bates excused himself from the meeting until after lunch.] Mayor Grafos suggested
having a test LID; to send out a letter and see what it would cost to have for example, sidewalks in a
specific area. Mr. Guth said some of the cost would depend on the design, and whether it would it be a
separate sidewalk, or curb and gutter, and/or storm sewer facilities and sidewalk; and said it would be
difficult to prioritize some of those areas. Deputy Mayor Woodard said we would use City funds for this
test, and he liked the idea of picking an area to examine for a test. Mr. Jackson said staff will bring this
back with an area to develop into a test area.
The discussion turned to a "Main Street Tax credit." Councilmember Hafner said the question to consider,
research and answer, is why do people want to come to Spokane Valley, and what can Council do to
move some of those concepts forward. Mr. Lamb explained that this is an idea to provide funding to form
a main street area and establish a revitalization program where developers could receive a tax benefit; said
it would have to be approved by the Department of Archeology; they could only contribute $250,000 a
year, and within each area the amount is limited to $100,000 with a state-wide total limit of $1.5 million;
he said there are currently thirty-four entities fighting for those funds; said there is pending legislation that
would double all those programs. Councilmember Hafner said this could help in establishing our identity
especially once we get our new city hall. Mr. Lamb said staff has identified some areas and will come
back to a future meeting with specifics. Mr. Jackson said Council could also pass a resolution to provide
for tax-exempt bonds as was done with the MacKay Manufacturing projects years ago. Councilmember
Pace said he would like to see an Apple or Microsoft campus here and that it would be interesting to see if
anyone has done any studies on what it would take to attract those businesses. Mr. Hohman said staff
could work to incorporate that idea into an economic analysis as part of the comp plan review.
Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 10:15 a.m., and reconvened the meeting at 10:26 a.m.
3. Law and Justice Council — Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell explained the history and composition of the Law and Justice Council (LJC),
which he said is required by state statute, although the County didn't have one for about twenty-four
years. He explained that the County examined the entire law-related system to see what areas might need
assistance, and they came up with a blueprint reform in 2013, which identified that the Law and Justice
Council needed to be reformed, which the County did in 2014, as evidenced by the County's resolution
14-0392, which establishes the Council and Administrative Committee, including the composition,
purpose, terms, meeting rules and regulations, officers, mission statement, and powers and duties. As
noted in the chart included in the Council packet, it appears the membership of the LJC is evenly split
with ten members who are electeds, and ten who are non-electeds. Mr. Driskell noted that he is on the list,
and that Mr. Jackson is the alternate; and Police Chief VanLeuven is also a member. Mr. Driskell said the
committee meets monthly and he included that committee's February 11 agenda to show the types of
issues addressed during the meetings. Because we represent other municipalities, Mr. Driskell said that he
and Mr. Jackson determined they needed a way to report to all the other municipalities, so a copy of the
report they generated last week is also included in today's materials.
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 4 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Councilmember Pace asked if the purpose and mission hinted toward a move to a region -wide
metropolitan police; said he believes police departments should be separate from County Sheriffs
Departments, and feels this smacks of a hidden agenda. Mr. Jackson said he had not heard of an agenda
issue for a unified police department, but would like to be clear about this Council's feelings in case the
topic was to surface. Chief VanLeuven said he feels that mission and purpose is merely to address
duplication of services; said they work with the Spokane Police Department when it comes to shared
technology as it makes for more efficient communications; likewise they work collaboratively with the
Spokane Police Department in maintaining records; and they also have a joint forensics unit; all to make
law enforcement more efficient and effective, and said that he has not sensed an issue of having a
metropolitan police department.
Councilmember Hafner said as a member of the 9-1-1 Board, he has not heard any conversation about a
territorial resource; however, in looking at the County's resolution, he noted the fourth "whereas" clause
does not mention our City. Mr. Jackson reminded everyone that we contract with Spokane County for
these services so we are included; that this was designed this way on purpose to be formed by Spokane
County and the City of Spokane as the major service providers in the region. Deputy Mayor Woodard
said three to five years ago, he knows the sheriffs office was trying to negotiate with the City of Spokane
to combine the two police forces, but that he hasn't heard anything more on that since; said it is a concern
and that we want to make sure we keep our identity. Chief VanLeuven said the Sheriffs Office intent is
to continue to contract with Spokane Valley for the best law enforcement services possible. Mr. Driskell
said we might see or hear comments from some who want a consolidation, but that only represents one
view; and from the LJC standpoint, there are "no sacred cows" as they have to look at all the options to
determine the best process for what they do. Councilmember Pace said he has no objections at examining
all options, but this is a matter of identity; and that we contract with the County, are affected by it and
should have a seat at the table; he said our Police Chief should represent our police department, and
Liberty Lake's Chief and Millwood's Chief should be there as well representing their departments; that
Mr. Driskell should be a member as our municipal attorney, and that we should have one elected official
as well, appointed by our Mayor; said it seems the County has some control over us that seems
inappropriate as a municipality of about 93,000; said he discussed this topic with Commissioner Mielke
who insisted that the State determined the makeup of the committee, but also heard it was the County's
determination. Mayor Grafos said he disagreed as we do have a big seat at the table; that we have a
contract with Spokane County; that the system is not broken; he feels we have a great situation and he is
not in favor of changing that in any way; and with Mr. Driskell and Mr. Jackson on that council, said
they will keep us informed; adding that the Sheriff has always been the law enforcement for the valley
and that the intent is it will remain that way. Councilmember Hafner asked if this council is advisory and
Mr. Driskell replied it is.
Mr. Jackson noted the time; said we will be calling Lobbyist Briahna Taylor at 11:00 a.m., and he
suggested moving to the New City Hall topic for about ten minutes.
10. New City Hall — John Hohman
Mr. Driskell said that the property closure was two weeks ago yesterday. Director Hohman explained that
an RFQ (request for qualifications) for an architectural firm was submitted, and that four firms responded;
that he brought together a panel of staff to evaluate the firms, and three were selected to be interviewed,
which occurred last Wednesday; said staff is in the process of evaluating the information to determine
which firm would be most qualified; and said that staff is very aware of the importance of this choice as
we are in the process of creating a legacy; he said everyone feels very fortunate to be working on this as it
is an opportunity to work together for a first city hall; said the construction schedule and budget appear
feasible; said Council might see an overall master plan with the city hall a piece of that, and other pieces
as well which might be compatible and occur over the years, like a library and Balfour Park; as well as
potential street improvements to Dartmouth Road; said they are working with the Magnussons to see if
they need any assistance regarding what we can do for the re -development of that site; said he feels this is
a big issue when the parking structure comes down, and that staff is working on a permit for that as well.
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 5 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
In response to Councilmember Pace's question about Council and public input, Mr. Hohman affirmed
those will be sought. Councilmember Pace said he feels it is important that this city hall be a monument
to the area and the city's history, as well as cultural traditions and to recognize the previous townships,
and perhaps have a place to display art.
Councilmember Hafner asked about the misinformation concerning moving the Sheriffs Office training
center. Mr. Jackson explained that the training center is moving to the former Mountain View Middle
School; said that when we designated a portion of the building to be demolished, it went up to but did not
include the training center; however, the County's lease is month-to-month and the building owner is
looking for a longer commitment, so the County found a temporary home, and long term they are possibly
looking at the West Plains area, with a possible joint training center with Fairchild Air Force Base. Mr.
Jackson said we did not directly ask for that portion to be demolished and didn't even consider or know
about the displacement of the training center until he spoke with the Sheriffs Office, which understands
we had no intent to displace them. Even with the training center further away, Chief VanLeuven said he
feels people would continue to use Spokane Valley hotels and restaurants, and said that the Spokane
Valley Traffic School will also be held at the new location.
11. Miscellaneous Item: Existing City Hall Renovations — John Hohman
Director Hohman said the renovated area is ready and the movers will be here this weekend; said once
finance relocates, there will be some minor demolition to finance's former area and then we hope to move
the permit center in about six weeks, depending on how quickly the contractor can work.
5. Legislative Update — Mike Jackson; Briahna Taylor
At 11:00 a.m., a telephone call was placed to Lobbyists Briahna Taylor and Alex Soldano. Mr. Soldano
gave an update on the Appleway Trail fund request and said they hope to receive an official notification
within the next few weeks and in the meantime, is distributing more information. Ms. Taylor said the
project is important, it appears to be gaining momentum, and Mr. Soldano added that the legislators
indicated they would be willing to work with this if they knew that the Fourth District legislators were
willing to make a commitment to the project. Ms. Taylor said for the local state shared revenues, it
appears the liquor and streamlined sales tax mitigation are at greatest risk of being cut from previous
discussions; said the McCleary decision is "still out there" and pressure continues not to raise taxes,
which she said generally means more cuts; she also mentioned the possibility of having some tax
loopholes closed; said she wants to make sure our city does not have revenues cut; mentioned some
working legislation that would remove the cap placed by a previous statute for the amount of revenue
cities get for their 2011 dollar amounts as an attempt to restore growth to the liquor profits; said prior to
2011, cities shared 50% in liquor profits and now that is down to about 35%; said there is no hearing set
on the bill and she encouraged sending messages not to make those shared revenue reductions.
Ms. Taylor and Mr. Soldano also discussed streamlined sales tax mitigation and that it would be targeted
for cuts in the operating budget, said a draft letter was sent to Mr. Jackson last week about asking local
legislators to talk to their budget leaderships not to cut the sales tax. Regarding our code enforcement
recuperation efforts, Ms. Taylor said she met with Senators Roach and Padden and it became clear they
would oppose anything with cities having a first lien, but said the cap would lessen their opposition, but
not relieve it; said the cap was proposed to be reduced to $2,000. It was noted that although this topic
was more positive than the last time, Community banks still testified against the bill and the hope is to
restore the cap to $5,000. Mr. Driskell said the average cost of an abatement is $4,750, so $5,000 makes
more sense than $2,000. Mr. Jackson said this is a good time to ask Council about the cap; that a $2,000
cap is better than no legislation and that work will still progress to raise it to $5,000; and he asked
Council's opinion about the $2,000 cap. Deputy Mayor Woodard said it's a good start and we would still
have the right to have a junior lien for the difference. Mr. Jackson asked Mr. Driskell f a bill were to
pass with a $2,000 cap, but an abatement amounted to $7,000, could we include a request for payment
for $7,000, and would we be limited to apply for just the lien authority, but still include the other $5, 000
in the property tax notice sent by the Assessor's Office. Mr. Driskell said he did not know, but it would
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 6 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
likely require an agreement with the Assessor's Office. Ms. Taylor said she would have to examine the
specific language; but the former process would still be in place; we would have a lower priority lien for
the remaining $5,000 and could eventually recover those costs, but not as a first lien. Ms. Taylor said she
will examine the language and clarify if necessary.
Concerning marijuana legislation, Ms. Taylor said several bills were introduced with lots of talk about
reconciliation of medical and recreation marijuana; she noted our City has a preference to eliminate the
medical marijuana and have the regulations the same for all marijuana use; but she noted that none of the
bills proposed removing medical marijuana, and the proposal gaining the most traction would create
similar regulations for medical and retail establishments, and would remove the cap on the number of
retail establishments, regardless of use; it would eliminate community gardens and allow people to grow
marijuana in their own home if they are a patient or to do so on behalf of a medical patient if the patient
were a juvenile. Ms. Taylor said she has arranged a meeting with some of the legislators to explore
whether vaping lounges could be regulated under the existing authority, or have them separate. Regarding
the juvenile or under age access to marijuana, as well as the appearance of being under the influence of
marijuana, she said there are several bills introduced and said she should know more Friday after the
deadline; she also noted there were several bills introduced concerning various formulas for marijuana
revenue sharing, including whether a jurisdiction should receive local revenues if they chose to ban
marijuana, and said most feel if marijuana is banned, that municipality should not receive revenue; said
others feel if a city chooses to ban marijuana, a vote of the people should be held to affirm that ban; said
these issues will continue to evolve and she urged legislators to aid in any effort to reconcile.
Ms. Taylor said she shared with legislators the story about the vaping lounge. Mr. Jackson added that the
Board needs to implement rules that would meet our needs as there is no law requiring identification
checks prior to entering a vaping lounge. Mr. Lamb added that possession is illegal for anyone under 21
years old. Mr. Jackson said the issue also includes indoor smoking. Mr. Lamb said he notified the Health
District about the smoking issue but so far has not heard from them. Ms. Taylor said she should have a
good idea by this Friday of what bills will or won't advance.
Concerning the long-range agenda item of Barker Road, Ms. Taylor said that a bi-partisan group released
the transportation package last week, which included an 11.7¢ gas tax increase; that $8 billion will be
regulated to projects, with a direct distribution of $350 million to cities and counties over sixteen years
based on capital; said she sent out a full report to Council when the revenue report was released; that she
discussed with this Senator Padden who is not planning to vote for it; said this will next be heard in the
senate transportation committee Wednesday afternoon; that there are still several "sticking points" in the
bill. Ms. Taylor said she has been advocating for Barker Road funding, but that project is not included in
the transportation package, although the Spokane freeway is as it is felt that would be of benefit to the
greater Spokane region; she noted we have chosen not to take a position on the gas tax revenue package,
so she is simply monitoring the legislation. Councilmember Wick asked if there was anything that could
be included to cover the grade separation on Barker. Ms. Taylor replied that we might be able to use
multiple grant programs to add up to the full amount. Councilmember Wick also asked about the
North/South corridor actually being allocated more funds than were requested, and Ms. Taylor explained
that since the project was moved to a later start date, they higher difference accounts for inflation, with
the project starting in 2018 instead of 2016. She also noted the exact project schedule has not yet been
released. Ms. Taylor said she continues to be very directed on our City's priorities, and she looks forward
to having Council and staff in Olympia next week.
The meeting recessed for lunch at 11:50 a.m., and reconvened at 12:23 p.m. Mayor Grafos acknowledged
Councilmember Bates via conference phone.
4. Law Enforcement Cost Breakdown — Morgan Koudelka
Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that Council expressed an interest in getting more
details about our law enforcement costs, as all together, those cost represent about two-thirds of our total
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 7 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
budget. Mr. Koudelka went over the figures shown on the accompanying information, and
Councilmember Pace asked for a similar breakdown for the patrol piece. Mr. Koudelka explained that
today's information is to give an overview of all the costs and to let him know if there are items Council
would like to see in greater detail. Councilmember Pace noted that he would like more information on
patrol; and he asked if our officers are paid the same at the City of Spokane officers. Mr. Koudelka
replied they do not. Councilmember Pace said that doesn't seem fair that the City of Spokane officers get
more pay and said there should be equal pay for equal work; and he would like Mr. Jackson to examine
that issue. Mr. Jackson explained that there are two separate systems, with two completely different
unions and difference pay scales. Councilmember Pace said he would like to approach this from a fairness
perspective, as there is no excuse to be unfair. Mr. Jackson said that we rely on the County as a
contractor, and it is up to the County to negotiate those rates; that if Mr. Pace is suggesting that the
elected officials look at salaries of Spokane, that would be appropriate, but then added, but "who is to say
which is correct and whether other salaries are escalating;" he said there are many comparisons of all
costs. Mr. Koudelka continued going through his data, and said staff continues to work with the County
to have line items costs by unit. A question arose about the Police Precinct, and Mr. Koudelka stated that
we own the building, and via a separate interlocal agreement, lease it and charge the County for a portion
of those costs.
Indirect costs were discussed, with Mr. Koudelka explaining that staff tracks the trend; that some have
changed, but over time they tend to even out; said this has tended to be a little more frustrating as we
don't have much control over indirect costs, but we continue to explore ways to patrol those costs so we
can better predict the overall costs. Mr. Koudelka said he could show some history of indirect costs and
Mayor Grafos said he would be interested in seeing those figures over the last couple of years.
Concerning equal pay for all officers, Councilmember Hafner likened that to different school districts
paying different wages; that they are not all the same as they are accomplished by union contracts, and it
depends on the union negotiations. Councilmember Pace said he understands that, but still thinks this is
something that needs to be fixed, as "fair is fair." Other discussion included law enforcement costs
including purchase and use of data cards; JAG grant funds; one time cost impacts such as arbitration; and
the drug task force.
6. Railroad Quiet Zones — Mark Calhoun
Deputy City Manager Calhoun noted that included in the council materials, is a summary report
concerning a previous quiet zone study; and that at that time Council considered the $83,000 cost for
David Evans to do a study, and Council decided not to move forward. Mr. Calhoun pointed out the
number of crossings, including two in Millwood, that it might not be possible to have a quiet zone with
Burlington Northern around the Park and Vista area as the railroads are required to blow their horns and
whistles as they enter the yard. The idea of wayside horns was also included in the information, and Mr.
Calhoun said if Council wants, staff could get some assistance from a consultant to help with deterring
cost; that Public Works did some research in 2011 and came up with an estimate of between $65,000 and
$185,000 for each area; said that wayside horns would cost from $30,000 to $100,000; adding that there
are no funds budgeted in 2015 for any of these expenses; and if Council would like to move forward, we
can discuss how to fund the studies and projects during the 2016 budget development.
Councilmember Hafner suggested that Council get all the information needed as these are expensive
studies and projects; said Council has numerous projects; that he is not questioning the importance of the
safety factor, but rather that we don't want to eliminate some of the projects already determined
necessary. Deputy Mayor Woodard added that having a quiet zone doesn't ensure the railroad won't blow
their horns; and that unless the grades are separated, there is no way to assure the horns don't get blown.
Councilmember Wick noted that the railroads will not fund these projects, and if we want to do it, we
would have to come up with funding. Mayor Grafos suggested this is somewhat of a "dead-end street"
even if we did authorize the funds. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested waiting to see what happens from
local and federal government; that we don't want to forget about it entirely, but suggests monitoring what
we can. Mayor Grafos concurred.
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 8 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
7. Civic Facility Capital Projects Fund — Mike Jackson/Mark
City Manager Jackson explained that during the Finance Committee meeting, the money for city hall and
other projects was discussed; said a railroad quiet study amount is included, but we might want to remove
or include as a lower priority, adding that it is not currently funded. Mr. Calhoun said most of these
figures have been discussed previously, and he explained some of the pending/potential projects as noted
in the worksheet; and said these figures will be updated when the 2014 books are closed. Discussion
included mention of the city hall line item; bond cost issues; that there could be unforeseen projects that
would change the figures; that we are doing everything possible to keep us within budget, and that
Council should have further figures prior to the June budget workshop. Mayor Grafos said he feels the
priorities are correct and the list should remain as it is. Mr. Jackson said that we would not typically move
that money ahead until 2016, at which time we will know whether or not we have the cash needed for a
quiet zone project.
8. Public Works Projects — Eric Guth
Public Works Director Guth briefed Council on the three projects as noted in the workshop materials; said
staff has spent several months negotiating with the property owner on the Mansfield Avenue connections
for right-of-way purchase, and said he is hopeful the area will be signed by the end of this month; and
after the final right-of-way negotiation, the project moves before the TIB (Transportation Improvement
Board) for approval to move forward.
9. Historic Buildings and Buildings Codes — Doug Powell and Luis Garcia
Director Hohman explained that this is a follow-up discussion of several weeks ago when Ms. Gloria
Mantz talked about us becoming a Certified Local Government, and some ensuing questions as how the
historic preservation ordinance works regarding existing building codes; he said Messrs. Powell and
Garcia are here to give an overview of the different codes and how they relate to historic preservation.
Mr. Powell went over the information contained in the packet materials in order to provide a better
explanation of how codes apply to historic buildings when those buildings need repair, alternations, or
reconstruction; followed by an explanation from Mr. Garcia concerning the hierarchy of the International
Family of Codes, and what addresses existing buildings, and specifically historic buildings; noting that
whatever is done, it cannot lessen the fire safety regulations or precautions, adding that it is the building
Official who is the safety professional. Mr. Powell explained that some regulations are left to the
discretion of the building official and the situation to determine if there is a life safety item, such as
smoke detectors. Mr. Garcia added that there could be no waiving of design requirements, and nothing
could be done to compromise the level of safety to the historic structures. He explained that the applicant
appeal process is for those who might feel the specific letter of the code was applied inappropriately,
which appeal would be handled by the Hearing Examiner as per our Municipal Code; he noted that the
Hearing Examiner also does not have the authority to waive any code requirements.
In response to a question about what one might expect if for example, rafters were removed and the
owner wanted to go back and replace them; Mr. Powell said the rafters would have to be built to the
current codes. Councilmember Pace suggested it would be nice to have some flexibility to be able to roll
back the code as it was when the original rafters were built. Mr. Powell stated that under the IEBC
(International Existing Building Code), there are some permitted controlled departures from full
compliance with the technical codes, but any departure must not compromise the minimum standards for
fire prevention and life safety features; said for example grand stairways would no longer comply with
today's code, so some things could be changed provided there is no hazard increase.
Mr. Hohman said that the intent of an historic preservation program would be to preserve those structures
that had some significance and try to protect those as much as possible; sometimes those property owners
can get a tax reduction under the program, but the program is built more for protection than trying to keep
those structures the way they are, which is why any modification would have to go through the
Commission; and he noted that further research will be needed in order to determine the criteria that
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 9 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
would be used by the commission; and said if a building were to move to a different location, it would no
longer be historic because it would be on a new foundation, and again, said more research would be
needed for these issues. Councilmember Pace suggested a new foundation shouldn't make a difference
regarding the building's historic value, but Mr. Hohman explained that in the original home, there were no
living spaces below, and with a new place with living spaces below, there must be ingress and egress; and
said there would likely be several resolutions to examine for each scenario. Deputy Mayor Woodard
suggested that historic preservation is not relevant to where the structure might be, but rather to what it
looks like; and suggested it should not make any difference where a building sits. Deputy Mayor
Woodard also stated that the only person to determine if a property stays on an historic preservation
roster, should be the property owner. [At 1:52 p.m., Councilmember Bates excused himself from the
remainder of the meeting, and thanked Council for the opportunity to phone into the meeting.]
Councilmember Hafner asked how many historic buildings, structures or properties are in Spokane
Valley, and staff indicated that would need further research. Councilmember Hafner suggested a
thorough study of this issue before coming to any conclusion. Mayor Grafos suggested staff start working
on an ordinance to include that the property owner would have the ultimate decision on whether to keep
the building on the historic register if the owner wants to take advantage of the tax credit. Councilmember
Pace said he prefers the local historic society administer this program and that our City not work with
Spokane City.
11. Miscellaneous Items
Marijuana: Vaping, underage consumption and consolidation of medical and recreational marijuana
were issues that we would like addressed by legislators, said Mr. Jackson; but added that it does not look
like we will get the kind of system our Council proposes; said growing will be difficult to enforce with all
the medical dispensaries, as there are no regulations covering that; said we are not doing enforcement at
this point. Mr. Lamb further explained that the legislative move appears to be toward allowing
endorsement through the medical shops; said one of the bills eliminated collective gardens but gives them
about a year or so to shut down or get a state license for a medical retail shop; said there remains some
unregulated access points and gaps in the system; cooperatives will be allowed with four patients but that
the patients and the cooperatives must be registered. As noted in his conversations last Monday with
legislators, Councilmember Higgins reported that it appeared vaping lounges could be addressed through
the medical system, but that too appears to have changed. Mr. Jackson said that even if the state lifts the
ban on the number of retail, this Council might want to control how many to allow within the community,
and said that perhaps that could be the next debate. Mr. Lamb added that it would take a two-thirds vote
to amend the original initiative, and now just like any other amendment, that is two years after the initial
vote, a majority vote would be needed to modify any language. Mr. Jackson stated that he feels our
approach is logical in not imposing a ban. Chief VanLeuven said he is not aware of any police
departments that are tracking marijuana crimes, but Spokane Valley Police Department does, and said
there is a definite increase in marijuana related crimes, including driving under the influence; and stressed
the need for a law addressing MIP (minor in possession) by consumption.
Oil and Coal Trains: Mr. Jackson mentioned yesterday's derailment in West Virginia; said staff sent a
letter to the Department of Ecology (DOE) about their transport study; said they responded and said they
had included the City of Spokane, but Mr. Jackson said he explained to them once again, that they did not
include anything the City of Spokane Valley; he said the DOE indicated they would take our comments
under consideration.
Gambling Tax: Mr. Calhoun briefly discussed the downward trend from gambling tax revenues; said
Council twice heard during Council comments about the Back Pearl's owner's feelings that our gambling
taxes were high; the information in the Council packet shows the gambling tax rates as permitted by the
State, and what those rates are for the City of Spokane and the City of Spokane Valley, as well as what
any reductions might mean in terms of reduced revenues. Mr. Jackson noted that he also plans to visit
with the owner of the Black Pearl.
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 10 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
12. Council Brainstorming — Open Discussion
Open discussion included the following comments, ideas, and suggestions:
Sports Facilities in Spokane Valley:
The idea of having something in our city (sports plex) as opposed to downtown; what kind of facility
would bring us visitors: discuss the idea starting from scratch; what kind of facility are we lacking; cost to
operate, return on investments; nothing budgeted this year; likely cannot use lodging funds for such an
endeavor; Mr. Lamb said it would have to be part of tourism, promotion and marketing site; might be able
to do a general study; and that it would need further research.
Councilmember Wick said the LTAC (Lodging Tax Advisory Committee) hasn't had a chance yet to
meet; that the application process was not re -opened; submitted the idea of setting some funds aside from
the allocations instead of funding the fully budgeted amount. Deputy Mayor Woodard said this is just a
brainstorming session, not necessarily an opportunity to generate something that should be done within
the near future; said we need to know what kind of facilities are needed by schools, including intermural
type of adult sports, would like to have an opportunity to get public input about additional sport facilities
needed; mentioned acquisition of property central to our City that could be used as a sport complex; said
sports is a lodging tax item if handled correctly; that the school districts need some input and this could be
part of the private/public partnership; perhaps more of a long-term vision.
Councilmember Pace said he would like to see the entire topic, from schools to property acquisition,
discussed further as a main topic; Mayor Grafos suggested including it as an element of economic
development. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would prefer to see discussion sooner than later; that we
don't want to necessarily own the grounds for playing fields, but might be willing to help acquire and/or
maintain. Mayor Grafos suggested waiting to see what the LTAC says about the issue, and
Councilmember Wick agreed this might be able to be accomplished under the name of tourism; said he
hopes to start at the LTAC then have it evolve. Deputy Mayor Woodard said we need basic information
and a Performa of what is needed for our City; that we need to come up with our own plan as Eric
Sawyer's plan might not be what best fits our City. Councilmember Hafner suggested a need to indicate to
this community that we don't want the sports complex downtown, so if it comes to a vote, they will vote
no. Councilmember Higgins said it was his understanding through speaking with Lee Cameron, that Eric
Sawyer was telling others that our Council was 100% in favor of having a sports complex downtown,
which is of course, not the case. There was some mention of an upcoming ballot measure and Mr. Lamb
reminded everyone of the procedure as outlined in the State Statutes and this City's Governance Manual;
and said that process (how to address ballot measures) might be a topic for a future meeting.
Consider a study session to discuss renaming our City:
Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested this might be a topic for a future study session, especially since we
will be building a new city hall.
Hot Topics Newsletter:
Councilmember Pace said he feels it would be a good investment to do a complete citywide mailing every
time the Hot Topics Newsletter is published. Mr. Jackson said that would be a good issue to discuss
during the 2016 budget discussions; that direct mailing is very effective, but it is a matter of available
funds. Councilmember Pace also suggested the idea of mailing to all businesses as well, and/or having the
newsletter as an insert in the Spokesman Review and/or the Current, and in all the free newsstands.
Rail and Transportation Concerns:
Concerning the trains moving throughout the City, Councilmember Higgins said we need to be more
focused with an idea to take action; like the overpass project. Councilmember Pace said he would like to
pass a resolution stating we are pro-business and pro -commerce, and we want to protect citizens, and that
we do not want to be a "bottleneck" for the trains and or trucks.
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 11 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Regarding funding the Barker overpass, Mr. Guth explained that the environmental assessment is
complete and the project is about 30% designed, which was done in 2005 or 2006; said that might need to
be updated; freight movement and future freight movement was viewed as a high priority. Mayor Grafos
said he feels Pines Road should be put in that same position; mentioned the comp plan and grant, and said
he would like to see what economic development tool we might be able to use as that under/overpass is
important.
Mr. Guth agreed and said they view all aspects of Bridging the Valley as priorities; with the North/South
Corridor project, it seems logical to break these projects up and take them one at a time: Barker first, with
Pines a very close second; then Sullivan; said staff has been trying to talk to the rail subcommittees, the
Department of Ecology, and SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council); mentioned that
"Bridging the Valley" title is widely recognized, but we're trying to determine how the funding
mechanism would work. Mayor Grafos suggested we could start by setting aside some funds.
Art and Economic Development:
Councilmember Pace said an assumption is that art is good for economic and community development,
and that he would like to consider adding the arts as a funding group to our outside agency funding
process; said he is not suggesting an increase in the total amount of money; that criteria and guidelines
would need to be drafted; and he would be interested in hearing a report about what other cities do with
their Parks and Recreation Art programs, including the placement of art.
Lodging Tax and Tourism:
Councilmember Wick asked about the maximum 1.3% tax and Mr. Jackson replied that issue can be
researched and brought back for further discussion, including when those taxes expire or renew.
Public Facilities District (PFD):
Councilmember Wick asked about refinancing our bond and the PFD, and if we could tie all that together
as a means to approach them about appointing our own person to their board. Mr. Calhoun said that he,
Mr. Stone and Mr. Jackson met with Kevin Twohig about a variety of projects and that issue should be
followed up as well. The idea of transferring parkland on the other side of the River was mentioned and
Mr. Jackson said that too will need further research; said we could work with the State if we have an idea,
but that it would take funding to manage that land or even enhance it; and said that perhaps we would not
have to have ownership in order to work with the state parks; said the state parks has minimal resources.
Mr. Jackson said a question to consider is whether the public land is accessible; said it is not very well
advertised and we could discuss the promotion of the area with the state parks as well. Concerning
acquiring the land, Mr. Jackson said we have not yet identified any future parkland acquisition, and Mr.
Stone said that during the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update process, there wasn't much
discussion about that area and it did not come up with the public.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 12 of 12
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Dean Grafos, Mayor
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Rod Higgins, Councilmember
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Ben Wick, Councilmember
ABSENT:
Bill Bates, Councilmember
City Staff:
Mike Jackson, City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Chad Riggs, Development Engineer
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Karen Kendall, Planner
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Al Hulten of the Valley Assembly Church gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, staff, and audience rose for the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except
Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Councilmember Wick, seconded and unanimously agreed to
excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's Council meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the Amended Agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Hafner: reported he attended the SCOPE Board Meeting; met with Lee Cameron
regarding the proposed sportsplex; went to the Health District meeting; attended the Council workshop on
the 17th where some of the discussion included economic development, railroad quiet zones, and public
works projects; went to a Visit Spokane meeting where he heard a presentation about the proposed
sportsplex, as well as the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) $300 million ten-year sales tax proposal; said
the Board of Health Executive meeting discussed upcoming agenda items; the STA Board meeting
discussed general transit items and the $300 million tax consideration; said he was asked to stand in for
the Mayor for the PTIC (Public Transit Improvement Conference), where they discussed the composition
of the governing Body of STA, and as a result of their vote, Spokane City representation was reduced by
one, which was allocated to the small cities, and said State Statute dictates they have no more than nine
on that board.
Councilmember Pace: said he attended the Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Meeting where
they gave feedback to Senator Murray's staff concerning Bridging the Valley; went to the Greater Valley
Support Network (GVSN) Meeting and heard a presentation on the Library District's programs; sat in on
a housing committee of the GVSN where the main topic was affordable housing; went to the car show
preview at the Fairgrounds; and attended the STA Board meeting as well as the PTIC Meeting.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 02-24-2015 Page 1 of 4
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Councilmember Higgins: said he went to Olympia with Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember
Wick.
Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the Association of Washington Cities City Action Days
in Olympia with Councilmember Higgins and Deputy Mayor Woodard to rally for the cause of cities, said
he pushed for more focus on our Barker and grade separation projects and noted there is some confusion
over that project about whether to include it in the transportation packet, said some key leaders thought it
was in the proposal although it is not; said he felt it was the most productive Olympia trip in his tenure as
a Councilmember; met with the Ad Hoc Freight Rail Committee and said there is some interest from
Burlington Northern Railroad to get investment, or "buy -in" from local cities on that corridor, before it
was open only to port districts and not cities; went to the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation
Council) meeting and was elected chair for the year with Spokane Council Member Snyder as vice -chair,
said he tried to lobby more for bike/pedestrian projects and suggested an ambitious goal of allocating 50%
of the funding to biking, but settled on about 15% dedicated toward bike and pedestrian projects.
Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he also felt this was one of the most beneficial Olympia trips that he has
attended; said it appears our nuisance legislation is moving through the Senate, said the cap is at $2,000
although he advocated for $5,000; said there are numerous bills concerning marijuana and many people
would like to just see that issue disappear, said something will come out of this legislature to bring
medical marijuana into some kind of a program with some controls, and said Olympia is aware of some of
the problems; said he also attended our City's winter workshop, adding that his suggestion about
renaming our City was suggested to him from a couple businesses, and since that meeting, he has had
enormous contact about not moving in that direction; went to the boy scout leadership breakfast
fundraiser, which he said was an excellent example of what boy scouting does for our community.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grafos said he attended the all -day meeting/winter workshop; went to the
auto show at the Fairgrounds; and attended the employee appreciation event at Bumpers.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Mr. Cal Clausen stated that he is aware
that the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meets again tomorrow, and that he is very concerned about the
money sitting in a bank account and not "going to work;" and he made a plea of when the Committee
makes their recommendation, to please honor those wishes and distribute that money; said it already cost
the City of Spokane Valley, or will by the end of the year as Eric Sawyer has withdrawn bids because he
didn't know if he was going to get the money, Visit Spokane cut back on their ads and eliminated the City
of Spokane Valley from some ads; said it's not good and the money needs to get to work; said the people
Council are hurting the most are the service workers in the City; that every time a maid can't clean two
rooms a day or she loses two rooms a day, that's a hour out of her paycheck, which is pretty meager
already; so when we lose tournaments and sporting events, it's hurting the people that can least afford to
be hurt. There were no further comments.
1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any
member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered
separately.
Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of claim vouchers on Feb 24, 2015 Request for Council Action Form Totaling' $2,386,658.32
b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending February 15, 2015: $304,954.63
c. Approval of February 3, 2015, Council Study Session Format Meeting Minutes
d. Approval of February 10, 2015, Council Regular Formal Format Meeting Minutes
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent
Agenda.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 02-24-2015 Page 2 of 4
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
NEW BUSINESS:
Added Item: Proposed Emergency Ordinance 15-005 Adopting a Moratorium on Mining and Mineral
Product Manufacturing - Erik Lamb
City Manager Jackson stated that as Council is aware, Council set an objective for 2015 to go through the
revision of our Comprehensive Plan, and as part of that we undertake a comprehensive review and
inventory of all existing and desired land uses, including the industrial zone which allows gravel mining
operations; said we have some gravel pits and they take up considerable acreage; that mining operations
typically have permanent impacts on landscape and the land is generally not reusable by others, thereby
limiting future or other productive use; said the City has a finite amount of land, especially undeveloped
industrial land; said it is appropriate to maintain the status quo by prohibiting new mining operations
while staff undertakes the comprehensive plan review to determine if mining is appropriate use within an
urban setting; that this ordinance proposes a moratorium on new mining and does not impact existing
mining operations. Mr. Jackson said since this is an emergency ordinance, it requires a super majority to
pass, which means for tonight, a vote of five in favor.
City Clerk Bainbridge read the Ordinance title, and it was then moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance No. 15-005 adopting a moratorium on mining
and/or mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing,
stockpiling, and mineral batching. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that moratoriums are allowed
without public notice and without a public hearing, provided a hearing is held within sixty days; he went
through the various sections of the ordinance, said section one adopts the preliminary findings of fact
based on the recitals ("whereas" clauses), and noted the public hearing is set for March 24, which is well
within the sixty days while still giving us enough time to properly notice the hearing. Councilmember
Higgins said he would normally be opposed to an anti -mining ordinance, but an aggregate deposit in the
middle of prime industrial real estate makes no sense, and therefore, said he would support the ordinance.
Other Councilmembers agreed. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote
by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-002 Adopting Moratorium Findings of Fact — Erik Lamb
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to approve Ordinance No. 15-002 adopting Findings of Fact for Ordinance 14-021 and the
establishment of a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses. Deputy City Attorney Lamb went over the
history of this ordinance and explained that it adopts the Findings necessary for the moratorium. Mayor
Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Motion carried.
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-003 for Plat Time Extension— John Hohman
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to approve Ordinance No. 15-003, amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 20.30.060
concerning plat time extension requests. After Director Hohman gave a brief accounting of the changes
proposed, Mayor Grafos invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In
Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-004 Street Vacation Old Mission Avenue — Karen Kendall
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance, title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to advance Ordinance 15-004 to a second reading at the March 10, 2015 Council meeting.
Planner Kendall explained that the proposal involves 3,688 square feet along Old Mission Avenue, and
after the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they voted unanimously to recommend approval.
When asked about the value of the land, Ms. Kendall replied that the value of the area is between $2.00
and $5.00 per square foot. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 02-24-2015 Page 3 of 4
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
5. Draft Reimbursement Resolution 15-001 — Erik Lamb
Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that concerning the construction of a new city hall, proceeds to
fund the project are anticipated to come from a combination of City general fund revenues, and City bond
proceeds; that during the latter half of this year, the City anticipates issuing $8,260,000 in tax-exempt
bonds to be used primarily for construction costs. Mr. Lamb explained that those bonds can be used to
pay for expenditures paid after the date the bonds are issued, but may also be used to reimburse the City
for expenditures paid from City funds if the City adopts a reimbursement resolution, which is the purpose
of tonight's agenda item; and said he is asking for Council consensus to move this to a future meeting for
adoption consideration. Council concurred.
6. Draft Resolution 15-002, Drainage Easement Release — Chad Riggs
Engineer Riggs explained that in 1996, a drainage easement was granted to Spokane County as part of a
Lumber Products project at 16927 East Euclid Avenue; that in 1999 Spokane County approved a Lumber
Products building addition on one lot over the existing drainage easement; that although the swales were
relocated and the existing drainage easement was proposed to be abandoned, it was not abandoned so the
building addition is still located over the drainage easement. Upon our City's incorporation, the City
assumed the rights and responsibilities for the drainage easement. Mr. Riggs explained that Development
Engineering reviewed the swales and determined they are located on private property and only receive
private stormwater runoff; and that Public Works reviewed the stormwater facilities along Euclid Avenue
adjacent to this property and determined that the drainage easement is not necessary for public drainage
purposes. Mr. Riggs said the current property owner is selling the property and has requested we release
the interest in the drainage easement. Mr. Riggs asked for Council consensus to move this to a future
meeting for adoption consideration. Council concurred.
7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda.
INFORMATION ONLY
The (8) Browns Park Volleyball Project; (9) Proposed Amended 2015 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), and (10) Department Monthly Reports were for information only and were not reported or
discussed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Mr. Jackson said that while he was in Olympia, he met with several senators and the Liquor Control
Board and had some good discussions concerning Council's comments on marijuana; and said that
Lobbyist Briahna Taylor will follow-up with Senator River's staff concerning language dealing with
vaping and public consumption and consumption by youth; he said that proposed Senate bill 5052 deals
with medical marijuana and that the number of marijuana bills has decreased by eight or nine; and that
Bill 5052 addresses many of our concerns to license medical marijuana through the Liquor Control Board,
and provide testing and oversight just as is done with recreational marijuana.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 02-24-2015 Page 4 of 4
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
March 3, 2015 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers
Staff
Dean Grafos, Mayor
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Rod Higgins, Councilmember
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Ben Wick, Councilmember
ABSENT:
Bill Bates, Councilmember
Mike Jackson, City Manager
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except
Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to
excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's meeting.
1. Brown's Volleyball Project — Mike Stone
Parks and Recreation Director Stone went over the information contained in his Request for Council
Action Form, outlining the proposal; said the intent is to have a contractor in place by late March and
have the project completed prior to the volleyball season that begins mid-May. Mr. Stone mentioned the
drainage issues and of the location of the proposed courts; and said the package was put out to bid, they
received four bids last Friday, and are excited to be able to move forward, and that he seeks Council
consensus to bring this back as a motion consideration at next week's Council meeting. Mr. Stone noted
that this is just phase 1 and to complete the entire project will take the effort of Parks and Recreation, as
well as service groups and others as they seek alternatives for funding to eventually develop the entire
masterplan. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he heard that perhaps the sand volleyball isn't as popular as
anticipated, and he asked what would happen if we discover after three or four years that we don't need all
sixteen courts. Mr. Stone said this is a long process and $1.5 million is needed to complete the project;
that there will be new courts this year but it will take several years for the entire project; adding that the
neighborhood park concept will not be neglected as the volleyball courts progress; and if needed, any
aspect of the design could be changed.
Mayor Grafos said he liked the concept but would like to see those courts on the south end of the park and
leave the softball area intact on the north side, and have the contractors work from the south side forward
as the demand for the courts comes forward. After discussion about the lack of use of the softball
diamond, and that a major design change would necessitate re -bidding the project, as well as changing the
design of the masterplan which was previously approved, it was determined to keep the plans as Mr.
Stone discussed and to move forward with next week's bid award consideration.
Council Study Session: 03-03-2015 Page 1 of 3
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
2. Proposed Amended 2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) — Steve Worley
Mr. Worley went over the proposed amendment to the 2015 TIP, including removed projects, added
projects, and projects to be carried over; said the "removed projects" of Barker Road BNSF and Millwood
Trail might be moving forward, but not this year. Mr. Worley said a public hearing on these proposed
changes is set for next week's Council meeting.
3. Draft Interlocal Agreement with U.S. Geological Survey for Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)
Survey Data — Eric Guth
Director Guth stated that this spring the U.S. Geological Survey will be flying a high density LiDAR
Survey over an area of Spokane County that the USGS believes may be susceptible to earthquakes; that
the flight includes the western part of our City at no cost, which gives us the opportunity to participate in
this survey and have them include the eastern half of our City. By including the eastern half, Mr. Guth
explained, the cost will be an estimated $50,000, but if we were to contract with them directly for this
service for just our city, it would cost 180% more. Mr. Guth explained that a flight was undertaken in
2007 but the data was not as accurate as it will be for this flight, nor did it include the density of data
collection proposed for this flight. Mr. Guth said staff recommends proceeding with the finalization of an
interlocal agreement with Kitsap County to include the eastern half of our City. Council concurred.
4. 2014 Accomplishments Report — Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson said he likes to take time at the end of the year to report what was accomplished in
the past year; he spoke of the importance of the Council set goals as they help direct staffs Workplan.
Mr. Jackson discussed the accomplishments of the Legislative and Executive Department; followed by
Deputy City Manager Calhoun speaking about Contract Administration, Public Information Office,
interspersed by Human Resources Manager Whitehead talking about Human Resources and the Front
Desk Reception, and then with Mr. Calhoun continuing to discuss the accomplishments of the Finance
and IT Department. City Attorney Driskell spoke about the Office of the City Attorney, followed by
Police Chief VanLeuven discussing public safety. At 7:50 p.m., Mayor Grafos called for a recess; the
meeting was reconvened at 8:01 p.m., with Mr. Stone talking about the various aspects of Parks and
Recreation, including Park Administration and Maintenance, CenterPlace Regional Event Center,
Aquatics, Recreation, and the Senior Center. Mr. Hohman spoke about the accomplishments of the
various divisions of his department, including administration, permitting, building, code enforcement,
development services, and economic development. Director Guth went over his department's
accomplishments in the areas of street maintenance, traffic, stormwater utility, and capital improvement
projects.
5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos
Councilmember Hafner said this Council has very little input on the many proposals of levies, sales tax
increases, and bond issues prior to those issues going forth as a ballot issue; that two or three years ago
Council felt it was best not to take a stand either for or against those issues; and he asked about changing
that now to perhaps take a stand and/or at least listen to both sides. Mr. Jackson said the current
Governance Manual includes a procedure approved by Council of not hearing those issues during a
Council meeting; but if Council prefers a change, we could start by examining the information in the
Governance manual; he said it took some time for outside agencies to understand our stance on these
issues, but if Council wants to make an exception, that can be considered. Mr. Jackson said for a start, he
will put copies of the pertinent Governance Manual section in Council's in -boxes on their desk and we
can start from there.
6. The (a) Ops and Admin Quarterly Report; (b) Finance Monthly Report; and (c) Congestion Mitigation
Air Quality (CMAQ) 2018-2010 Call for Projects were for information only and were not reported or
discussed.
Council Study Session: 03-03-2015 Page 2 of 3
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
7. Council Comments — Mayor Grafos
Councilmember Pace asked for Council consensus to include the City of Spokane Valley as a co -host
with STA (Spokane Transit Authority ) for a meeting in early April; the meeting is a Chamber of
Commerce Transportation Committee meeting to discuss bus transportation; he said these issues have
been coming up at the Greater Valley Support Network (GVSN) meetings about moving people from one
point to another; said the STA has agreed to bring in a consultant April 2 for a meeting at CenterPlace
from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Council agreed to be a co -host since this will not obligate the Council
financially or otherwise, as Council will merely be a co -host of the meeting.
Councilmember Hafner said he continues working with school principals about marijuana issues and they
are in the process of setting a preliminary meeting. Councilmember Wick announced he will be joining
those going with GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) to Washington, D.C. April 14. Mayor Grafos asked, and
Council concurred to cancel the April 7 study session since the week prior to that, March 31, is also a
study session.
8. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson
Mr. Jackson said concerning the issue of supporting or opposing ballot measures, that Council always has
the option of waiving the rules for something in particular.
9. Executive Session: Potential/Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(I)(i)
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive
Session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss potential/pending litigation, and that no action will be
taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:58 p.m. At 9:08 p.m.,
Mayor Grafos declared Council out of Executive Session, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor
Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn.
ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Study Session: 03-03-2015 Page 3 of 3
Approved by Council:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 2015 Department Director:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent n old business ®new business n public hearing
❑ information n admin. report n pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-004, Street Vacation (STV -
2014 -0001) — Vacation of unimproved, triangle shaped area along Old Mission Avenue, 3,688 square feet
in size.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140; RCW 35A.47.020
and RCW 35.79
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On December 9, 2014, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for
the Planning Commission for January 8, 2015. On February 10, 2015, City Council agreed to move this
forward to an ordinance first reading. On February 24, 2015, City Council voted to move this forward to
an ordinance second reading.
BACKGROUND: The City received an application on November 12, 2014 from J.R. Bonnett Engineers,
on behalf of the owner River Sequel, LLC (Fritz Wolff), requesting the vacation of an unimproved
triangle shaped area along Old Mission Avenue, 3,688 square feet in size. The portion of right-of-way
proposed to be vacated is located at the intersection of Old Mission Avenue and Mission Parkway
adjacent to Assessor's tax parcel number 45124.0138.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 8, 2015 and voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed street vacation. On February 10, 2015 Council agreed to move this
forward to an ordinance first reading. On February 24, 2015 Council voted to move this Ordinance
forward to an ordinance second reading.
OPTIONS: Move to approve with or without further amendments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: I move we approve Ordinance 15-004 vacating a triangle -shaped area
along Old Mission Avenue.
STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Ordinance 15-004
B. Signed Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation
C. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission
D. PC Meeting Minutes December 11, 2014
E. PC Meeting Minutes January 8, 2015
F. PC Meeting Minutes January 22, 2015
G. Resolution 07-009 Adopting Policies for Imposing Vacation Charges
H. Aerial Photo
Page 1 of 1
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 15-004
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY
WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF 3,688
SQUARE FEET OF OLD MISSION AVENUE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 45124.0138, AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER
MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2014, an application for vacation was filed, and was determined
complete on December 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the City Council by Resolution 14-013 set a public hearing
date for January 8, 2015, with the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, following the hearing, the Planning Commission found that the notice and hearing
requirements of the applicable Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) section 22.140.020 had been
met; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission findings and recommendation have been filed with the
City Clerk as part of the public record supporting the vacation; and
WHEREAS, none of the property owners abutting the property to be vacated filed a written
objection to the proposed vacation with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 22.140 SVMC requires that City Council shall specify that the vacated
portion of the right-of-way shall belong to the abutting property owners; and
WHEREAS, Avista will require a continued easement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to vacate the above right of way pursuant to Chapter 22.140
SVMC.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,
Washington, do ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council makes the following findings of fact:
1. The right-of-way was never improved with pavement, curb or gutter and remains
vacant property. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public
and does not impede access or circulation.
2. The right-of-way being vacated is currently vacant land not being utilized for
public use or access and is not required for current or future public use or access.
3. There is no need for a new and different public right-of-way.
4. It is not anticipated that changes would occur in the future which would require use
of the subject right-of-way for public access.
5. One public comment was submitted in support of the proposed vacation. No other
public comments have been received regarding the proposed vacation.
Ordinance 15-004 - Street Vacation STV -2014-0001 Page 1 of 4
DRAFT
6. Pursuant to Resolution 07-009, Policy for Imposing Vacation Charges and RCW
35.79.030:
a. The City of Spokane Valley has the authority to charge for vacations in an
amount equal to 50% of the full appraised value; or for the full amount of
the area vacated where the street has been part of a dedicated right-of-way
for over twenty five years or if the property was acquired at public
expense.
b. Alternatively, the Council shall reserve the right to deviate from this policy
upon the adoption of written findings of fact that demonstrate the public
interest shall be best served by an alternative approach. The following facts
are relevant to the Council's determination of an alternative approach:
i. The right-of-way was dedicated in 1935 through a plat.
ii. The right-of-way was not obtained at public expense.
iii. The public interest has been served by recent site improvements and
dedications by the adjoining property owner along Old Mission
Avenue, approximately 5,600 square feet in area.
Based on above findings the City does not seek payment for the vacated right-of-way.
Section 2. Property to be Vacated. Based upon the above findings and in accordance with
this Ordinance, the City Council does hereby vacate the street which is incorporated herein by reference,
and legally described as follows:
A parcel of land situated in the Southeast quarter of Section 12 and the Northeast quarter of
Section 13, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian in the City of Spokane
Valley, County of Spokane, State of Washington, described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southeast corner of said Section 12; thence North 89°57'44" West 759.39
feet along the south line of said Section 12; thence North 0°02'16" East 31.83 feet to a point on
the northerly right-of-way line of Mission Avenue and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North
89°49'27" West 271.52 feet along the said northerly right-of-way line of Mission Avenue; thence,
leaving said northerly right-of-way line, South 00°00'00" West 5.50 feet; thence South
89°49'27" East 3.47 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 52.00
feet; thence southeasterly 37.59 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of
41°24'48" to a point of reverse curve having a radius of 38.00 feet; thence southeasterly 27.47
feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 41°24'48"; thence South 89°49'27"
East 40.66 feet to the beginning of a non -tangent curve to the right having a radius of 550.43 feet,
the radius point of which bears South 18°32'15" East; thence northeasterly 49.98 feet along the
arc of said curve through a central angle of 5°12'07" to a point of compound curve having a
radius of 481.28 feet; thence northeasterly 63.70 feet along the arc of said curve through a
central angle of 7°35'02" to a point of compound curve having a radius of 617.11 feet; thence
northeasterly 57.21 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 5°18'43"; thence
North 01°10'33" East 0.12 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel encompasses 3,688 square feet, more or less.
Section 3. Division of Property to be Vacated. Pursuant to RCW 35.79.040 and SVMC
22.140.040(C), the vacated portion of the street or alley shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-
half to each, unless factual circumstances otherwise dictate a different division and distribution of the
street or alley to be vacated. The vacated right-of-way is a portion of the north one-half of Old Mission
Ordinance 15-004 - Street Vacation STV -2014-0001 Page 2 of 4
DRAFT
Avenue and shall belong to the lot abutting to the north, as recorded in the record of survey which shall be
created and recorded with the County as required under SVMC 22.140.090.
Section 4. Zoning. The zoning designation for the vacated property shall be the designation
attached to the adjoining properties as set forth within the respective property or lot lines. The
Community and Economic Development Director is authorized to make this notation on the official
Zoning Map of the City.
Section 5. Conditions of Vacation. The following conditions shall be fully satisfied prior to
the transfer of title by the City.
1. The completion of the street vacation (File No. STV -2014-0001) including all
conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following
the effective date of approval by the City Council.
2. The vacated property shall be transferred into abutting parcel number 45124.0138.
3. All necessary easements required by Avista shall be prepared and recorded with
coordination between the property owner and utility purveyor. The easement with
recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation
of easement submitted to City for verification.
4. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation,
a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the
State of Washington including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and
specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance
of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the
Community and Economic Development Director or designee for review.
5. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to
private ownership including but not limited to title company charges, copying fees,
and recording fees shall be paid by the proponent. The City does not assume any
financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title.
6. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated
shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included
in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts.
The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the
applicable zoning district designations.
7. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the
City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor.
8. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any
transfer of title by the City.
Section 6. Closing. Following satisfaction of the above conditions, the City Clerk shall
record a certified copy of this Ordinance in the office of the County Auditor, and the City Manager is
authorized to execute and finalize all necessary documents in order to complete the transfer of the
property identified herein.
Ordinance 15-004 - Street Vacation STV -2014-0001 Page 3 of 4
DRAFT
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. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane
Valley, as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council this day of March, 2015.
ATTEST:
Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 15-004 - Street Vacation STV -2014-0001 Page 4 of 4
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 22, 2015
The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend
approval of File No. STV -2014-0001, vacating a portion of Old Mission Avenue.
A. Background:
1. Chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), governing street
vacations, was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28,
2007.
2. The privately -initiated street vacation, STV -2014-0001, proposes to vacate an
unimproved triangle shaped area along Old Mission Avenue 3,688 square feet in
size.
3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 8, 2015 and voted 7-0 to
recommend a conditional approval of the street vacation (STV -2014-0001) to City
Council.
B. Planning Commission Findings:
Compliance with SVMC 22.140.030 Planning Commission review and
recommendation
Finding(s):
1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the
public?
The area proposed to be vacated is raw land without pavement, curb or gutter.
Vacating the right-of-way will allow the property owner developing a multi -family
development to the north a landscaped area for enhanced aesthetics at the entry to
the Centennial Trailhead and apartment entrance. The vacation is expected to have
no impact on the general public and does not impede access or circulation.
2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public
access?
The right-of-way being vacated is currently vacant land not being utilized for public
use or access and is not required for current or future public use or access.
3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more
useful to the public?
There is no need for a new and different public way.
4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or
need than presently exists?
It is not anticipated that changes would occur in the future which would require use
of the subject right-of-way for public access. Staff received comments from
Spokane Transit Authority (STA) stating there is no current service to the area.
Further conversation with STA indicated that future development will likely
warrant an STA bus route. At that time they will have the flexibility to work with
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 3
the City and/or property owner to assess the best location for a bus stop along
Mission and Indiana Parkway.
5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private
property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other
governmental agencies or members of the general public?
Staff received 1 public comment in support of the proposed vacation from a
neighboring property owner. Avista Utilities confirmed they have gas and electric
utilities in the right-of-way and request preservation of utilities. Spokane County
Utilities and Consolidated Irrigation District provided no objection as they have no
facilities within the area proposed to be vacated.
C. Conclusions:
The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met.
D. Recommendation:
Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the vacation of an unimproved
triangle shaped area along Old Mission Avenue 3,688 square feet in size subject to the
following:
1. The completion of the street vacation (File No. STV -2014-0001) including all
conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within ninety (90) days
following the effective date of approval by the City Council.
2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcel 45124.0138.
3. All necessary easements required by Avista shall be prepared and recorded with
coordination between the property owner and utility purveyor. The easement with
recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written
documentation of easement submitted to City for verification.
4. Following the City Council's passage of the ordinance approving the street
vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered
surveyor in the State of Washington including an exact metes and bounds legal
description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair
and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by
the proponent to the Director of Community and Economic Development, or
designee for review.
5. The surveyor shall locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of-
way with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with
each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the City of
Spokane Valley Street Standards.
6. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to
private ownership including but not limited to title company charges, copying fees,
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 3
and recording fees are to be bome by the proponent. The City will not assume any
financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title.
7. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated
shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included
in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts.
The adopting ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the
applicable zoning district designations.
8. The record of survey and certified copy of the ordinance shall be recorded by the
City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor.
9. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any
transfer of title by the City.
Approved this 22"d day of January, 2015
Joe Stoy, Chairmanr
ATTEST
Deana Horton, Administrative Assistant
•
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 3 of 3
S1�1'ane
jValley
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO: STV -2014-0001
STAFF REPORT DATE: December 31, 2014
FILE NO: STV -2014-0001
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Request to vacate an unimproved triangle shaped area along Old
Mission Avenue approximately 3,688 square feet in size.
STAFF PLANNER: Karen Kendall, Planner, Community Development Department
PROPOSAL LOCATION: The area is located south of parcel 45124.0138, addressed as 16801 East
Mission Parkway, intersection of Old Mission Avenue and Mission Parkway, further located in the SE
quarter of Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley,
Washington
PROPERTY OWNER: Fritz Wolff, River Sequel, LLC; 220 West Main; Spokane, WA 99201
APPLICANT: Mark Grandwolh, J.R. Bonnett Engineers; 803 E 3`l Avenue; Spokane, WA 99202
APPROVAL CRITERIA:
1. SVMC — Title 22 (Street Vacations)
2. SVMC - Title 21 (Environmental Controls)
3. City of Spokane Valley Street Standards
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2: Aerial Map
Exhibit 3: Application Material
Exhibit 4: Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 5: Agency Comments
Exhibit 6: Public Comment
I. PROPERTY INFORMATION
Size and Characteristics:
The area is 3,688 square feet located behind a newly constructed
sidewalk connecting Mission Parkway with Centennial Trailhead.
It is flat and consists of native plants and weeds until such time the
weather permits for planting of grass.
Comprehensive Plan
Designation:
Mixed Use Center (MUC)
Zoning of Property:
Mixed Use Center (MUC)
Existing Land Use:
Vacant. Multifamily development located northwest of the right-
of-way is currently under construction.
Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2014-0001
December 31, 2014
Page 1 of 4
II. STAFF ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL
A. COMPLIANCE WITH SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) TITLE 22.140.030 —
STREET VACATIONS
Findings:
1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the
public?
The area proposed to be vacated is raw land without pavement, curb or gutter.
Vacating the right-of-way will allow the property owner developing a multi -family
development to the north a landscaped area for enhanced aesthetics at the entry to the
Centennial Trailhead and apartment entrance. The vacation is expected to have no
impact on the general public and does not impede access or circulation..
2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access?
The right-of-way being vacated is currently vacant land not being utilized for public use
or access and is not required for current or future public use or access. Should future
development realign Mission and Indiana Parkway, intersection improvements at
Mission Avenue will be reviewed and right-of-way needs assessed through agreement
with the future development.
3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful
to the public?
No. There is no need for a new and different public way.
4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or
need than presently exists?
It is not anticipated that changes would occur in the future which would require use of
the subject right-of-way for public access. Should future development realign Mission
and Indiana Parkway, intersection improvements at Mission Avenue will be reviewed
and right-of-way needs assessed through agreement with the future development. Staff
received comments from Spokane Transit Authority (STA) stating there is no current
service to the area. Further conversation with STA indicated that future development
will likely warrant an STA bus route. At that time they will have the flexibility to work
with the City and/or property owner to assess the best location for a bus stop along
Mission and Indiana Parkway.
5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private
property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other
governmental agencies or members of the general public?
Staff received 1 public comment for the proposed vacation from a neighboring property
owner. Avista Utilities confirmed they have gas and electric utilities in the right-of-
way and request preservation of utilities. Spokane County Utilities and Consolidated
Irrigation District provided no objection as they have no facilities within the area
proposed to be vacated.
Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2014-0001 Page 2 of 4
December 31, 2014
Conclusions:
The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met.
B. COMPLIANCE WITH SVMC TITLE 21—ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is
categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and SVMC 21.20.040 from environmental
review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Findings: Staff received 1 public comment from Bob Boyle of Hanson Industries on
December 30, 2014 in favor of the proposed street vacation.
Conclusion(s):
A Notice of Public Hearing sign was posted on the property December 19, 2014 and notices
were posted in the Spokane Valley Public Library, City of Spokane Valley permit center and
main reception area the same day. Public hearing notices were mailed to a 400' radius of the
site on December 18, 2014 and notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald on
December 19, 2014 and December 26, 2014. Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was
conducted for STV -2014-0001 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures.
IV. AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments were received from the following agencies and are attached as exhibits to this staff
report:
1. City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department (Traffic Engineer)
2. Spokane Transit Authority
3. Avista Utilities
4. Spokane County Utilities
5. Consolidated Irrigation District
V. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS
Staff concludes that STV -2014-0001 as proposed is generally consistent, or will be made
consistent, through the recommended conditions of approval based on the approval criteria
stated herein.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the vacation of an unimproved triangle shaped area along Old Mission Avenue
approximately 3,688 square feet in size subject to the following:
1. The completion of the street vacation (File No. STV -2014-0001) including all conditions
below shall be submitted to the City for review within ninety (90) days following the
effective date of approval by the City Council.
2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcel 45124.0138.
Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2014-0001 Page 3 of 4
December 31, 2014
3. All necessary easements required by Avista shall be prepared and recorded with
coordination between the property owner and utility purveyor. The easement with
recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of
easement submitted to City for verification.
4. Following the City Council's passage of the ordinance approving the street vacation, a
record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of
Washington including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any
and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future
utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the Director of Community
Development, or designee for review.
5. The surveyor shall locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of-
way with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with
each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the City of
Spokane Valley Street Standards.
6. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private
ownership including but not limited to title company charges, copying fees, and recording
fees are to be borne by the proponent. The City will not assume any financial
responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title.
7. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be
automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation
shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting
ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning
district designations.
8. The record of survey and certified copy of the ordinance shall be recorded by the City
Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor.
9. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of
title by the City.
Staff Report and Recommendation STV -2014-0001 Page 4 of 4
December 31, 2014
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall,
December 11, 2014
Chair Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the
pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staffwere present:
Kevin Anderson John Hohman, Community Development Director
Christina Carlsen Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Robert McCaslin Karen Kendall, Planner
Mike Phillips, Absent - Excused
Steven Neill
Joe Stoy
Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary
Hearing no objection, the Chair excused Commissioner Phillips.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the December 11, 2014 agenda as presented. Commissioner
Stoy noted the public hearing on CTA -2014-0006 regarding time extensions on a preliminary plats would
be held at the January 8, 2015 meeting. Motion passed with a six to zero vote.
Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the November 13, 2014 minutes as presented. The vote on the
minutes was six to zero, the motion passed.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood reported he attended the Greater Spokane Valley
Chamber meeting, commenting the Chamber had reported a new sports complex will be built in the city
of Spokane and that development could be occurring around the Mirabeau Park area. Commissioner
McCaslin reported he had spent time with the Central Valley Key Club who were working on blankets for
the Under the Bridge project.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Community Development Director John Hohman informed the
Commissioners the City Council had finished the local adoption process for the Shoreline Master
Program which will now be sent to the Dept. of Ecology for the final step. Mr. Hohman also
acknowledged and thanked departing Commissioners Neill, McCaslin and Carlsen for their service for
their years of service. These Commissioners' terms are end Dec. 31, 2014.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Study Session — STV -2014-0001, vacation of a portion of Old Mission near Mission Parkway
and the Old Mission Trailhead.
Planner Karen Kendall explained the street vacation process, the application is received requesting to
vacate a portion of right-of-way, the City Council sets the public hearing before the Planning
Commission. The application is routed for comments to staff such as Public Works and engineering,
and outside agencies. Staff prepares a recommendation taking into account connectivity, traffic
volumes and future development. The Planning Commission holds the public hearing and makes a
recommendation which is forwarded to the City Council. The City Council then makes the final
decision regarding vacating the right-of-way.
Ms. Kendall explained STV -2014-0001 was a request to vacate approximately 3700 square feet of the
intersection of Mission Parkway and Old Mission Avenue at the trailhead to for the Centennial Trail.
The property would be absorbed by the property owner to the north and would be used to enhance the
trailhead entrance. Director Hohman explained the cooperation and contributions the developer has
10-23-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 2
had with the City through this phase of the project and the previous phase and how he is improving
the trailhead in this Location.
Commissioners had a few questions regarding the vacation, clarifying the City was not using it as
right-of-way currently, that the property had not been appraised, how the developer would be using
the property, the vacation is not a request to expand the development to the north.
Having no further questions, Ms. Kendall confirmed the public hearing for this proposal is scheduled
for January 8, 2015.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Ms. Horton reminded the Commission elections for Chair and Vice Chair
would be held at the next meeting and the rules on who could hold those positons were in the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure.
Mr. Neill, Mr. McCaslin and Ms. Carlsen all said farewell and thank you for the time spent in their
positions and for the experience gained as Commissioners.
Deputy City Attorney Lamb thanked the departing Commissioners for their service and commented to the
remaining Commissioners regarding the moratorium on medical marijuana businesses. Mr. Lamb
mentioned how the review of any regulations would be coming to the Planning Commission
consideration and the City is waiting to see how the State will regulate the medical side of the marijuana
businesses.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
10-23-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 oft
Approved Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall,
January 8, 2015
Secretary of the Commission Deanna Horton called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners,
staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members
and staff were present:
Kevin Anderson
Heather Graham
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Susan Scott
Joe Stoy
Sam Wood
John Hohman, Community Development Director
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Christina Janssen, Planner
Karen Kendall, Planner
Martin Palaniuk, Planner
Micki Harnois, Planner
Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission
Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the January 8, 2014 amended agenda as presented. Motion passed
with a seven to zero vote.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the December 11, 2014 minutes as presented. The vote on the
minutes was seven to zero, the motion passed.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow welcomed the new Commissioners, and
introduced the staff. Ms. Barlow stated the legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan would be an
upcoming project for the Commission; staff had begun work to schedule Planning Short Course for end of
February or early March. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb welcomed the Commission and shared that
the legal staff would be bringing forward training for the Commission on the open public meetings act
and public records.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Election of Officers: Ms. Horton conducted the election of officers. Ms. Horton asked for
nominations for the office of chair. Mr. Anderson nominated Joe Stoy for Chair. Having no other
nominations, Mr. Stoy was declared Chair for the year 2015. Ms. Horton asked for nominations for
the office of Vice Chair. Commissioner Phillips nominated Kevin Anderson for the office of Vice
Chair. There were no other nominations for Vice Chair and Mr. Anderson was declared the Vice
Chair for the year 2015.
Public Hearing — STV -2014-0001, vacation of a portion of Old Mission near Mission Parkway
and the Old Mission Trailhead.
Planner Karen Kendall explained STV -2014-0001 was a request to vacate approximately 3700 square
feet of the intersection of Mission Parkway and Old Mission Avenue. The property would be
absorbed by the property owner to the north and would be used to enhance the trailhead entrance.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the road to the trailhead for the Centennial Trail was a public road.
Ms. Kendell confirmed it was. Commissioner Wood asked if the vacation would impact any utility
easements, none would be impacted.
Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. and took a vote to incorporate the staff
report into the public hearing which was approved by a vote of seven to zero. Commissioner Wood
01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
asked to clarify the developer had given up property for the development of the Centennial Trial
trailhead at this location. Staff responded the developer had worked closely with staff to develop the
area and had contributed to the development. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed
the public hearing at 6:29 p. m.
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of STY -2014-0001. The
vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes.
Public Hearing — CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions
Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Planner Micki Harnois gave a staff report
regarding the change to chapter 20.30.060 regarding time extensions for final plat approvals.
Currently the City's code provides for a one time, one year extension if a plat cannot be completed in
the state allowed five year time period. Currently there is a situation where a developer cannot finish
his plat because he is waiting for a map change from FEMA. Staff is proposing to clean up some
language and to change the time to a request to an initial three year extension with one year
extensions afterward. Ms. Harnois noted that with the extensions, the director could apply conditions
to the project which would bring it into line with the current codes.
Ms. Hamois noted she had contacted several jurisdictions. Other time lines ranged from one one-year
extension with no other extensions allowed to an initial three year extension with one year extensions
at one year at a time. Commissioner Wood asked if the City of Spokane allowed a one year extension
and regardless of the situation, they did not allow another extension, which Ms. Hamois confirmed as
correct. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City took any responsibility to notify the developer that
the plat was getting close to expiring. Ms. Barlow stated as part of the staff report when preliminary
approval is received they are notified of the specific date the plat expires. If a plat expires the
developer can they reapply, but the process starts over. Commissioner Graham asked if staff was
aware of how many plats have needed an extension. Ms. Harnois stated the case where the developer
is waiting for a FEMA map change to finish his plat. She also asked if the extension is granted would
the development fall under new code. The plat would be vested in the code at the time of approval
however, the director could apply new conditions if it were warranted.
Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:46 p. m.
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA -2014-0006.
Commissioner Phillips commented that he is very much in favor of the proposal, he has had times
when he needed the extra time to finish a plat He also stated that today most plats are fairly small,
but it depends on the size of the preliminary plat how quickly they can be completed. Most
developers are not willing to develop large subdivisions, so they do it in phases. This all takes time to
get thru all the requirements. Commissioner Phillips stated that he is very much in favor of this and
would like to see notices sent out when as things get close to expiring.
Commissioner Stoy stated he agrees with the proposal and feels the ending dates get forgotten. He
stated that maybe there could be a process to notify whoever is providing the developer and or the
civil plans notification stating that there plat is about to expire and that they have 30 days.
Mr. Lamb stated from a legal stand point these are the developer's plats and not the City's plats. It is
the developer's responsibility to remember the dates. If the City created a system of providing
notices, it could create a significant risk for the City and liability should one be missed. It is not
something that he can recommend from a legal standpoint.
The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes.
Ms. Barlow explained to the Planning Commission that they would be deviating from the normal
process and they will be bringing back the findings CTA -2014-0006 to the Planning Commission that
evening for approval.
01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
Study Session: CPA -2015-0001, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated
Comprehensive Plan Amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines Rd and Mamer Rd.
Ms. Barlow reviewed the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan process before the
Study Session began.
Planner Christina Janssen began her study session regarding the first privately (citizen) initiated
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0001 is a request to change from Office to
Community Commercial. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines Road and Mamer
Road. It is three parcels with one single family residence. It is bordered on the east and west by
Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained
fairly vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more
marketable.
Commissioner Anderson stated he did not agree with the staff report's statement that conditions have
changed beyond the property owners control because he looked and the property owner has not
owned the property long enough to have the conditions change. He also stated he did not know if the
property was still sitting vacant because of lack of marketing or failure of marketing. Ms. Janssen
commented staff have received many calls on this area because of the high visibility of it however,
the current zoning limits what people are able to do, which keeps people from looking at it harder.
She stated she felt that in the legislative update of the Comp Plan the area would be reviewed for
changes in general.
Ms. Janssen continued to explain one of the approval criteria for the change is the property must be
adjacent to the same or a higher classification than the request being made, which includes over a
right-of-way (ROW). In this case the property is adjacent to Regional Commercial across a ROW.
The right-of-way here is Interstate -90 (I-90). The Commissioners questioned the use of I-90 as a
connecting ROW as an approval criterion. Ms. Janssen stated that between the property and the
properties with the higher classification there was only ROW. Ms. Barlow also assisted in explaining
how the ROW, and I-90, is used to reach the approval criteria.
Commissioner Scott commented her concerns over the traffic. She said it is a 25 MPH road, with a
right turn only at Pines, and a steep grade at Mamer .Rd. She said she was concerned about the truck
traffic on the road. Ms. Janssen said she had spoken to the senior traffic engineer who said most
likely at the time of a building permit, he would be requiring mitigation at the Pines Rd. and Mission
Ave. intersection as well as the and Pines Rd. and Nora Ave. intersection because they are both
performing below standard. Commissioners asked about spot zoning in the middle of an area, with
no other similar zoning near it. Ms. Barlow stated she did not feel this was spot zoning, since the
approval criteria was across ROW and there was nothing but ROW in front of the property, to a
higher classification. She also expressed the area was one of concern for staff to review to a change
in the upcoming legislative update to the Comp Plan. She said she would not guess a change to what
but the office zone in the area was clearly not working for the properties there.
Study Session: CPA -2015-0002, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated
Comprehensive Plan Amendment located at the intersection of Mission Ave. and Flora Rd.
Planner Marty Palaniuk began his study session regarding the second privately (citizen) initiated
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0002 is a request to change from Low
Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The request is located on the northwest
corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is two parcels with a greenhouse located on it. It is
bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center.
The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. It is
located on two minor arterials.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the parcels to the south were vacant. Mr. Palaniuk confirmed they
were. Commissioner Anderson also asked how close the transit was, which is located at Mission and
Barker, but a distance could not be provided. He did not feel this was "close" as was indicated in the
01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
staff report. Ms. Barlow commented in the future, exact distances would be used. Commissioner
Wood stated he could go either way on this, there seemed to be a natural boundary for the zoning at
Flora -Rd. He also asked if the change would allow manufactured home parks. Mr. Palaniuk said it
would not, Mr. Wood said he knew the property owner and knew they owned other manufactured
home parks. Commissioner Graham said she runs in the area and there are no sidewalks in the area.
Ms. Barlow commented any commercial development would be required to put in frontage
improvements at the time of development, however single family development might trigger the
same.
Findings of Fact: CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions.
Ms. Harnois handed out the Planning Commission findings of fact for review. She commented once
the Findings are signed they will move on to City Council. Mr. Lamb explained the primary purpose
of the findings is to layout the basis for determining the compliance with the City's code in providing
the recommendation of approval of the code text amendment. There are two approval criteria for
code text amendments, the first is that the amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the
Comp Plan and the second is that it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare,
and protection of the environment. As staff explained during the staff report in earlier in the evening,
there are various goals and polices set out in the Comp Plan which apply to this specific amendment,
and in these findings they have outlined the goals and polices which staff feel are applicable, which
the Commission would ultimately approve. The second would be the general public health, safety,
welfare, which is a vague term for a text amendment, which is at times difficult to determine. The
vote on the findings is more on the basis for the recommendation, not the recommendation itself.
Commissioner Anderson asked why the conclusions on the findings were not the same as the
conclusions on the staff report. Mr. Lamb also pointed out to the Commission they are allowed to
change the findings if they do not agree with them. Commissioner Anderson stated they were two
different sentences. In the staff report it states the overall conclusion is consistent with the Comp
Plan policies and goals and on the findings it states it is consistent with the City's adopted Comp Plan
and the approval criteria. Mr. Lamb stated in the future that staff would work to make sure the staff
report and findings reflected the same language however, this did say the same thing in a different
way.
Commissioner Phillips asked to verify that the language underline and strike through language would
be attached to the findings as part of the record.
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council the Findings of Fact for
CTA -2014-0006 as presented The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Anderson asked how the Commission would go about
amending the public hearing script from the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure. Mr. Lamb and
Ms. Horton shared with the Commission in the Rules of Procedure allow for updates in the odd numbered
years, and staff would assist in reviewing the script.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m.
1 At /I
Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed
ka. iif.,6,0
Deanna Horton, Secretary
01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of4
Chairman Stoy called the
pledge of allegiance. Ms.
Kevin Anderson
Heather Graham
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Susan Scott
Joe Stoy
Sam Wood
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall,
January 22, 2015
meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the
Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present:
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Martin Palaniuk, Planner
Christina Janssen, Planner
Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 22, 2015 amended agenda as presented. The
motion passed with a seven to zero vote.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 08, 2015 minutes as presented. The vote on the
motion was seven to zero, the motion passed.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood reported he attended the Spokane Home Builders
Association government affairs meeting. He said the discussion was about form based codes and
walkable urbanism.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the Planning Short
Course had been scheduled for February 25, 2015 and was open for all to attend. She also said the
Commissioners had a copy of the postcard which had been mailed city-wide announcing the two public
meetings for the Comprehensive Plan visioning meetings. City Attorney Cary Driskell said although the
Short Course would have some training on the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act, the
legal staff would be bringing forward more in-depth training for the Commission on both of these
subjects at the February 12, 2015 meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0001 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on Nora Ave.
between Pines and Mamer Roads.
Before beginning the public hearings, Ms. Barlow asked the Commission how they would like to
handle the public hearings. Options were to have the public hearings and deliberate after each public
hearing or hold the public hearings and then deliberate after both were closed. The Commission
chose to deliberate after both public hearings were closed.
Chair Stoy opened the public hearing regarding CPA -2015-0001 at 6:17 p.m. Planner Christina
Janssen gave her staff report regarding the citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to
change four parcels from Office to Community Commercial. The property is owned by Jim Cross
and Rainyday Dagaory LLC. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines and Mamer
Road. The properties are bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential
and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained vacant for some years and the owner
believes the change will make the property more marketable.
Commissioner Tim Kelley said the law firm of Witherspoon Kelly does community work with
veterans which he recently had the opportunity to take part in. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr.
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9
Driskell if having worked with Witherspoon Kelly would disqualify him from participating in the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Driskell explained it would be a matter of bias. In a case like
Mr. Kelley had explained, a Commissioner would explain the circumstances to the rest of the
Commission, and then determine if they would be able to consider the matter without bias. If not he
would recuse himself and step out of the mom while the matter was being discussed. If he could
review the matter without bias, then he would state he could review the matter without bias and the
Commission business would continue. Mr. Kelley said he felt he could review the matter without
bias and stayed on the dais.
Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify.
Stanley Schwartz, W. 422 Riverside Ave.: He was also an attorney for Witherspoon Kelly and had
never met Commissioner Kelley, nor had he had any dealings with Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwartz stated
he was a representative for the property owners James Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC. Mr. Cross
has two high-end dealerships. One is located in Spokane; the other is located in Boise, ID. Mr.
Schwartz said he is an attorney in municipal real estate and planning law, is the City Attorney for
Cheney and Airway Heights as well as he had a previous relationship with this City. Mr. Schwartz
stated that the property had been posted, and the surrounding properties within 400 feet had notices
mailed to them. He said he had checked with staff and was not aware of any comments which had
been submitted in regard to the proposal. Mr. Schwartz stated the site was unique, with high density
residential to the south up a steep slope, some commercial development to the west, and a Steinway
showroom to the east. He said the site was at grade but subject to significant freeway noise and light
and bordered Nora Avenue and the freeway to the north. Mr. Schwartz stated this area is not
appropriate for residential.
Mr. Schwartz stated he had submitted three documents for the record a letter from his client Mr.
Cross, who owns two high end dealerships in Spokane and Boise, a market study he requested from
NAI Black and a letter from himself summarizing the points in the other two documents. He said Mr.
Cross' dealerships sell high end motor vehicles, such as Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, which are
considered destination type of a dealership where customers search them out. The amount of traffic
which can be expected would be for a destination type of dealership. Mr. Schwartz said this would be
like someone searching out a specific department store for a specific item. He said this was different
than how most people shop for a car up and down Sprague Avenue. He said this is significant in the
sense of the amount of traffic which can be expected, and the draw which would be coming to this
property. He said his client is requesting support of the map change to Community Commercial
which is a bit of a down zone or a different zone than the Regional Commercial, which is across the
street, in terms of what is allowed. This is a change in regard to the land use, which is for the future.
Mr. Schwartz also said when it comes time for a building permit the property owners are prepared to
meet with staff and perform all mitigation and traffic improvements warranted, as well as all on site
improvements. Mr. Schwartz also submitted a market report from NAI Black regarding office
vacancies in the valley. He said he had requested the study which summarizes in fall 2013 the City
had the largest amount of office space at 3,280,000 square feet and the largest amount of vacant office
space in the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane and Spokane's South Hill for market purposes.
The vacancy rate for Spokane Valley was 21.56% in 2013; in 2014 it did decline to 1832%. He said
no one would be building for office space at this vacancy rate, unless it will be a very specific build to
suit. Mr. Schwartz said this zoning still had a long way to go to recover to get to a healthy office
market. He said he believed the property could be put to a higher and better use. The report also says
retail is improving. The report supports the property will not be developed as office within the
foreseeable future. He said with 632,000 square feet of office space available, the report suggests
why the office zoning is not working. Mr. Johnson, President of NAI Black stated in his letter
Spokane Valley had a long way to go to recover to get back to a healthy office market. The property
owner does feel the change will not interfere with the uses in the area but will create jobs and create
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9
stimulus in regard to sales tax. The property owner feels he can put the property to a higher and
better use. The use will be more compatible to the surrounding area and uses. Mr. Schwartz said the
staff report is comprehensive and supportive. The application meets all of the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that one of the criteria for the change was the property must be
adjacent and contiguous to the same or higher commercial use. When looking at the zoning code
adjacent also means corner touches and it includes the corner touching and in the conjunctive includes
property located across the public right-of-way to the same or a higher zoning classification (SVMC
19.30.030). He said there is no question I-90 is a public right-of-way, there is no question Nora is a
public right-of-way, and this is then across the street. He said he included the definition of adjacent
in this letter, which is lying near or close to but not necessarily touching. He also noted that the case
law is that there is the presumption is that the property owner has the free and uninhibited right to use
their property in a manner to make it economically feasible and viable. He said since 2006 this
property and the property next to it has been underutilized and underserved. He thanked the
Commissioners for the time to go through the information he provided. He said again there were no
objections from staff or other property owners. He said he hoped the Commissioners would make a
positive recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant purchased the property knowing it was zoned office.
Mr. Schwartz responded this was correct. Commissioner Anderson then asked if Mr. Schwartz's
client accepted Nora Avenue as sufficient for his proposed business as he plans. Mr. Schwartz said at
this point he did not know. However, what he did know and felt staff would support was the question
at this point does not relate to what improvements are going to be necessary on Nora Avenue, or next
to Evergreen, or Pines Road, or another adjoining roadway, as a result of the development. What his
client will do and what standard practice is when the building permit is applied for, the client will fill
out a SEPA checklist which will likely include a transportation study. Staff will look at the
transportation study and determine what mitigation, and what improvements will be necessary in
order to make Nora Avenue able to serve the adjoining land use. He said it will be incumbent upon
his client to spend money and resources to hire professionals and fix or build -out Nora Avenue
according to the studies which will be obtained from traffic engineers as approved by the staff. This
could include off-site improvements all the way to Evergreen Road, it may include Pines Road, it
may include the payment of impact fees, all these things his client is fully aware of and fully prepared
to undertake in order to use this land as he has requested. Commissioner Anderson said he
understood the requirements at the time of development but what he was asking was, does Nora
Avenue as it currently sits meet the client's transportation needs to operate his business. Mr.
Schwartz said he was not trying to dodge the answer, Mr. Anderson said it was a simple yes or no
question. Mr. Schwartz said he was not privy to a transportation study because one was not required
at the time of this application or at any other time as this process has proceeded. Mr. Schwartz said it
was his understanding when development occurs, his client will adjust Nora Avenue. Mr. Schultz
stated everyone was aware that motor vehicles would be moving in and out of semi -trucks, he knows
Nora Avenue is of a certain width. He said he could make an assumption semi trucks already travel
on Nora Avenue because Steinway Piano must get deliveries somehow. Commissioner Anderson
asked if the market study from NAI Black, was studying what was in the Office zone, which the City
allowed more than `offices' uses in it, or was the study just for offices. Mr. Schwartz confirmed it
was just "office buildings" in the study.
Commissioner Stoy asked if the marketing study mentioned marketing was a problem in area along
Nora. He commented the properties along Nora Avenue do not have for sale signs on them. Mr.
Schwartz commented he knew the residential properties had for sale signs; he also said any buyer
would do their due diligence and check the zoning of the property. Commissioner Anderson asked if
the NAI Black study equated vacant office space, not vacant property. Mr. Schultz this was vacant
office square footage within office buildings.
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9
Commissioner Wood commented he had driven by the property, which cannot be accessed when
heading south on Pines. He said there were two for sale signs on the property which have been there
for some time, so they were marketing the property.
Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. Schwartz's clients looked at any property which was zoned for a car
dealership. She said there are areas of the City which are zoned for car dealerships; the city has an
Auto Row and property along Sprague Avenue where dealerships are allowed. Mr. Schwartz said he
had actually worked on the CARMAX deal, and went through the due diligence for that purchase, so
he does know about that area of the City. He said his client did look at the area along Auto Row, and
his client did not feel his brand would fit into that area, nor did the client find the location or
configuration for the type of dealership he would be developing. Therefore his client looked at this
property and felt it was an ideal opportunity, given the state of the zoning since 2006. Commissioner
Scott asked if he had looked at any other property with freeway exposure. Mr. Schwartz said he was
not aware of other property along the freeway.
Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners although it was interesting to consider the possible
development on the property they should be focusing on the land use designation, and the question is
the location suitable for the uses under the proposed designation.
Seeing no one else who wished to testi, Chairman Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015-
0001 at 6:53 p.m.
Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0002 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on the northwest
corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Rd.
Chairman Stoy opened the public hearing for CPA -2015-0002 at 6:54 p.m.
Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the staff report regarding this citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan
amendment to change two parcels from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center
(MUC). The applicant is Patricia Abraham. The site is located on the northwest corner of Mission
Avenue and Flora Road. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south
and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just
recommended for approval. Mr. Palaniuk commented the staff report had been updated to reflect the
Spokane Transit Authority (STA) route is one mile from the area, and STA plans to add service to the
area which is noted in the STA Comprehensive Plan. The staff report also added the other
subdivisions in the area to show the impacts on the area. The staff report had been revised from the
draft which the Commissioners had received for the study session. Mr. Palaniuk said staff had not
received any written comments as of that evening. Mr. Palaniuk pointed out Flora Road is a minor
arterial south of Mission Avenue. North of Mission Avenue, Flora is considered a collector. Mission
Avenue is also considered a minor arterial.
Commissioner Anderson commented he understood the staff report had been modified, but he wanted
to point out STA would only be adding a bus route if voters approved a 0.03% tax increase. Mr.
Palaniuk said STA does have a plan, and this was listed in their plan. The City could not say if they
would or would not be able to implement the plan. Mr. Anderson stated again for the Commission
this (the tax) would be how it would be implemented.
Commissioner Wood asked for some of the uses which would fall under the Mixed Use Center
zoning. Mr. Palaniuk said some of the uses which would be allowed would be multifamily
residential, self-service storage units, some small scale commercial uses, convenience store. He said
without the use matrix in front of him he did not want to guess any further. He said there would not
be any industrial or light industrial type uses in this zoning. Manufactured home parks would not be
allowed in the proposed zoning, but would be allowed in the R-3 zoning which the property is
currently zoned. Commissioner Wood asked about retail stores, gas stations and marijuana stores.
Mr. Palaniuk said some retail stores, gas stations in relation to a convenience store would be allowed.
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9
Marijuana stores would be permitted in the zone but would need to meet all other special criteria
before it could be sited.
Commissioner Graham inquired as to where access from the property would be taken. She wondered
if it would only be onto Flora Road or if it would be allowed onto Mission Avenue as well. Mr.
Palaniuk responded this would be determined at the time of the building permit, and would depend on
what was being proposed. Commissioner Kelley asked if low income residential would be allowed.
Mr. Palaniuk asked what he considering, Mr. Kelley said he was referring to an apartment complex.
Mr. Palaniuk said multifamily is an allowed use in the Mixed Use Center zone. Ms. Barlow
commented she understood the question was about if apartments would be allowed, but the City's
residential zoning districts do not distinguish between the types of residential units are being
proposed.
Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify.
Patricia Abraham, 1920 N Greenacres Road: Ms. Abraham stated she was the applicant and
representing the property owners, Jayn Courchaine and Donald Fisher. She said the intent for
requesting the change is to create continuity in the zoning throughout the area, along Mission and
Flora. It would also increase their options for future development, which would complement the
growth happening within our neighborhood. Ms. Abraham said she was a resident within the
neighborhood, having spent a majority of her life in this neighborhood. She is aware of the growth
which is occurring and of the traffic concerns other neighbors might have. Her intent is not to
increase the housing or create a traffic problem for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Wood asked if Ms. Abraham owned the parcel on the very comer of Mission and
Flora. Ms. Abraham said her mother owns the larger parcel and when she went to talk to the neighbor
who owns the corner parcel he did not oppose the change but asked to be included in the change.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the residents would be moving from the property. Ms. Abraham
said the residence on her mother's property is used as a rental and the current resident just bought a
home. The home on the corner property is still being lived in by the property owner.
Ms. Horton said she had been given three letters which needed to be entered into the record from
Cecil Russell, 17504 E. Montgomery; Eric House, 1711 N. Flora Road; Joseph and Lynda
House, 17406 E. Montgomery. All three letters asked that the request for the Comprehensive Plan
amendment be denied and the zoning be left as is. Mr. House said the properties needed to remain
Low Density Residential to create a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood.
Seeing no one else who wished to testes Chair Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015-0002 at
7:11 p.m.
Commissioner Wood asked for the location of the addresses in the letters in relation to the subject
properties, which were located for him.
Commissioner Anderson stated he did not plan to recuse himself because he could make an open-
minded decision, but wanted to let everyone know he knows Mr. Joseph House very well, and he did
not know he was in the audience. Commissioner Wood confirmed the hearing had been closed so Mr.
House would not be able to comments.
Discussion regarding CPA -2015-0001:
Commissioner Anderson wanted to know what the Commission needed to do in order to delay the
discussion on CPA -2015-0001 so the Commission would have time to digest the information which
was provided by Mr. Schwartz. Ms. Barlow said the public hearing has been closed; there would not
be any action necessary.
Commissioner Anderson asked it if was possible to request a zone change, is there any reason why
there can't be a use added to an existing zone. Ms. Barlow said this subject was not before the
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9
Commission at this point in time. It could be a separate action unto itself. However, the two actions
could not be combined. He explained he was just asking if the direction was to go either way in a
system, if it was asked. Ms. Barlow said it could be a simple application for a code text amendment
to add uses as long as it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the use was not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan then a Comprehensive Plan request would be necessary to add that use.
Mr. Driskell added it would be substantially different than what was requested by the applicant here
and the deadline for making requests is November 1g of each year. He felt the suggestion would
qualify as a different request and would need to go to a next year. Commissioner Anderson asked if a
code text amendment could only be done once a year, or it any time of the year. There was much
dialog to make sure the meaning of Mr. Anderson's question was clear. A code text amendment
adding a use to a zoning district, as long as the requested use was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, can be proposed at any time of the year.
Chair Stoy asked the Commissioners their preference for proceeding with CPA -2015-0001.
Commissioner Anderson said no motion was necessary to postpone the discussion for this
amendment, and this is what he would like to do. Ms. Barlow said there was no motion necessary to
delay any further discussion on the item, but a motion was needed to begin discussion. Commission
Anderson asked if they needed consensus to delay the discussion, and Ms. Horton concurred. Chair
Stoy asked the rest of the Commission how they felt and Commissioner Wood said he would like to
move ahead. He felt he had gotten enough information in two meetings, a public hearing, all the
documentation he had received he said he has reviewed it all. He sees no reason to delay his decision.
He is prepared to move ahead on this and he feels it is appropriate for us to do so, based on the people
who are applying for this so they can do whatever they have to do. Ms. Barlow suggested
Commissioner Wood could make the motion regarding moving the amendment forward.
Commissioner Wood moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0001.
As a point of information Ms. Horton said a motion could be made now to postpone the discussion.
Commissioner Anderson moved to postpone the discussion of CPA -2015-0001 to the 02-12-15
meeting.
Chair asked for discussion on the motion to postpone. Commissioner Kelley said he felt the planner
had done a good job presenting the material the last two weeks. Commissioner Graham said
receiving Mr. Schwartz's information that evening she would like to have two more weeks to
understand what she is reading. Commissioner Phillips said he was not in favor of getting all the
information at the meeting and being expected to read it and make a decision, and he is in favor of
waiting. Commissioner Scott stated she would like a chance to go through the information.
Commissioner Wood said he was ready to move ahead. Commissioner Stoy felt he would like to have
the opportunity to review new material.
The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion to postpone was six to one with Commissioner
Wood dissenting. The motion to postpone the discussion passed
Discussion for CPA -2015-0002:
The Commission paused and Ms. Barlow asked the Commission if they were ready to move forward
with the discussion on the next amendment. Commissioner Anderson said he did not want the
planner to feel like he was being picked on with this by the book, legitimate by the effort, discussing
Mixed Use Centers, in the staff report. Commissioner Anderson said he looks at it this way and it
(Comprehensive Plan) says we have ton of minor arterial intersections with public transit in the City
that are all residential. We are not converting them to mixed use just because of that. He understands
it is useable (criteria) but he doesn't understand it as a reason. He said he has lived by many of them
(the intersections). He said he already mentioned STA, they do have plans to move out there but only
if there are additional funds from the public. Commissioner Anderson said we are not reviewing a
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9
land use, we are just looking a specific zoning change, and in his opinion a MUC multiple use will
increase traffic more than residential. He continued during discussion there was a comment, 'if you
look this way you will see mixed use, if you look that way you will see mixed use.' if you tum around
and look you will see residential and even in the mixed use, the majority of the construction near
Flora Road or near the intersection is residential. He said there is a medical facility down the road,
but even where we have mixed use, the development we have is residential. He asked Mr. Palaniuk
the staff report says landscaping separating mixed use from residential would be Type I, but he does
not know what that means. Mr. Palaniuk stated any commercial development up against residential,
would be required to meet setbacks and would require Type 1 screening which would be a six-foot
site obscuring fence and a five-foot vegetative strip which at maturity would need to reach six feet.
Commissioner Anderson said six-foot vegetation was only as tall as the fencing. Commissioner
Anderson said his final the possibilities of uses on the property are humongous. The current land
owners probably have good intentions, etc. But good intentions can fail, finances can change, new
property owners can acquire property. He continued, on the edge of or even in a residential area we
have the possibility of, he didn't think we will have a golf driving range but there is a possibility of
one. Mr. Anderson said there is a very substantial list of uses (which are allowed in this zone) and he
has a very difficult time saying ok we will just call this mixed use and whatever happens, happens in
the future. This is where he finds his difficulty.
Ms. Barlow said she was not advocating one way or the other, however one of the key points Mr.
Anderson made was this proposal is on the edge of residential. While the question being posed is
determining what the best development options would be on this property, it is in a unique situation
where there has been a considerable amount of development and it is along busy roads. There is
commercial development in one direction, multifamily in another direction, single family surrounding
a lot of it. What is the best way to develop this last little buffer piece? She said it could go either
way. She said a case could be made for either to be that final bit of development, but it is not going to
be perfect either way. However when you are contemplating the uses allowed in the mixed use zone,
it is not going to pull them into the neighborhoods. It is only going to pull them to a point where
there is already that traffic passing by.
Commissioner Graham said she would agree with Ms. Barlow's suggestion to some point, except part
of one parcel goes behind another property owners land. She said the property owner facing on Flora
would have mixed use behind them, when now they have residential behind them. She said she
walked the area this afternoon and currently there is an empty field behind them. Potentially they
could have multifamily or a commercial development bumping up to their property line, or within the
setbacks. Mr. Palaniuk informed the Commission this parcel fronting Flora Road is owned by the
same person who owns the large parcel in the request.
Commissioner Stoy wanted to know if fuel (sales) would be permitted in the Mixed Use Center. It
was confirmed it is allowed. Commissioner Graham asked to revisit the transportation issue and lack
of sidewalks if they are using the STA as their form of transportation. If and when STA receives their
tax she said, then it would be fine, however until then services are a mile away down Mission and
there are no sidewalks. She said a mile away south on Flora, there are no sidewalks. The only access
with sidewalks is to the west towards the mall. She said this was one of the things she is taking into
consideration. Commissioner Stoy remarked sidewalks come with development of property.
Commissioner Graham said she understood but only in front of that small portion of the property.
She said this does not address the safety concerns for the public which may be accessing the property
from the bus routes which are only available a mile away to the south, east and west.
As the Commission paused, Ms. Barlow asked them if they needed additional information, if they
needed more time. Commissioner Stoy commented he was trying to read the information from STA.
Ms. Barlow said the STA proposal to add service in the area is not predicated on whether or not this
piece is developed, but on their funding and the use by persons who live or work in the area already
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9
occurring. Part of the reason we only require the improvement for the frontage associated with
development, she said, is because the City looks to offset the cost of the impact. There is already
impact going on based on the existing residential development and the existing businesses which are
developing in this area. They (the property owners) would only be required to pay for their fair share
of improvements. Mr. Driskell added he looked at an overhead map and of the area to the east. He
said there are interspersed sidewalks in different areas. The reason for this is the area is developing in
bits and pieces. He explained the way the City gets its sidewalks is when we have development we
require frontage improvements for that property for their impacts. Then over time, we get
connectivity. You will see there is a fair amount of sidewalk to the east, but this is just part of the
process. If this were approved, the City would consider the frontage improvements along Flora, and
this would become yet another piece of sidewalk connectivity, said Mr. Driskell.
Then there was considerable discussion regarding the impact of making a positive motion opposed to
making a negative motion, and the need to be able to create findings to support the motion which is
made. After the discussion it was determined the best course of action would be to make a motion to
approve, take a vote and determine the outcome. If the motion does not pass, then a motion to deny
could be made. Mr. Driskell said this would give a more natural flow for findings.
Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0002 to the City Council.
Commissioner Wood said he foresees this corner of Flora and Mission to be a busy corner, especially
when the bus comes through. He said the parcel on the corner seems a natural flow for MUC. He
said if you look at the corner it is south MUC and it seems like a natural transition to MUC. It does
not seem odd or like spot zoning, making the change ties it all up. He does not feel there will be any
more negative impacts than is already there. He said he did not see any reason to deny it.
Commissioner Scott asked if the request is approved, does it approve all the possible uses which are
allowed in the zoning district. She said some will have a bigger impact than others but we can't know
what use we are approving this for. Some could be more acceptable than others, but it is all or
nothing. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The Commission was approving the range of uses
which may be possible in the zoning district. Ms. Barlow said the fact the Commission is aware of
the use being proposed in the other Comprehensive Plan amendment is irrelevant information. She
said once the decision is made, it does not bind a person to the use which you thought was being
proposed.
Commissioner Stoy said he felt this was a natural progression, and the progression will stop at Flora
Road. He said the amount of additional traffic this small portion would add would be insignificant to
the rest of the area. He said eventually bus stops would come out there, and eventually sidewalks
would be extended out. The staff report states landscape are buffers required, and he said there are
height restrictions, which he thought was 50 feet in this zone. Mr. Palaniuk said there is a height limit
in the Mixed Use zone, and there is a relational setback for multifamily. Commissioner Stoy said he
was in favor of the change. Staff clarified the setback would be 20 feet for this zone, and the height
would be 60 feet for Mixed Use Center.
The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion, by the show of hands, to recommend approval
of CPA -2015-0002 was four to three with Commissioners Anderson, Graham and Philips dissenting.
Planning Commission Findings of Fact for STV -2014-0001:
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings and
Recommendations for STV -2014-0001, as presented. Ms. Barlow distributed revised findings of fact.
She said the change between the findings just handed out and the findings which were provided in the
packet were on page 2 of 3, under the recommendations, item 5 in the document which was just
handed out, contains the language from the original item 5 which the Commission voted on at the 01-
08-15 meeting. Ms. Barlow explained Item 5 under the recommendations states "the surveyor shall
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9
locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of-way, with one located at the
intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in
accordance with the standards established by the Spokane Valley Street Standards." She said this
condition is a standard condition for street vacations, so it was incorporated into the conditions which
were provided for your consideration. However in this unusual case where this isn't developed right-
of-way, just an oddly shaped piece of property, which obviously has no centerline of the vacated
right-of-way and this condition isn't appropriate. After you voted and approved the conditions, as
attached, it was recognized this condition wasn't necessarily appropriate in association with this street
vacation request. After you voted on it, it was dropped off the findings, without considering you had
already taken action on this item with this condition as part of it. So the findings before you which
now contain all the conditions which were acted upon and reflecting your motion to recommend
approval with attached conditions. So this is consistent with what you acted upon. Ms. Barlow said
staff would like the Commission to approve these findings as the findings of fact, if that is the
Commission's direction. When the item is moved forward to the City Council, staff will recommend
in their fmal action they drop this condition since it is not appropriate. She added the reason staff is
doing it this way is, it is the cleanest way to move this item forward, rather than making a new motion
and eliminating item 5, then having new findings to consider. Staff felt this would leave the cleanest
trail as to what has happened. Commissioner Anderson clarified it would not change the motion
currently on the table. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct.
The vote on the motion to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendations was
seven to zero, the motion passed
GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m.
Joe Stoy, Chairperson - Date signed
f aitild_ V4/606t)
Deanna Horton, Secretary
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of9
MY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 07-009
RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICIES FOR .IMPOSING VACATION
CHARGES PURSUANT TO RCW 36.79.030
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to vacate roadways and right of ways pursuant
to RCW 36.79.030; and
WHF,REAS, the City of Spokane Valley has thc authority to charge for said vacations in an amount that
does not exceed 50 % of the full appraised value or for the full appraised value of the area vacated whcrc
the street or alley had been part of a dedicated right of way for over twenty five years or if the property
was acquired at public expense; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley wishes to establish a policy by which they determine the
amount to be charged the benefited property owners of any such vacation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT 'IHk. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ADOPTS
THE FOLLOWING POLICY:
SECTION 1. Policy.
I. The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property
owner shall equal fifty per cent (50%) of thc appraised value of the vacated property
received.
a. The appraised value shall be the same as the value of an equivalent portion of
property adjacent to the proposed vacation as established by the Spokane County
Assessor at the time the matter is considered by the City Council.
b. If the value of adjacent properties differs, then the average of the adjacent
property values per square foot will be used.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the applicant shall pay the above-
described fee only to the extent that it exceeds the cost charged by the City of Spokane
Valley to initiate the vacation process, exclusive of any surveying or engineering costs
that may be incurred by the applicant.
3. This charge shall be paid subsequent to council action and prior to recording the vacation
with the Spokane County Auditor.
4. The City Council shall reserve the right to deviate from this policy upon the adoption of
written findings of fact that demonstrate that the public interest shall be best served by an
alternate approach.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon adoption.
Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 1 of 2
Adopted this 10t day of July, 2007.
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
ATTEST:
hristine Bainbridge, Ci Clerk
Approved avo Form:
Office ti the City ttorney
Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 2 of 2
IsP>anvey COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REQU EST:
1. 3,688 square feet of area
to be vacated;
2. Enhanced entry to the
trailhead and
development;
3. Provide delineation
between public & private
ownership; and
4. Offset land lost by
dedication of ROW for
turnaround and parking
for trailhead (5,600sgft).
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 2015
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ❑ admin. report
Department Director Approval:
® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Reimbursement Resolution No. 15-001.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.40, 39.36, 39.46; Variety of Federal tax and securities
laws.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council heard an administrative report on
February 24, 2015.
BACKGROUND: City Council has determined to construct a new City Hall. Proceeds to fund
the land acquisition, design and engineering costs, and construction and equipment costs are
anticipated to come from a combination of City general fund revenues and City bond proceeds.
Currently and based on project budget, the City anticipates issuing tax-exempt bonds in the
approximate amount of $8,260,000 in the latter half of 2015 to be used primarily for construction
costs. The City has already incurred and paid costs for land acquisition and is in the process of
hiring an architectural design firm.
In general, under the federal tax rules, proceeds of tax-exempt bonds can only be used to pay
for expenditures paid after the date the bonds are issued. However, bond proceeds may be
used to reimburse the City for expenditures paid from City funds if the City adopts a
reimbursement resolution no more than 60 days after the date of the expenditure that is going to
be reimbursed from bond proceeds.
The reimbursement resolution can also declare the City's intent to reimburse expenditures
incurred during the period between the date the reimbursement resolution is adopted and the
date the bonds are issued.
The reimbursement resolution must describe the project and state the maximum amount of
bonds that will be issued to reimburse expenditures.
In general, a reimbursement resolution is no longer effective if the reimbursement bonds are
issued more than 18 months after the latter, of the date of the expenditure or the date the
project that the expenditure finances is placed in service.
The reimbursement resolution is being presented to preserve the option for the City to use bond
proceeds to reimburse City funds used to pay for the land acquisition and design and
engineering costs that may be incurred between now and the issuance of the bonds. The City
will only issue bonds in an amount that is supported within the budget, so the reimbursement
resolution is primarily a method of preserving flexibility for what may be financed with bond
proceeds rather than a change in amount of bond proceeds.
OPTIONS: Move to approve Resolution No. 15-001, adopting a reimbursement resolution
under federal tax law; or take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. 15-001, adopting a
reimbursement resolution under federal tax law.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. The City anticipates issuing tax-exempt bonds in the
latter half of 2015 in an amount that is supported within the existing budget.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun and Erik Lamb
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution No. 15-001
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 15-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESIGNATING CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FROM BONDS THAT MAY BE AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED
BY THE CITY FOR FUTURE ISSUANCE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING
THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, Washington (the "City") issues tax-exempt obligations,
including bonds, notes, and leases from time -to -time for the purpose of financing its governmental
activities; and
WHEREAS, the United States Department of the Treasury has promulgated Regulations limiting
the ability of the City to use the proceeds of tax-exempt obligations for reimbursement of prior
expenditures; and
WHEREAS, any such declaration of official intent to reimburse must not be made as a matter of
course or in an amount substantially in excess of the amount expected to be necessary for the proposed
project; and
WHEREAS, the passage of this Resolution allows the City, but does not require the City, to
reimburse certain expenses related to the project described below, up to the amount listed herein with
proceeds from the issuance of tax-exempt obligations; and
WHEREAS, the City expects to finance the project described below through the issuance of tax-
exempt obligations; provided, the City will only issue as much debt as determined to be appropriate under
its adopted budget and budgeting fiscal policies.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washington, as follows:
Section 1. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures described herein with
the proceeds of debt to be incurred by the City (the "Reimbursement Bonds").
Section 2. The maximum principal amount of Reimbursement Bonds expected to be issued
is $14,400,000.
Section 3. The expenditures with respect to which the City reasonably expects to be
reimbursed from the proceeds of Reimbursement Bonds will be made from a City Capital Projects Fund
for project costs related to the purchase of real property for a new City Hall facility, design and
construction of the new City Hall facility, and purchase of fixtures for the new City Hall facility.
Section 4. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption.
Resolution 15-001 Reimbursement Page 1 of 2
DRAFT
Approved this day of _March, 2015.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON
Dean Grafos, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
Pacifica Law Group LLP, Bond Counsel to the
City of Spokane Valley
Resolution 15-001 Reimbursement Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 2015 Department Director Approval ❑
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 15-002: Release of Drainage Easement, 16927 East Euclid
Avenue (parcel number 45121.9102)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: In 1996, a drainage easement was granted to Spokane County as part of the
Lumber Products commercial project at 16927 East Euclid Avenue. The Lumber Products
building was located on Lot 2 of Binding Site Plan (BSP) 87-17 and a portion of the storm water
runoff was discharged into bio -infiltration swales within the easement area for treatment and
disposal on adjacent Lot 1 of BSP 87-17 (See Attachment 2). In 1999, Spokane County
approved a Lumber Products building addition on Lot 1 over the existing drainage easement.
The bio -infiltration swales were relocated and the existing drainage easement was proposed to
be abandoned per the approved grading and drainage plan; however, the drainage easement
was not abandoned so the building addition is located over the drainage easement (See
Attachment 3). Upon incorporation in 2003, the City assumed the rights and responsibilities of
Spokane County for the drainage easement at issue on Lot 1 of BSP 87-17. Development
Engineering has reviewed the onsite bio -infiltration swales and determined that they are located
on private property and receive only private stormwater runoff. Public Works has reviewed the
stormwater facilities along Euclid Avenue adjacent to this property and determined that the
onsite drainage easement is not necessary for public drainage purposes.
The current property owner is selling the property and has requested that the City release its
interest in the drainage easement.
OPTIONS: Approve Resolution No. 15-002 releasing drainage easement at 16927 East Euclid
Avenue; or take other action needed appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. 15-002 releasing
drainage easement at 16927 East Euclid Avenue.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Chad Riggs, Development Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
PowerPoint Presentation
Draft Resolution 15-002, releasing drainage easement
Letter from Claudia Duncan
Recorded Drainage Easement #4012906
Lumber Products, 1996 Grading and Drainage Plan
Lumber Products, 1999 Grading and Drainage Plan
16927 East Euclid Site Map
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Request to Release
Drainage Easement at
16927 E. Euclid Avenue
City Council Study Session
February 24, 2015
Chad Riggs, Development Engineer
*lone
40.3..
C!TY HAL L@. FQKANEVA LLEY. ORO,
Department of Community &
Economic Development
2
ifs c■ ne
4.0001411
Department of Community &
Economic Development
i
T
i
la
LUMBER PRODUCTS
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY PLAN
f ..n.0 : H.74. 731 N. N. 441..
c
DRAINAGE EASEMENTI . }
waec.we. el¢a I L- f- i i I..S-
{ } } i` I-I_I:S. IZ IET I -S 1 I L 7
.1
_ . _ .. Yui_ „ -:'I 1 ST T -T 111 1 'r'* -I t i i-: L:I'i-ITT-T1_ _ _.
,gwr
r;s._�I 3_i -i L i I[ Lu 7 T I --L. Y
3`T-5 -ry 1
'' S 1 S 7 TrT-I I 1 r -1-1
1M►
ICY
DM. PR IMMO
wT—r L_1.1 -T .
■
IyzEr,..;t ern me....,w,
I Y I i=i'Tf7 T- L i i 1 L L1 1S
ge
73
LI -V:4_1 -11A Till lII L1.7 :Ft S--I-li IY'i1`
�?-r\
L I
i T -I1 1 1 I- rTS=COntriri4-1 � I_dT-I t"I- [ !- S- it I I I"T-r2.1_I. 5-7-T-T_I i 1 fY.I:i'li i V siL L t- f 3 1--17
°I..Y : '.
'GALL BEFORE YOU Dab'
1-46@-8400
s.C„r.rl.i ?
.,■ALLPROCOCKS
3
Department of Community &
Economic Development
p LUMBER PRODUCTS
ADDITION
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
mat flea= ialhat11ST• TT
On, .n riP.w.
/mit Vier
L OST. WIN
LAW
o ar tail 111.L
1i
m
1.t. ,a. r.
raau
ilemtli
.1510
T
ntrr
EMS -076011 1.155taRlt
NlQD4.P Y
FF 4 2619
41;697-$7 sea. .
E.Y6f•22. @uc1 .s
PFSDOUCTO Asac+rlcH
09990 90- FT.
1Z _
}- Y_.1 S1
] S ' 1
�ito0c`�".mrwc f.� �.ra
..1.26,29229
�rsrr�, t, r err
'r'SF
I f t t 3[ S 1:' 1 1_..1 1 1 r r 1_ _. __1 F 1_1.t 1 1
GGRorrf
al fl a Moan -.I 0.. »o
coup.] 01.0.04 AJM �..
4
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 15-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, RELEASING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY'S INTEREST IN A
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 16927 EAST EUCLID, SPOKANE VALLEY; AND OTHER
MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, Spokane County Binding Site Plan No. 87-17 ("BSP 87-17") was platted in April,
1989, and was subsequently altered in December, 1989; and
WHEREAS, after BSP 87-17 was platted, Lumber Product granted Spokane County a public
drainage easement over a portion of BSP 87-17 (recording number 4012906) on July 9, 1996; and
WHEREAS, in 1999, Lumber Products prepared a drainage plan and constructed improvements
which provided for drainage in locations other than over the granted drainage easement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (the "City") incorporated on March 31, 2003; and
WHEREAS, upon incorporation, the City of Spokane Valley assumed the rights of Spokane
County to the drainage easement located over BSP 87-17; and
WHEREAS, the current owner of property subject to BSP 87-17, General Electric Credit
Equities, Inc., desires for the City to release the drainage easement as it is unnecessary and drainage is
provided by other means on BSP 87-17; and
WHEREAS, it is not necessary for the City to hold this drainage easement.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washington, as follows:
The City releases any interest it may have in the drainage easement located on the property
described in Exhibit A, 16927 East Euclid, Spokane Valley, Spokane County parcel number 45121.9102,
and authorizes the City Manager to execute any necessary documents to complete that process.
Adopted this day of March, 2015.
City of Spokane Valley
Dean Grafos, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Resolution 15-002 Releasing Drainage Easement — 16927 East Euclid Page 1 of 2
DRAFT
Exhibit A
That portion of Lot 1 of Altered Spokane County Binding Site Plan No. 87-17, as per Plat thereof
recorded in Volume 1 of Binding Site Plans, Page 22-A, Spokane County, Washington, being more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence N.89°36'55"E., along the North line of said
Lot 1, 30.00 feet; thence S.00°21'00"W., 310.00 feet; thence S.89°49'04"E., 159.51 feet, to the East line
of said Lot 1; thence S.02°15'03"E., along the East line of said Lot 1, 115 feet to the Southeast corner of
said Lot 1; thence N.89°49'04"W., along the South line of said Lot 1 and the North right of way line of
Euclid Avenue, 214.73 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence N.00°21'00"E., along the West
line of said Lot 1, 671.96 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Area = 48,077.68 square feet.
Resolution 15-002 Releasing Drainage Easement — 16927 East Euclid Page 2 of 2
Katten
KattenMuchinRosenman LLP
525 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60661-3693
312.902.5200 tel
312.902.1061 fax
www.kattenlaw.com
CLAUDIA B. DUNCAN
daudia.duncan@kattenlaw.com
(312) 902-5427 direct
(312) 902-1061 fax
February 9, 2015
Via FedEx and Email
Erik Lamb
Deputy City Attorney
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 103
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Email: erik.lamb@spokanevalley.org
Re: 16927 E. Euclid, Spokane, Washington (the "Property")
Mr. Lamb:
I am working as attorney for General Electric Credit Equities, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("GE"), in connection with certain matters relating to the referenced Property. As you may
know, GE has been made aware that a certain Drainage Easement in favor of Spokane County
was granted over a portion of the Property and recorded on July 10, 1996 in the official records
for Spokane County, Washington as Recording No. 4012906 (the "Recorded Document"). A
copy of the Recorded Document is attached to this letter as Exhibit A for your reference.
It is our understanding that the Recorded Document was rendered redundant when the County of
Spokane approved the "Lumber Products Addition Grading and Drainage Plan" for the Property,
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, with such plan clearly indicating on its face
"Spokane County Drainage Easement to be Abandoned". It is also our understanding that the
City of Spokane Valley (the "City") is the political body that has inherited all easements and
plans from the County of Spokane since the City was incorporated in 2003. GE is in the process
of trying to sell the subject Property to a third -party purchaser, which purchaser desires that the
Recorded Document be vacated and released of record. Therefore, please consider this a formal
request on behalf of GE that the City execute and deliver to GE a recordable vacation and release
of the Recorded Document.
Once the City has had a chance to review this request, I would appreciate it if you would contact
me at the phone number or email address above to advise on the City's estimated timing for
delivery of a release. If you need any additional information or have any concerns about this
request in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
AUSTIN CENTURY CITY CHARLOTTE CHICAGO HOUSTON IRVING LOS ANGELES
NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, DC
LONDON: KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN UK LLP
A limited liability partnership including professional corporations
US 102110325v2 214590-00608
February 9, 2015
Page 2
Regards,
Claudia B. Duncan
Enclosures
Katten
KattenMuchinRosenman LLP
cc: Chad Riggs, PE, City of Spokane Valley (via email: chad.riggs@spokanevalley.org)
Patrick Barclay, City of Spokane Valley (via email: pbarclay@spokanevalley.org)
Jim Howard, GE Capital Real Estate (via email: jim.howard@ge.com)
Russ Johnson, CBRE (via email: Russ.Johnson@cbre.com)
US 102110325v2 214590-00608
Log to Date: S/J'7J 6 Pawl /'5I1. 910z.
Road NarneMo: Cyt l i e Rk 7
Purpose: ,Si 16044
Prepared By: KO ti° bo•%
Req By: (Land DeV)n yt.P,t).4
1111
EfteiT A
IIIIIIIIIHIIIIIUIII P 9 !1996 !6:040
10,00 Spokane Co, WA
SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING
Spokane County, Washington
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
The Grantors, Lumber Products, an Oregon Corporation, for and in consideration of Mutual Benefits, the receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, grants to Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,
an Easement over, under, upon and across the hereinafter described lands situated in the County of Spokane,
State of Washington:
AFFECTS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 45121.9102
That portion of Lot 1 of Altered Spokane County Binding Site Plan No. 87-17, as per Plat thereof
recorded in Volume 1 of Binding Site Plans, Page 22-A, Spokane County, Washington, being
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence N.89°36'55"E., along the North line
of said Lot 1, 30.00 feet; thence S.00°21'00"W., 310.00 feet; thence S.89°49'04"E., 159.51 feet,
to the East lone of said Lot 1; thence S.02°15'03"E., along the East line of said Lot 1, 115.00 feet
to the Southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence N.89°49'04"W., along the South line of said Lot 1
and the North right of way line of Euclid Avenue, 214.73 feet to the Southwest comer of said Lot
1; thence N.00°21'00"E., along the West line of said Lot 1, 671.96 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Area = 48,077.68 square feet.
The Easement granted to Spokane County and its authorized agcnts is for the sole purposes of allowing natural
drainage and/or runoff over and across the above described lands. The Grantor(s) hcreby agree not to obstruct,
artificially collect or discharge the flow across or adjacent to the above described lands. The Grantor(s) agree
that Spokane County accepts no responsibility for maintaining the drainage Easement. The Grantor(s) accept
complete and total responsibility for the construction and perpetual maintenance of the facilities located within
this drainage Easement per plans on file in the office of the Spokane County Engineer.
The Grantor(s) hereby releases Spokane County, and all its officers, employees, and agents from any
responsibility or liability for any damage whatsoever including inverse condemnation by or to any and all
persons or property arising out of or in any way incident to or attributable to the storm drainage within said
Easement.
The Easement described hereinabove is to and shall run with the land. No modification of the boundaries of
said Easement can be made without the prior approval of Spokane County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed on this �'! t day of
CaJ(Y , 1996.
-over-
By:
111111111114141
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) ss
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Krr, `, 11 1Ao
(is/are) the individual(s) who appeared before me, and said individual(s) acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed
this instrument, on oath state that (he/she/they) (was/were) authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as the ikoit or, � d �—t of
Iuu lnr:rc +t�doc-t:`N Coc4nrcIA%a.._
to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated this g1k- day of ( , 1996.
KYLE R. MCKEON
STATE OF WASHINGTON
NOTARY -- PUBLIC
My Commission Wires 8•1U•99
/kyle'
OTARY
and for the State of Washington,
residing at Spokane.
My appointment expires a- to ' 47
LUMBER PRODUCTS
iYY1R1 ADDITION
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
II 1
11 , \I�
1.000,0
O OM. PPM WIMP
-r,-1 ,Tx- Mit., xxr«x
= m.1t 110111 P
Cxxx IMOD
Y,
.-.-` Oavow, p itl
-- -•- /
E NTL.ei parr. Ma 1104
/
J
1.1
O out MI 11"
— e — aI w.1. M11.111 r•• Vi /
arm eoKw Dm.
Mcl.m y(j
.C,A* IIt
D, UAL UM 17
OWL w.,a,x I
IIIIi;,0000 �
EEO U-,0-00'.0 I
�r >
n
lf
SCR 12, T.2314., R... 4C., W.M.
:r.u•n..•.•
notp.inoon‘looccon
•
baa
30 15 0 31
00.1.1 VILMA • 11931
• ":rax Lw
Trex.n
n.•w ,.ICOM
wax.
MS MMO
1)1
PO Ma.
oomsomagn.a.a
zrm...cr.mmicus DOA OK .Y�.D VC alf
III' I u..•.a aryl
:.'�o.o. :a•:':S`.'✓:�!`.00wL.w 'I Illi I�il». ��1y$flit I'
• .Gam MM. PP Parr Mora POot M. mon Oa am. Oa
'.�& IIII III �'M �I1ISI
I� III III• '"II
vac
e, tali3 ,1221,
111111111_ -h I
El' ri
Or 'Swarm
IMINMel snfaatCIT2ll@a6
aaQ�IatPII11,M0IMPZI/O111
xxxxxxt�aa�tttaL DcaaEm .
111['1 .31LI1[1•0•111:,,I fes
axawaar= .rat
a a a t>•2,2•3111r'.�E1..
MIL
room; pm ow so AMMO MP OA.
▪ hem
J. .
1,20.1111
•
6/11.,=2.T.01.1=ttt PROPOSED LUMBERPPM. PALP
•DMrr.o.unD.ee'x PW -J t1CT8Ax . YCN •",• x^ ^°
IDOSTIMS MISER
PRODUCTS BROOM())
FF c 2096
82,987.41 90. FT.
111-1.04110.
M.m....•.L ,,,,.@•98937 2190652
I. ono 11101 how roma .roal• fm.
OM Mai. MA PI
•
10.X,1. a. 10
10.144
MP COTO. AMY/
11.40 ICC 1111..0
hoolsoLL a1.hi t, •r
Mu rocPTO/ PP VOWS
MCoMIT y Mfr000 pt
mor. er2 cos
mu.
7"
MON. SW
6,41‘.0
�ORISJ•D'AL. �x
111n031%Y x
�'.„.r
'tI M
m
426 u
.56-61200
7T.nIIor e..m...x•g. m.
IMO.,,»
rt ll_
ILLSERNW W'16 A CCUri
CM1MCM3AID OPANUCE RLN
RUM cast CUM
NO 5451/11 1004
41 00K1.47 PR
W004 CO510.
9917 A-4.
414
•s
010. AOT 9.1
LQ -
OWL
TO M EAST
2 COMMON
ipttlr NEM NEM 97/4
■401 OMI
401.1517110. PNOt.
MSTALL INC 741594
OF 14■ 11 000 1149
0953 1000 LAC 714
SPO1ANE
00105E
0001 NO WALL
ICC 30 13112E5AT
PR 500414 00.
320. 907 54-4
66TALL TO•E 5-43
09+41012000.-x04.40
203339
100141. CA701 BASIN -
11PE 1 PR 940!414
04510070TH
TO. 201490
1512 - 2009.43
1112-2020.0
113511324
1.7100
0-.000
15.510121
00
0-30500
MOLL CA101 WIN
7700 1 701 SPORNt
04 517. 9¢T 5-4
TO - 204.50 5401/11 CATs BASK
1311 -]009.4
TAC 1 PEN 94OWIE
CO. 510. 901 9-4
- 201450
121E - 207410
1511 - 2008.95
745101 141410.0'
201014
1011 - 70012
1157010
1-5000
0,0050
1057001
L.5000'
0-3000
INSTALL CA701 BA30
TOE 1 POI 940404
00. 101 SKEET 5-4
T9 - 2014.00
1011 - 2010.40
1414170. 4014101.1
511
01.1-2014'54
IT'LL - 2010.42
141T001
1-50.10
0,0050
00
0021.00•
407010
r.1
01IL X0.75
1 LL . 201475
0454114710 LLAMA 045411470 LEADER
1 3*
1 1 . 2012 1 1.L - 1012.43
IRI
1031004
1-0000
0-.0050
069 73
0957411 21,104 74490 TPC 1
KR 9*IXME 00 5711. 9047) 4-4 -
70 - 201430
121.E - 201065
MSTN1 CATCH 54911 PPE 1
PR 540004 CO BID. 19927 11-4
10 - 2014.50
Ir1E - 201450
9(59,11 CATCH BASS SPE 1
PER 940.44 CO. 510. 9403 9-4
10 - 201250
72iL - 2011.15
PRO= LOT. TRS
(LUMBER PRODUCTS - 199jJ
LUMBER PRODUCTS
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY PLAN
• 8.12, T.25 N., R. 44E., W.Y.
T
04005011
AI1.�R N1'ONH/T I_1, LI
'.1,
107011191 .1
0771001 0451.
1RELI
X10
SID. 90115-1
T.9- 2201.401
1
DST. ASPHALT
PAT1■AT (109.)
L
_-•-30_7
-941 1{
11....00: tun ...1, ..114.4.1':1
�4.
430
ITO. OF 55011
IL 2007,00
(TIP:)
etc -00m
2014
70125 ans. 0. '0/250 (F12.)
-2b,r
x041
INSTALL 091111 51001545
4517
tar
P1IW 7944r µF6
2012
2013
LRCM 0. 2011.00 (T1P.
75
7513
207
9051 5-1
LC.. 2011.0
_,m,.4- -1
5P' 1 1 3
1001. (00 10134.T-4. 01IyrS�
10 04{71\
I
1074.5 ••- -
DRAINAGE EASEMENT( - 117:a,-;
5 0174'15 L
442 03
„,1 t�_Lt_I 1947 1'i i j -t --tom i L t� I
2I
Is uru r,
CASELLR
•N�
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE FEET
COMMS MOW/ - 7 000T
LEGEND
•
•
- - _9
tilt_ t_I_
701
gym,.,
0001=noun
10101
KL10O47007
4411 05101
MT. 100 010000
0957. 79101 POE
0031 0100445 SEG
OOT. 000
145 7001
D757. 1102
MT. CIAO050. ORS 00
DOM. PLR INFO6
1 ' • 4
/ 11 /JM
DST. 904
ICI CA701 14911
801100 Or 594E
NE. SPOT 0104709
10.5 5105 MtnDROPO T LMC
NM COMER
4 A9414.1
iN S
I) 7 rV T
-'� 1 1 1941 I=.ISL-I�32-t 11-L- I_1 LL -.Y-3 S_1 -t LLL-LI-LI��1.tLLt_t-1 1� L
RAIROAD
TRA05
-1=S-IS 1
00161
1. ALL MAMMALS NO 1101A41A1RM SMALL 14 M
400704110. 1554 04 WRMC 00.4471
E1AlO4m5 0�� x D% C0n1R1C11CH
tem MC a 2 LOCATOR C9 003040 1101103 9001 01 177
P IANS 144 APP110134AT_ 944 15104//20
91441. IC 17940490E ION LOCATIO 21
L4424352201.1145 Unln3 ANT COICD01042
U0D10S 9091 BE RELOCATED 11011 ID
000515501)04 . 0~11 440 RAN40E FAWNS
3. 04 1010110 bi I740.R® 10 INK A 00045011
SET OF 947 77750.90 040741. 05444405 *40 0010
020 04 Ti .105950 7004.101 00005100770 45 74
PO S. a 100074401 unlit 5014E 10047106
s, 9JH 11E 1701ANICAL PLANS
4. (01 026110.1C1104 Cr 0111011 4400402. MIR
0705C (AIM 4610 R *PROM 101K) DCTICIN
M SMELL 440100 NO M 1091CD ORA/NOOG
A/O 007901 DC 42910) 04/454004 NO 1700
*44700 9115
0. SEE AR0511:0192. SFR PLAN EOR 01IIX90110.
♦ 700110 00*150FOC( 400150 950 70041241
45 10 M 02
NO 91 CC ROTE= 04100
0514514.
7. 0041540101 10 14901 lot 0 7500 V 00.91 0504
RIP OF NASA PPC . 74094 RADE.
AMD 002154
1 ■41 114 740111107404 91A11. 1540-41 717
114 SPOKANE MDUS10A1 PNM 5'•00091
104. 5101 PPC 910.2. R 451043054 IDR 34
O nleAcTR 9401 U1041 TK SEAM AT A
410411223 RAM MOW 540957. 217410 TRE
ND4 4 IMS R 440T 7000E 1M TK 100T.
MC Clio 104104110 9401 0041401 144
ROOM{ 11412921112
'CALL BEFORE YOU DM
1-456-8000
1 a
MI 090,
at SD, Aac. 454
AID
JN<■401
•0014:� 4.1�,t
i •000'
\\ ::
• � fb5• 004 OB..1141 1 DAIL 162291.
(.f.4..44/.c/4).tCAO- D4I)A1 0.471 3214.1
tit 0000-0 54.9401+ CSA*'TO FM:G lM 10 10'
(5-15-56)
2,1 400111 *(1'401 5441E IBCA
,Taylor Engineering. WC.
(114 Dr� 44rl 01.510
(104 29-54. i {109) 594.94
SCALD C -T
LUMBER PRODUCTS
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND
U1IUTY PIAN
}') LUMBER PRODUCTS
ADDITION
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
LEGEND
0
0
-)--111"0-)-
sss--
4
1
16
130110.0.00.1010.
1. 0.0 TA 130010.101 wcn snub i 1410 TO OC M. 10641
1301 01 049®100 rr2Ti 34.34®m M.101:x 1 33
I MMO 000 AMC COCO a v C 0 P.M 000 Wal L WI CLAN
9130 1390
0,0001 NAW 05011CT0110ATC
t� ��1 ML m DAD. 10601 x 0001
001 •1041 111.01001.
to
NalOOi }46
MO 1210010 COMM OA TO 00 MO WT.
1 0.000 IN/U. 110.00114. r0. 0006059 ML 00 ' 310 "Wm
00.00.0.0000 *10.80 0000 011 M100.0 0050.00. MO ICS 0.040 OWN.
9130020101.010Af MOM.
000. 16411 11.1.i 00004 A 0011.01 .14. 000 990 0011 MINX
V. 014 Ml334306398SINAI.POOR
01 010 <01060,6 00 OWL .0 M 0011
WOOL 10•.010 Ar10 Dart SMR 0110 MO 10140 NO
.6.a KC= Br Oi
•
01000.0001 0,41. 103019.0 0001, 10110110/ W8110M 00948
0* TO 01 042 1 010 1040 00110400 LOVAS
• ®1004. MEL 0 m i 0.®1 DC 6500 WM. GOA WM. MO
0041.111. ACM L 411 [[DPW. NA MCAM.0( 110 090.024. 0 MO N .AFT
M6 1 01 4MOO'.,4006 0801*4` 101401001 0
.
MT. SIM WP706E
MST. O6YOCIL
DOT. CA10N 643.1
OM. R0. TRADES
COST. 000041
COST: MCC
COST. SIM PDS
p65T. SAATAAY SEDER
CWT. WAND
047.. WS
COST. 11101144NT
COST. W0 POU
COST. POWER POU
MT. MEE
NEY 0041001
AR• 0411101
MOT 000. MAW PAD
POW= 110/81104
PROPOSED 51061 PK
EAT TCIOIO
COOSO1*10 1301 1460.
OAST. WOOL
MVO= ANL ARCA
08000301 ASPHALT AIWA
AAD TO DE RC -PAM
/i
J
Jr
(1434
1 I .
SEC. 12, T.25N., R.44E., W.M.
DMIP
1140..4
1611.29001
1110{02}10004213
rtlT o
x•10470
14110.1)-1010 to
11L(04.20101
Mr
our 13,00.0
12.6.204 T
Ir 11( 10(021400.04
1011 a
01 6401.04
1nOa►m0rn
Ytr.(w1).290A46
/03t CO
a-ta.m
inta}m4A
111!102.0 0.
a•11W
1rt401, 101011
1351014.301001
.11 A
1204.0.11
11,000-M124
1r.c(610.20,004
oar 0
1..0.454
.Y.001121
70 15 0 30 80
SCALE TUT
000400U0. 467612. • 1 TOOT
0 Tax
NOOM 604.7 d 8*1 NIORANT
• Sr. Cal 01 10T 3
0.. 201301
(LOOS DAMIAO
r
.1)
/
E
4.1
x43‘511
r /\•~
e
p 1 o nc(39-x34.
/
1 �.
i
I€X08T0890 O.UGES0ER
PRODUCT'S B6000.[90Q90
FIF D 00900
52,5817.97 80. LFT.
AS 1121CCO.
11005 TO z 2.96827 RUM, i
0-1004400. SOL
*00S01E01114E 010485.
r <mac
Ma cos
ASP
P0, 44 DOME
POSITIVE OKIMACE
AWAY
111C01
SMOAlNALT
NO TOWARD
1000 MUG
tp6RO4441t TABLE
510108100
t
4006430
040.,6
(471040
X43511129
2
1
0453.00 786
6451.1103
44.7231
1100.2.7
a
6
427.6414
6460.6626
16060440
6
7
8507.1 71
6632.0941
; 666
50161013
6
0
0610.6266
60112364
110392409
16001.9782
0
60219010
1.044066
Mat
L ALL MIOMU4..0 110428 01DM.i0
0 091
0643/140M0Y
STMOMOS 0MO MP COMILLTICW.
61.
L 10 01100 1 00003 woo •4•. a 2.K
0890 Ma *11808. M 1011.011
WALL it 10000.211 LOW. W
0000064 6.06 AAY 10116010
LIMAS MNL}0110 1901 16
000040.11 OVAL, 044 3044429 ).040
ww
1 rcrt `.'`r
] 113'9 012
1 1
4 ,
4�r..
a_.
,aIi71,1n� 0 116! I
11l�rs•0.2P7%
I��I IIII
IiY
gl„I,
L- 11111 ...0131 l�i
1,1111, 011 or .111.,
1 ,111 0..2922 1.11121
3
Illi x,11111=
16927 E. Euclid
45016.9051
55063,0141
Euclid Av
■1.
44,1
ovol
EXIST. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
451211.9103'.
Euclld Av
m
w
45121.9119
169.9
0
84.93 169.9 Feet
� 1
This map is a user generated static output from an
Internet mapping site and is for reference only.
Data layers that appear on this map may or may
not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
11::113udgets120151Lodging Tnx12015 03 10 RCA Admin Rp•t LTAC ntotion.docx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 2015 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Allocation of Lodging Tax Funds.
X
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State Law RCW 82.08, and Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.20
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Thus far in the process leading to 2015 lodging tax
awards Council has been presented with related information on five separate occasions:
• August 12 and 19 where we discussed:
o Lodging tax in general — what it is and how it may be expended.
o The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) — what it is and its role in the process.
o The Council's role in the process
o Council goals and priorities for the LTAC.
• August 27, 2014 — where Council discussed and reached consensus on the goals and priorities
that should be included in the lodging tax grant application and also communicated to the LTAC.
• November 17, 2014 — Admin Report communicating to Council the results of the Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee's (LTAC) October 27, 2014 meeting.
• December 16, 2015 — Council considered a motion to approve the awards recommended by the
LTAC at their October 27, 2014 meeting. Council instead remanded the matter back to the
LTAC with instructions that they reconsider the make-up of their award recommendation and
take into account the goals and priorities approved by Council at their August 27, 2014 meeting.
BACKGROUND: In 2003, the City implemented a 2% hotel/motel tax, the proceeds of which are
used to promote conventions and tourist travel to our City. The organizations to which the tax
proceeds are distributed are ultimately determined by the City Council which receives a
recommendation from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC). The Advisory Committee is
comprised of five members who are appointed by the City Council. The Committee membership
must include:
• At least two representatives from businesses that are required to collect the tax,
• At least two members from organizations involved in activities that are authorized to be funded
by the tax, and
• One elected city official who serves as chairperson of the Committee.
The Advisory Committee makes its recommendations based upon a combination of written
application materials and a presentation that is made to them by each applicant.
On October 27, 2014, the LTAC met to consider application materials and presentations from
applicants for a portion of the City's 2% hotel/motel tax receipts which are estimated to be $510,000
in 2015. Presentations were made by Visit Spokane, City of Spokane Valley Parks & Recreation,
Spokane County Fair and Expo, Valleyfest, Spokane Sports Commission, Spokane River Forum,
Spokane Valley Heritage Museum and the HUB Sports Center.
Following applicant presentations the Committee discussed the merits of making particular awards
to various applicants and how they felt revenues should be allocated. Ultimately, the Committee
recommended the following awards be advanced to the City Council for consideration:
1
H: 1Budgets120151Lodging 7ae12015 03 10 RCA Admin Rprt LTAC motion.docx
Applicant
1) Visit Spokane - operations
2) Visit Spokane - visitor information center
3) City of Spokane Valley Parks and Rec - wIleyball courts
4) City of Spokane Valley Parks and Rec - Centerplace
marketing to regional meeting planners
5) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - marketing
6) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - interim marketing
7) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - exotic animal display
8) Valleyfest - marketing
Valleyfest - bike celebration - operations
9) Spokane Sports Commission
10) Spokane River Forum
11) Spokane Valley Heritage Museum
12) HUB Sports Center
Amount
Requested
282,110
46,320
120,000
30,000
30,000
8,000
6,000
50,000
14,000
200,000
1,000
28,209
40,000
LTAC
Recommend
256,000
0
0
15,000
28,000
8,000
2,000
10,000
10,000
185,000
1,000
15,000
40,000
855,639 570,000
On December 16, 2014 Council considered a motion to approve the awards recommended by the
LTAC but instead remanded the matter back to the LTAC with instructions that they reconsider the
make-up of their award recommendation and take into account the goals and priorities approved by
Council at their August 27, 2014 meeting.
The LTAC met on February 25, 2015 to again consider application materials and follow-up
presentations from applicants. Following applicant presentations the Committee discussed the
merits of making particular awards to various applicants and ultimately recommended the following
awards be advanced to the City Council for consideration:
Applicant
1) Visit Spokane - operations
2) Visit Spokane - visitor information center
3) City of Spokane Valley Parks and Rec - volleyball courts
4) City of Spokane Valley Parks and Rec - Centerplace
marketing to regional meeting planners
5) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - marketing
6) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - interim marketing
7) Spokane Cnty Fair & Expo - exotic animal display
8) Valleyfest - marketing
Valleyfest - bike celebration - operations
9) Spokane Sports Commission
10) Spokane River Forum
11) Spokane Valley Heritage Museum
12) HUB Sports Center
Amount
Requested
282,110
46,320
120,000
LTAC
Recommend
230,000
0
68,000
30,000 17,000
30,000 30,000
8,000 8,000
6,000 6,000
50,000 31,600
14,000 0
200,000 120,000
1,000 1,000
28,209 18,400
40,000 40,000
855,639 570,000
2
C: I Users\cbainbridge\AppDatalLocal \Microsoft\Windotivs\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlookl0JG8M96U12015 03 10 RCA
Admin Rprt LTAC motion.docx
In a second action the LTAC unanimously agreed to request that the City Council pass an additional
1.3% lodging tax to be put into a fund dedicated for a large sporting venue or venues for tourism
facilities that generate overnight guests. This matter will come before Council in a separate
Administrative Report.
OPTIONS: The City Council may only approve applicants and the recommended amounts from the
list provided by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The City Council may choose to make
awards to all, some, or none of the recommended candidates in the amounts recommended by the
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: / move to make the following allocation of Lodging Tax
funds for calendar year 2015:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2015 Proposed Budget includes total revenues of $510,300
including $510,000 of lodging taxes. Total expenditures are budgeted at $600,000 including
$30,000 to offset advertising at CenterPlace and up to $570,000 to be allocated through this award
process. Total expenditures are expected to exceed total revenues by $89,700 and this will be
offset through the use of a portion of the fund balance. The fund balance at the conclusion of 2015
is expected to be $100,527 which should be adequate to cover cash flow needs.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
• Chart reflecting a history of hotel/motel tax receipts from January 2005 through December 2014.
• Fund #105 — Hotel/Motel Tax — history of revenues and expenditures — 2010 through 2013 Actuals
and 2014 and 2015 Budgets.
• Minutes of the February 25, 2015 Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting.
• Minutes of the October 27, 2014, Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting.
• Separately distributed binder titled "Lodging Tax 2015" that was also utilized by the Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee at their October 27, 2014 meeting.
3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - December
Actual for the years 2005 through 2014
H:\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax\2014\105 hotel motel tax through 12 2014.xlsx
2005 1 2006 1 2007 1 2008 1 2009 J 2010 1
2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014
January 20,691.03
February 19,976.81
March 22,828.15
April 29,748.41
May 29,017.66
June 35,330.35
July 43,841.82
August 46,852.10
September 46,746.18
October 34,966.85
November 26,089.36
December 31,740.18
Total Collections 387,828.90
Budget Estimate 436,827.00
Actual over (under) budg (48,998.10)
20,653.49
20,946.09
24,308.48
34,371.82
32,522.06
34,256.71
49,744.62
45,916.16
50,126.53
38,674.17
36,417.11
29,147.15
417,084.39
350,000.00
67,084.39
25,137.92
25,310.66
29,190.35
37,950.53
31,371.01
36,267.07
56,281.99
51,120.70
57,260.34
43,969.74
36,340.64
31,377.41
461,578.36
400,000.00
61,578.36
28,946.96
24,623.06
27, 509.99
40,406.02
36,828.53
46,659.88
50,421.37
50, 818.35
60,711.89
38,290.46
35, 582.59
26,290.11
467,089.21
400,000.00
67,089.21
23,280.21
23,283.95
25,272.02
36,253.63
32,588.80
40,414.59
43, 950.26
50,146.56
50,817.62
36,784.36
34,054.79
27,131.43
423,978.22
512,000.00
(88,021.78)
22,706.96
23,416.94
24,232.35
39,463.49
34,683.32
39,935.36
47,385.18
54,922.99
59,418.96
41,272.35
34,329.78
26,776.84
448, 544.52
380,000.00
68, 544.52
22,212.21
22,792.14
24,611.28
38,230.49
33,790.69
41,403.41
49,311.97
57,451.68
58,908.16
39,028.08
37,339.36
32,523.19
457,602.66
480,000.00
(22,397.34)
21,442.32
21,548.82
25,654.64
52,130.37
37,478.44
43,970.70
52,818.60
57,229.23
64,298.70
43,698.90
39,301.22
30,432.13
490,004.07
430,000.00
60,004.07
24,184.84
25,974.98
27,738.65
40,979.25
40,560.41
47,850.15
56,157.26
63,816.45
70,794.09
43,835.57
42,542.13
34,238.37
518,672.15
490,000.00
28,672.15
1 2/8/2015
2014 to 2013
Difference
25,425.40 1,241 5.13%
26,013.62 39 0.15%
29,383.93 1,645 5.93%
48, 245.81 7,267 17.73%
41,122.66 562 1.39%
52,617.63 4,767 9.96%
61,514.48 5,357 9.54%
70,383.93 6,567 10.29%
76,099.59 5,306 7.49%
45,604.07 1,769 4.03%
39,600.06 (2,942) (6.92%)
33,256.28 (982) (2.87%)
549,267.46 30,595.31 5.90%
530,000.00
19,267.46
Total actual collections
as a % of total budget 88.78% 119.17% 115.39% 116.77% 82.81% 118.04% 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% 103.64%
% change in annual
total collected
6.71% 7.54% 10.67% 1.19% (9.23%) 5.79% 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90%
Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of
December
Page 21
600,000.00
December
• November
500,000.00
^ October
- September
P
--
_.
...—__..
_
t.-- ,-..
-_
_. __.
1 :
-
400,000.00
August
e July
■June
May
1 - ---�
300,000.00
_,.,
`
200,000.00
❑ April
March
100,000.00
4
Er':
tom-
L.�-. _'
1
E
L i
(f - i
I I
_
c.
_
,. _
❑ February
a
=January
,s
I
C
i ;:
-
0.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Page 21
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2014 Budget Amendment and 2015 Budget
Fund #105 - Hotel / Motel Tax Fund
- Actuals for 2010 through 2013
- 2014 and 2015 Budgets
Revenues
Hotel/Motel Tax
Investment Interest
Subtotal revenues
Expenditures
Tourism Promotion - contracted
City directed marketing efforts
Interfund Transfers - #001 CenterPlace
Tourism Promotion
Subtotal expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
H:\Budgets\2015\105 Rev and exp.xlsx
Actual
2010
2011
2012
2013
448,544 457,603 490,004
1,018
454
592
518,672
387
449,562 458,057 490,596
2014
As
Adopted
As
Amended
8/5/2014
2015
Budget
490,000 530,000 510,000
300
519,059 490,300
362,302
0
37,500
0
472,481
0
0
0
511,756
0
30,000
0
30,000 30,000
0
0 0
458,904 547,000
399,802 472,481 541,756 488,904 577,000
300
300
530,300 510,300
30,000
0
0
547,000
30,000
0
0
570,000
577,000 600,000
49,760 (14,424) (51,160) 30,155 (86,700)
222,596 272,356257,932 206,772 236,927
272,356 257,932 -"- ' 236,927 r 150,22
2014 Awards by Agency
(46,700) (89,700)
- 236,927 190,227
190,227- 100,527
HUB Sports Center
Spokane County Fair & Expo Center
Spokane Regional Sports Commission
Spokane Valley Heritage Museum
Valleyfest
Visit Spokane (Spokane Regional CVB)
Evergreen Regional Volleyball Court Expansi,
CenterPlace
36,000
39,800
183,800
13,100
20,000
247,000
7,300
30,000
577,000
for LTAC
H: IBndgets120151Lodging Tax•12015 02 25 LTAC final Minutes by C Bainbridge.docs
MINUTES
UTES
Spokane Valley Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
Wednesday, February 25, 2015, 8:30 a.m.
Spokane Valley Council Chambers
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206
Attendance:
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Members:
Chair: Cottciln►enrber Ben iVick
Member Herman AMIeier, Spokane Valley Heritage Museum
Member Peggy Doering, Valle}fest
Member Jeff Finian, Sterling Hospitality/Quality Inn
Member Lee Cameron, iv[irabeau Park Hotel
Staff
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Erik Lcunb, Deputy City Attorney
Sarah Farr, Accounting Technician
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
[At 8:00 a.m., Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb gave the committee members a training session on the
Open Public Meeting Act and the Washington's Public Record Act.]
Chair Wick called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting; and then
explained that when this Committee's recommendations were forwarded to Council for allocation
consideration, Council remanded everything back to the Committee, stating that the allocations did not
meet Council goals; after he read the goals, he further explained that awards can only be made for those
who have applied, and although the applicants will be making their presentation again today, the
application process was not re -opened.
Deputy City Manager Calhoun noted that the order of presentations match the tabs in the original
notebook binders; lie said score sheets are also available and once all presentations have been made and
allocations determined, this will be brought to Council at their March 10 meeting for Council's
deliberation and notion consideration. The following presentations were given:
1. Visit Spokane. President and CEO Cheryl Kilday — Tourism Marketing: Ms. Kilday briefed the
Committee on her proposal for marketing funds; said their goal in marketing is to attract tourists, have
them stay longer and spend more money; said their Spokane Valley portion of their website shows the
direct benefits of overnight stays in Spokane Valley. Mr. Meier asked if Visit Spokane has marketed
Spokane Valley at all since Council hasn't awarded funding. Ms. Kilday replied that they have marketed
Spokane Valley, although they had to make some cut backs; and said that once they know the funding
amount, there will be other opportunities for geographic marketing. Mr. Meier also asked about the
restaurant ads in the Inlander, which did not include Spokane Valley restaurants. Ms. Kilday's assistant
explained that those ads were produced by the Inlander, that not every community that participated was
listed as the list would have been very long, and she feels it was a matter of time and space for the ad. Mr.
Wick asked how much was reduced for the winter campaign that would have normally been spent, and
Ms. Kilday said the restaurant week and TV ads were reduced by about 20% with the overall winter
campaign by 50%, adding that all the reduction has not been recognized yet as December was last year's
funding, and assuming everything moves forward, money will be budgeted for December 2015.
2. Visit Spokane. President and CEO Cheryl Kilday — Visitor Information Center: Ms. Kilday explained
that this would be a new place; they were offered an opportunity to create a visitor center which would be
open seven days a week, as opposed to the kiosk in the Valley Mall which has limited staffing; that the
new place would include maps and brochures, etc., that the area would be suitable for RV's to pull into,
would gave the ability to have signage off the interstate, and would include restrooms for visitors. She
said the location is good but this project can only move forward if the other funding gets awarded. She
said the location is a privately owned, for-profit location; the relationship does not include rent but
Page 1 of 6
H: IBuc/geis120151Lodging Tax120I5 02 25 LTAC final Minutes by C Bainbridge.docx
includes built -out displays; there are no written agreements but the owner is very interested in giving Visit
Spokane the space. She said she cannot publicly say where the location is, but again stated it is very
accessible off the freeway, and close to shopping, hotels and restaurants. To clarify, Ms. Kilday stated the
request is for the built -out and staffing, and not the materials. Ms. Doering stated that she thought the City
didn't want to include funding of salaries and employment; and Mr. Calhoun said as a general rule, the
City tries to stay away from funding salaries as it makes the state auditor very uncomfortable; but with the
general request, we would be reimbursing marketing expenses and wages could be a part of that program.
3. Parks and Recreation, Director Mike Stone, Recreation Coordinator Jennifer Papich, Evergreen
Volleyball Association Representative Lindsey Callahan — Browns Park Sand Volleyball Courts
Ms. Papich explained some of the benefits of this project; Mr. Stone said the goal is to complete the entire
park masterplan at a cost of about $1.5 million, and that this is just one opportunity to seek some funding;
said he feels this fits exactly with the LTAC fund's purpose; the courts are what will bring the players and
supporters into our area; said there are some service clubs involved and he work will continue over the
years to raise funds; said Council is very supportive; that we would like to add a few courts each year, and
it will take some time to complete; and that they also want to make sure to take care of the neighborhood
portion of the park. Mr. Calhoun said $176,000 was included in the 2015 City budget for volleyball
courts. Mr. Cameron said that the last time this was discussed, Eric Sawyer commented publicly that the
proposal has merit but there is a concern with limited resources, and some feel it should be a Parks and
Recreation City expense; and he expressed concern with a lack of plans to fund the complete project. Mr.
Stone said they went through the fully vetted public process and are committed to this site; if this
Committee doesn't support the proposal, it will get built eventually. Ms. Callahan spoke about the
growing interest and participation in the junior events, growing from 90 participants in 2013, to 827 last
year. Mr. Stone stated just one court costs about $40,000, and they are hoping to lower that cost by an
economy of scale; said they have submitted requests for bids on the courts, and hope to make a contract
award at the March 10 Council meeting; said the courts should be completed by May, which is when the
season starts; said sand is a challenge, and they revised the specifications to minimize the amount of
excavation; said the goal is to have enough funding to build eights courts this spring.
Ms. Callahan said last year about 800 people attended, and they expect that to increase. Mr. Cameron
said he realizes there is a large emphasis on athletic venues in the valley and he is not opposed to the
facility, but is concerned how to build it with limited funds and not lose any ground by marketing
something that is already occurring. He asked if overnight stays are tracked. Ms. Callahan said they had
about 26 overnight stays last year; but with the plan to increase events to two -nights, many who travel
more than 50 miles will end up spending the night rather than return home after a one -day event. Mr.
Cameron said in his meetings with the Spots Commission and others, the question arose that maybe this
facility could qualify for County funds as they work on their parks levy lift, and expressed concern of
comparing 26 overnight stays against hundreds of overnight stays with other entities.
4. Parks and Recreation, Director Mike Stone, Customer Relations Coordinator Carol Carter —CenterPlace
Marketing
Ms. Carter explained that their desire is to partner with Visit Spokane to bring regional conferences to
CenterPlace; they have scheduled at least five events in 2015; she explained the purpose of the funding
and said this is an opportunity to partner with Visit Spokane; said they want to work with the hotels as
well to get some ideas on how to track those overnight stays. She noted there is a conference at
CenterPlace next week, and the participants are staying at the downtown Davenport. Ms. Carter also
mentioned that it is the national conferences that draw the largest number of participants.
Page 2 of 6
H:IBudgets120151Lodging Tn_r12015 02 25 LTACJInal ,Ilinntes by C Bninbridge.doce
5. Spokane County Fair & Expo Center, Director Richard Hartzell, and Marketing/Sales Manager Erin
Gurtel
Mr. Hartzell said this request is for marketing of the Fair; they have expanded the frequency and distance
in advertising; and said the Fair generates over 1,000 room nights just from the vendors.
6. Spokane County Fair & Expo Center, Director Richard Hartzell, and Marketing/Sales Manager Erin
Gurtel
Mr. Hartzell said that this request is to cover interim marketing; and Ms. Gurtel explained that they hosted
over 100 annual events and are always looking for ways to expand; said this will help in advertising of
what they have available as well as what is going on; she mentioned the larger shows and their public
attraction; said they host events every weekend throughout the year; adding that they hope to add more
attractions and educational opportunities.
7. Spokane County Fair & Expo Center, Director Richard Hartzell, and Marketing/Sales Manager Erin
Gurtel
Ms. Gurtel explained that the Fair would like to offer an exotic animal display during the fair; it would be
a free educational/hands-on activity for fair attendees, and they hope to add such attractions as reptiles,
and kangaroos.
8. Valleyfest, President Rick Wilhite, and Board Member Stephanie Hughes
A PowerPoint presentation was shown highlighting some of the many aspects of Valleyfest.
9. Spokane Regional Sports Commission, President Eric Sawyer
Mr. Sawyer said by the end of the year, they expect to have generated about 12,000 specific valley room
nights; said large events at the arena will also support the valley in room nights; said now that they are in
their first quarter, the issue facing them is they don't know where they sit as they heard that the Council is
not interested in funding them now; said the Sports Commission is committed but doesn't know how to
proceed and they need to know if the Spokane Valley partnership will continue so he can be prepared to
move forward in hosting events. Mr. Wick asked about missed events and Mr. Sawyer said they have
missed three events, two of which were national; said the Valley Triathlon and middle school basketball
championships have doubled this year in size, adding that high schools are mostly used for that event;
said they continue with Plantes Ferry tournaments; the Coeur d'Alene Iron Man is upcoming and that also
supports room nights in the valley; said the business of sports historically occurs in the fall but the
process starts way before that; said they are preparing bids and working throughout the year in
anticipation of where they want to be in the fall; said the first quarter of the year is busy but the second
quarter is more so; that out of 21 bids in the first quarter, they missed two or three and are now up against
another deadline with one of the largest events the Fairgrounds would ever host. Mr. Wick asked if there
are other means to make up for the loss and Mr. Sawyer said no; that it is very competitive "out there" and
if they don't have the resources, they can't move forward.
Mr. Sawyer said the HUB and Plantes Ferry park, two major sports facilities, while not actually in the
Spokane Valley city limits, each have a large impact on the valley; said he has been working with others
to have soccer events in Plantes Ferry; lauded the success of the HUB; mentioned that Browns Park is
created for beach volleyball but needs to be built for the tremendous growth in the league; that he is aware
it is a park project, but has concerns about whether it would generate room nights; said he needs to have
the partnership with the City, and is concerned if the City doesn't want to partner. Mr. Wick said
concerning a partnership, that a study showed where a sportsplex should be but he hasn't seen any data on
that. Mr. Sawyer said he shared a copy of the study with City Manager Jackson. Mr. Cameron said he
recently had a long meeting with Mr. Jackson who said after several requests for Mr. Sawyer to make a
presentation, that Mr. Jackson has not heard from Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Cameron said he feels there is a lot of
misinformation out there, and he is concerned that after more than two years of studying venue
Page 3 of 6
H:1Budgets120i5\Lodging Tax12015 02 25 LTAC Alai Minutes by CBainbridge.docx
opportunities, he heard the Sports Commission mention numerous opportunities could be available for the
valley, but said he doesn't see anything about any project proposed to be located in Spokane Valley, and
said the hoteliers are very concerned.
10. Spokane River Forum, Executive Director Andv Dunau
Mr. Dunau said this request is to promote Spokane Valley as a destination for those coming to use the
River; said infrastructure and marketing go hand-in-hand; said he received approval to move with the
development of the trail access below Plantes Ferry into Spokane Valley, and said they will hold a
fundraiser on March 25 by holding an international fly fishing festival. He mentioned the Barker Road
and Mirabeau area and of the Valley's commitment to develop the access at Sullivan Bridge; said they
cannot absolutely track room nights, but can tell their events have an impact based on increased
participation.
The meeting recessed at 10:25 a.m. and was called back to order at 10:35 a.m.
11. Heritage Museum. Director Jayne Singleton. and Board Member Bill Crawford
Museum Director Jayne Singleton and Board Member Bill Crawford stated that the museum has served
tourists for eleven years; said when she heard about Council remanding the recommendations back to the
Committee, her thought was how to handle the budget; said she met with those associated with marketing
the museum, and they agreed to defer their invoices; said she is hopeful that funding will continue now
that a commitment has been made; and she went through her PowerPoint presentation highlighting the
museum. Ms. Singleton mentioned that they track every visitor as they are asked when they come in,
how they heard about the museum, where are they staying, and if they are doing anything else in the
valley.
12. The HUB Sports Center, Executive Director Phil Champion
Mr. Champion reported that the HUB has continued to grow over the last four to five years; they have
some new events, such as a four -team volleyball tournament, and they are working with the Evergreen
Region to help promote that event; they will be hosting the Northwest Regional Champs, US Basketball
Association event in May; and they continue to look for other opportunities for events and tournaments.
When asked by Ms. Doering if the delay in funding affected them, Mr. Champion said their busy time of
year is now and they are in a very strong position, said the delay hasn't necessarily affected plans for the
remainder of the year. Mr. Cameron asked if Mr. Champion felt a downtown location of a new sportsplex
would affect them negatively, and Mr. Champion said it would depend on the programs; that there will
likely be some impact but overall won't be tremendous; said they continue to make strides toward
financial sustainability and the LTAC funds help with their outreach.
III. LTAC Members develop funding recommendations:
Committee members then worked to complete the recommendation work forms for Mr. Calhoun who
then explained that as has been done in the past, once all figures are in, he will submit the information,
along with the average for each applicant, to Council at their March 10 meeting. Mr. Wick asked about
adding an "unallocated" row and Mr. Calhoun did so on the spreadsheet.
IV. LTAC Member discussion and award recommendation:
Before getting into individual allocations, there was brief discussion about a potential County levy lift,
followed by discussion about $100,000 in reserves. Mr. Calhoun explained that the idea is to keep about
$100,000 for cash flow purposes; that taxes are collected in January, remitted the end of February, and the
City gets them the end of March.
Committee members started their discussion about specific awards, with Mr. Cameron explaining a little
about the lodging industry and the tax; said a healthy lodging community is a great indicator of where
Page 4 of 6
H:Oudgets120151Lodging Tax\2015 02 25 LTAC final Minutes by C Bainbridge.docx
money goes; said growth in the industry is not what it should be although there is some improvement over
the last few years; the emphasis, he said, is on where we can get the highest return for the money; said it
concerns him greatly that Visit Spokane might have to drop some marketing if funding were to drop
below $200,000; said the committee's primary responsibility is to reinvest for travelers and
business/pleasure to stay away from their place of residence or business to come here and have overnight
paid accommodations; said he met with individual members of Council and members of the public and
there is a large interest in pursuing that responsibility; said he was pleased to hear that Parks and
Recreation is being funded by the City and that the courts are proceeding, and said he is confident that
project could move faster with funding incorporated from County funds.
Mr. Meier said the state statutes and City goals are very clear about overnight stays and other things that
generate revenue, like shopping, and gasoline; said he feels there isn't enough information yet about the
visitor center, and said often times a visitor center is just a restroom stop; said he is a firm believer in
volleyball and that lodging tax fits with that; feels CenterPlace doesn't need all these funds; said the Fair
is a "no brainer" as it is one of the biggest entities in our region; said Valleyfest is our big festival and
they deserve funding, but they don't generate 220,000 room nights like Visit Spokane or the Sports
Commission. Concerning the idea of a Sports Commission and a sportsplex downtown, Mr. Meier said
he feels like that is "putting the cake downtown and the crumbs in the valley" and said he could not agree
with funding $200,000; said he is not in favor of having unallocated funds, at least not this year as these
applicants didn't expect that.
Ms. Doering said this meeting is being held today because the allocation recommendations were
remanded from Council as they wanted to see more support in the valley; concerning a sportsplex, said
she can only review what has been presented to this committee now as no one appears to have correct
information about such a facility; said she also does not know what the County parks will do, but that we
have a masterplan for our parks and recreation; and she favors funding entities in Spokane Valley.
Mr. Finian said his rationale for his allocation suggestions is based on return on investment, and said
many valley hoteliers feel the sane; that funding some of these requests will not bring the wanted
revenue; said Visit Spokane has done a lot for us; that he looks at it one way, which he said is the only
way to look at it — as what would benefit Spokane the most; said there needs to be a future goal of what
we want to do with this valley; and for some proposals, said he doesn't see a benefit for the valley at all.
Mr. Wick said he tried to determine what will put us in a better place in the future; that he hears we don't
have enough assets or are missing venues or facilities; the question is, how can we use this fund to better
set us up in the future; he mentioned the Parks Masterplan, and that the City is contributing some City
funds to the project; but questioned if there is something else we would do with LTAC funds as well to
make us a tourism destination. Mr. Wick said that when he was in Olympia last week he spoke with many
legislators who knew about us and our festival; said everyone has a general understanding that Valleyfest
is the City's festival; said he feels we should have more partnerships. Mr. Wick reminded everyone that
this funding mechanism is a reimbursement program. Mr. Wick also mentioned he feels the County's levy
is pushing forward and that time is of the essence; said we need a public process to figure all that out; said
it is this Committee that makes recommendations to Council; that he would like some funds "unallocated"
to perhaps do a study of what tourism venues are needed, and get input from citizens about what would be
a big return on tourism investment. There was some discussion about reserve funds, but most committee
members felt it was not a good idea for this year since it is something the applicants were not expecting.
Mr. Cameron mentioned Valleyfest's lack of overnight rooms; but Ms. Doering noted on page 5 of her
grant application, the figures for overnight stays in relation to Valleyfest, and that these numbers are
based on numbers generated by Eastern Washington University's School of Business. After initial
Page 5 of 6
H:113udgets120151Lodging Tax12015 02 25 LTil C final Minutes by C Bainbridge. docx•
discussions, moving some funds from one entity to another, it was moved by Mr. Cameron, seconded and
unanimously agreed on the following recommended allocations:
I. Visit Spokane, operations: 8230, 000
2. Visit Spokane, visitor center: 80
3. Parks & Rec Volleyball Counts: 868,000
4. Parks & Rec, CenterPlace Marketing.' 817,000
5. Fair & Expo, marketing: 830,000
6. Fair & Expo, Interim marketing: 88,000
7. Fair & Expo, exotic animal display 86,000
8. Valleyfest: 831,600
9. Sports Commission: S120,000
10. Spokane River Forum: 81,000
I I. Heritage Museum: 818,400
12. HUB Sports Center: 840,000
Discussion moved to the idea of another layer of lodging tax; of the 12% cap, and of possible STA
(Spokane Transit Authority) ballot measure moving forward in April for their 3/10`'' of 1% tax. Mr.
Cameron suggested getting something before Council for an additional amount in lodging tax. It was
moved by Mr. Cameron, seconded and unanimously agreed to request Council to pass an additional 1.3%
lodging tax to be put into a fund dedicated for a large spouting venue or venues for tourism facilities that
generate overnight guests.
Mr. Calhoun said this Committee's funding allocations will come before Council for deliberation and a
motion at their March 10 meeting; and that this second request can be included on that March 10`x' agenda
as an administrative report.
It was moved by Ivh'. Meier, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at
12:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Bainbridge,
Spokane Valley City Clerk
Page 6 of 6
MINUTES
Spokane Valley Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
Monday, October 27, 2015, 8:30 a.m.
Spokane Valley Council Chambers
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206
Attendance:
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Members:
Chair: Councilmember Ben iVick
Member Herman Meier, Spokane Valley Heritage Museum
Member Keith Backsen, Visit Spokane
Member Jeff Finian, Sterling Hospitality/Quality Inn
Member Lee Cameron, Mirabeau Park Hotel
Staff:
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Sarah Farr, Accounting Technician
Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
[Prior to the meeting, Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb gave the committee members a training session on
the Open Public Meeting Act.]
At 8:30 a.m., the meeting was called to order by Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Chair and City
Councilmember Ben Wick who then welcomed everyone to the meeting. Chair Wick explained the
process of today's meeting and of the presentations. He also made note of the new spreadsheets
containing blank areas for the committee member's award recommendations. Chair Wick went over the
City Council goals, which he explained remain much the same as the previous year, with the added goal
to dedicate 5% of the awards toward funding new projects, activities and/or events. Chair Wick also noted
as in previous years, Council chose to set aside $30,000 for CenterPlace Marketing.
Deputy City Manager Calhoun briefly went over the financial aspects of the lodging tax resources and
how that fits in with the City's budget; he explained that revenues for 2015 are estimated at $510,000; and
said he anticipates total awards of $600,000, which includes the $30,000 to CenterPlace; and that once
completed, approximately $100,000 will remain which will be needed for cash flow purposes. Mr.
Calhoun said that Council will hear the results of today's allocation recommendations at Council's special
Monday, November 17 Council meeting, followed by an actual motion for award scheduled for the
Council's December 16 meeting. Mr. Calhoun also mentioned October 14, 2015 as the tentative date for
next year's meeting.
Applicant Presentations
1. Visit Spokane: City of Spokane Valley Tourism Promotion; Tourism Marketing
Visit Spokane CEO Cheryl Kilday and Chief Marketing Officer Jeanna Hofmeister gave their
presentation on their tourism marketing project. Ms. Kilday explained that Visit Spokane directly
contacted and/or influenced people to stay and visit the City of Spokane Valley, and based on research,
they estimated there were 220,681 overnight stay with over $155,000,000 in visitor spending; she
mentioned the specific Valley map, online advertising for events, advertising in the Visitors' Guide, and
Visit Spokane's support of the City of Spokane Valley's mobile app. After her presentation, there were a
few questions from committee members about the project budget, and how they arrived at the 220,000
overnight stays. Ms. Kilday responded that some of the budget includes personnel for the visitor kiosk at
the Valley mall, which she said in only staffed from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Concerning the
overnight stay estimate, Ms. Kilday said they used a formula which included research from the Randall
Report, and from Smith -Travels research about room demand; she said the formula was tested with Judy
Randall to make sure it was credible and not over -estimating. Ms. Kilday said there is a possibility that
another entity's numbers would touch their numbers, for example, if that other entity used Visit
Spokane's website, so there could be some double -counting.
LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 1 of 6
2. Visit Spokane: New Visitor Information Center, Operated by Visit Spokane
Ms. Kilday explained that this proposal is to establish a visitor information center in Spokane Valley; said
she has been working with a private company for a space; said the idea is to be open 360+ days a year,
with a goal of getting people off the freeway and into our area; said they found a location where
businesses are not yet built; said the area they have in mind has ample parking, space for good signage,
and could connect with the services of the Valley Mall as well as the Argonne area. She also mentioned
they plan to keep the kiosk at the Valley Mall. Mr. Meier said with today's age of electronics, he didn't
understand why someone would leave the freeway to go to a visitor's center, as there are signs on the
freeway about food, attractions, etc., and Smart Phones with numerous capabilities. Ms. Kilday responded
that that concept has been a topic of debate since the Internet became more mobile; but it appears that
"Generation X" and "Generation Y/Millennium" actually frequent visitor centers more so than previous
older generations; she said it gives people the opportunity to get off the freeway as the center introduces
people to what is nearby, which increases retail and dining even if people don't stay overnight. In
response to a question about funding, Ms. Kilday replied that this request is only for a portion of a year.
3. Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation — Browns Park
Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Director Mike Stone and Recreation Coordinator Jennifer Papich,
and Mr. Kyle Twohig of the Evergreen Volleyball Association discussed the Browns Park volleyball
courts project. Ms. Papich explained that their $120,000 request is for the construction of three volleyball
sand courts, she gave some history of how this proposal came about, of their desire to breathe some life
back into the facility and make it more of' a destination, of their partnering with Evergreen Regional
Volleyball Association, and of how quickly it became apparent that the sport is extremely popular and
gaining in popularity. Ms. Papich spoke about the Master Plan and some of the key issues which came up
as a result of that plan, such as an overall goal to increase the facilities as well as community pride and
identity; she explained that the City has funding to construct five courts, and the more courts that could be
constructed at one time means the less the overall time and construction cost; she said this should be able
to be completed in 2015; adding that the closest other outdoor sand volleyball court is about 300 miles
away; and said their goal is to make this a premier volleyball court.
Mr. Twohig said that he has been amazed at the growth seen in the volleyball participation; said they held
some tournaments which were filled within a week, so they increased the offerings for the following
season; said there were over 3500 junior volleyball players in this region compared with about twelve in
2013; said they have invested about $20,000 and will continue to show their commitment by providing
equipment and handling the operations; said they have a wonderful partnership and relationship with the
City and the community.
Mr. Cameron said lie is happy to see the City's commitment to the park and growth and asked if
infrastructure is included in this proposal. Mr. Stone explained that the courts will be tournament ready,
but some aspects of the infrastructure such as the picnic shelter and restroom will not be ready when the
courts are, as the focus is the courts; said the cost this fall of just the courts was in excess of $60,000, and
that he feels $40,000 is an accurate figure; and said the City and Council are committed to this project,
but it will take several years to build this with all the improvements; that if this project moves forward, he
expects the community will support it as well and that we will see some sponsorships; said this will be a
quality facility to attract out of state visitors.
4. Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation — CenterPlace
Customer Relations/Facility Coordinator Carol Carter said they seek funding to target regional meetings
to be held in Spokane Valley; said they are partnering with Visit Spokane to market to the two leading
meeting planner associations in the region, i.e. Meeting Planners International, and the Certified Meeting
Planner Association; said they would co-sponsor a booth at six regional conferences and advertise in
meeting planner publications with a goal to increase CenterPlace's presence as well as other Spokane
Valley tourism related facilities; she said in their meeting with Visit Spokane, they found five conferences
in the Inland Northwest that they think are beneficial for Spokane; said they are targeting the two to three-
LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 2 of 6
day conferences, they'll work with the Valley hotels and Visit Spokane to find ways to sell the Valley;
said they need to work harder to market the Valley especially with the expansion of the new hotel
downtown; said their goal is five conferences, but explained that these would not come in until 2016
because it takes a year to plan a conference. Mr. Stone added that this partnership with Visit Spokane is
the two entities working to market the valley. Chair Wick asked if this is more for the Spokane Valley
than a CenterPlace request, and Ms. Carter confirmed it is; and confirmed that the funds are intended to
attend the events with Visit Spokane, and to have shared booth and promotional items for Spokane
Valley, which includes trade booths.
5. Spokane County Fair and Expo Center — 2015 Spokane County Interstate Fair Marketing Campaign
Fair Director Rich Hartzell and Marketing Sales Manager Erin Gurtel explained they are presenting three
requests: the first request is for $30,000 to market and advertise to an audience outside of the Spokane
area in order to increase attendees that will reserve over -night stays in conjunction with fair attendance.
6. Spokane County Fair and Expo Center — Interim Events Marketing 2015
Ms. Gurtel said that the Fair's second request is for $8,000 to market and advertise to an audience outside
the Spokane area, for rentals and annual events held at the fair facility.
7. Spokane County Fair and Expo Center — Exotic Animal Display, 2015 Interstate Fair
Ms. Gurtel explained that the Fair's third request is for $6,000 for marketing and operations of a special
event, the Exotic Animal Display. Concerning the $30,000 for advertising and marketing, it was noted
that from the previous year, Fair attendance, food purchases, and carnival all increased about 1 %, 10%,
and 12% respectively; said they are confident they could sell 1,000 room nights over the week with
visitors generally coming in from Canada, Seattle, and thirteen states. In response to Chair Wick's
question about how the numbers were calculated, Ms. Gurtel explained that the figures are difficult to
calculate, and they are working to get a better process, but still feels the numbers are conservative; she
explained that people come to the fair for more than just the shows, that many people shop while here and
said the fair is located in a central hub for shopping; she said activities at the fairgrounds include Custer's,
and an RV and Boat Show, and she mentioned that the Farm Chicks brought in 1,000 room nights for
people attending that two-day event. Mr. Hartzell added that the Quilt Show is also one of their largest
attended events. A question arose about advertising, and it was explained that the vendors pay for their
own advertising; and Ms. Gurtel said that this funding is for promotion aside from what the vendors do;
with Mr. Hartzell adding that the vendors can see an increase, however, when they advertise and promote.
Concerning the $6,000 for the Exotic Animal Display, it was explained that funding would be for all ten
days of the fair, and would be included with the fair admission as an enhancement. Mr. Finian asked of
the total $44,000 requested funding, how much tourism do they expect from people out of town; and the
response was that they anticipate 50,000 people from out of town; stating that the amount requested is for
the year and not just one event; and that the hope is that the exotic animals could be expanded later and
further promoted.
8. Valleyfest — Valleyfest 2015
Executive Director Peggy Doering, Board President Rick Wilhite, and Board Member Stephanie Hughes
gave a presentation concerning next year's Valleyfest celebration. Ms. Doering reported that they used the
$20,000 allocated in 2014 for the webpage and made the advertising sized for tablets, iPad, and that they
used the funds for design purposes as well; said her understanding is they can apply for funding for
operations, and that this year they are applying for $14,000 for office expenses in addition to $50,000 for
marketing; said they are a non-profit organization; said their rental agreement for the rented space they
use with Spokane Valley Partners has changed, and they are in the process of looking for office space; so
part of that request is for outside office space in addition to paying outside vendors that they need to run
their recreational events; and she reiterated that the $50,000 is for marketing the premier event in Spokane
Valley, which she added, they have been doing for twenty-five years; and said since they have added the
cycle celebration in July, that funding would be used for year-round marketing.
LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 3 of 6
Ms. Doering mentioned they have 26 committees for partnerships for Valleyfest, some of which include
the Balloons Over the Valley, the Down Syndrome Walk, the Car Show, and they are now working with
the River Keepers. She said the cycle celebration includes a family bike ride, triathlon, and other
recreational activities. Concerning economic development, she mentioned the study of three years of data
conducted by Eastern Washington University students, which shows an approximate $2 million impact in
2013. Mr. Wilhite added that the studies of the last two years indicate that the overall economic impact is
$1.8 million in the Valley for their three-day event. They indicated marketing plans are contingent upon
receiving funds, that they would like to have more of a year-round presence to draw interest groups to
specific events, with Ms. Hughes mentioning that the sponsors are a big part of the event, and many are
leaders in the community including banks, hospitals, the inlander, and other businesses. They also noted
they want to change how they promote the event by using the assets of the City such as the River, their
Parade, trails, and hotels and are examining the use of social media in addition to television advertising.
In response to several questions about marketing, Ms. Doering said the data shown on page 6 of 20 of
their packet materials is as a result of Eastern Washington University's School of Business students'
calculations, by interviewing people during the event, and using the formula noted. Ms. Doering also
mentioned that they pay outside vendor fees to develop the events, and then those companies continue to
market at trade shows and will eventually become self-sufficient.
9. Spokane Regional Sports Commission- Promotion and Marketing Activities
Sports Commission President Eric Sawyer went over some of the trends in sports travel; said that there
has been an increase in the number of participants 13 years old and younger; and that over 50% of youth
participate in sports as a team or an individual; said the projection of sports related travel spending is up
12 to 15%; that they tried to identify projects which have had an impact on Valley room nights, and said
approximately 12,000 room nights are due to a major recent tennis event; he mentioned next year's US
Tennis Association's regionals, and other sports such as mountain skiing and biking, golf, and middle
school basketball and volleyball. Ln response to a question about the Sports Commission investing in sand
volleyball, Mr. Sawyer said they are working with Evergreen Regional Volleyball and that organization
has seen significant growth; said that a one-time capital investment will hopefully last for generations;
and he mentioned the participation as well from Eastern Washington University students; and regarding
tennis, said that Spokane Valley has more than half of those qualifying needed courts because some of
Spokane's courts do not qualify.
The meeting briefly recessed at 10:05 a.m., and reconvened at 10:15 a.m.
10. Spokane River Forum — Spokane River Water Trail Project
Mr. Andy Dunau explained that the Spokane River Forum was founded in 2008, and in 2009 they decided
to develop the Spokane River Water Trail; and that this project will build on that highly successful
website by providing links for tourists and to aid in their overnight stays; said they developed a new
Stateline site in 2014 which has resulted in the restoration of Mirabeau and Barker Road; said the Barker
Bridge is very popular and in 2016, the Valley will develop a new Sullivan Park access site as part of the
City's rebuilding Sullivan Bridge, and they expect access under the Bridge for kayakers; he said outdoor
monthly advertising is another component of their marketing and that they also use Visit Spokane; said
they seek $1,000 to get this project started, which will be matched by three to four times that with other
sponsors they already have; he said the plan is to have the kick-off event in May or June. In response to
questions about sponsors, Mr. Dunau said they generally get $500 from each sponsor, and that they have
approximately six to eight benefactors, as well as larger sponsors.
11. Spokane Valley Heritage Museum- Tourism Marketing
Museum Director Jayne Singleton and Board Member Bill Crawford stated that the museum has served
tourists for ten years; that their advertising and promotion of the museum's 2015 features includes the
"Earth from Space" travelling Smithsonian Exhibit; said they provide education to the community
LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 4 of 6
through group and school tours. In response to a question about visitor data, Ms. Singleton said that the
2013 figures are actual numbers; while the 2015 is of course a projection.
12. HUB Sports Center
Mr. Phil Champlin, HUB Executive Director said that their events have demonstrated a positive impact
on the community; he said that 75 to 80 % of the events are youth travelling with parents, siblings, and
family members so the draw is larger than if it were simply adult events; he said they have partnered with
AAU, YMCA, and Evergreen Regional Volleyball to bring in events; that they hosted their first middle
school basketball event in 2014 with over 250 teams, and plan to expand that in 2015 to two weekends,
one for girls, and one for boys. Mr. Backsen asked about the estimated overnights stays out of the 21,000
visitor count, and Mr. Champlin said they estimated 5,000 overnight stays. Chair Wick noted that most of
the money they are asking for is the marketing, but the material includes information for operations, and
Mr. Champlin explained that he would give discounts to groups to start their event and use operation
funding for that purpose.
There were no further presentations.
Mr. Cameron gave an update from the Hotel/Motel meeting last Friday; said a majority of the Valley
hotels were concerned; said that the Valley has traditionally benefitted from an overflow from downtown
Spokane and Coeur d'Alene; but additional rooms in the Coeur d'Alene hotel and Airway Heights brings
challenges to hotel stays in the Valley; said the Convention Center expansion will bring even more stays
to downtown Spokane; said the recommendations were unanimous regarding funding requests and that
not every request will be funded; said the intent is to hold back some funding and examine what can drive
new business to Spokane Valley and how the hotel/motel tax funds will be used; said there was concern
about the downturn next year and they are thinking of meeting with Council to expand venues in the
Valley that draw tourism. Mr. Finian added that it appears there was little or no increase in revenues and
the question is, what can be created to bring in large revenues to benefit the community. Mr. Meier noted
that there is a new hotel in the Valley which would not have come if they didn't think they would be
profitable; said not everyone who comes in does so in connection with an event; said he feels 2014 will be
one of the biggest growth years and doesn't think funds should be held back while they contemplate a
long-term vision. Mr. Cameron said the data shows an increase but that it is primarily due to room rate
increases and not an increase in occupancy; he said the hotels are looking for development potential. Mr.
Finian mentioned that they need to look at what types of events will bring revenue to Spokane Valley, and
that the HUB Sports Center's events bring tourism, but we keep doing the sane thing and that isn't
generating new revenue, but if it weren't for the HUB events, he feels Valley hotels would not be
financially stable.
Mr. Calhoun reminded the committee that today's meeting is informational, and based on that
information, the Committee needs to forward a motion and a vote. Visit Spokane said it would withdraw
their second item because it can't operate for that amount so those funds could be reallocated. Mr.
Cameron noted that funds going to Visit Spokane are also for marketing other events, so it night be seen
as a "double -dip;" said he thinks Visit Spokane promotes the Valley, and that sports events bring in
tourism and funding, and Mr. Fiman concurred. Mr. Meier also agreed Visit Spokane does a good job;
and said he supports Valleyfest as part of the City's mission to fund festivals. Chair Wick noted the need
and demand for the volleyball courts; said the CenterPlace request was for marketing the Valley at events,
not CenterPlace; that Valleyfest isn't just funding for that event, but they now have the triathlon and other
recreational events that can grow and perhaps start something new; he said improvements are being made
along the River with road projects, but they need to be marketed.
Discussion moved to the individual finding requests. Mr. Cameron said he understands that the City
approves the funding of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan; that the $30,000 CenterPlace already
receives is for marketing CenterPlace, and now they are asking for another $30,000 for the same purpose;
but said this is what we pay Visit Spokane to do and that's what they are doing. Further, Mr. Cameron
LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 5 of 6
said seating will be needed for the volleyball tournament games , as well as restrooms, locker rooms, and
office space. Mr. Backsen stated that he thinks putting in courts to hold tournaments is more for the local
community rather than bringing in people from out of town, and Mr. Cameron said the hoteliers agree.
Mr. Cameron said the hoteliers proposed not to fund the museum, but he would go up to $15,000 and said
his concern is it puts his return on investment at over $100 per night so it costs more than there is to gain.
Concerning Valleyfest, Chair Wick said he sees opportunities with the bicycle celebration and triathlon;
while Mr. Meier said the committee needs to keep in mind that Council doesn't want money to be used
solely for room nights, but to include festivals and Valleyfest. Mr. Cameron stated that the hoteliers are
against funding Valleyfest because they think it should be self-sufficient; and Mr. Fiman said the event
does not bring in room nights yet they are funded each year; and both Mr. Cameron and Mr. Fiman said
based on their meetings with hoteliers, they will not support funding Valleyfest. Chair Wick said that he
doesn't think Council would accept not funding Valleyfest and that he would like to fund it at $20,000.
After Committee members continued their discussion about the various amounts for the various entities, it
was moved by Mr. Cameron, seconded and unanimously agreed, to recommend the following finding
distribution to Council:
1. Visit Spokane S256, 000
2. Visit Spokane Visitor Center SO
3. City Parks & Recreation Browns Park SO
4. City Parks & Recreation CenterPlace S15, 000
5. Fair & Expo Marketing 828,000
6. Fair & Expo Interim Marketing 88,000
7. Fair & Expo Exotic Anneals 82,000
8. Valleyfest — marketing 810,000
Valleyfest — bike celebration 810,000
9. Sports Commission 8185, 000
10. River Forum 31,000
11. Heritage Museum 315,000
12. HUB Sports Center 840,000
TOTAL RECOMMENDED FUNDING 5570, 000
Mr. Calhoun noted that this topic will be presented to Council as an administrative report at the
November 17 meeting, and then come back to Council for a motion consideration at the December 16
meeting, at which time the public will be permitted to make comment.
There being no further business, it was mored by Mr. Cameron, .seconded and unanimously agreed to
adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 1:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
LTAC Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2014 Page 6 of 6
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 2015
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ❑ admin. report
Department Director Approval:
® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Browns Park Volleyball Courts Construction
Project Phase 1
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Browns Park Master Plan on July 1, 2014.
BACKGROUND: Browns Park has a rich history and is loved by a wide range of community
members. The development of the Browns Park Master Plan last year produced an exciting
opportunity for our City. Not only does the master plan call for the expansion and improvement
of the park for the use by neighbors and residents, it also identifies an opportunity to expand
the sand volleyball complex. As part of the initial implementation of the master plan for Browns
Park, we will be constructing new sand volleyball courts this spring.
Plans and specifications were prepared and the project was put out to bid on February 3, 2015.
Bids were opened on February 27, 2015. Four bids were received with the low bid being
submitted by Stone Creek Land Design & Development LLC. The bid was reviewed by staff
and found to be responsive and acceptable. A tabulation of bid results is attached.
Staff recommends proceeding to award a contract to Stone Creek Land Design & Development
LLC in the amount of $169,668.74. This includes the acceptance of the base bid and alternates
#1, #2 and #3. This project will construct five (5) new sand volleyball courts and remove the
existing softball backstop.
OPTIONS: 1) Award the Browns Park Volleyball Courts Construction Project Phase 1 to the
lowest responsive and responsible bidder, 2) not award the contract, or 3) provide additional
direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Browns Park Volleyball Courts
Construction Project Phase 1 to Stone Creek Land Design & Development LLC in the amount of
$169,668.74 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Funds for this project are available in the Parks Capital
Projects Fund 309.
STAFF CONTACT: Michael D. Stone, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation
ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation
Spokanka��
jUalley.
Parks and Recreation Department
2426 N. Discovery Place • Spokane Valley, WA 99216
509.688.0300 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0188 ♦ parksandrec@spokanevalley.org
BID TABULATION - Browns Park Volleyball Courts Construction - Phase I
BID DUE DATE - February 27, 2015, 12:00 PM PSDT
AM
Landshaper
Inc.
Clearwater
Summit Group
Spri klDerrsp&
Landscaping
Stone Creek
Land Design &
Development
LLC
BASE BID
$120,750.00
$108,247.00
$113,324.00
$99,670.00
SALES TAX
$10,505.25
$9,417.49
$9,859.19
$8,671.29
Total
$131,255.25
$117,664.49
$123,183.19
$108,341.29
ALTERNATE 1
$24,900.00
$28,000.00
$30,657.00
$24,335.00
SALES TAX
$2,166.30
$2,436.00
$2,667.16
$2,117.14
Total
$27,066.30
$30,436.00
$33,324.16
$26,452.14
ALTERNATE 2
$3,850.00
$4,900.00
$6,615.00
$8,824.00
SALES TAX
$334.95
$426.30
$575.51
$767.69
Total
$4,184.95
$5,326.30
$7,190.51
$9,591.69
ALTERNATE 3
$24,900.00
$28,000.00
$30,265.00
$23,260.00
SALES TAX
$2,166.30
$2,436.00
$2,633.10
$2,023.62
Total
$27,066.30
$30,436.00
$32,898.10
$25,283.62
TOTAL BID
$189,572.80
$183,862.79
$196,595.96
$169,668.74
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 2015
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ❑ admin. report
Department Director Approval:
® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Interlocal Agreement for City-wide LiDAR
Survey
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW chapter 39.04
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: The United States Geographical Survey (USGS) is flying a high density
LiDAR Survey under an Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County. The survey will be over an
area of Spokane County that the USGS believes may be susceptible to earthquakes. The flight
will be occurring this spring. This flight includes the western part of the City and data collected
as part of this flight area will be made available to the City at no cost. The City has an
opportunity to participate in this survey, and include the eastern half of the City and surrounding
areas. By adding these additional areas, it will cover the entire City and surrounding areas that
include drainage basins which flow into the City.
A LiDAR flight was flown in 2007, which provided the City with the current topographic data we
use today. However, that flight was not as accurate nor did it include the density of data
collection that is being proposed for this flight. With this higher accuracy, we will have better and
more accurate spot elevations and topographic modeling throughout the City. This information
will assist staff to better determine and map hundreds of watersheds and sub -watersheds
affecting the City. This data will help staff identify deficiencies with our system, and assist with
planning of future infrastructure needs and design of projects.
If the City were to contract for these services separately, it would cost 180% more than entering
into a partnership with Kitsap County to perform this flight. The cost difference is due to a
volume discount the vendor gives for flights larger than 100 square miles. The USGS flight
covers more than 325 square miles and allows for the largest discount available.
Staff recommends proceeding with finalizing an Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County to
include the east half of the City, including the current UGA limits.
OPTIONS: The Council may approve the Interlocal, deny the Interlocal, or request changes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to finalize and
execute the Interlocal Agreement between Kitsap County and the City of Spokane Valley for
2015 LiDAR Services.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The estimated cost for this work is not to exceed $50,000
and will be financed from Fund #402 Storm Management Fund.
STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth — Public Works Director, Art Jenkins — Stormwater Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County
KITSAP COUNTY
DEPT. OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
911 Carver Street
Bremerton, WA 98312
(360) 307-5871
INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE LIDAR DATA
THIS AGREEMENT is between City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation, and, and Kitsap County, a
municipal corporation, all in the State of Washington.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, The Interlocal Cooperation Act, as amended and codified in Chapter 39.34 RCW provides for
interlocal cooperation between governmental agencies; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.33 RCW provides for the intergovernmental disposition of property, and
WHEREAS, both parties are required to make certain purchases by formal advertisement and bid process, which is a
time consuming and expensive process; and it is in the public interest to cooperate in the combination of bidding
requirements to obtain the most favorable bid for each party where it is in their mutual interest; and
WHEREAS, the parties also wish to utilize each other's contracts where it is in their mutual interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this agreement is to acknowledge the parties' mutual interest to jointly bid the
acquisition of goods and services and disposition of property where such mutual effort can be planned in advance
and to authorize the acquisition of goods and services and the purchase or acquisition of goods and services under
contracts where a price is extended by either party's bidder to other governmental agencies;
2. ADMINISTRATION. No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provision of
this agreement. The Administrator of this agreement is the Director of Emergency Management of Kitsap County,
Washington.
3. SCOPE. This agreement shall allow the following activities:
A. Purchase or acquisition of goods and services by each party acting as agent for either or both parties
when agreed to in advance, in writing;
B. Purchase or acquisition of goods and services by each party where provision has been provided in
contracts for other agencies to avail themselves of goods and services offered under the contract.
C. Disposal of goods by each party acting as agent for either, or both parties when agreed to in advance, in
writing.
4. DURATION OF AGREEMENT - TERMINATION. This agreement shall remain in force until cancelled by
either party in writing.
COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT
5. RIGHT TO CONTRACT INDEPENDENT ACTION PRESERVED. Each party reserves the right to contract
independently for the acquisition of goods or services and or disposal of any property without notice to the other
party and shall not bind or otherwise obligate the other party to participate in the activity.
6. COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REOUIREMENTS. Each party accepts responsibility for compliance with
federal, state or local laws and regulations including, in particular, bidding requirements applicable to its acquisition
of goods and services or disposal of property.
7. FINANCING. The method of financing of payment shall be through budgeted funds or other available funds of
the party for whose use the property is actually acquired or disposed. Each party accepts no responsibility for the
payment of the acquisition price of any goods or services intended for use by the other party.
8. FILING. Executed copies of this agreement shall be filed as required by RCW 39.34.040 prior to this
agreement becoming effective.
9. INTERLOCAL COOPERATION DISCLOSURE. Each party may insert in its solicitations for goods a
provision disclosing that other authorized government agencies may also wish to procure the goods being offered to
the party and allowing the bidder the option of extending its bid to other agencies at the same bid price, terms and
conditions.
10. NON-DELEGATION/NON-ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may delegate the performance of any contractual
obligation, to a third party, unless mutually agreed in writing. Neither party may assign this agreement without the
written consent of the other party.
II. HOLD HARMLESS. Each party shall be liable and responsible for the consequences of any negligent or
wrongful act or failure to act on the part of itself and its employees. Neither party assumes responsibility to the other
party for the consequences of any act or admission of any person, firm or corporation not a party to this agreement.
12. SEVERABILITY. Any provision of this agreement, which is prohibited or unenforceable, shall be ineffective
to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability, without invalidating the remaining provision or affecting the
validity or enforcement of such provision.
13. LiDAR SURVEY DATA. Kitsap County has contracted with Quantum Spatial Inc. (Watershed Sciences, Inc.).
to provide public -domain high-resolution LiDAR topographic survey data in Washington and Oregon. Exhibit A
outlines costs associated with Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium's rate structure agreed upon with Quantum Spatial
under its contract terms. This LiDAR project is concurrent with other Spokane LiDAR projects and is treated as an
"add on" at the same rate of $.78 per acre. Pursuant to paragraph 3A of this agreement, Kitsap County will act as the
agent for the City of Spokane Valley, Washington to obtain the data described in Exhibit B from Quantum
Spatial/Watershed Sciences, Inc. The project, referred to as the City of Spokane Valley LiDAR Project has an
estimated total cost of $XX,XXX.XX. The City of Spokane Valley agrees to pay the costs and the amount specified
in this contract not to exceed $XX,XXX.XX Kitsap County will obtain this data from Quantum Spatial/Watershed
Sciences, Inc. under its contract with Watershed Sciences, Inc., and provide that data to the City of Spokane Valley.
2
COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT
City of Spokane Valley, Washington
Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management
Kitsap County, Washington
Mike Jackson, City Manager Michael Gordon, Director
Kitsap County Emergency Management
Date
3
Date
COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT
Exhibit A
Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium Rate Structure
Provider:
Kitsap County
Agreement No.:
KC -244-12
Agreement Title:
Remote Watershed LiDAR Services
Area Extent
Price per
Acre
Price per
Square Mile
Contours
Intensity
Images
Gain -
normalized
Intensities
50 to 100 sq. miles
(32,000 to 64,000 acres)
$1.42
$909
$0.142
$0
$0.080
100 to150 sq. miles
(64,000 to 96,000 acres)
$1.11
$710
$0.111
$0
$0.060
150 to 200 sq. miles
(96,000 to 128,000 acres)
$0.94
$602
$0.094
$0
$0.050
200 to 250 sq. miles
(128,000 to 160,000 ac)
$0.84
$538
$0.084
$0
$0.040
Greater than 250 sq. mi
(Greater than 160,000 ac)
$0.78
$499
$0.078
$0
$0.035
The Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium (PSLC) adds a 14% overhead fee to the total cost. 7% is for contract and
administrative services by Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management and 7% to the Puget Sound LiDAR
Consortium for Data analysis.
4
COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT
Exhibit B
LiDAR Data Acquisition Cost Proposal — City of Spokane Valley, Wa.
5
LIDAR REQUEST 2015 - CITY LIMITS
M u. -u I -..-u I -u. -u I -.I -u -u1 -u.'
11!
,
h ill
Nig
2
J
1-
0 0
W
-)
0
Ce
Cco
c
0
CO
U
LIDAR REQUEST 2015 - CITY URBAN GROWTH AREA
uwu-a
Ic.........1
4,1
i M,_
147!
L..
City UGA Boundary
LIDAR REQUEST 2015 - WATERSHEDS
v ------i
�..�..
inn
'1
s
USGS,PROJEC'
City UGA Boundary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 2015 Department Director Approval
Item: Check all that apply:
❑ consent
❑ information
❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments —
Overview CPA -2015-0001 & CPA -2015-0002.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 establishes an annual
comprehensive plan amendment cycle that runs from November 1st to October 31st of the
following year. The Planning Commission considers applications during the following spring,
with a decision by City Council generally occurring in late spring/early summer.
The Community and Economic Development Department received two privately initiated
requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. Sites approved for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation.
No changes are proposed by the City as the legislative review of the comprehensive plan is
underway.
Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on
January 8, 2015. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on January
22, 2015. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 4-3 to recommend Council approve
CPA -2015-0002. The Commission continued deliberation on CPA -2015-0001 to the February 12,
2015 meeting in order to consider material provided by the applicant at the hearing.
Following deliberations at the February 12, 2015 meeting the Commission voted to recommend the
Council approve CPA -2015-0001. The motion resulted in a tie vote and as a result, the motion
failed. The amendment is being forwarded without a recommendation.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley
News Herald on January 2, 2015 and each site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing"
sign, which described the proposal. Individual notices of the proposals were mailed to all
property owners within 400 feet of each proposed amendment.
SEPA REVIEW: Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — chapter 43.21C
RCW), environmental checklists were required for each proposed amendment. Under SEPA,
amendments to a comprehensive plan are considered "non -project actions" defined as actions
involving decisions on policies, plans, or programs that contain standards controlling use or
modification of the environment. Additional environmental review may be required for the
physical development of the subject properties.
Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Determinations of Non -significance (DNS) were
issued for the proposed amendments on February 7, 2015 consistent with SVMC 21.20.070.
1 of 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS: Proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive plan are organized into individual reports consisting of staff reports, maps, and
comments submitted to date to assist the City Council in its review.
OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with the first reading scheduled for March 24, 2015; or take
other action as appropriate.
MOTION: None required
STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen, Planner; Martin Palaniuk, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) PowerPoint Presentation
2) Staff Report CPA -2015-0001
3) Staff Report CPA -2015-0002
4) PC Meeting Minutes 1-08-15
5) PC Meeting Minutes 1-22-15
6) PC Meeting Minutes 2-12-15
2 of 2
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
City Council Administrative Report
March 10, 2015
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
File No. CPA -2015-0001
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Spokane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
Docket
Planning
Commission
City Council
SVCP Amendment Process
• City Council approves official docket
• November 1st cut off for applications (60 -day notice)
• Public Hearing Noticing—January 2nd (Valley Herald); January 6th (Sign posted on site)
• Planning Commission Study Session — January 8th
• Public Hearing —January 22nd
• Deliberations — February 12th
• Administrative Report -March 10th
• First Reading- March 24th
• Second Reading — April 14th
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
1
Spokan `— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
Privately Initiated Map Amendment
Project Number
Applicant:
Applicants
Representative:
Application Description
CPA -2015-0001
Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagator LLC
7607 W. Gratz Drive
Boise, ID 83709
Stanley M. Schwartz
Witherspoon Kelley
422 W. Riverside Avenue Suite #100
Spokane, WA 99201
Request to change parcels 45104.9145, 45104.9146,
45104.9156 & 45104.9157 from Office to Community
Commercial
4
Spokane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
vcd ley
ealloi
-A v oL•n
r 45095..9062
• in.
:511
I
7:1
ro
Mansfield A"r4
45O94.61
45094.058i
Montgomery Dr
MoraAV
!
c
45105.9068
45103.0211
---T
r '
i ; 45103.0215
45103132"
Nora Av
SPOKANE VA L—I,Elr
73 ...tH
- mmicin.7Av__
c'T711-71-1 1 1 i v 41]_41
Maxwell Asi, : Maxi.vell 'Alt 1?0, !i-- Maxwell An
!--1___IIgag'
--•-• ,
! 7:, !NIA :
L_____, — .shSairnpt.C.AvAv :
I
• - rs
o
Sint° Av,
‘...) 45152.1002 E
-1- 117T1T il LI 11 1
.' DeSrnet /511, 3'.---. Desofet Av
'-Desmet Av ...
1 1 I 1-- -,
Cataido Av "7.__4" ',Cotaldo Av
0
45105,9133
4.?
1:1
Man'sfield Asi7
4' S104.9132
45195.0207
— —
Boo?.e Av
-El 4=1
-a ro
CPA -2015-0001
45104.9150
Ian
u Lj
45116.9079
-
.v. m
L%
.--, 4. oc
kr x•
!-. 11
l'.
, ;.,2 x—
cr. .g.:. "
, u-4 i LITI=
Elefor.CAv
E.-7 1 i ' Bonne tri --
_
---i
0.15151.1104',
TTJ
pal
IMM
11
45116.9040
25.933
45113.902S
1
1
45115.0303
151119022
45142.9128
1 ,
— 5.irit.oAv1=:.
: so •
51farp
Boone Av
}7.
0
0
Sharp Ay
0.
so
111 [Lro
_0_1)1estifetrAv"
--‘--° Cataldo—Av ',
11 1 1 !4 I i.1111,1 -i- —----
o+
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
5
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
CPA -2Q15-0001
OP@Eaaa W aaaarr
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
6
Spokane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 7
Spokane`— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
0
0
1R `'i iv ri ; ire([ 1 ;lei.
45L:L 4158
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
8
45097.0001
4510 4.9158
451o4.g.159
4510
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
C PA -20 15-0001
Mixed Use Center
45105:0207 ==
-tara_ For.
or. Pe -
5103.0201'. 0
Office
I
45103.0202
:1
4J
Regional Commercial
2
45103 304 ^ !
ir07-
crN
45104.9055
High Density Res.
0,0""
45104.91
45104.9
45
.01
Zoning District Designations
9
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
Planning Commission Deliberations
Discussion Points Action
• Access to the site
• Nora Avenue
• Adjacent zoning
• Affect to surrounding
parcels
• Permitted uses
• Unique site conditions
• Planning commission was
unable to reach a consensus
and makes no
recommendation
Comprehsneive Plan Amendments 10
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
Questions?
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 11
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
City Council Administrative Report
March 10, 2015
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
File No. CPA -2015-0002
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 12
*okane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Valley
Privately Initiated Map Amendment
Project Number
Applicant:
CPA -2015-0002
Patricia Abraham
1920 N Greenacres Rd
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
Application Description Change parcels 45124.0203 and 45124.0151 from
Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Center
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 13
Spokane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
vcd ley
—PFAN N I NGIr'
DIVISION
Vicinity Map
Poo
( Amendment Site
nrn.arlwav Av
Indiana Av
ik4aii5dieid Ay
Knox Ay — 1
m
a. 11
= n
= A
0. 0.
Baldwin Ay
Z. .
Nola Av
5P 0KiirfelV
Desnket Ct
N.ra
LLEY
Maxwell Av
"0"
.Nora -Ln
...o o
7' Er
- —
Mission AV
r 1
r,
0
Catald0 Av
—Broadway Av
ontgomery Av
[10.
ro
0.
0
Shannon Av
Vi hiIlI AV
iiidiAilB
Av
Desrnet Av
Cataldo v
Springfield A V
t.
0
[3:
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 14
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
Augusta Ct looking west at the site
Amendment Site
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
15
Spokane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
'LANNIN-
DIVISION
1
Mission Ave looking east
Multi -family development
Greenhouse
Amendment Site
Vacant Land Zoned MUC
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
16
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
vcilev
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 17
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
vcdlev
Comprehensive Plan Map
I'ark�� open Space
45131.0116
45124.0141
45124.0138
sPo
Mixed Use Center
Old Mission_ Av
0
A
I0.
1111111111111
NoG a�AY
3J
d
tbEMINW
45124.0204
a
45131.0117
NI Ix ed use Center
45131.0117
Ali
11111111
Mi ssionAv..
111111LA 11111
I ti
a o
r,
1.1.1.1.11
V r 1 axwel3 P 1-
7
p/laxwek0.v
611
LO
W
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 18
55182.0813
W�, a ` COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
alley
—PFAN
DIVISION
Zoning Map
45124.0140
45131.0116
45124.0141
Av
45124.0145R-3
R-3
45124.0138
uescnu+c� �•.--r---..
—
fd
mIe
1
pvR-4
w
55073.1344
55073.1345
■
55073.1353
55073.1439
Na
55073.1450
MUC
45131.0117
aRa
MUC
Maxwelti Av
INN
m
MEI
Mazweil._Av_.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 19
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
Planning Commission Deliberations
Discussion Points
Action
• Minor Arterials • Planning commission voted
• Potential Uses 4-3 in favor of
• Neighboring residential uses recommending approval
• Sidewalks & pedestrian safety
• Access to the site
• Existing impacts
• Reasonable extension of MUC
Comprehsneive Plan Amendments 20
Spokane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
DIVISION
CPA-2015m0001
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
21
Spokane— COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Val ley
Questions?
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 22
Spokane
..Valley
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIv1SION
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA -2015-0001
STAFF REPORT DATE: December 15, 2014
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: January 22, 2015, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane
Valley, Washington 99206.
Project Number:
CPA -2015-0001
Application
Description:
The application is a privately initiated site-specific comprehensive plan map
amendment requesting to change the designation from Office (0) with an
Office (0) zoning classification to a Community Commercial (C) designation
with a Community Commercial (C) zoning classification.
Location:
Parcels 45104.9145, 45104.9146, 45104.9156 & 45104.9157 addressed as
13110, 13120 & 13220 E. Nora Avenue; generally located 1300 feet west of the
intersection of Mamer Rd and Nora Avenue; further located in the SW '/4 of the
SE '/4 of Section 10, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian,
Spokane County, Washington.
Applicant(s):
Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC
7607 W. Gratz Drive
Boise, ID 83709
Owner(s):
Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC
7607 W. Gratz Drive
Boise, ID 83709
Date of Application:
October 29, 2014
Date Determined
Complete:
October 29, 2014
Staff Contact:
Christina Janssen, Planner
(509) 720-5333
christina.janssenna,spokanevalley.org
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 Environmental Controls.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1:
Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit 3:
Zoning Map
Exhibit 4:
Aerial Map
Staff Report
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. PROPERTY INFORMATION.
CPA -2015-0001
Size and
Characteristics:
The site is approximately 3.22 acres in size. The northern most 2/3
of the site is generally flat and covered with natural vegetation.
South of this the site slopes upward at approximately 30% is
covered with mature evergreen trees and other vegetation.
Comprehensive Plan:
Office (0)
Zoning:
Office (0)
Existing Land Use:
Three parcels are vacant and one parcel is being used for single
family residential.
2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES:
North
Comprehensive Plan — Regional Commercial (RC)
Zoning — Regional Commercial (RC)
Existing Land Uses —Nora Avenue, I-90 and Commercial
South
Comprehensive Plan — High Density Residential (HDR)
Zoning — High Density Multifamily Residential district (MF -2)
Existing Land Uses — Multifamily dwelling units
East
Comprehensive Plan — Office (0)
Zoning — Office (0)
Existing Land Uses — Commercial and Retail
West
Comprehensive Plan — Office (0)
Zoning — Office (0)
Existing Land Uses — Single family residential and professional office.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA
1. Findings:
Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the lead agency has determined that this
proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The
Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal on
December 12, 2014. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
2. Conclusion(s):
The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21
have been fulfilled.
C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria
Page 2 of 7
Staff Report CPA -2015-0001
i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map
amendments if it finds that (analysis is italicized):
(1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
Analysis: The Community Commercial classification is intended to serve several
neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan states that Community Commercial areas
should not be larger than 15-17 acres in size and should be located as business
clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development.
The amendment is consistent with the size requirement; the location's visibility along
the 1-90 corridor lends itself to regional services/business'. However, the access to
the area is limited and not conductive to regional development. The reclassification
may improve marketability of the property and the public health, safety, and general
welfare should be promoted by standards established by the City's development
regulations.
(2)The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW
and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment;
Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive
land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and
evaluation by the City. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation
consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the
property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies;
Analysis: The location of 1-90 adjacent to the site does not appear to be conducive
to residential development or office uses since the land has sat vacant. Residential
uses in the area have been converted to office or commercial uses while the
remaining residential uses appear to be on the decline. Other commercial uses
located in the area have been successful.
(4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or
Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error.
The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan.
(3)
(5)
Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the
Comprehensive Plan.
ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan
amendments:
(1) The effect upon the physical environment;
Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that could create difficulties
in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project
action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all
environmental requirements.
(2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes;
Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as
wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded
Page 3 of 7
Staff Report CPA -2015-0001
areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline
jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues.
The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods;
Analysis: The integration of commercial development on the south side of Interstate
90 should provide services for local economic demand and is consistent with other
businesses located in that corridor. The topography provides a natural barrier
between a commercial designation and the multi family development located
adjacent to the site at a significantly higher elevation. Development and
enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the
existing neighborhood.
The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public
transportation, parks, recreation, and schools;
Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on
a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP -9.1 of the
Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for
transportation, sewer, and water facilities. At the time of the submittal of any
building permit applications, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate
the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment in
regards to transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and improved
public roads.
(3) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region;
Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing
character of the surrounding neighborhood and will likely promote the most
appropriate use of property. Commercial development of this property will support
the existing commercial uses in the area. Vacant property does not create a
population base necessary for businesses to thrive.
(4) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density
and the demand for such land;
Analysis: The land has sat vacant and it can be concluded that the property's
current land use designation does not meet the desirable market criteria for office
uses. The City has ample office designated land along the Argonne/Mullan, Pines,
and Evergreen Corridors available for development or redevelopment. The proposed
amendment should create a marketable piece of property that is more compatible
with uses located in the vicinity.
The current and projected population density in the area; and
Analysis: The amendment will have no impact on population density and does not
demand population analysis.
(6) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have
minimal impact on other aspects of the plan.
2. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations
a. Findings:
(5)
Page 4 of 7
Staff Report CPA -2015-0001
The proposed privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment is
requesting to change the designation from Office (0) with an Office (0) zoning classification
to Community Commercial (C) designation with a Community Commercial (C) zoning
classification.
The Community Commercial classification designates areas for retail, service and office
establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. Community Commercial areas
should not be larger than 15 to 17 acres in size and should be located as business clusters
rather than arterial strip commercial development. Community Commercial centers may be
designated through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan
amendments or through subarea planning. Residences in conjunction with business and/or
multifamily developments may be allowed with performance standards that ensure
compatibility.
Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.030 (B) all site specific zoning map amendments must meet all the
following criteria:
a. The requirements of SVMC 22.20, Concurrency;
As stated in previous analysis, future development of the site will be required to meet the
concurrency standards at the time of building permit issuance.
b. The requested map is consistent with the Comprehensive plan;
As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
c. The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and
welfare;
As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the
public health, safety and welfare.
d. The map amendment is warranted in order to achieve consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed
zoning district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is
appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property;
The proposed amendment and zone change is reasonable for the development of the property.
e. The property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include corner touches and
property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher
zoning classification;
The property located north of the subject property has a Regional Commercial land use
designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Regional Commercial zoning designation. The
subject property is adjacent to these properties over Nora Avenue and Interstate 90, both
public rights-of-way. The subject property meets the requirement.
The map amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property;
The surrounding land uses include multifamily residential, retail and office uses. The
existing land uses are compatible with the proposed land use designation and zoning district.
f. The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole;
The amendment will provide an opportunity to redevelop a property that is currently vacant
with little chance of redevelopment as currently zoned The Community Commercial
Page 5 of 7
Staff Report CPA -2015-0001
designation would allow for a wider variety of commercial development with prime freeway
exposure.
b. Conclusion(s):
Pursuant to RCW 36.7Oa.13O(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be
processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to
the shoreline master program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with
the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the
Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board.
The proposed amendment is consistent SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
a. Findings:
The community commercial classification designates areas for retail, service and office
establishments intended to serve several neighborhoods. Community Commercial areas
should not be larger than 15-17 acres in size and should be located as business clusters rather
than arterial strip commercial development. Community Commercial centers may be
designated through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan
amendments or through sub -area planning. Residences in conjunction with business and/or
multifamily developments may be allowed with performance standards that ensure
compatibility. In addition, light assembly or other unobtrusive uses not traditionally located in
commercial zones may be allowed with appropriate performance standards to ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses or zoning districts.
The proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment will provide additional
development opportunities in an area with good visibility and which has been unable to
prosper under the current zoning designation.
The proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment is generally consistent with
the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Goal LUG -4: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily
accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the
community image and economic vitality.
Goal EDG-1: Encourage diverse and mutually supportive business development and the
expansion and retention of existing businesses within the City for the purpose of emphasizing
economic vitality, stability and sustainability.
Goal EDG-2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial/industrial properties within the City.
b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Adequate Public Facilities
a. Findings:
The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan require that public
facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is
available for occupancy.
Page 6 of 7
Staff Report CPA -2015-0001
The amendment is currently served with both public water and sewer. Nora Avenue and
Mamer Road, both local access streets, provide roadway access and tie into Mission Avenue
to the south and Pines Road to the west. Pines Road is a designated state roadway and
Mission Avenue is a minor arterial road according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial
Street Plan. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 will provide fire protection service, the City
of Spokane Valley Police Department will provide police service and Spokane Transit
Authority (STA) will provide public transit service.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development.
D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Findings:
Staff has not received any public comments to date.
2. Conclusion(s):
No concerns are noted.
E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Findings:
Staff has not received any agency comments to date.
2. Conclusion(s):
No concerns are noted
Page 7 of 7
"Bane
_Va11ey&
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA -2015-0002
STAFF REPORT DATE: December 31, 2014
BEARING DATE AND LOCATION: January 22, 2015, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane
Valley, Washington 99206.
Project Number:
CPA -2015-0002
Application Description:
The application is a privately initiated, site-specific Comprehensive
Plan map amendment seeking to change the Comprehensive Plan land
use designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single -
Family Residential (R-3) zoning classification to a Mixed Use Center
(MUC) designation with a Mixed Use Center (MUC) zoning
classification.
Location:
1603 N Flora Rd, Parcel No. 45124.0203, and 1625 N Flora Rd, Parcel
No. 45124.0151; generally located on the northwest corner of Mission
Avenue and Flora Road; further located in the SE'' of Section 12,
Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane
County, Washington.
Applicant(s):
Patricia Abraham
1920 N Greenacres Rd,
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Owner(s):
Donald L Fisher Jayn Courchaine
1603 N Flora Rd 619 N Sargent Rd
Spokane Valley , WA 99016 Spokane Valley, WA 99212
Date of Application:
October 27, 2014
Date Determined Complete
November 1, 2014
Staff Contact:
Martin Palaniuk, Planner, (509) 720-5031,
mpalaniuk a spokanevalley.org
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 Environmental Controls.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1:
Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2
Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit 3:
Zoning Map
Exhibit 4:
Aerial Map
Staff Report & Findings
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. PROPERTY INFORMATION:
CPA -2015-0002
Size and
Characteristics:
Combined, both parcels equal approximately 3.56 acres. The site is
relatively flat with residential landscaping including trees and
bushes. A round -about intersection is situated on the southeast
corner of the site and is set at an elevation above the site.
Comprehensive Plan:
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Zoning:
Single -Family Residential District (R-3)
Existing Land Use:
Single-family residential use on both parcels. Mission Avenue
runs east/west along the southern boundary and is also set at a
higher elevation than the site. Flora Road runs north/south along
the west boundary and drops in elevation from the round -about to
ground level with the site.
2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES:
North
Comprehensive Plan — Low Density Residential (LDR)
Zoning — Single -Family Residential District (R-3) and Single-family Residential
Urban District (R-4)
Existing Land Uses — Single-family residential
South
Comprehensive Plan — Mixed Use Center (MUC)
Zoning — Mixed Use Center (MUC)
Existing Land Uses — Currently vacant.
East
Comprehensive Plan — Low Density Residential (LDR)
Zoning — Single-family Residential Urban District (R-4)
Existing Land Uses — Single-family Residential
West
Comprehensive Plan — Mixed Use Center (MUC)
Zoning — Mixed Use Center (MUC)
Existing Land Uses — Greenhouses and high density multi -family apartments
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA
1. Findings:
Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the lead agency has determined that this
proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The
Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal on
December 12, 2014. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental
checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21, and 22, a site
assessment, and public and agency comments, and other information on file with the lead
agency.
2. Conclusion(s):
The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21
have been fulfilled.
Page 2 of 8
Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002
C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria
i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map
amendments if it finds that:
(1)
The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
Analysis: The Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation is more appropriate to the
transportation facilities located along the boundaries of the site. The new
designation will allow uses more consistent with those occurring west and south of
the site and with the roadways that intersect at the southeast corner of the site.
Mission Avenue and Flora Road intersect in a round -about at the southwest corner of
the property. Mission Avenue is identified in the City of Spokane Valley Arterial
Street Plan as a proposed minor arterial. Flora Road is identified as a proposed
minor arterial south of the intersection and as a collector north of the intersection.
This is in anticipation of the increased amount of traffic.
The Comprehensive plan states the minor arterial street system interconnects with
and augments the principal arterial system. It accommodates trips of moderate
length at a lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials. Minor arterials
place more emphasis on land access than the principal arterial. Minor arterials may
carry local bus routes and provide intra -community continuity, but ideally does not
penetrate identifiable neighborhoods.
Collector Streets provide both land access and traffic circulation within residential
neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas. It differs from the arterial
system in that facilities from the collector system may penetrate residential
neighborhoods, distributing trips from arterials through the area to their ultimate
destinations. Conversely, the collector system collects traffic from the local streets in
residential neighborhoods and channels it into the arterial system.
Traffic information provided by the Senior Traffic Engineer indicates 4,600 vehicle
trips pass through the intersection on a daily basis. Estimates for the year 2040
indicate the traffic volume will roughly triple.
Higher densities are encouraged along transit corridors. The Mixed-use Center
designation would allow for two or more different land uses within a development.
Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could
include uses such as office, retail and/or lodging along higher density residential
uses.
The existing minor arterial roadways combined with the high density residential
development that has occurred west of the site combine to make the amendment
consistent with the long-term objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole.
The nearest Spokane Transit Authority (STA) bus route is located approximately 1
mile east, west and south of the site. STA generally considers three metrics for public
transit service:
Page 3 of 8
Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002
i. Within'/ mile of a bus stop is near. This is generally a five-minute walk for
most people. Studies point to this as the ideal walking distance.
ii. Within % mile of a bus stop is within walking distance. This is nearing the
cut-off distance most people will walk to transit (though some will walk
farther). STA Level of Service policy requires that 80% of the urban
population should have basic service (fixed routes that run all/most days for
most hours) within %I mile distance.
iii. Within 3/ mile is the federal access area. For persons whose disabilities
prevent them using or accessing a bus, STA is required to provide service so
long as their origin and destination is within 3/ mile of an established bus
route.
STA has identified this location for future bus service within their STA Moving
Forward Plan and Connect Spokane, their comprehensive plan.
The public health, safety, and general welfare should be promoted by standards
established by the state and the City's regulations.
(2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A
RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment;
Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive
land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and
evaluation by the City. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation
consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the
property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies;
Analysis: Sign (cant changes have occurred in the area of the proposed
amendment. A 324 -unit apartment complex has been constructed along Indiana
Avenue and Mission Avenue less than 'h of a mile west of the site. The complex
consists of a mix of buildings with either 24 dwelling units or 12 dwelling units and a
clubhouse. Single-family and duplex subdivisions that have occurred within a %S-
mile radius of the site since 2005 include the Hidden Valley, Valley Coach Estate,
Flora Ridge, Flora Estates, Flora Meadows, Flora Springs, and Centennial Place
subdivisions. All together the subdivisions added 273 single-family dwellings to the
area. When combined with the multi family development a total of 597 dwelling
units have been added to the area since 2005.
(3)
The increased residential density has contributed to the higher traffic volumes
experienced at the Mission/Flora road intersection.
The amendment is a reasonable extension of the existing Mixed Use Center
designation located adjacent to the west and south of the site based on the changed
conditions.
(4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or
Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error.
(5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 4 of 8
Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002
ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan
amendments:
(1) The effect upon the physical environment;
Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that could create difficulties
in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project
action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all
environmental requirements.
(2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes;
Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as
wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically
hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there
are no known surface water quality or quantity issues.
The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods;
Analysis: Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will
ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. The use of fencing
and screening will provide visual separation and physical buffers between land uses.
New multifamily development is required to meet a 1:1 height to setback ratio when
abutting a single family use or zone and a 10 foot minimum setback. New
commercial development must meet 20 foot setbacks when adjacent to a residential
use or zone. In addition, Type 1 screening is required for commercial development
adjacent to any residential zone. Allowed uses within the MUC zone are considered
compatible with the adjacent MUC zoning and will not impose impacts.
(4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public
transportation, parks, recreation, and schools;
Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on
a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Policy CFP -9.1 of the
Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for
transportation, sewer, and water facilities. At the time of development, an additional
SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed
structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation.
The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region;
Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment may have significant benefit to
the area by creating opportunity for small scale commercial development to serve the
neighborhood and the 597 new dwelling units in the area. The site is located at the
intersection of two minor arterial roadways. Minor arterials serve to disperse and
collect traffic to and from neighborhoods. Mixed use development would serve the
multi family and single-family residential development occurring in the area and
would be ideally located at the intersection of two arterial roadways.
Low Density Residential land use implemented through the Single-family Residential
(R-3) district and the Single-family Residential Urban zoning (R-4) district is located
north, east and southeast of the site. The R-3 zoning district permits single-family
and duplex dwelling development. The R-4 zoning district permits a variety of
residential uses to include single-family, duplex, multi family, and townhouse
dwelling development. Both zones permit Manufactured Home Park development.
Public, quasi public, and communication uses such as utility facilities and cell towers
(3)
(5)
Page 5 of 8
Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002
are permitted under certain conditions. Commercial development is not permitted or
is severely limited in both zones.
Mixed Use Center land use implemented through the Mixed Use Center (MUC) Zone
is located west and south of the site. As stated previously, 324 dwelling units have
been added to area from multi family residential development west of the site. The
nearest commercial centers are the Spokane Valley Mall area and the large regional
commercial box stores located across Interstate 90 along Broadway Avenue and
Sullivan Road. The MUC zone provides an opportunity for commercial or mixed use
development that could serve the residential neighborhoods in the vicinity.
(6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density
and the demand for such land;
Analysis: As shown in Figure 2.1 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, 3.5%
of the land in the City is designated for Mixed --use Center, The Mixed-use Center
designation would allow for two or more dfferent land uses within developments
under this designation. Mixed-use developments can be either vertical or horizontally
mixed, and would include employment uses such as office, retail and/or lodging
along with higher density residential uses, and in some cases community or cultural
facilities. Compatibility between uses is achieved through design which integrates
certain physical and functional features such as transportation systems, pedestrian
ways, open areas or court yards, and common focal points or amenities.
(7) The current and projected population density in the area; and
Analysis: The amendment will have marginal impact on population density and does
not demand population analysis since the increase in density is isolated to 3.5 acres.
(8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have
minimal impact on other aspects of the plan.
2. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations
a. Findings:
The proposal is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Low Density Residential
(LDR) with a Single -Family Residential (R-3) zoning classification to Mixed-use Center
(MUC) designation with a Mixed-use Center (MUC) zoning classification.
Future development on the site will be subject to the provisions in SVMC 19.110.
Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.030 (B) all site specific zoning map amendments must meet all the
following criteria:
a. The requirements of SVMC 22.20, Concurrency;
Spokane County Utilities provides sewer throughout the City of Spokane Valley.
Specific sewer requirements would be addressed at the time of development however
sewer facilities exist in the area and are available to the site. Consolidated Irrigation
District #19 is the water purveyor for this area. Water requirements will be
coordinated with the water district at the time development is proposed As discussed
previously, the site is situated at the corner of two minor arterial roadways and is well
served by the transportation system. The proposed amendment meets concurrency
requirements.
b. The requested map is consistent with the Comprehensive plan;
Page 6 of 8
Staff Report& Findings CPA -2015-0002
As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
c. The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and
welfare;
As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to
the public health, safety and welfare.
d. The map amendment is warranted in order to achieve consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed
zoning district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is
appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property;
The recent single-family and multi family residential development that has occurred
all around the site have changed the character of this area. The improvements made
to Mission Avenue west of the site and the construction of the round -about at the
intersection of Mission Avenue and Flora Road combine to make the site appropriate
for mixed use development.
e. The property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include corner touches and
property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher
zoning classification;
The properties located west and south of the subject property have a Mixed -Use
Center land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Mixed -Use Center
zoning designation. The subject property meets the requirement.
f. The map amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the
immediate vicinity of the subject property;
The site is surrounded by a mix of high density multi family use and higher density
single-family uses. A commercial green house is located adjacent to the site along its
western boundary. Existing land uses are compatible, or will be made compatible,
with the application of development regulations at the time of development.:
g. The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole;
The amendment will allow mixed-use, commercial, or high density residential
development of property ideally located at the intersection of two minor arterials.
b. Conclusion(s):
Pursuant to RCW 36.70a.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be
processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to
the shoreline master program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with
the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the
Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board.
The proposed amendment is consistent SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
a. Findings:
The Mixed Use Center (MUC) designation provides for mixed use development consistent
with the development that is occurring on adjacent properties. It will provide an opportunity
to develop uses that will serve surrounding residential uses.
The proposed amendment is compatible with the Mixed Use Center west and south of the site
and single-family residential urban use located north and east of the site.
Page 7 of 8
Staff Report & Findings CPA -2015-0002
The amendment is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies.
Goal LUG -2 Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with
the community's needs and preferences.
Goal LUG -5 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's
neighborhoods.
Goal LUG -9 Encourage the development of Mixed-use areas that foster community identity
and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle and regional transit.
Goal HG -1 Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the
community and region.
Goal EDG-7 Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,
predictability and clear direction.
Goal NG -3 Encourage neighborhood/sub-area planning for commercial, industrial and
mixed use properties to enhance the quality, vibrancy and character of existing development.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan.
4. Adequate Public Facilities
a. Findings:
The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public
facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is
available for occupancy.
The amendment is currently served with public water and sewer. Mission Avenue and Flora
Road will provide transportation access. As previously stated both roads are classified as
minor arterials according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane
County Fire District No. 1 will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley
Police Department will provide police service and Spokane Transit Authority (STA) will
provide public transit service.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development.
D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Findings:
Staff has not received any public comments to date.
2. Conclusion(s):
No concerns are noted
E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Findings:
Staff has not received any agency comments to date.
2. Conclusion(s):
No concerns are noted.
Page 8 of 8
Vicinity Map CPA -2015-0002
a
3
A
a.
-Fkor
O. pit.
Ret.
0
72
P.
Indiana Av'
SPOK
oQv.
Mansfield Av
• Knox Av
n� p
a
t Baldvah' Ava.-
Baldwini rAv
Nora
Air1 Nora Av
LLEY•
r y
ri
0
Nora Ln
9.
11/351044
A
Cataldo 4'a
Springfield Av
_ -3 -Broadway
cp a-
°'met Ct
2,283.3 0 1,141.67 2,283.3 Feet
let
n
✓
7
.Montgomery Av-
1
Ck
O .
1 9.
si
-a
Mich fell!, Av
Indiana Av
0
a
r? -
Mission Av.
r r
Pa sa,)Quaa1D
73
0 -
Allan Lr
n
n
O .
Maxwell Av
Sinto Av
Sharp Av
Boone_,Av Boone-Avoori'e—Av-s
Desmet Av Destnet Av
Cafaldo Av
•
a
Cataldo Av
Broadway Av
0
0
Springfield Av
Alki Av
O
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping she and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise
reliable.
pj _saJ)euaaJD
Broadwo.piv
tot
Healy Industrial .°-
45125.9157
45125.9157 41
O
LL
SPOKANE VALLEY
Comprehensive Plan Map CPA -2015-0002
45124.0105
451.31.0116
M
45124.0138
45124.0108
IndianaAv
OId Mission ,9` r.--
4 45131.0117
s,. Mixed Use Center
Deschutes
41
v
r
Ln
Baldwin. Av
11
NEI
n
73
Baldwin`Av
v
w
Nora. Av
gusts
45124.0204
L
45135.0314
913.3
gala
9
45131.0501
456.67
913.3 Feet
45131.0117
=45131.0104
45131.0103
45131.0107
Ct
I
n
O
at
Maxwell:Ay
ea
41
1
55182.0813
u'
CO
m
u1
r
eo
N
0
l0
N
MINN
41
u'
CO
O
0
41
rt
Av
w
sso
eD3
..c 8�
Indiana Ay=,
a1 Q?
u1
0
r
w
M
r`
ut
ut
Nora Ln,
A r
• i.
Mission Av
I I
1♦
sta Ln.0
u'
u1
co
00
N
O
O
A
,411111.1
u
u
41
0
41
L
r
• Low Density Residential
55182.0104
O
0
This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise
reliable.
4n
41
coo
N
N
0
11
th co
c
N ni
N
A CO
v %1
Zoning Map CPA -2015-0002
Knox Av„
0
d.
45124.0105
R-2
45124.0108
I0dO
rs = ce�`, 'IndianaJ.-Av
-Indiana.-Av_
45125 51571-3
a
M
ist
Deschutes
0
(T
5.
IJ1
O
V
Baldwin:Av
55073.1439
Nora-Av
Nora.Ln
55073.1450
45124.0138
45124.0 1
SPOKANE VrA;
LLEY
45131.0114
45124.0204
`
Old Mission 1.
yor 45131.Nt-
0117 C¢
MLTC t7
4o,
45131.0116
7 45131.0117
% _ _
— _ T 45131.0104
— —45131.0103
45131.0107
45135.0314
913,3
,na• " 45131.0501
451.67 913.3 Feet
Maxwell:Ay
e—�
55182,0813
Sharp'
1,
O
This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Date layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise
reliable.
1,1
oa n
p
UJ WI
Aerial Map CPA -2015-0002
91? -3
9
456.67
913.3 Feet
O
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise
reliable.
Approved Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall,
January 8, 2015
Secretary of the Commission Deanna Horton called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners,
staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members
and staff were present:
Kevin Anderson
Heather Graham
Tim Kelley
Mike Philips
Susan Scott
Joe Stoy
Sam Wood
John Hohman, Community Development Director
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Christina Janssen, Planner
Karen Kendall, Planner
Martin Palaniuk, Planner
Micki Harnois, Planner
Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission
Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the January 8, 2014 amended agenda as presented Motion passed
with a seven to zero vote.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the December 11, 2014 minutes as presented The vote on the
minutes was seven to zero, the motion passed.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no report.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow welcomed the new Commissioners, and
introduced the staff. Ms. Barlow stated the legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan would be an
upcoming project for the Commission; staff had begun work to schedule Planning Short Course for end of
February or early March. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb welcomed the Commission and shared that
the legal staff would be bringing forward training for the Commission on the open public meetings act
and public records.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Election of Officers: Ms. Horton conducted the election of officers. Ms. Horton asked for
nominations for the office of chair. Mr. Anderson nominated Joe Stoy for Chair. Having no other
nominations, Mr. Stoy was declared Chair for the year 2015. Ms. Horton asked for nominations for
the office of Vice Chair. Commissioner Phillips nominated Kevin Anderson for the office of Vice
Chair. There were no other nominations for Vice Chair and Mr. Anderson was declared the Vice
Chair for the year 2015.
Public Hearing — STV -2014-0001, vacation of a portion of Old Mission near Mission Parkway
and the Old Mission Trailhead.
Planner Karen Kendall explained STV -2014-0001 was a request to vacate approximately 3700 square
feet of the intersection of Mission Parkway and Old Mission Avenue. The property would be
absorbed by the property owner to the north and would be used to enhance the trailhead entrance.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the road to the trailhead for the Centennial Trail was a public road.
Ms. Kendell confirmed it was. Commissioner Wood asked if the vacation would impact any utility
easements, none would be impacted.
Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. and took a vote to incorporate the staff
report into the public hearing which was approved by a vote of seven to zero. Commissioner Wood
01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
asked to clarify the developer had given up property for the development of the Centennial Trial
trailhead at this location. Staff responded the developer had worked closely with staff to develop the
area and had contributed to the development. Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed
the public hearing at 6:29 p. m.
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of STY -2014-0001. The
vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes.
Public Hearing — CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions
Commissioner Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Planner Micki Harnois gave a staff report
regarding the change to chapter 2030.060 regarding time extensions for final plat approvals.
Currently the City's code provides for a one time, one year extension if a plat cannot be completed in
the state allowed five year time period. Currently there is a situation where a developer cannot finish
his plat because he is waiting for a map change from FEMA. Staff is proposing to clean up some
language and to change the time to a request to an initial three year extension with one year
extensions afterward. Ms. Hamois noted that with the extensions, the director could apply conditions
to the project which would bring it into line with the current codes.
Ms. Harnois noted she had contacted several jurisdictions. Other time lines ranged from one one-year
extension with no other extensions allowed to an initial three year extension with one year extensions
at one year at a time. Commissioner Wood asked if the City of Spokane allowed a one year extension
and regardless of the situation, they did not allow another extension, which Ms. Hamois confirmed as
correct. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City took any responsibility to notify the developer that
the plat was getting close to expiring. Ms. Barlow stated as part of the staff report when preliminary
approval is received they are notified of the specific date the plat expires. If a plat expires the
developer can they reapply, but the process starts over. Commissioner Graham asked if staff was
aware of how many plats have needed an extension. Ms. Harnois stated the case where the developer
is waiting for a FEMA map change to finish his plat. She also asked if the extension is granted would
the development fall under new code. The plat would be vested in the code at the time of approval
however, the director could apply new conditions if it were warranted.
Seeing no one who wished to testify, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 6:46 p. m.
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA -2014-0006.
Commissioner Phillips commented that he is very much in favor of the proposal, he has had times
when he needed the extra time to finish a plat. He also stated that today most plats are fairly small,
but it depends on the size of the preliminary plat how quickly they can be completed. Most
developers are not willing to develop large subdivisions, so they do it in phases. This all takes time to
get thru all the requirements. Commissioner Philips stated that he is very much in favor of this and
would like to see notices sent out when as things get close to expiring.
Commissioner Stoy stated he agrees with the proposal and feels the ending dates get forgotten. He
stated that maybe there could be a process to notify whoever is providing the developer and or the
civil plans notification stating that there plat is about to expire and that they have 30 days.
Mr. Lamb stated from a legal stand point these are the developer's plats and not the City's plats. It is
the developer's responsibility to remember the dates. If the City created a system of providing
notices, it could create a significant risk for the City and liability should one be missed. It is not
something that he can recommend from a legal standpoint.
The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes.
Ms. Barlow explained to the Planning Commission that they would be deviating from the normal
process and they will be bringing back the findings CTA -2014-0006 to the Planning Commission that
evening for approval.
01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
Study Session: CPA -2015-0001, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated
Comprehensive Plan Amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines Rd and Maurer Rd.
Ms. Barlow reviewed the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan process before the
Study Session began.
Planner Christina Janssen began her study session regarding the first privately (citizen) initiated
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0001 is a request to change from Office to
Community Commercial. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines Road and Mamer
Road. It is three parcels with one single family residence. It is bordered on the east and west by
Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained
fairly vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more
marketable.
Commissioner Anderson stated he did not agree with the staff report's statement that conditions have
changed beyond the property owners control because he looked and the property owner has not
owned the property long enough to have the conditions change. He also stated he did not know if the
property was still sitting vacant because of lack of marketing or failure of marketing. Ms. Janssen
commented staff have received many calls on this area because of the high visibility of it however,
the current zoning limits what people are able to do, which keeps people from looking at it harder.
She stated she felt that in the legislative update of the Comp Plan the area would be reviewed for
changes in general.
Ms. Janssen continued to explain one of the approval criteria for the change is the property must be
adjacent to the same or a higher classification than the request being made, which includes over a
right-of-way (ROW). In this case the property is adjacent to Regional Commercial across a ROW.
The right-of-way here is Interstate -90 (I-90). The Commissioners questioned the use of 1-90 as a
connecting ROW as an approval criterion. Ms. Janssen stated that between the property and the
properties with the higher classification there was only ROW. Ms. Barlow also assisted in explaining
how the ROW, and 1-90, is used to reach the approval criteria.
Commissioner Scott commented her concerns over the traffic. She said it is a 25 MPH road, with a
right turn only at Pines, and a steep grade at Mamer .Rd. She said she was concerned about the truck
traffic on the road. Ms. Janssen said she had spoken to the senior traffic engineer who said most
likely at the time of a building permit, he would be requiring mitigation at the Pines Rd. and Mission
Ave. intersection as well as the and Pines Rd. and Nora Ave. intersection because they are both
performing below standard. Commissioners asked about spot zoning in the middle of an area, with
no other similar zoning near it. Ms. Barlow stated she did not feel this was spot zoning, since the
approval criteria was across ROW and there was nothing but ROW in front of the property, to a
higher classification. She also expressed the area was one of concern for staff to review to a change
in the upcoming legislative update to the Comp Plan. She said she would not guess a change to what
but the office zone in the area was clearly not working for the properties there.
Study Session: CPA -2015-0002, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment, a privately initiated
Comprehensive Plan Amendment located at the intersection of Mission Ave. and Flora Rd.
Planner Marty Palaniuk began his study session regarding the second privately (citizen) initiated
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) amendment. CPA -2015-0002 is a request to change from Low
Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The request is located on the northwest
corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is two parcels with a greenhouse located on it. It is
bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center.
The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. It is
located on two minor arterials.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the parcels to the south were vacant. Mr. Palaniuk confirmed they
were. Commissioner Anderson also asked how close the transit was, which is located at Mission and
Barker, but a distance could not be provided. He did not feel this was "close" as was indicated in the
01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
staff report. Ms. Barlow commented in the future, exact distances would be used. Commissioner
Wood stated he could go either way on this, there seemed to be a natural boundary for the zoning at
Flora'Rd. He also asked if the change would allow manufactured home parks. Mr. Palaniuk said it
would not, Mr. Wood said he knew the property owner and knew they owned other manufactured
home parks. Commissioner Graham said she runs in the area and there are no sidewalks in the area.
Ms. Barlow commented any commercial development would be required to put in frontage
improvements at the time of development, however single family development might trigger the
same.
Findings of Fact: CTA -2014-0006, Subdivisions, Time Extensions.
Ms. Harnois handed out the Planning Commission findings of fact for review. She commented once
the Findings are signed they will move on to City Council. Mr. Lamb explained the primary purpose
of the findings is to layout the basis for determining the compliance with the City's code in providing
the recommendation of approval of the code text amendment. There are two approval criteria for
code text amendments, the first is that the amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the
Comp Plan and the second is that it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare,
and protection of the environment. As staff explained during the staff report in earlier in the evening,
there are various goals and polices set out in the Comp Plan which apply to this specific amendment,
and in these findings they have outlined the goals and polices which staff feel are applicable, which
the Commission would ultimately approve. The second would be the general public health, safety,
welfare, which is a vague term for a text amendment, which is at times difficult to determine. The
vote on the findings is more on the basis for the recommendation, not the recommendation itself.
Commissioner Anderson asked why the conclusions on the findings were not the same as the
conclusions on the staff report. Mr. Lamb also pointed out to the Commission they are allowed to
change the findings if they do not agree with them. Commissioner Anderson stated they were two
different sentences. In the staff report it states the overall conclusion is consistent with the Comp
Plan policies and goals and on the findings it states it is consistent with the City's adopted Comp Plan
and the approval criteria. Mr. Lamb stated in the future that staff would work to make sure the staff
report and findings reflected the same language however, this did say the same thing in a different
way.
Commissioner Phillips asked to verify that the language underline and strike through language would
be attached to the findings as part of the record.
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval to the City Council the Findings of Fact for
CTA -2014-0006 as presented. The vote on this motion was seven to zero, motion passes.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Anderson asked how the Commission would go about
amending the public hearing script from the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure. Mr. Lamb and
Ms. Horton shared with the Commission in the Rules of Procedure allow for updates in the odd numbered
years, and staff would assist in reviewing the script.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m.
'LA I /I
�i
Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed
Lai.izirtho
Deanna Horton, Secretary
01-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4
Chairman Stoy called the
pledge of allegiance. Ms.
Kevin Anderson
Heather Graham
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Susan Scott
Joe Stoy
Sam Wood
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall,
January 22, 2015
meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the
Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present:
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Martin Palaniuk, Planner
Christina Janssen, Planner
Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 22, 2015 amended agenda as presented The
motion passed with a seven to zero vote.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 08, 2015 minutes as presented. The vote on the
motion was seven to zero, the motion passed.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood reported he attended the Spokane Home Builders
Association government affairs meeting. He said the discussion was about form based codes and
walkable urbanism.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the Planning Short
Course had been scheduled for February 25, 2015 and was open for all to attend. She also said the
Commissioners had a copy of the postcard which had been mailed city-wide announcing the two public
meetings for the Comprehensive Plan visioning meetings. City Attorney Cary Driskell said although the
Short Course would have some training on the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act, the
legal staff would be bringing forward more in-depth training for the Commission on both of these
subjects at the February 12, 2015 meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0001 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on Nora Ave.
between Pines and Mamer Roads.
Before beginning the public hearings, Ms. Barlow asked the Commission how they would like to
handle the public hearings. Options were to have the public hearings and deliberate after each public
hearing or hold the public hearings and then deliberate after both were closed. The Commission
chose to deliberate after both public hearings were closed.
Chair Stoy opened the public hearing regarding CPA -2015-0001 at 6:17 p.m. Planner Christina
Janssen gave her staff report regarding the citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to
change four parcels from Office to Community Commercial. The property is owned by Jim Cross
and Rainyday Dagaory LLC. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines and Mamer
Road. The properties are bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential
and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained vacant for some years and the owner
believes the change will make the property more marketable.
Commissioner Tim Kelley said the law fun of Witherspoon Kelly does community work with
veterans which he recently had the opportunity to take part in. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr.
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9
Driskell if having worked with Witherspoon Kelly would disqualify him from participating in the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Driskell explained it would be a matter of bias. In a case like
Mr. Kelley had explained, a Commissioner would explain the circumstances to the rest of the
Commission, and then determine if they would be able to consider the matter without bias. If not he
would recuse himself and step out of the room while the matter was being discussed. If he could
review the matter without bias, then he would state he could review the matter without bias and the
Commission business would continue. Mr. Kelley said he felt he could review the matter without
bias and stayed on the dais.
Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify.
Stanley Schwartz, W. 422 Riverside Ave.: He was also an attorney for Witherspoon Kelly and had
never met Commissioner Kelley, nor had he had any dealings with Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwartz stated
he was a representative for the property owners James Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC. Mr. Cross
has two high-end dealerships. One is located in Spokane; the other is located in Boise, D. Mr.
Schwartz said he is an attorney in municipal real estate and planning law, is the City Attorney for
Cheney and Airway Heights as well as he had a previous relationship with this City. Mr. Schwartz
stated that the property had been posted, and the surrounding properties within 400 feet had notices
mailed to them. He said he had checked with staff and was not aware of any comments which had
been submitted in regard to the proposal. Mr. Schwartz stated the site was unique, with high density
residential to the south up a steep slope, some commercial development to the west, and a Steinway
showroom to the east. He said the site was at grade but subject to significant freeway noise and light
and bordered Nora Avenue and the freeway to the north. Mr. Schwartz stated this area is not
appropriate for residential.
Mr. Schwartz stated he had submitted three documents for the record a letter from his client Mr.
Cross, who owns two high end dealerships in Spokane and Boise, a market study he requested from
NAI Black and a letter from himself summarizing the points in the other two documents. He said Mr.
Cross' dealerships sell high end motor vehicles, such as Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, which are
considered destination type of a dealership where customers search them out. The amount of traffic
which can be expected would be for a destination type of dealership. Mr. Schwartz said this would be
like someone searching out a specific department store for a specific item. He said this was different
than how most people shop for a car up and down Sprague Avenue. He said this is significant in the
sense of the amount of traffic which can be expected, and the draw which would be coming to this
property. He said his client is requesting support of the map change to Community Commercial
which is a bit of a down zone or a different zone than the Regional Commercial, which is across the
street, in terms of what is allowed. This is a change in regard to the land use, which is for the future.
Mr. Schwartz also said when it comes time for a building permit the property owners are prepared to
meet with staff and perform all mitigation and traffic improvements warranted, as well as all on site
improvements. Mr. Schwartz also submitted a market report from NAI Black regarding office
vacancies in the valley. He said he had requested the study which summarizes in fall 2013 the City
had the largest amount of office space at 3,280,000 square feet and the largest amount of vacant office
space in the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane and Spokane's South Hill for market purposes.
The vacancy rate for Spokane Valley was 21.56% in 2013; in 2014 it did decline to 18.32%. He said
no one would be building for office space at this vacancy rate, unless it will be a very specific build to
suit. Mr. Schwartz said this zoning still had a long way to go to recover to get to a healthy office
market. He said he believed the property could be put to a higher and better use. The report also says
retail is improving. The report supports the property will not be developed as office within the
foreseeable future. He said with 632,000 square feet of office space available, the report suggests
why the office zoning is not working. Mr. Johnson, President of NAI Black stated in his letter
Spokane Valley had a long way to go to recover to get back to a healthy office market. The property
owner does feel the change will not interfere with the uses in the area but will create jobs and create
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9
stimulus in regard to sales tax. The property owner feels he can put the property to a higher and
better use. The use will be more compatible to the surrounding area and uses. Mr. Schwartz said the
staff report is comprehensive and supportive. The application meets all of the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that one of the criteria for the change was the property must be
adjacent and contiguous to the same or higher commercial use. When looking at the zoning code
adjacent also means comer touches and it includes the comer touching and in the conjunctive includes
property located across the public right-of-way to the same or a higher zoning classification (SVMC
19.30.030). He said there is no question I-90 is a public right-of-way, there is no question Nora is a
public right-of-way, and this is then across the street. He said he included the definition of adjacent
in this letter, which is lying near or close to but not necessarily touching. He also noted that the case
law is that there is the presumption is that the property owner has the free and uninhibited right to use
their property in a manner to make it economically feasible and viable. He said since 2006 this
property and the property next to it has been underutilized and underserved. He thanked the
Commissioners for the time to go through the information he provided. He said again there were no
objections from staff or other property owners. He said he hoped the Commissioners would make a
positive recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant purchased the property knowing it was zoned office.
Mr. Schwartz responded this was correct. Commissioner Anderson then asked if Mr. Schwartz's
client accepted Nora Avenue as sufficient for his proposed business as he plans. Mr. Schwartz said at
this point he did not know. However, what he did know and felt staff would support was the question
at this point does not relate to what improvements are going to be necessary on Nora Avenue, or next
to Evergreen, or Pines Road, or another adjoining roadway, as a result of the development. What his
client will do and what standard practice is when the building permit is applied for, the client will fill
out a SEPA checklist which will likely include a transportation study. Staff will look at the
transportation study and determine what mitigation, and what improvements will be necessary in
order to make Nora Avenue able to serve the adjoining land use. He said it will be incumbent upon
his client to spend money and resources to hire professionals and fix or build -out Nora Avenue
according to the studies which will be obtained from traffic engineers as approved by the staff. This
could include off-site improvements all the way to Evergreen Road, it may include Pines Road, it
may include the payment of impact fees, all these things his client is fully aware of and fully prepared
to undertake in order to use this land as he has requested. Commissioner Anderson said he
understood the requirements at the time of development but what he was asking was, does Nora
Avenue as it currently sits meet the client's transportation needs to operate his business. Mr.
Schwartz said he was not trying to dodge the answer, Mr. Anderson said it was a simple yes or no
question. Mr. Schwartz said he was not privy to a transportation study because one was not required
at the time of this application or at any other time as this process has proceeded. Mr. Schwartz said it
was his understanding when development occurs, his client will adjust Nora Avenue. Mr. Schultz
stated everyone was aware that motor vehicles would be moving in and out of semi -trucks, he knows
Nora Avenue is of a certain width. He said he could make an assumption semi trucks already travel
on Nora Avenue because Steinway Piano must get deliveries somehow. Commissioner Anderson
asked if the market study from NAI Black, was studying what was in the Office zone, which the City
allowed more than `offices' uses in it, or was the study just for offices. Mr. Schwartz confirmed it
was just "office buildings" in the study.
Commissioner Stoy asked if the marketing study mentioned marketing was a problem in area along
Nora. He commented the properties along Nora Avenue do not have for sale signs on them. Mr.
Schwartz commented he knew the residential properties had for sale signs; he also said any buyer
would do their due diligence and check the zoning of the property. Commissioner Anderson asked if
the NAI Black study equated vacant office space, not vacant property. Mr. Schultz this was vacant
office square footage within office buildings.
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9
Commissioner Wood commented he had driven by the property, which cannot be accessed when
heading south on Pines. He said there were two for sale signs on the property which have been there
for some time, so they were marketing the property.
Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. Schwartz's clients looked at any property which was zoned for a car
dealership. She said there are areas of the City which are zoned for car dealerships; the city has an
Auto Row and property along Sprague Avenue where dealerships are allowed. Mr. Schwartz said he
had actually worked on the CARMAX deal, and went through the due diligence for that purchase, so
he does know about that area of the City. He said his client did look at the area along Auto Row, and
his client did not feel his brand would fit into that area, nor did the client find the location or
configuration for the type of dealership he would be developing. Therefore his client looked at this
property and felt it was an ideal opportunity, given the state of the zoning since 2006. Commissioner
Scott asked if he had looked at any other property with freeway exposure. Mr. Schwartz said he was
not aware of other property along the freeway.
Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners although it was interesting to consider the possible
development on the property they should be focusing on the land use designation, and the question is
the location suitable for the uses under the proposed designation.
Seeing no one else who wished to testf, Chairman Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015-
0001 at 6:53 p.m.
Public Hearing: CPA -2015-0002 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on the northwest
corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Rd.
Chairman Stoy opened the public hearing for CPA -2015-0002 at 6:54 p.m.
Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the staff report regarding this citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan
amendment to change two parcels from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center
(MUC). The applicant is Patricia Abraham. The site is located on the northwest corner of Mission
Avenue and Flora Road. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south
and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just
recommended for approval. Mr. Palaniuk commented the staff report had been updated to reflect the
Spokane Transit Authority (STA) route is one mile from the area, and STA plans to add service to the
area which is noted in the STA Comprehensive Plan. The staff report also added the other
subdivisions in the area to show the impacts on the area. The staff report had been revised from the
draft which the Commissioners had received for the study session. Mr. Palaniuk said staff had not
received any written comments as of that evening. Mr. Palaniuk pointed out Flora Road is a minor
arterial south of Mission Avenue. North of Mission Avenue, Flora is considered a collector. Mission
Avenue is also considered a minor arterial.
Commissioner Anderson commented he understood the staff report had been modified, but he wanted
to point out STA would only be adding a bus route if voters approved a 0.03% tax increase. Mr.
Palaniuk said STA does have a plan, and this was listed in their plan. The City could not say if they
would or would not be able to implement the plan. Mr. Anderson stated again for the Commission
this (the tax) would be how it would be implemented.
Commissioner Wood asked for some of the uses which would fall under the Mixed Use Center
zoning. Mr. Palaniuk said some of the uses which would be allowed would be multifamily
residential, self-service storage units, some small scale commercial uses, convenience store. He said
without the use matrix in front of him he did not want to guess any further. He said there would not
be any industrial or light industrial type uses in this zoning. Manufactured home parks would not be
allowed in the proposed zoning, but would be allowed in the R-3 zoning which the property is
currently zoned. Commissioner Wood asked about retail stores, gas stations and marijuana stores.
Mr. Palaniuk said some retail stores, gas stations in relation to a convenience store would be allowed.
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9
Marijuana stores would be permitted in the zone but would need to meet all other special criteria
before it could be sited.
Commissioner Graham inquired as to where access from the property would be taken. She wondered
if it would only be onto Flora Road or if it would be allowed onto Mission Avenue as well. Mr.
Palaniuk responded this would be determined at the time of the building permit, and would depend on
what was being proposed. Commissioner Kelley asked if low income residential would be allowed.
Mr. Palaniuk asked what he considering, Mr. Kelley said he was referring to an apartment complex.
Mr. Palaniuk said multifamily is an allowed use in the Mixed Use Center zone. Ms. Barlow
commented she understood the question was about if apartments would be allowed, but the City's
residential zoning districts do not distinguish between the types of residential units are being
proposed.
Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify.
Patricia Abraham, 1920 N Greenacres Road: Ms. Abraham stated she was the applicant and
representing the property owners, Jayn Courchaine and Donald Fisher. She said the intent for
requesting the change is to create continuity in the zoning throughout the area, along Mission and
Flora. It would also increase their options for future development, which would complement the
growth happening within our neighborhood. Ms. Abraham said she was a resident within the
neighborhood, having spent a majority of her life in this neighborhood. She is aware of the growth
which is occurring and of the traffic concerns other neighbors might have. Her intent is not to
increase the housing or create a traffic problem for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Wood asked if Ms. Abraham owned the parcel on the very corner of Mission and
Flora. Ms. Abraham said her mother owns the larger parcel and when she went to talk to the neighbor
who owns the corner parcel he did not oppose the change but asked to be included in the change.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the residents would be moving from the property. Ms. Abraham
said the residence on her mother's property is used as a rental and the current resident just bought a
home. The home on the corner property is still being lived in by the property owner.
Ms. Horton said she had been given three letters which needed to be entered into the record from
Cecil Russell, 17504 E. Montgomery; Eric House, 1711 N. Flora Road; Joseph and Lynda
House, 17406 E. Montgomery. All three letters asked that the request for the Comprehensive Plan
amendment be denied and the zoning be left as is. Mr. House said the properties needed to remain
Low Density Residential to create a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood.
Seeing no one else who wished to testi Chair Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA -2015-0002 at
7:11 p.m.
Commissioner Wood asked for the location of the addresses in the letters in relation to the subject
properties, which were located for him.
Commissioner Anderson stated he did not plan to recuse himself because he could make an open-
minded decision, but wanted to let everyone know he knows Mr. Joseph House very well, and he did
not know he was in the audience. Commissioner Wood confirmed the hearing had been closed so Mr.
House would not be able to comments.
Discussion regarding CPA -2015-0001:
Commissioner Anderson wanted to know what the Commission needed to do in order to delay the
discussion on CPA -2015-0001 so the Commission would have time to digest the information which
was provided by Mr. Schwartz. Ms. Barlow said the public hearing has been closed; there would not
be any action necessary.
Commissioner Anderson asked it if was possible to request a zone change, is there any reason why
there can't be a use added to an existing zone. Ms. Barlow said this subject was not before the
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9
Commission at this point in time. It could be a separate action unto itself. However, the two actions
could not be combined. He explained he was just asking if the direction was to go either way in a
system, if it was asked. Ms. Barlow said it could be a simple application for a code text amendment
to add uses as long as it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the use was not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan then a Comprehensive Plan request would be necessary to add that use.
Mr. Driskell added it would be substantially different than what was requested by the applicant here
and the deadline for making requests is November 1' of each year. He felt the suggestion would
qualify as a different request and would need to go to a next year. Commissioner Anderson asked if a
code text amendment could only be done once a year, or it any time of the year. There was much
dialog to make sure the meaning of Mr. Anderson's question was clear. A code text amendment
adding a use to a zoning district, as long as the requested use was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, can be proposed at any time of the year.
Chair Stoy asked the Commissioners their preference for proceeding with CPA -2015-0001.
Commissioner Anderson said no motion was necessary to postpone the discussion for this
amendment, and this is what he would like to do. Ms. Barlow said there was no motion necessary to
delay any further discussion on the item, but a motion was needed to begin discussion. Commission
Anderson asked if they needed consensus to delay the discussion, and Ms. Horton concurred. Chair
Stoy asked the rest of the Commission how they felt and Commissioner Wood said he would like to
move ahead. He felt he had gotten enough information in two meetings, a public hearing, all the
documentation he had received he said he has reviewed it all. He sees no reason to delay his decision.
He is prepared to move ahead on this and he feels it is appropriate for us to do so, based on the people
who are applying for this so they can do whatever they have to do. Ms. Barlow suggested
Commissioner Wood could make the motion regarding moving the amendment forward.
Commissioner Wood moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0001.
As a point of information Ms. Horton said a motion could be made now to postpone the discussion.
Commissioner Anderson moved to postpone the discussion of CPA -2015-0001 to the 02-12-15
meeting.
Chair asked for discussion on the motion to postpone. Commissioner Kelley said he felt the planner
had done a good job presenting the material the last two weeks. Commissioner Graham said
receiving Mr. Schwartz's information that evening she would like to have two more weeks to
understand what she is reading. Commissioner Phillips said he was not in favor of getting all the
information at the meeting and being expected to read it and make a decision, and he is in favor of
waiting. Commissioner Scott stated she would like a chance to go through the information.
Commissioner Wood said he was ready to move ahead. Commissioner Stoy felt he would like to have
the opportunity to review new material.
The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion to postpone was six to one with Commissioner
Wood dissenting. The motion to postpone the discussion passed
Discussion for CPA -2015-0002:
The Commission paused and Ms. Barlow asked the Commission if they were ready to move forward
with the discussion on the next amendment. Commissioner Anderson said he did not want the
planner to feel like he was being picked on with this by the book, legitimate by the effort, discussing
Mixed Use Centers, in the staff report. Commissioner Anderson said he looks at it this way and it
(Comprehensive Plan) says we have ton of minor arterial intersections with public transit in the City
that are all residential. We are not converting them to mixed use just because of that. He understands
it is useable (criteria) but he doesn't understand it as a reason. He said he has lived by many of them
(the intersections). He said he already mentioned STA, they do have plans to move out there but only
if there are additional funds from the public. Commissioner Anderson said we are not reviewing a
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9
land use, we are just looking a specific zoning change, and in his opinion a MUC multiple use will
increase traffic more than residential. He continued during discussion there was a comment, `if you
look this way you will see mixed use, if you look that way you will see mixed use.' if you turn around
and look you will see residential and even in the mixed use, the majority of the construction near
Flora Road or near the intersection is residential. He said there is a medical facility down the road,
but even where we have mixed use, the development we have is residential. He asked Mr. Palaniuk
the staff report says landscaping separating mixed use from residential would be Type I, but he does
not know what that means. Mr. Palaniuk stated any commercial development up against residential,
would be required to meet setbacks and would require Type 1 screening which would be a six-foot
site obscuring fence and a five-foot vegetative strip which at maturity would need to reach six feet.
Commissioner Anderson said six-foot vegetation was only as tall as the fencing. Commissioner
Anderson said his final the possibilities of uses on the property are humongous. The current land
owners probably have good intentions, etc. But good intentions can fail, finances can change, new
property owners can acquire property. He continued, on the edge of or even in a residential area we
have the possibility of, he didn't think we will have a golf driving range but there is a possibility of
one. Mr. Anderson said there is a very substantial list of uses (which are allowed in this zone) and he
has a very difficult time saying ok we will just call this mixed use and whatever happens, happens in
the future. This is where he finds his difficulty.
Ms. Barlow said she was not advocating one way or the other, however one of the key points Mr.
Anderson made was this proposal is on the edge of residential. While the question being posed is
determining what the best development options would be on this property, it is in a unique situation
where there has been a considerable amount of development and it is along busy roads. There is
commercial development in one direction, multifamily in another direction, single family surrounding
a lot of it. What is the best way to develop this last little buffer piece? She said it could go either
way. She said a case could be made for either to be that final bit of development, but it is not going to
be perfect either way. However when you are contemplating the uses allowed in the mixed use zone,
it is not going to pull them into the neighborhoods. It is only going to pull them to a point where
there is already that traffic passing by.
Commissioner Graham said she would agree with Ms. Barlow's suggestion to some point, except part
of one parcel goes behind another property owners land. She said the property owner facing on Flora
would have mixed use behind them, when now they have residential behind them. She said she
walked the area this afternoon and currently there is an empty field behind them. Potentially they
could have multifamily or a commercial development bumping up to their property line, or within the
setbacks. Mr. Palaniuk informed the Commission this parcel fronting Flora Road is owned by the
same person who owns the large parcel in the request.
Commissioner Stoy wanted to know if fuel (sales) would be permitted in the Mixed Use Center. It
was confirmed it is allowed. Commissioner Graham asked to revisit the transportation issue and lack
of sidewalks if they are using the STA as their form of transportation. If and when STA receives their
tax she said, then it would be fine, however until then services are a mile away down Mission and
there are no sidewalks. She said a mile away south on Flora, there are no sidewalks. The only access
with sidewalks is to the west towards the mall. She said this was one of the things she is taking into
consideration. Commissioner Stoy remarked sidewalks come with development of property.
Commissioner Graham said she understood but only in front of that small portion of the property.
She said this does not address the safety concerns for the public which may be accessing the property
from the bus routes which are only available a mile away to the south, east and west.
As the Commission paused, Ms. Barlow asked them if they needed additional information, if they
needed more time. Commissioner Stoy commented he was trying to read the information from STA.
Ms. Barlow said the STA proposal to add service in the area is not predicated on whether or not this
piece is developed, but on their funding and the use by persons who live or work in the area already
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9
occurring. Part of the reason we only require the improvement for the frontage associated with
development, she said, is because the City looks to offset the cost of the impact. There is already
impact going on based on the existing residential development and the existing businesses which are
developing in this area. They (the property owners) would only be required to pay for their fair share
of improvements. Mr. Driskell added he looked at an overhead map and of the area to the east. He
said there are interspersed sidewalks in different areas. The reason for this is the area is developing in
bits and pieces. He explained the way the City gets its sidewalks is when we have development we
require frontage improvements for that property for their impacts. Then over time, we get
connectivity. You will see there is a fair amount of sidewalk to the east, but this is just part of the
process. If this were approved, the City would consider the frontage improvements along Flora, and
this would become yet another piece of sidewalk connectivity, said Mr. Driskell.
Then there was considerable discussion regarding the impact of making a positive motion opposed to
making a negative motion, and the need to be able to create findings to support the motion which is
made. After the discussion it was determined the best course of action would be to make a motion to
approve, take a vote and determine the outcome. If the motion does not pass, then a motion to deny
could be made. Mr. Driskell said this would give a more natural flow for findings.
Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0002 to the City Council.
Commissioner Wood said he foresees this corner of Flora and Mission to be a busy corner, especially
when the bus comes through. He said the parcel on the corner seems a natural flow for MUC. He
said if you look at the corner it is south MUC and it seems like a natural transition to MUC. It does
not seem odd or like spot zoning, making the change ties it all up. He does not feel there will be any
more negative impacts than is already there. He said he did not see any reason to deny it.
Commissioner Scott asked if the request is approved, does it approve all the possible uses which are
allowed in the zoning district. She said some will have a bigger impact than others but we can't know
what use we are approving this for. Some could be more acceptable than others, but it is all or
nothing. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The Commission was approving the range of uses
which may be possible in the zoning district. Ms. Barlow said the fact the Commission is aware of
the use being proposed in the other Comprehensive Plan amendment is irrelevant information. She
said once the decision is made, it does not bind a person to the use which you thought was being
proposed.
Commissioner Stoy said he felt this was a natural progression, and the progression will stop at Flora
Road. He said the amount of additional traffic this small portion would add would be insignificant to
the rest of the area. He said eventually bus stops would come out there, and eventually sidewalks
would be extended out. The staff report states landscape are buffers required, and he said there are
height restrictions, which he thought was 50 feet in this zone. Mr. Palaniuk said there is a height limit
in the Mixed Use zone, and there is a relational setback for multifamily. Commissioner Stoy said he
was in favor of the change. Staff clarified the setback would be 20 feet for this zone, and the height
would be 60 feet for Mixed Use Center.
The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion, by the show of hands, to recommend approval
of CPA -2015-0002 was four to three with Commissioners Anderson, Graham and Phillips dissenting.
Planning Commission Findings of Fact for STY -2014-0001:
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings and
Recommendations for STV -2014-0001, as presented. Ms. Barlow distributed revised findings of fact.
She said the change between the findings just handed out and the findings which were provided in the
packet were on page 2 of 3, under the recommendations, item 5 in the document which was just
handed out, contains the language from the original item 5 which the Commission voted on at the 01-
08-15 meeting. Ms. Barlow explained Item 5 under the recommendations states "the surveyor shall
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9
locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of-way, with one located at the
intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in
accordance with the standards established by the Spokane Valley Street Standards." She said this
condition is a standard condition for street vacations, so it was incorporated into the conditions which
were provided for your consideration. However in this unusual case where this isn't developed right-
of-way, just an oddly shaped piece of property, which obviously has no centerline of the vacated
right-of-way and this condition isn't appropriate. After you voted and approved the conditions, as
attached, it was recognized this condition wasn't necessarily appropriate in association with this street
vacation request. After you voted on it, it was dropped off the findings, without considering you had
already taken action on this item with this condition as part of it. So the findings before you which
now contain all the conditions which were acted upon and reflecting your motion to recommend
approval with attached conditions. So this is consistent with what you acted upon. Ms. Barlow said
staff would like the Commission to approve these findings as the findings of fact, if that is the
Commission's direction. When the item is moved forward to the City Council, staff will recommend
in their final action they drop this condition since it is not appropriate. She added the reason staff is
doing it this way is, it is the cleanest way to move this item forward, rather than making a new motion
and eliminating item 5, then having new findings to consider. Staff felt this would leave the cleanest
trail as to what has happened. Commissioner Anderson clarified it would not change the motion
currently on the table. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct.
The vote on the motion to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendations was
seven to zero, the motion passed
GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m.
Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed
adAtfia_Vigek)
Deanna Horton, Secretary
01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers — City Hall,
February 12, 2015
Chairman Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the
pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present
Kevin Anderson
Heather Graham
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Susan Scott
Joe Stoy
Sam Wood
John Hohman, Community Development Director
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Gabe Gallinger, Development Services Manager
Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Micki Harnois, Planner
Christina Janssen, Planner
Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the February 12, 2015 amended agenda as presented Motion
passed with a seven to zero vote.
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 22, 2015 minutes as presented The vote on the
motion was seven to zero in favor, the motion passed
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Anderson, Kelley, Graham, Scott and Phillips attended the
Comprehensive Plan Community Visioning meetings. Commissioner Graham also attended the Mission
Road Improvement meeting as well as a press conference in Olympia representing the Central Valley
school nurses and the school nurse organization supporting stronger legislation for e-vaping devices.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: John Hohman, Community Development Director, thanked the
Commissioners who attended the Comprehensive Plan Visioning meetings. He said the follow up
meeting would be March 4, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. The next meeting will cover the things learned at the
Visioning meetings, where we are in the process and where the process is headed. Staff will evaluate the
site specific requests, the deadline for submitting them is March 31, 2015, and then be bringing those
forward after making an evaluation of them. He reminded the Commissioners of the City sponsored
Planning Commission Short Course on February 25, at 6:00 p.m. He said the training provided is
excellent. He also said City Attorney Cary Driskell and Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb would be
providing training this evening which is required by state statute. Mr. Hohman also introduced
Development Services Manager Gabe Gallinger.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Continued Deliberations for CPA -2015-0001 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on
Nora Ave. between Pines and Mamer Roads.
Previously the Commission had a motion to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0001, then a motion
to continue the discussion to this meeting was approved with a seven to one vote.
Planner Christina Janssen reminded the Commission they had a study session on January 8, a public
hearing on January 22 where they continued their deliberations on CPA -2015-0001 to this meeting.
This is a citizen requested Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan and
corresponding zoning from Office to Community Commercial. Ms. Janssen reminded the
Commission the goal of the evening is to formulate a recommendation to forward to the council. The
focus should be on the land itself, its current designation, the proposed designations, and the
surrounding designations. Plans change so the proposed use should not be a consideration. At the
02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 6
time of development, an extensive review will be performed and any improvements necessary will be
addressed at that time, and the financial burden will fall to the person who makes application for
those improvements.
The Chair recognized Mr. Driskell who said he and Commissioner Kelley had a conversation and
Commissioner Kelley needed to say something. Commissioner Kelley stated he would be recusing
himself from the discussion of CPA -2015-0001. (At the last meeting Mr. Kelley stated he had
received some volunteer services provided by the law firm of Witherspoon Kelly where the
applicant's attorney works. Mr. Schwartz, the attorney, and Mr. Kelley both have stated they have
never met each other.) Mr. Driskell said staff would come get Mr. Kelley after discussion of the
matter closed, and Mr. Kelley stepped out of the room.
Ms. Janssen said the Commission had the staff report which reviewed the amendment, adequate
noticing had occurred and no comments have been received. The site is unique in location and
landscape. It is located on a frontage road with visibility from I-90 with a steep slope to the south of
about 30 percent. The site is affected by constant freeway noise and light and is not appropriate for
residential development. There are more uses allowed in the Community Commercial zone, but less
than the Regional Commercial directly adjacent to I-90. Staff has also discussed the Office zoning is
not working in general or in this area, and it will be reviewed during the legislative update of the
Comprehensive Plan, currently underway. Mr. Hohman reiterated staff would be looking at the
zoning in this area in particular because of the comments he and other staff members have received
from people who either own the property or would like to develop property, around this area. He said
the reason staff supported this amendment was because so many people have come to the City and
said this area is a problem zoned as Office. He said we know from years of experience in dealing
with this area we need to do something. He reminded the Commission the development issues would
be handled at the time of a permit request and staff is here to answer any questions the Commission
have.
Commissioner Anderson said he had a List of items concerning the amendment. He said his personal
beliefs are for minimum zoning and business growth, but he said we are all aware we are not here to
address his personal beliefs. He said the zone change would add about 34 uses, 11 uses with
conditions, over what is currently allowed. However later he reported there were 37 uses which were
the same. He said he had analyzed the staff report and documents which had been submitted at the
last meeting and his comments are as follows:
Staff report findings and conclusions (C)(1)(axixl) in the analysis "Analysis: The Community
Commercial classcation is intended to serve several neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan
states that Community Commercial areas should not be larger than 15-17 acres in size and should
be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. The amendment
is consistent with the size requirement; the location's visibility along the 1-90 corridor lends itself
to regional services/business. However, the access to the area is limited and not conductive to
regional development. The reclasscation may improve marketability of the property and the
public health, safety, and general welfare should be promoted by standards established by the
City's development regulations." He said it may be true, but it is not our responsibility to worry
about marketability. "Public health and safety and welfare should be promoted" He said he didn't
see any support provided for that statement
From the staff report (C)(1)(a)(i)(3) "The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in
conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject
property lies. Analysis: The location of I-90 adjacent to the site does not appear to be conducive
to residential development or office uses since the land has sat vacant. Residential uses in the area
have been converted to office or commercial uses while the remaining residential uses appear to be
on the decline. Other commercial uses located in the area have been successful." He said he did
not see any support for the statement. He said technically we could say the new owner is creating
02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6
the condition change. He continued, under the analysis it states "the site does not appear to be
conducive to Office use since the land has sat vacant." He did not see any support for the reason
for vacancy and wondered if vacancy is a justification for a zone change.
From the staff report (CX1)(a)(ii)(3) "The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region Analysis:
The proposed site -speck map amendment should not affect the existing character of the
surrounding neighborhood and will likely promote the most appropriate use of property.
Commercial development of this property will support the existing commercial uses in the area.
Vacant property does not create a population base necessary for businesses to thrive." He said the
neighborhood is currently zoned office, and it still has several residences, which are now zoned
office, a new zone would not guarantee no effect on the surrounding neighborhood.
From the staff report (CX1)(aXii)(4) "The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed
land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The land has sat vacant and it
can be concluded that the property's current land use designation does not meet the desirable
market criteria for office uses. The City has ample office designated land along the
Argonne/Mullan, Pines, and Evergreen Corridors available for development or redevelopment.
The proposed amendment should create a marketable piece of property that is more compatible
with uses located in the vicinity." He said he did not think the City used vacancy as a criteria for
change.
• From the staff report (C)(2)(c) Compliance with Title 19 "The map amendment bears a substantial
relation to the public health, safety and welfare; (staff analysis) As stated in previous analysis the
proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare." He
said he did not see any support for this statement and said there could be no change and there could
be a negative change depending on what is developed on the property.
• From the staff report (C)(2)(d) "The map amendment is warranted in order to achieve consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zoning
district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for reasonable
development of the subject property; (staff analysis) The proposed amendment and zone change is
reasonable for the development of the property." He said he did not see any support for the need or
appropriateness.
From the staff report (C)(2)(e) "The property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include
corner touches and property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher
zoning classification; (staff analysis) The property located north of the subject property has a
Regional Commercial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Regional Commercial
zoning designation. The subject property is adjacent to these properties over Nora Avenue and
Interstate 90, both public rights-of-way. The subject property meets the requirement." He said
there is right-of-way, which is Nora Avenue. He said what is across 1-90 has no bearing on this
rule, he saw nothing in the intent of a rule, of a public right-of-way being the plural of public -right-
of-ways, as a touch. He stated he thought everyone understood public right-of-way went from one
side of the street to the other. He said this was his opinion, and the way he read that rule.
• From the staff report (C)(2)(f) "The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a
whole; (staff analysis) The amendment will provide an opportunity to redevelop a property that is
currently vacant with little chance of redevelopment as currently zoned. The Community
Commercial designation would allow for a wider variety of commercial development with prime
freeway exposure." He said little chance of development was not supported with any needs.
• Referring to the letter from Mr. James Cross (submitted at the public hearing), Paragraph #7 "To
realize the highest and best use of this property, we request approval of the requested change to the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance in order to allow the development of commercial use."
He said he believed every owner desired to use their property to the highest and best use, but he did
not think it was the City's responsibility to make decisions based on that factor.
02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6
He said in addressing the letter from Witherspoon Kelly (also submitted at the public hearing),
many of the items have been addressed but it refers to the NAI Black study (also submitted at that
public hearing) regarding the averaging of office vacancies in the Spokane Valley. He said the
discussion was about vacant office property and he didn't see anywhere in the report a discussion of
vacant office property. He said it would have been a great report if it would have compared vacant
office zoned property to commercial zoned property. The report talked about office floor space and
vacant office floor space.
From Mr. Schwartz's Letter, "Section D, Considerations. The following legal principals are
offered for your consideration. 'We also recognize that although zoning applies a degree of
permanency, municipal authorities must be responsive to changing conditions and circumstances
which juste revision of existing zoning class cations. Otherwise, the outdated land use
restrictions may become unreasonable and refusal to amend or modem zoning ordinance could
result in arbitrary and unreasonable conduct.' Bishop v. Town of Houghton, 69 Wn2d 786, 480
P.2d 368 (1966) " He said the threat was understood but he would counter that changing the zoning
would allow all other vacant property owners to bring the same threat if we didn't rezone their
property also. He said he did not have any fear of not approving this rezone as a problem for the
City. He said based on the rules for making Comprehensive Plan amendments, he did not see the
necessary requirements had been met. With the change we would be injecting a new zone between
Office zones, which consist of office and residential uses. With this change we would be allowing
all uses which are allowed under the Community Commercial zone, not one specific use which may
exist in harmony with its neighbors. He did not know what the past zoning for the area was, but
because we are considering a Comprehensive Plan amendment and not a code text amendment, he
could not support the change.
Commissioner Scott said she looked up the land use for adjacent when using an eight -lane freeway
and then Nora Avenue as an adjacent right-of-way. She said the definition said 'the two objects
would not be widely separated' and she said the land use definition said having a `common border.'
She said one was on the Interstate and one was on Nora, without it, you lose the connection for the
higher zoning on the other side. She has observed in the Comprehensive Plan and on the maps,
Community Commercial is generally located along arterials or the intersections of arterials. She
commented, 'you could do all the roadwork you wanted' but she did not think Nora would ever
qualify as an arterial. She said to her, changing these parcels in the zone could be considered 'spot
zoning' without the other supporting criteria. She said she believed the residential zoning was in
place under Spokane County, stayed the same when the City incorporated but changed to Office when
the City adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Barlow asked where Commissioner Scott had
gotten the definitions of `adjacent.' Commissioner Scott said she had gone to Black's Law, which had
been cited in the letter from Mr. Schwartz. She said it goes further to state `laying near, or close to,
but not actually touching.' She said it goes further on to say the difference between adjacent and
adjoining is the former applies to "two objects which are not widely separated." Ms. Barlow said it
sounded like a viable definition however, she would direct the Commission to the definition staff is
using, which is in the SVMC 19.30.030(B)(5). Using the City's definition is how this property is able
to meet the criteria, because it is contiguous, and the definition in the Municipal Code specifically
states that adjacent includes public right-of-way. Ms. Barlow stated staff had conferred with the
City's legal counsel to confirm it was appropriate to be able to use both right -of ways as contiguous.
Ms. Barlow also spoke to the character of changing neighborhoods and residential uses in
transitioning neighborhoods. Mr. Driskell commented he did not know if there were two contiguous
rights-of-way or it is shown as one right-of-way which was wider than most but was still right-of-
way. The legal interpretation is this meets the criteria set forth in the SVMC as adjacent. He also
cautioned the Commissioners about using legal terms such as `spot -zoning' because this does not
meet the legal requirements of a `spot zone' and did not apply in this case. Commissioner Anderson
02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6
asked if the separate ownership would make a difference in classifying them as two separate rights-
of-way. Mr. Driskell responded he did not think the code contemplated different ownership, but
regardless there was no intervening use between them.
Commissioner Stoy clarified the Regional Commercial across the right-of-way, was a higher intensity
commercial use, allowed larger scale commercial uses than the Community Commercial being
proposed. The request is for a less intense use than Regional Commercial.
Commissioner Philips said he came ready to support the amendment. He said Mr. Anderson made
some valid points. He disagreed with staff that going across two separate right-of-ways is adjacent or
concurrent to, but he was still willing to support it so hopefully there would be more development in
the valley rather than vacant lots just sitting there.
Commissioner Wood said he would like to see the property develop and have some use. The (for
sale) signs are lined up along there. Steinway has semi trucks to haul things in and out of their
parking lot. He said the road has good access in his opinion. He would like to see the City develop
more businesses along the freeway, (the proposed use) would seem appropriate to him. The
amendment seemed practical, new business energizes the community. He said whenever possible we
should support these businesses. He was supporting the motion.
Mr. Hohman reminded the Commission their options were to recommend approval, recommend
denial, or recommend an amendment. If an amendment is the recommendation, a new public hearing
date would need to be set. Mr. Driskell confirmed these were the options. Ms. Horton reminded the
Commission they had a motion on the floor, to recommend approval of CPA -2015-0001 to the City
Council.
The Chair then called for the vote. The vote on the motion by a show of hands was three in favor,
Commissioners Phillips, Stoy and Wood Three against: Commissioners Anderson, Graham, Scott.
The motion fails. The amendment stoves forward with no recommendation.
Staff will return at the Feb. 26, 2015 meeting with the Findings of Fact for the Comprehensive Plan
amendments. Commissioner Kelley then returned to the dais.
Study Session: CTA -2015-0001 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal
(SVMC)19.40.150 (C) Animal Keeping:
Planner Micki Harnois explained to the Commission the City is proposing to change SVMC
19.40.150(C) animal keeping regulations by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various
terminologies to keep in line with the rest of the code and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. Ms.
Harnois stated a nutria, also known as a Coypu or a river rat, is classified as an invasive aquatic
animal species and it is prohibited to keep them in this state. Currently the code also allows for the
keeping of nutria, so they needed to be struck from the City's code.
Ms. Harnois explained beekeeping is becoming a popular home hobby and industry. Currently the
SVMC allows a maximum of 25 hives only on lots 40,000 square feet or larger. The proposed
language would require the number of hives be limited to one hive per 4,356 square feet of lot area.
Beehives are to be located a minimum of five feet from side and rear property lines and twenty feet
from front or flanking street property lines. A six foot high flyaway barrier, which forces the bees to
fly up and away, and an adequate supply of water for the bees will need to be located close to each
colony.
Planning Commission Training: Open Public Meetings Act, Public Records Act, Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine:
Mr. Driskell and Mr. Lamb gave the Planning Commission an extensive training session regarding
the Open Public Meetings Act, Public Records Act, and Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. They
explained how and when to use the City email system, how to guard their personal emails systems,
02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6
what a serial meeting is, how to handle conflicts of interest, what an open meeting is, and how to
avoid the problems of perceived meetings which are not held in public.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Scott asked for clarification for the difference between
findings and conclusions in the staff report and the Planning Commission findings. Ms. Barlow explained
the findings in the staff report supported the analysis staff did on the proposed amendment. After the
Planning Commission conducts its hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of
Fact support the decision the Planning Commission made regarding the subject. The two could be similar
but are not going to be the same, because they support two different processes of the procedure.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
C:›
Zee . to f I,
Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed
1
Deanna Horton, Secretary
02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 2015
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ® admin. report
Department Director Approval:
❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2015 SRTC CMAQ/TA Calls for Projects
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council Adopted the 2015-2020 Six Year TIP on June
24, 2014, Resolution #14-006, Council received an Info RCA outlining the CMAQ/TA grant
program on March 3, 2015.
BACKGROUND: The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) issued a 2015 Call
for Projects on March 1st, 2015 for the allocation of federal transportation funding for both the
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) and Transportation Alternatives (TA)
programs for the years 2018-2020.
The purpose of the CMAQ program is to fund transportation projects or programs that improve
air quality and ultimately contribute to the maintenance of the national air quality standards in
the Spokane region. CMAQ funding can be used for projects that reduce carbon monoxide (CO)
and course particulate matter (PM10) emissions.
This table summarizes the 2018-2020 CMAQ and TA programs for Eastern Washington:
CMAQ/TA
Proposed Projects
2018-2020 CMAQ
Call for Projects
Travel
Demand
Management
(TDM)
Traffic Flow
Improvements
(TFI)
Particulate
Matter
(PMio)
Reductions
Transportation
Alternatives (TA)
% of $ Amount
Available
65%
25%
10%
100%
$ Total Amount over
3 years
$7.5 M
$2.9 M
$1.1 M
$2 M
Eligible Project
Types
Bicycle &
Pedestrian
Intelligent
Transportation
Systems
Street
Sweepers
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
Transit
Paving Dirt
Roads
Safe Routes to School
Projects
Carpool &
Vanpool
Programs
Intersection or
Corridor
Improvements
Acquisition &
Conversion of
Abandoned Railway
Corridors for Trails
Diesel-
Engine
Retrofits or
Fleet
Upgrades
Travel Demand
Management
Programs
Turn outs, Overlooks,
and Viewing Areas
Possible CMAQ and TA Projects:
Staff has been evaluating the proposed CMAQ and TA grant criteria to identify potential city
projects to review with council. Information used to help develop this draft list of projects
includes the City Council's Goals and Priorities 2015-2020 Six Year TIP City of Spokane Valley
ITS Plan, City Comprehensive Plan - Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the final drafts of
the University Overpass and Sullivan Road Corridor studies.
The table summarizes the proposed projects and a rough estimate of their costs:
Numbers in parenthesis are the estimated City Match
CMAQ/TAP Proposed Projects
Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM)
Traffic Flow
Improvements
(TFI)
PM -10
Reductions
Transportation
Alternatives
(TA)
Total
Estimated
Project
Cost ($)
$ Amount over 3 years
$7.475 M
$2.875 M
$1.15 M
$1.68 M
Argonne Rd Bridge @I-90, New
SB Lane & Sidewalk (PE ONLY)
$800 k
($108 k)
$800 k
($108 k)
Appleway Trail - Evergreen to
Sullivan
$1.28 M
($172 k)
$220 k
($45 k)
$1.5 M
($217 k)
Appleway Trail - University to
Balfour
$620 k
($84 k)
$80 k
($16 k)
$700 k
($100 k)
Evergreen & Broadway ITS
$1.2 M
($162 k)
$830 k
($112 k)
Pines Rd UP, BNSF & Trent (SR-
290) (PE ONLY)
$2 M
($270 k)
$2 M
($270 k)
Sullivan Rd & Wellesley
Intersection Imp Project
$800 k
($108 k)
$800 k
($108 k)
More information for each project is provided in the attached Project Summary Sheets. SRTC is
allowing a maximum of 6 applications per agency for the CMAQ category and a maximum of 2
applications for the TA category. A "Motion for Consideration" is scheduled for the March 24,
2015 City Council meeting.
OPTIONS: Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Project costs are currently being developed in more
detail for each project. The city's match is 13.5% on CMAQ total project cost. The match for TA
projects is 20%. A review of the projected REET funds through 2020 indicates sufficient funds to
provide the city's match for the recommended projects.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer
Eric P. Guth, PE — Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: Project Summary Sheets
Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan (DRAFT)
Spokane
Valley
(i
-i
w — PPLEWAY TRAIL .�
�Z
as A
Project Description:
The City of Spokane Valley has identified the Appleway Trail as a key pedestrian and bicycle corridor in its
Comprehensive Plan. The length of the trail when its completed will be 6.2 miles long. Of that, the City has
built or has funded about 3.3 miles. This grant request will seek to continue the trail further east.
Grant Funding Request:
This grant request pursues funds to continue the design and construction of the Appleway Trail from Ever-
green to Sullivan Roads. The trail will be a 12' curvilinear paved shared -use path that will continue further
l east on the Old Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way. Currently there are no Master Plans or Preliminary Designs
for the portion of the trail.
Benefits of Project:
The City's goal is to complete the Appleway Trail across the City from Balfour Park east to Liberty Lake. The
corridor will transform an underutilized former rail corridor into a shared -use path enlivened by plazas, pub-
lic art, perennial gardens, community gardens, plantings, trails and play spaces thanks to creative investment
partnerships. The space will be a boundless community asset and a critical linkage in the Spokane region's
extensive active transportation network.
Meandering along the corridor, the Appleway Trail forms the backbone of the space that allows cyclists and
pedestrians access between schools, stores, senior living communities, transit hubs and residential neighbor-
' hoods. Along the way, cyclists and pedestrians pass friends, family and neighbors. The trail is not just trans-
portation infrastructure; it is community infrastructure.
Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan (DRAFT)
Shared -Use Path Characteristics and Geometry:
12' Curvilinear Shared -Use Path
Landscaping
Lighting
Park Benches
Project Cost Estimate:
Preliminary Engineering (PE) - $225,000
Construction (CN) - $1,275,000
Total grant request - $1,500,000 - $217,000 (City match) = $1,283,000
Appleway Trail - University to Balfour Park (DRAFT)
ssibte'sife; for
kane Valley
ranch Library
ff
Harold
Sprague Ave -
-New Appleway
Trail
Project Description:
Spokane Valley began construction of the Appleway Trail from University to Pines (SR -27) along the Old Milwaukee
Railroad right-of-way last year. Funding has been secured to construct the trail further east from Pines (SR -27) to Ever-
green in 2018.
Now, the City plans to extend the trail to Balfour Park along Appleway to Dartmouth, and from Dartmouth to Sprague
Avenue. This is an integral piece of the trail because it would connect University City Mall, Balfour Park, and the City's
future City Hall to the Appleway Trailhead at University. In addition, if the voters pass a Spokane Library District bond,
the County plans to build a 30,000 square foot Spokane Valley branch across from the University City Mall on the north
side of Sprague fronting Harold.
Also, the Appleway Trail will terminate on its east end across the street from the STA Valley Transit Center. This facility
provides regional transportation access to Liberty Lake, Spokane, and Cheney.
Grant Funding Request:
This grant request pursues funds to continue the design and construction of the Appleway Trail from Sprague to Uni-
versity. The trail will be a 12' curvilinear paved shared -use path that will reside on the north side of Appleway Blvd and
1 then turn north and be placed on the east side of Dartmouth. It will terminate at the intersection of Dartmouth and
Sprague, the proposed location for the City of Spokane Valley's new City Hall.
J
Appleway Trail - University to Balfour Park (DRAFT)
Benefits of the Project:
This project is probably one of the most important components of the entire Appleway Trail project in that it connects
walkers and bikers to shopping, a park, municipal government, and possibly a County/City library. Also, this portion of
the trail would connect people to the Spokane Transit Authority's Transit Center, giving people the option to use the
bus to work, shop, play, and conduct their business here in Spokane Valley.
Shared -Use Path Characteristics and Geometry:
12' Curvilinear Shared -Use Path (width may vary depending on right-of-way space)
Landscaping
Lighting (if needed)
Park Benches
Project Cost Estimate:
Preliminary Engineering (PE) - $80,000
Construction (CN) - $620,000
Total grant request - $700,000 - $100,000 (City match) = $600,000
pokane
Valley
Ave
Spokane Felts Field
(2.7; II Laos A.t
E Mission Ave
7'i 2
B oa&rvav Avem
E Se ague Ave
EEEAthAve EA.A Ave
E bib A,a
Avo
rUctrrer El-ilpvNOr
Millwood
Spokane Riv
�Sccot A'K
! Grxe t A,r
Ave
E Monte
E Mission Ave
E ewne•.e
•
Dishmen Nina
Netted Area
rAi. a::edu Pony
Spokane
Valley
Dishman
Q ITS, Broadway,
1-90 to Sullivan
ITS, Evergreen,
,„hnee
L WOE.Icy
Spokane Business
& Industrial Park
?ok„ne Valley Mall
• :;,tro,t Ave ""SII
Sprague to 16th
E1fah Ave F
r tmn A.e s'*",egd
_ � n
F E 24th Ave
E 21th Ave
i
3 E Euclid Ave z
c FfuclrJ Ave F ^ai0 m
ITS. Barker,
Sprague to Mission ''"�
'VrAn,vray A,e
ITS, Sullivan,
Sprague to 24th
ue Ave
Project Description:
Improving traffic flow and reducing congestion on the City of Spokane Valley's roadway network is a major facet of the
Comprehensive Plan, and can be implemented through use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). Connecting traffic
signals along roadway corridors can ensure that traffic signal timing remains "in step", and will aid in positive traffic pro-
gression along corridors. This project proposes to install ITS equipment to improve traffic flow, reduce congestion, and
reduce emissions on several City corridors, including:
• Evergreen Road, Sprague Avenue to 16th Avenue (improve traffic flow and coordination on Evergreen Road)
• Broadway Avenue, Pines Road (SR 27) to Evergreen Road (improve coordination of both north -south and east -
west travel)
Benefits of the Project:
The installation of conduit and fiber optic lines to connect traffic signal controllers at signalized intersections along a
roadway corridor benefits the City, the region, and the traveling public by:
• Reducing travel time and stops along corridors
• Reducing emissions along corridors
• Increasing economic development by reducing delays to freight travel
• Reduce costs to the general public (fuel and maintenance)
• Reduce operational costs for management of traffic signal timings
• Improved monitoring of the traffic signal system to enhance efficiency (emergency situations, operations, etc.)
Sullivan ITS, Sprague to 24th (DRAFT)
ITS System Communications and Equipment:
This project includes the installation of conduit and fiber optic lines, as well as supporting ITS equipment (junction
boxes, switches, etc.) to interconnect traffic signals along roadway corridors. The project also includes the installation of
a camera on Broadway Avenue at Evergreen Road, and additional radio equipment to connect the traffic signals at
Mission Avenue.
Grant Funding Request:
This grant request is for Preliminary Engineering and Construction funding.
Project Cost Estimate
Preliminary Engineering (Grant Request) = $I50'000
Right of Way & Construction = $1,050,000
Total grant request = $1,200,000 - $162,000(City match) = $I,038,000
Argonne Rd Bridge @ 1-90, New SB Lane & Sidewalk (PE ONLY)
(DRAFT)
Spokane
d.. Valley
r111. NM
1
I 1
MEN .BRIDGE TO 3 -LANES.
ARGONNE 4 WSDOT EXIT NUMBER 287
1
Project Description:
' The Argonne -Mullan one-way couplet is a section of the regional corridor that connects Spokane County to the south
at Mica, north through Spokane Valley, and Millwood, and finally north to Mead. The intersection of Argonne -Mullan
and I-90 (Exit 287) is amongst the busiest streets in Spokane Valley. Argonne -Mullan becomes a one-way couplet at
Appleway Blvd and travels north and south through the I-90 interchange where it becomes a two-way street again
north of the westbound I-90 on and offramps. Argonne Road north and south of the interchange is three lanes, except
over the interstate, where Argonne Road travels over a 2 -lane bridge. This creates a bottleneck and significantly adds
delay and congestion in the peak travel hours.
The City recently completed a Draft Final University Overpass Report that recommends adding a third lane and a side-
walk to the bridge. According to the report, adding an additional lane would significantly reduce delay through the
2040 design year. At that time, during the evening peak hour, if the bridge remains 2 -lane, traffic modeling indicates
that it would take a driver about 7 minutes to drive from Trent to Mission. If a third lane were added to the bridge, the
same trip would take just under 2 minutes. A 5 minute reduction in delay for 2,200 vehicles during the evening peak
hour is a significant reduction in wasted time spent waiting in traffic and will significantly reduce air pollutants.
Grant Funding Request:
This grant request is for Preliminary Engineering only. This will complete 90% of the project design. While the design is
being developed the City will pursue other funding sources to ultimately construct the improvement.
Argonne Rd Bridge @ I-90, New SB Lane & Sidewalk (PE ONLY)
(DRAFT)
nIli nntri- rrill44Ifila� 4 firid'rt �gaaq qa �i9iP �giiiiirriu e111117i1fY1101Rii1N1?'lYliiiTiirtilryi� i
Spokane Valley Public Works staff met with WSDOT and STA regarding this project and they both support the project
and have committed to support the City in design and pursuing future funding.
Benefits of Project:
1) Relieves Corridor Congestion
2) STA—Supports Future Plans for "Fly -over" Stop as part of STA's High Performance Transit Network (HPTN)
3) Provides Improved Pedestrian Facilities, per the City's Comprehensive Plan, as outlined on the City's BPMP
Roadway Characteristics & Geometry:
Traffic Volume 21,500 vehicles per day (Southbound Only)
Traffic Volume 42,000 vehicles per day (Both Directions)
Truck Route, Classified as a T-2 Truck Route (4,000 - 10,000 Million tons per year) at the bridge and a T-1 Truck Route
(Over 10,000 Million tons per year) north of the bridge.
Bus Route #94 (East Central/Millwood Blue Line) operates on 30 & 60 minute cycles 7 days a week
Existing: Argonne Road Bridge is 34' wide and about 215' long with:
2 - 12' Lanes, and 1- 3 to 4' Sidewalk on the west side of the bridge
A substandard, 30" shoulder
Proposed: Widen Argonne Road Bridge to 58' and retain a minimum length of 215' with:
3 - 12' Lanes, 1 - 10' Sidewalk, and 2 - 6' Shoulders
Project Cost Estimate:
Preliminary Engineering (PE) - $800,000
Construction (CN) - $7,000,000 (TBD) (Cost of a new bridge)
Total grant request = $800,000 - $108,000 (City match) _ $692,000
Pines Rd Underpass, BNSF & Trent (SR -290), PE ONLY (DRAFT)
rem
T` RD:I
R®PC3SE`Q_REAI IN
tlnas.wsf- _
BEGIN TREt'IT
''AVE LOWERING
El:EMEMARY
Spokane
Valley
Project Description:
This project proposes to reconstruct Pines Road to pass under four BNSF tracks. To accommodate this Trent Avenue
will also be lowered, similar to the Argonne Road underpass. This project will allow the City of Spokane Valley to request
closure of the University Road railroad crossing one mile to the west, which would further improve public safety by re-
ducing the possibility of rail/vehicle collisions at this intersection.
This project is critical because of the projected increase in vehicular traffic in the area through 2040 and because of it's
location, which is approximately half way between the two nearest crossings of the BNSF track. The separation of Pines
Road and the BNSF tracks will provide a vital transportation link to the businesses and residences north of the BNSF
tracks and I-90.
Grant Funding Request:
This project is on of several grade -separation projects identified as part of the larger Bridging the Valley (BTV) project.
It proposes to realign Pines Road (SR -27) to the east and construct an underpass beneath the BNSF railroad. Pines
Road will then connect back to Trent Ave at a new intersection east of the existing intersection.
This grant request is for Preliminary Engineering only. This will complete 90% of the project design. While the design is
being developed the City will pursue other funding sources to ultimately construct the improvement.
1
Benefits of the Project:
1) Removes the conflict of trains and roadway traffic (safety enhancement)
2) Pines Road (SR -27) traffic is never delayed because of train traffic
3) Provides better access north and south between the Spokane River, Trent (SR -290),1-90, Sprague and
the south end of the City
Stormwater Facilities:
Proposed Swales and Drywells
Roadway Characteristics and Geometry:
Traffic Volume on Trent (SR -290): 24,000 vehicles per day
Traffic Volume on Pines Road (SR -27): 16,300 vehicles per day
Truck Route, Trent (SR -290) T2 Truck Route (4,000-10,000 Million tons per year)
Truck Route, Pines (SR -27) T3 Truck Route (300 to 4,000 Million tons per year)
Trent (SR -290): 7 lanes westbound & 6 lanes eastbound
Pines (SR -27): 3 lanes northbound & 2 -lanes southbound with 6' sidewalk, both sides
Project Cost Estimate:
Preliminary Engineering (Grant Request) = $2,000,000
Right of Way & Construction = $18,000,000 (TBD)
Total grant request = $2,000,000 - $270,000 (City match)= $1,730,000
Sullivan—Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project (DRAFT)
NEvv Et G ELow GULCH `
ROAD EXTENSION V`
SULLIVAN 1NELLESLY
INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
E�t�acrosnqe•Ln
rr �
n~dustr<iaCSPar,... . ,..,,..,,;.
Project Description:
Currently, during certain times of the day, traffic volumes at the Sullivan -Wellesley intersection exceed the capacity of
the all -way stop -controlled intersection. Spokane County is moving forward with its Bigelow Gulch Road project which
is scheduled to connect to Wellesley at Sullivan in 2019. When that occurs, the Sullivan Road intersection will not be
able to accommodate the added traffic and motorists will experience excessive delay and congestion.
To increase the capacity of the intersection, a new dedicated left turn lane would need to be provided at each of the
intersection legs in all directions. A traffic signal or a multilane roundabout is needed at the intersection in order to
provide safe and efficient traffic movement.
Grant Funding Request:
This grant funding request would be to perform the preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction
of the Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project. The grant funds would be used to investigate the cost -
benefit of both a traffic signal and a multilane roundabout to determine which intersection treatment would be the
most cost effective. These grant funds would complete the design and build the project.
Benefits of the Project:
1) Reduces delay and efficiently moves traffic along the Sullivan & Wellesley corridors
2) Reduces serious, high speed crashes
3) Allows for the added traffic volumes expected with the future connection of Bigelow Gulch Road
Sullivan—Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project (DRAFT)
111111111111111111111It .
11.1
4
WELLESLEY AVE i
1
.® , •
Roadway Characteristics & Geometry:
Traffic Volumes = 11, 300 vehicles per day
Sullivan Road north of Trent is classified as a T-3 Truck Route (300 to 4,000 million tons per year) today, but it is ex-
pected to become a more significant T-2 Truck Route (4,000 to 10,000 million tons per year) once the Bigelow Gulch
Road connects to Wellesley and Sullivan in 2019.
Bus Route #96 operates on 30 & 60 minute cycles 7 days a week.
!Existing: Wellesley, West Leg: 44' Wellesley, East Leg: 44'
Sullivan, South Leg: 44' Sullivan, North Leg: 22'
Proposed: Wellesley, West & East Leg: 44'
Sullivan, South & North Leg: 60'
12' Shared -Use Path on the West side of Sullivan, 6' Sidewalk on the East side of Sullivan
6' Sidewalk on both sides of Wellesley
Project Cost Estimate:
Preliminary Engineering = $90,000
Right of Way & Construction = $710,000
Total grant request = $800,000 - $108,000(City match) = $692,000
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 10, 2015
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information X admin. report
Department Director Approval:
X
❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Lodging Tax Committee Request for Additional Lodging Tax
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 67.28 and SVMC 3.20.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City imposed a 2% special excise tax on lodging in 2003
pursuant to RCW 67.28.180.
BACKGROUND: In 2003 the City imposed a 2% tax on all charges for furnishing lodging at hotels
and motels (the "state credit lodging tax") pursuant to RCW 67.28.180. The state credit lodging tax
is taken as a credit against the 6.5% state sales tax, so that the total tax a patron pays in retail
sales tax and the state credit lodging tax combined is equal to the retail sales tax in the jurisdiction.
State of Washington
City of Spokane Valley
Spokane County
Criminal Justice
Spokane PFD
Public Safety
Juvenile Jail
Mental Health
Law Enforcement Communications
Spokane Transit Authority
Hotel / Motel Tax
Retailer
Hotelier
r 6.50% 4.507
0.85%
0.15%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.85%
0.15%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.60% 0.60%
0.00% 2.00%
Total sales tax 8.70% 8.70%
The proceeds of the state credit lodging tax may be used for tourism promotion, which includes
a. Tourism marketing
b. The marketing and operations of special events and festivals
c. The operation and capital expenditures of tourism related facilities owned or operated by a
municipality or public facility district
d. The operation (but not capital expenditures) of tourism related facilities owned or operated
by non-profit organizations.
Currently, the City Council distributes proceeds from the state credit lodging tax to recipients and in
amounts recommended by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee ("LTAC") on an annual basis.
Pursuant to RCW 67.28.181, the City is authorized to levy an additional special excise tax in
amount up to either 2% or an amount that, when combined with certain other applicable sales and
1
lodging taxes imposed upon the sale of lodging, equals 12%. The total amount of applicable taxes
on lodging with the City is 10.7%, as shown in the table below.
Regular
Sales
Tax
Lodging Tax
As it
Currently
Exists
Potential
Addition
Maximum
Sales tax
State of Washington 6.50% 4.50%
City of Spokane Valley 0.85% 0.85%
Spokane County 0.15% 0.15%
Criminal Justice 0.10% 0.10%
Spokane PFD 0.10% 0.10%
Public Safety 0.10% 0.10%
Juvenile Jail 0.10% 0.10%
Mental Health 0.10% 0.10%
Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% 0.10%
Spokane Transit Authority 0.60% 0.60%
Total sales tax 8.70% 6.70% 6.70%
4.50%
0.85%
0.15%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.60%
Lodging tax
City of Spokane Valley
Spokane PFD
Total lodging tax
0.00% x_2.00% _ 1.30% 3.30%
0.00% 2.00% --- 2.00%
0.00% 4.00% 1.30% 5.30%
Total tax 8.70% 10.70% 1.30% 12.00%
Based on the 12% limit, the City could impose and levy an additional amount of lodging tax up to
1
.3%.
On February 25, 2015, the LTAC met to discuss various items. At that meeting, based upon a
discussion raised by Councilmember Ben Wick, the LTAC moved, seconded and unanimously
agreed to request Council to pass an additional 1.3% lodging tax to be put into a fund dedicated for
a large sporting venue or venues for tourism facilities that generate overnight guests.
In order to impose an additional tax, RCW 67.28.1817 requires that the municipality provide a 45 -
day period for the LTAC to comment on any new tax or tax increase before passing a new tax or
imposing a tax increase. Based on the date of the recommendation from the LTAC, if the Council
desired to impose an increased lodging tax amount above the already -imposed state credit lodging
tax, it could only do so after April 11, 2015.
Additionally, based on changes made during the 2013 legislative session, once the tax is increased,
any proposal to use such taxes would require the City to apply to the LTAC and receive a
recommendation for use of those funds.
In 2013, as part of City Council's approval process, the City Council adopted goals and priorities for
the use of lodging tax revenues, one of which is to:
Utilize funds for capital expenditures to develop tourism destination facilities or venues
within the City of Spokane Valley (this option is limited to facilities owned by a municipality or
public facility district).
2
With the proposed limitation recommended by the LTAC, the funds would be set aside as a capital
reserve and would not be subject to appropriation by the LTAC and City as part of its annual
distribution process until a project or plan for a tourism facility was developed and proposed by the
City.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: In the 2015 Budget we estimate the existing 2% lodging tax will
generate $510,000. Based upon this the imposition of an additional 1.3% tax would generate
approximately $331,500 over a full year. Assuming limited tax general obligation (LTGO) bonds
were issued with 2% costs of issuance over 30 years at an annual interest rate of 5%, $331,500
would service debt on a $4,996,000 bond issue.
STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Mark Calhoun
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
3
To:
From:
Re:
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of March 5, 2015; 11:00 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
Council & Staff
City Clerk, by direction of City Manager
Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
March 17, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Beekeeping — Micki Harnois
2. Advance Agenda
March 24, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Mining Moratorium — Erik Lamb
2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006, Comp Plan Amendments — Lori Barlow
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007, Zoning Map Amendments — Lori Barlow
5. Proposed Resolution Amending 2015 TIP — Steve Worley
6. Motion Consideration: CMAQ Call for Projects — Eric Guth
7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
8. Info Only: (a) Dept Monthly Reports; (b) SRTCMC Interlocal
March 31, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. SRTCMC Interlocal — Eric Guth
2. University Overpass Study — Eric Guth
3. Advance Agenda
April 7, 2015 Meeting Cancelled
[due Mon, March 9]
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, March 16]
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 90 minutes]
April 14, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006, Comp Plan Amendments — Lori Barlow
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007, Zoning Map Amendments — Lori Barlow
4. First Reading Ordinance 15-008 Adopting Mining Moratorium Findings — Erik Lamb
5. First Reading Ordinance 15-009, Beekeeping — Micki Harnois
6. Motion Consideration: SRTCMC Interlocal — Eric Guth
7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
April 21, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
[due Mon, March 23]
(20 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, April 6]
(5 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 80 minutes]
[due Mon, April 13]
(5 minutes)
Friday, April 24, 2015: Special Meeting: Council of Governments, 9:30 a.m. to noon, Conference Facility located
in Expo Complex, 404 NHavana Street. Hosted by Spokane County Board of County Commissioners
April 28, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Second Reading Ordinance 15-008 Adopting Mining Moratorium Findings —
3. Second Reading Ordinance 15-009, Beekeeping — Micki Harnois
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
[due Mon, April 20]
(5 minutes)
Erik Lamb (15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
5. Info Only: (a) Proposed 2016-2021 TIP; (b) 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP (c) Dept Monthly Reports
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 3/5/2015 1:17:07 PM Page 1 of 2
May 5, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Proposed 2016-2021 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley
2. Admin Report: 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP — Eric Guth
3. Advance Agenda
May 12, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2016-2021 Six Year Tip — Steve Worley
2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
May 19, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
May 26, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2016-2021 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley
3. Motion Consideration: 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP — Eric Guth
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
5. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports
June 2, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
June 9, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
[*estimated
June 16, 2015, Special Meeting: Budget Workshop, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Spokane Valley Council Chambers
No evening meeting June 16, 2015
June 23, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
3. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports
July 7, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
July 14, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
*time for public or Council comments not included
[due Mon, April 27]
(25 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, May 4]
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, May 11]
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, May 18]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
meeting: minutes]
[due Mon, May 25]
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, June 1]
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, June 8]
[due Mon, June 15]
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
[due Mon, June 29]
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, July 6]
(5 minutes)
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Avista Electrical Franchise Sidewalks and Developments
Bus Shelters
Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement
Governance Manual
Historic Preservation
Marijuana, Minor in Consumption
Outside Agency Presentations (Sept 1)
Public Safety Quarterly Costs
Setback Requirements
Draft Advance Agenda 3/5/2015 1:17:07 PM Page 2 of 2