Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2015, 04-28 Regular Meeting
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, April 28, 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 Mike Graef of Valley United Methodist 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 PROCLAMATION 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. 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 vouchers on April 28, 2015 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $1,577,574.54 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending April 15, 2015: $318,895.16 c. Approval of April 14, 2015 Council Formal Meeting Minutes d. Approval of April 21, 2015 Council Study Session Meeting Minutes NEW BUSINESS 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006a CPA -2015-0002 (Reconsideration) — Marty Palanuik [public comment] 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map CPA -2015-0002 (Reconsideration) — Marty Palanuik [public comment] 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-009 Adopting Mining Moratorium Findings — Erik Lamb [public comment] 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-010, Beekeeping — Micki Harnois [public comment] 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-011 Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell [public comment] Council Agenda 04-14-15 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 7. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-012 Gambling Tax Amendment to SVMC 3.25 — Mark Calhoun [public comment] 8. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Broadway Storm Drain Retrofits — Eric Guth [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 9. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos INFORMATION ONLY: 10. Proposed Amended 2016-2021 TIP 11. 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP 12. Sullivan Road Street Preservation Project — Sprague to Mission 13. Department Monthly Reports CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meetinj' 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 2'1 and 41 Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1st 3"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 04-14-15 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2015 Department Director Approval: IA Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: ❑ public hearing VOUCHER LIST 04/09/2015 04/09/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/16/2015 04/17/2015 04/17/2015 VOUCHER NUMBERS 35141-35177; 402150029 6082-6084 35178-35208 35209 5125-5126; 5128-5129; 35210 35211-35224 35225-35266 GRAND TOTAL: TOTAL AMOUNT $ 451,713.76 $ 167.00 $ 91,088.09 $ 21,879.62 $ 75,263.65 $ 28,548.61 $ 908,913.52 $ 1,577,574.52 Explanation of Fund Numbers found #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.032.000. Public Works 001.058.050.558. CED - Administration 001.058.051.558. CED — Economic Development 001.058.055.558. CED — Development Services -Engineering 001.058.056.558. CED — Development Services -Planning 001.058.057.558 CED — Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 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. 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 on 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 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 - REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic 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 04/09/2015 1:36:31 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35141 4/9/2015 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 35142 4/9/2015 000197 ACRANET 35143 4/9/2015 001816 BENTHIN & ASSOCIATES 35144 4/9/2015 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG 35145 4/9/2015 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC 35146 4/9/2015 000101 CDW-G 35147 4/9/2015 003306 CENTURY SURVEY INC 35148 4/9/2015 001888 COMCAST 35149 4/9/2015 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 35150 4/9/2015 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 35151 4/9/2015 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 43802 103182 2262 EXPENSE SPO -071519 TK86734 2600 APRIL 2015 40371238 77874541 RE 46 JG6362 L014 RE 46 JG6416 L003 RE-313-ATB50217114 RE-313-ATB50217129 RE-313-ATB50317136 Fund/Dept 303.303.060.595 001.018.016.518 303.303.123.595 001.018.014.514 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 101.043.000.542 001.090.000.518 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.548 303.303.155.595 303.000.211.595 303.303.060.595 303.303.156.595 311.000.188.595 Description/Account Amount PRINT ORDER CIP 0060 Total : BACKGROUND SCREENING NEW I Total : 0123 - SURVEYING SERVICES Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : PHONE SERVICED SUPPLIES: GENERAL FIELD SURVEY Total : Total : Total : HIGH SPEED INTERNET CITY HALL Total : MARCH 2015: FLEET FUEL BILL Total : COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0( Total : 1-90 INTERCHANGE TEMP SIGNAL SR290 PAVING & ILLUMINATION ARGONNE CORRIDOR UPGRADE I MANSFIELD AVE CONNECTION SULLIVAN RD ST PRESERVATION Total : 802.53 802.53 40.00 40.00 1,670.00 1,670.00 25.03 25.03 204.89 204.89 167.83 167.83 595.00 595.00 143.03 143.03 1,490.48 1,490.48 1,006.63 1,006.63 2,074.31 287.76 69.98 46.43 62.15 2,540.63 Page: 1 vchlist 04/09/2015 1:36:31 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35152 4/9/2015 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 35153 4/9/2015 000999 EASTERN WAATTORNEY SVC INC 35154 4/9/2015 001043 ESRI 35155 4/9/2015 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 35156 4/9/2015 000007 GRAINGER EXPENSE 91484 25673927 43521 43547 43548 9700271696 35157 4/9/2015 004089 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL, CONSULT/ 36331 35158 4/9/2015 000265 JACKSON, MIKE 35159 4/9/2015 001987 JENKINS, ART 35160 4/9/2015 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 35161 4/9/2015 000058 OMA 35162 4/9/2015 002243 ORBITCOM 35163 4/9/2015 004173 POWDERTECH APRIL 2015 EXPENSE 761154843001 763373161001 763373171001 A500163 00830648 28080 Fund/Dept 001.011.000.511 001.013.015.515 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 101.042.000.542 402.000.193.531 001.013.000.513 402.000.193.531 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.519 001.090.000.519 001.018.016.518 001.076.305.575 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount EXPNESE REIMBURSEMENT Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE ARCP/ Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION SUPPLIES: PW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AUTO ALLOWANCE Total : Total : Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES CREDIT PW SUPPLIES: GENERAL SUPPLIES: GENERAL NEW HIRE PHYSICALS Total : Total : PHONE SERVICE CENTERPLACE Total : 441.06 441.06 40.00 40.00 543.50 543.50 105.60 25.00 96.90 227.50 20.87 20.87 21,676.00 21,676.00 300.00 300.00 118.68 118.68 -30.97 220.08 68.47 257.58 225.00 225.00 209.26 209.26 SUPPLIES: PW 54.35 Page: 2 vchlist 04/09/2015 1:36:31 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35163 4/9/2015 004173 004173 POWDERTECH 35164 4/9/2015 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS INC. 35165 4/9/2015 003407 RIGHT! SYSTEMS INC 35166 4/9/2015 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS 35167 4/9/2015 002835 SCS DELIVERY INC 35168 4/9/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 35169 4/9/2015 003133 SHAMROCK MANUFACTURING INC 35170 4/9/2015 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 35171 4/9/2015 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 35172 4/9/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 35173 4/9/2015 004005 STONE CREEK LAND DESIGN & DEV 35174 4/9/2015 003079 SVR DESIGN COMPANY Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount (Continued) 41290 309.000.176.595 VINYL SIGN CIP 0176 134515 001.090.000.594 PHASE 1 SWITCH UPGRADE IN24468 6526 5993428 3257 9329 3550.218 110100084 110100085 14500715 42000123 PAY APP 4 0011830 001.032.000.543 001.011.000.511 101.042.000.542 Total : Total : 54.35 21.74 21.74 30,701.26 Total: 30,701.26 MARCH 2015 COPIER COSTS Total : BROADCASTING COUNCIL SVCS N Total : ON-CALL EMERGENCY TRAFFIC C Total : 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 303.303.156.595 001.013.015.515 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.566 001.016.000.554 309.000.176.595 309.000.176.595 Total : RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SERA Total : FILE COMPLAINT Total : JANUARY 2015 ENGINEERING MAI FEBRUARY ENGINEERING AND Mt 1ST QTR LIQUOR/EXCISE TAX APRIL 2015 ANIMAL CONTROL SEF Total : 0176 APPLEWAY TRAIL 2A CONSTF Total : 0176-APPLEWAY TRAIL CN DOCS 1,018.85 1,018.85 100.00 100.00 530.46 530.46 533.99 533.99 1,405.53 1,405.53 240.00 240.00 25,936.37 34,566.54 4,949.76 20,254.17 85,706.84 134,791.10 134,791.10 290.50 Page: 3 vchlist 04/09/2015 1:36:31 PM Voucher List Page: 4 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 35174 4/9/2015 003079 003079 SVR DESIGN COMPANY (Continued) 35175 4/9/2015 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8080034692 8080035058 402.402.000.531 40201D: SERVICE 001.090.000.518 40204D: SERVICE Total : Total : 35176 4/9/2015 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 3312015 001.011.000.511 BROADCASTING COUNCIL MEETII` Total : 35177 4/9/2015 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO MR7601021402 101.042.000.542 EQUIPMENT RENTAL Total : 402150029 4/5/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER MARCH 2015 001.016.000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES Total : 38 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 38 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 290.50 329.58 36.90 366.48 1,406.00 1,406.00 435.79 435.79 161,365.37 161,365.37 451,713.76 451,713.76 Page: 4 vchlist 04/09/2015 1:36:31 PM Voucher List Page: 5 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 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: 5 vchlist 04/09/2015 1:58:57PM Voucher List Page: ,A - Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6082 4/9/2015 004216 GIDEON, HILDA PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 213 52.00 Total : 52.00 6083 4/9/2015 003878 LAYWELL, KARI PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND SDC SUMMER CAMP 63.00 Total : 63.00 6084 4/9/2015 004243 MARK PATRICK SEMINARS PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FIRESIDE LOUD 52.00 Total : 52.00 3 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 167.00 3 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 Total vouchers : 167.00 Page: veh|ist 04/10/2015 9:53:18AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35178 4A0/2015 000150 ALLIED FIRE &SECURITY 35179 4/10/2015 001081 ALSCO 35180 4/10/2015 000818 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 35181 35182 35183 4/10/2015 003300 CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL 4/10/2015 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 9611494 9627550 9631554 9633540 S0103537 SO1O3581 SO104466 S0104512 S0105204 March 2015 March 2015 4d0/2015 004132 COBBLESTONE CATERING & EVENTS 1056 1057 1058 35184 4M0/2015 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRUGATION #19 35185 4/102015 001770 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY QJ 35186 4/10/2015 002308 FINKE, MELISSA March 2015 Fund/Dept Descri tion/Account mount 001.06.305.575 SECURITY MONITORING ATCENB Total : 001.010.000.521 FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC Total : 001.076.305.575 001.078.385.575 001.870.305.575 001.078.305.575 801.070.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.870.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND L|nENSERVICE AND UNEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY ATC SUPPLY AT SUPPLY ATC SUPPLY ATC SUPPLY ATC SUPpLYATC SUPPLY ATC SUPPLY ATC SUPPLY ATC Total : 001.080.000.518 SUPPLIES: GEN GOV/KITCHEN Total : 001858.056.558 PETTY CASH: 12409,10,13,14,15,16 Total : 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.070.305.575 CATERING SVCS AT CENTERPLAC CATERING SVCS AT CP CATERING SVCS AT CP 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: CP Total: Total : 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 112.50 112.50 20.39 20.39 120.44 235.98 58.78 259.61 50.85 88.44 116.04 26.87 4.13 961.14 394.75 394.75 24.57 24.57 21.74 152.18 152.18 326.10 68.18 68.18 99.41 99.41 March 2015 001.076.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 1,158.30 March 2015 001.06.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 105.30 vchlist 04/10/2015 9:53:18AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35186 4/10/2015 002308 002308 FINKE, MELISSA 35187 4/10/2015 003500 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 35188 4/10/2015 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 35189 4/102015 002712 GTFX INC. 35190 4/10/2015 000441 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 35191 4/10/2015 004242 INK SLINGER MEDIA (Continued) 109518 25025 39821 March 2015 CSV Refund 35192 4/10/2015 003316 INLAND W BUSINESS, TRAVELASSOC 2015 35193 4/10/2015 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT 00 35194 4/10/2015 002990 |NPRO 35195 4/102015 000388 |RV|NWATER DIST. #O 35196 4/102015 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 35197 4/10/2015 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER 00 94202 105 March 2015 864342 864586 March 2015 35198 4M0/2015 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC 4th QTR 2014 CAM Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.070.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.000.000.518 001.000.000.321 001.070.305.575 101.042.000.542 001.076.305.575 001.076.308.576 801.078.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.302.576 001.090.000.518 Description/Account Amount Total: COFFEE SUPPLIES FOR CENTERF Total : BOOTH FOR BUSUNESS SHOW 201 Total : SERVICE THE GREASE TRAP AT 01 Total : SUPPLIES: GEN GOV Total : CSV ENDORSEMENT REFUND Total : EXHIBITOR REGISTRATION 'TRAC Total : UTILITIES:MARCH 2015 PW Total : OOTHS FOR BRIDAL SHOW Total : UTILITIES: PARKS Total: EVENSVCSAT CENTERPLACE MONTHLY CLEANING AT CENTERP Total : UTILITIES: PARKS Total: 4TH QTR 2014 CAM CHARGES FOF Total : 1,263.60 3.35 3.35 350.00 350.00 160.88 160.88 397.12 397.12 13.00 13.00 425.00 425.00 414.01 414.01 300.00 300.00 182.60 182.60 210.70 7,136.00 7,346.70 1,473.18 1,473.18 2,702.24 2,702.24 *ichlist 04/10/2015 9:53:18AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: uf ( Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35199 4/10/2015 000283 NRPA 35200 4/10/2015 001860 PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 35201 4/102015 002592 PURE FILTRATION PRODUCTS 35202 4/10/2015 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS NC. 35203 4/10/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 93303-2015 G471O02 23573 41386 5993387 6533984 6534590 35204 4/10/2015 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION, SOLUTI 150311173101 35205 4/10/2015 002118 TARGET MEDIA NORTHWEST 48311 48532 35206 4/10/2015 OO2308TERRELLLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 2251 35207 4U0/2015 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0075650-2681-7 0075651'2881'5 0075652-2681-3 35208 4/10/2015 004241 WHO DOES THAT, STACEY RIVERS CSV Refund 31 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 31 Vouchers in this report Fund/Dept 001.070.000.576 001.076.305.575 001876.385.575 001.070.305.575 001.078.300.578 001]310.000.521 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.078.301.571 001.076.302.576 309.000.217.594 101.042.080.543 001.070.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.000.000.321 Description/Account Amount MEMBERSHIP - GROUP PACKAGE Total : 3UPPL|ES:CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 390.00 390.00 76.96 76.96 2,857.31 Total: 2,857.31 CENTERPLACE JACKETS/SHIRTS Total : CONTRACT MAINT: PARKS MARC MONTHLY SERVICES ATPREC|NCr CONCRETE SLAB FOR STATUE IN Total : ANSERING SVC: CP SEA4590531 Total : SPRING & SUMMER RECREATION AQUATICS INFORMATION GUIDE 2 Total : 0217-EDGECLIFF SHELTER PROJE Total : WASTE MGMT: MAINT SHOP WASTE MGMT: CENTERPLACE WASTE MGMT: PRECINCT Total : CSV ENDORSEMENT REFUND Total : 202.18 202.1 58,934.26 428.22 5,719.12 65,081.60 31.20 31.20 2,667.14 640.25 3,307.39 953.90 953.90 152.94 720.27 262.62 1,135.83 13.00 13.00 Bank total : 91,088.08 Total vouchens: 91.088.09 vchlist 04/10/2015 9:53:18AM Bank code : apbank Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley D Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 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 vchlist 04/10/2015 3:28:01 PM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 35209 4/10/2015 000164 LABOR & INDUSTRIES 1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 1 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been fumished, 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 Ben60228 001.231.17.00 LABOR & INDUSTRIES: PAYMENT Total : 21,879.62 21,879.62 Bank total : 21,879.62 Total vouchers : 21,879.62 vchlist Voucher List 04/16/2015 4:06:20PM Spokane Valley Page: Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5125 4/20/2015 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben60436 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 32,219.36 Total : 32,219.36 5126 4/20/2015 000682 EFTPS Ben60438 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 33,540.62 Total : 33,540.62 5128 4/20/2015 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL/ Ben60440 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 7,332.80 Total : 7,332.80 5129 4/20/2015 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC PL Ben60442 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,172.35 Total : 1,172.35 35210 4/20/2015 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben60434 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 998.52 Total : 998.52 5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 75,263.65 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 75,263.65 Page: -1` 12 vchlist Voucher List Page: —2- 04/16/2015 4:06:20PM Spokane Valley 3 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 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 04/17/2015 8:27:06AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: IL( Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35211 4/17/2015 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 35212 4/17/2015 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 35213 4/17/2015 002889 DOVIA OF THE INLAND NW 35214 4/17/2015 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 35215 4/17/2015 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 35216 4/17/2015 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES INV011638 INV011734 April 2015 April 2015 March 2015 March 2015 April 2015 35217 4/17/2015 000896 SPOKANE VALLEY MEALS ON WHEELS April 2015 35218 4/17/2015 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 53036 35219 4/17/2015 004245 STUDIO M BEAUTY BAR LLC 35220 4/17/2015 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 35221 4/17/2015 000167 VERA WATER & POWER CSV REFUND 59100379 April 2015 35222 4/17/2015 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0061188-1518-9 Fund/Dept 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.304.575 Description/Account Amount JANITORIAL SVCS: MARCH 2015 BIOHAZARD CLEANUP IN COURTR Total : PETTY CASH PARKS: 8987 Total : MEMBERSHIP: CLARK -PARSON Total : 101.042.000.542 WATER CHARGES: PW 101.042.000.542 001.076.302.576 001.090.000.560 001.016.000.521 001.000.000.321 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: MARCH 2015: PW Total : Total : SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: API Total : 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI Total : MARCH 2015 MONTHLY MAINT PRE Total : CSV ENDORSEMENT REFUND Total : J589-1 TESTING DRINKING WATER Total : 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: APRIL 2015 402.402.000.531 Total : WASTE MGMT: PW VACTORING Total : 2,501.87 55.00 2,556.87 7.61 7.61 35.00 35.00 91.85 91.85 8,393.13 8,393.13 1,617.76 1,617.76 7,734.56 7,734.56 605.46 605.46 13.00 13.00 27.00 27.00 3,021.32 3,021.32 3,657.63 3,657.63 Page: �' vchlist 04/17/2015 8:27:06AM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35223 4/17/2015 001793 WWRC 35224 4/17/2015 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE 14 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 14 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 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 4-8-15 001.076.000.576 2015 MEMBERSHIP DUES April 2015 650.00 Total : 650.00 001.090.000.560 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI 137.42 Total : 137.42 Bank total : 28,548.61 Total vouchers : 28,548.61 Page: vchlist 04/17/2015 1:02:31 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1W Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35225 4/17/2015 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 35226 4/17/2015 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 35227 4/17/2015 000101 CDW-G 35228 4/17/2015 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 35229 35230 35231 35232 35233 35234 4/17/2015 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 4/17/2015 002920 DIRECTV INC 2014 VACTORING 53571 53572 EXPENSE TR22409 606115368 606116554 606116923 606117719 606118901 606119285 606120071 77875585 25521259125 4/17/2015 003256 DISCOVERY BENEFITS INC, HRA PLAN 0000533168 -IN 4/17/2015 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 4/17/2015 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 4/17/2015 003261 FEHR & PEERS 4236053 0215-0464 98513 Fund/Dept 402223.40.00 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 001.032.000.543 001.013.000.513 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 001.090.000.548 101.042.000.543 001.018.016.518 Description/Account Amount RETAINAGE RELEASE 2014 VACTC STORM DRAIN CLEANING STREET SWEEPING SERVICES Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : BROTHER HL DESKTOP PRINTER - Total : SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 02356 SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 02356 CLEANING SERVICE ACCOUNT 02: SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 02356 SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 02356 CLEANING SERVICE ACCOUNT 02: SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 02356 Total : COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0( Total : CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINT SHOF Total : HRA MONTHLY SERIVCE FEE MAR Total : 101.000.000.542 FUEL FOR MAINT SHOP 303.303.166.595 303.303.159.544 Total : 0166 - PINES RD & GRACE AVE INT Total : 0159 - UNIVERSITY ROAD OVERPA 9,482.81 19,136.87 92,859.44 121,479.12 20.70 20.70 155.04 155.04 113.60 100.17 195.33 100.17 100.17 226.73 113.60 949.77 115.29 115.29 45.79 45.79 405.00 405.00 581.37 581.37 2,187.03 2,187.03 1,377.86 Page: Il vchlist 04/17/2015 1:02:31 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: t7 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35234 4/17/2015 003261 003261 FEHR & PEERS 35235 4/17/2015 002992 FREEDOM TRUCK CENTERS 35236 4/17/2015 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 35237 4/17/2015 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. (Continued) Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount PC001197836:01 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW MAR15 1042 290786 290787 291069 291070 291071 291072 291083 291084 291087 291088 291145 291146 291170 291342 291343 291346 291347 35238 4/17/2015 004089 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL, CONSULT/ 35991 35239 4/17/2015 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 35240 4/17/2015 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. 600448237 600448238 600450474 PAY APP 6 001.011.000.511 001.058.057.558 001.058.057.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.058.050.558 001.058.050.558 001.018.016.518 001.018.016.518 001.076.000.576 001.076.000.576 001.058.057.558 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 402.000.193.531 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 311.000.179.595 GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS COPIER COSTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : SCHEDULE 572DD016: 4/11-5/10/1E SCHEDULE 572E3651: 4/11-5/10/15 SCHEDULE 572DA494: 3/19-4/18/1E Total : 0179 - ARGONNE RD & SPRAGUE Total : 1,377.86 47.83 47.83 3,466.39 3,466.39 5.10 3.30 177.14 26.58 102.17 13.33 204.05 27.69 64.30 19.64 353.28 18.21 4.72 49.53 34.94 122.37 21.69 1,248.04 6,234.85 6,234.85 745.84 830.28 839.80 2,415.92 992.10 992.10 Page: 17 vch l ist 04/17/2015 1:02:31 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3' l 5 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35241 4/17/2015 003697 INTEGRA 35242 4/17/2015 001987 JENKINS, ART 35243 4/17/2015 000472 LAWTON PRINTING 35244 4/17/2015 003959 MAX J KUNEY CO 35245 4/17/2015 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 35246 4/17/2015 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 35247 4/17/2015 000240 NAT'L LEAGUE OF CITIES 35248 4/17/2015 003090 NORTH 40 OUTFITTERS 35249 4/17/2015 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 35250 4/17/2015 000881 OXARC INC 35251 4/17/2015 003653 PARTSMASTER 35252 4/17/2015 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 12878815 EXPENSE 35694 PAY APP 6 439 492 497 45083.0238 113646 61454/3 MARCH 2015 R333574 20881284 44406 Fund/Dept 001.090.000.586 402.000.193.531 001.090.000.518 303.303.155.595 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 303.303.060.595 001.011.000.511 101.000.000.542 001.016.000.586 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 Description/Account Amount INTERNET SERVICE SCRAPS APRT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : RECEIPT BOOKS Total : 0155 - SULLIVAN RD WEST BRIDGE Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : CONSTRUCTION SERVICE APPLC/ Total : MEMERSHIP RENWAL 2015 00020C Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : SUPPLIES: PW STATE REMITTANCE CYLINDER RENTAL SUPPLIES: PW WINTER RESPONSE 2015 88.48 88.48 52.97 52.97 535.89 535.89 634,960.42 634,960.42 6.96 2,004.40 689.90 2,701.26 600.00 600.00 6,697.00 6,697.00 15.20 15.20 61,840.47 61,840.47 97.37 97.37 132.48 132.48 469.70 469.70 vchlist 04/17/2015 1:02:31 PM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley (9 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 35253 4/17/2015 003407 RIGHT! SYSTEMS INC 134775 001.090.000.594 PHASE 1 SWITCH UPGRADE 17,715.71 Total : 17,715.71 35254 4/17/2015 003208 RODDA PAINT CO. 9434486 303.303.155.595 GRAFFITI BARRIER PAINT 237.25 Total : 237.25 35255 4/17/2015 002520 RWC GROUP 115632 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 59.89 4084N 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 216.88 CM115236 101.000.000.542 CREDIT MEMO SUPPLIES -70.44 CM115236A 101.000.000.542 CREDIT MEMO SUPPLIES PW -105.50 Total : 100.83 35256 4/17/2015 001298 SAVEMORE 2113932 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 28.91 Total : 28.91 35257 4/17/2015 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 9363 303.303.156.595 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SER' 2,051.15 Total : 2,051.15 35258 4/17/2015 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY MARCH 2015 001.016.000.586 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F 940.62 Total : 940.62 35259 4/17/2015 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO 6-200314 303.303.123.595 OWNER'S PLOICY 293.49 6-200315 303.303.123.595 OWNER'S POLICY 293.49 6-200316 303.303.123.595 OWNER'S POLICY 293.49 6-200317 303.303.123.595 OWNER'S POLICY 293.49 6-200318 303.303.123.595 OWNER'S POLICY 293.49 6-200319 303.303.123.595 OWNER'S POLICY 293.49 6-200320 303.303.123.595 OWNER'S POLICY 293.49 6-200321 303.303.123.595 OWNER'S POLICY 293.49 6-200322 303.303.123.595 OWNER'S POLICY 293.49 Total : 2,641.41 35260 4/17/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51502631 101.042.000.542 MARCH WORK CREW INVOICE 3,119.70 Total : 3,119.70 35261 4/17/2015 000202 SRCAA 6621 001.090.000.553 2ND QTR 2015 LOCAL ASSESSME!` 28,978.75 Total : 28,978.75 Page: -4 vchlist 04/17/2015 1:02:31 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 35262 4/17/2015 000093 THE SPOKESMAN -REVIEW 35263 4/17/2015 000335 TIRE-RAMA 35264 4/17/2015 000468 TRANSOFT SOLUTIONS INC. 35265 4/17/2015 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 35266 4/17/2015 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC 42 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 42 Vouchers in this report 421436 8080034959 118684 45131 APRIL 2015 APRIL 2015 B Fund/Dept 001.013.000.513 402.402.000.531 001.032.000.543 303.000.205.595 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 Description/Account Amount ADVERTISING ACCOUNT 42365 Total : 53697D: SERVICE Total : AUTOTURN MAINTENANCE ASSUF Total : MAILING SERVICES Total : HIGH SPEED INTERNET CITY HALL DARK FIBER LEASE Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 880.76 880.76 55.39 55.39 770.00 770.00 509.56 509.56 560.73 409.41 970.14 908,913.52 908,913.52 vchlist 04/17/2015 1: 02:31 PM Voucher List Page: —6— Spokane Valley 2-1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 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 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 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 April 15, 2015 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 270,217.87 $ $ 270,217.87 Benefits: $ 48,677.29 / $ 48,677.29 Total payroll $ 318,895.16 $ $ 318,895.16 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 City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, April 14, 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 ABSENT: Bill Bates, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember City Staff: Mike Jackson, City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Sean Messner, Sr. Traffic Engineer Christina Janssen, Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, Mayor Grafos asked for a few moments of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmembers Bates and Wick. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's meeting. It was moved by Councilmember Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Wick from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: There were no reports from Council. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grafos read the proclamations for Drug Endangered Children Awareness Day and Money Smart Week. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Michelle Yarborro — said she is here to speak regarding a safety issue concerning people driving through her yard at the corner of 8th and Carnahan. She said her yard is at the bottom of a very steep hill where the road jaunts over, putting her yard in the path of drivers. She said the corner is very congested and she has had her fence hit and damaged seven times. She said she is trying to make it safer to get in and out of her driveway and she is asking that the City make a No Parking Zone across the street from her house. She said there is a fire hydrant next to her driveway and a fence on the other side making it difficult to turn in and out of the driveway. She said when cars are parked on the other side of the road, delivery Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-14-2015 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT trucks can not get in to deliver items and it is very inconvenient. She said backing out of her driveway is impossible and it affects her quality of life. She said the fire department told her that if the road was two feet narrower there would be a No Parking zone across the street. She asks that the City look into the parking situation and she said her husband is working with our engineering staff to try to resolve the problem. Dan Pavlish — said he lives in Spokane County and his property fronts the Painted Hills development. He said he wants to advise the Council as to the action the community is taking as a group. He said they filed Articles of Incorporation and they have twenty active community members attending meetings. He said they have hired legal counsel and they are concerned with the environmental impact and the density of traffic. He said they have hired an expert in environmental law, specialists in environmental zoning and law, and they have engaged an environmental consultant from Seattle who is an expert in hydrology and floodplain and wetland mitigation, as well as a traffic engineer from Seattle. He said they will also probably hire experts in the science fields to look at the different aspects of the project. He said they are concerned about the environmental impact, the impact on the aquifer, habitat, and floodplain and he said in their opinion it is an environmental, traffic and safety issue based upon the density. He said they have submitted a public record request and the City can expect more and he thanked City staff for their work in helping with this issue. 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 vouchers listed on Mar 24April 14, 2015 Request for Council Action Form, Totaling: $2,545,487.72 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 31, 2015: $449,477.27 c. Approval of March 24, 2015 Council Formal Meeting Minutes d. Approval of March 31, 2015 Council Study Session Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2015-0001 — Christina Janssen After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance 15-006 adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as described in CPA -2015-0001. Planner Janssen said staff received two Comprehensive Plan amendment requests during this cycle and that CPA -2015-0001 is a privately initiated site-specific amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Office to Community Commercial. She said the site is four parcels totaling approximately 3.22 acres located on Nora Avenue between Pines and Mallon roads, adjacent to I-90. Mayor Grafos invited questions from Council; there were none. Mayor Grafos invited public comment: Stanley Schwartz, Witherspoon Kelley - said he represents the applicant, Jim Cross, who is in the automobile business. He said the property is adjacent to I-90 where there is noise, glare and everything associated with a high volume road including good visibility for a business. He said the sloping grade is a great natural border, and that under the current Office designation the property is underutilized and not properly zoned. He said the staff report states that integration of commercial development on the south of I-90 should provide services for local economic demand, should not affect the existing neighborhood characteristic and the current designation does not meet the criteria for Office use. He said the staff report also states the future use of the property would provide the opportunity to redevelop land currently vacant. He said he agrees with the staff recommendation, there were no adverse comments from the public in response to the notice that was posted and he urges Council to approve the amendment and zone change. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-14-2015 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Jim Cross - said he is the property owner and he is a new car dealer in Spokane and he is excited to develop this property and he would like to have the zoning change. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that for all the reasons this property works for a business, it does not work for residential. He said that the Whimsical Pig is right above this property but he said the hill provides a nice buffer. He said the road is narrow but it is still a nice, two-lane road and he said he thinks this is a great way to utilize the property. Councilmember Hafner said he agrees and Mayor Grafos said he thinks it is a natural location for a car dealership. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007 Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0001 — Christina Janssen After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance 15-007 adopting an update to the Official Zoning Map as described in CPA -2015-0001. Planner Janssen said this ordinance is the companion to Ordinance 15-006 just adopted that will change the zoning map to reflect the change from Office to Community Commercial. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-006a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2015-0002 — Marty Palaniuk After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance 15-006a adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as described in CPA -2015-0002. Planner Palaniuk said this is a privately initiated amendment requesting to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Center (MUC). He said the property is located on the northwest corner of Flora and Mission and involves two properties. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if the property could still be used for residential and commercial if it is changed to MUC and if the sixty foot height maximum allows for four-story apartments, a gas station or a convenience store. Mr. Palaniuk confirmed and further said setbacks depend on the type of development, that for commercial there would be a twenty foot setback along the east and north boundary and that an apartment building would require a relational setback in that as the building goes up it must also go back. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about the size of the property and the number of units for an apartment building it could accommodate. Mr. Palaniuk said the property is approximately three acres and we allow twenty-two units per acre so approximately sixty units. He also confirmed that frontage improvements would be required on Flora. Mayor Grafos invited public comment: Trish Abraham — said she is here and available to answer any questions on behalf of the applicants. She said there is piece of property in front of the parcel owned by the same person submitting this request that is currently zoned R3, which is different from everything around it, and that this change would make everything flow. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he has visited the site and he talked to people after the roundabout went in. He said his primary concern is how this change will impact residences to the north and across Flora. He said he thinks Flora acts, in part, as a buffer. He said any land use change should be based on what could be, not what should be and he thinks that the size of the property will limit the uses. Mayor Grafos said that the community has already been impacted with changes including the roundabout, and that properties around it are already zoned Commercial. He said he thinks changing it will create "a can of worms" on that corner with uses that could include a casino, a storage facility, a gas station with fuel, drive-through restaurants, and taverns and he said that because of this he will vote against the amendment. Councilmember Hafner said one of the values portrayed in our Comprehensive Plan is protecting the integrity of neighborhoods and he wants to preserve the integrity of this neighborhood. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Woodard, Councilmembers Pace and Higgins. Opposed: Mayor Grafos and Councilmember Hafner. Motion carried; refer to highlighted action below. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-14-2015 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment 2015-0002 — Marty Palaniuk After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance 15-007a adopting an update to the Official Zoning Map as described in CPA -2015-0001. Planner Palainuik said this ordinance will amend the Zoning Map from R3 to MUC to be consistent with the ordinance just passed. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 6. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-008 Additional Lodging Tax — Erik Lamb After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance 15-008 amending SVMC 3.20 to impose an additional special excise tax on the sale of lodging to be used for certain capital expenditures for tourism promotion purposes. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said the state authorizes cities to impose a special excise tax on lodging and he said it can be done in two parts. The first part is a two percent tax that is credited against the sales tax and the second part is an amount equal to either two percent or an amount that when combined with all the sales tax applicable to lodging equals twelve percent. He said that with the applicable taxes on lodging we are limited to a cap of an additional amount of 1.3 percent. Mr. Lamb said on February 25, 2015, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee moved unanimously that the City take the additional 1.3 percent to use for capital purchases for tourism promotion. He said under state law, the City is required to wait at least forty-five days before taking final action and that waiting period expired on April 11, 2015, whereby the City can now take action on the tax. He said the additional tax will be placed into a separate fund from the two percent currently collected and that there will be restrictions on the use of the funds. Councilmember Hafner commented that the restrictions enable Council to determine what our capital ventures will be. Mayor Grafos invited public comment: Andy Rooney, Mirabeau Park Hotel — said he is in favor of the 1.3 percent tax levy and that it will be the visitors to our city paying tax rather than city taxpayers and it will also create additional tax revenue. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 7. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-009 Adopting Mining Moratorium Findings — Erik Lamb After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deptuy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance 15-009, adopting findings of fact justfing the adoption of Ordinance 15-005 and the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, to a second reading. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said state law allows cities to adopt a moratorium without prior notice and without a prior public hearing provided the City conducts a hearing within sixty days and adopts findings of fact immediately thereafter. Mr. Lamb said that the moratorium does not impact continued mining uses that were in effect as of February 24, 2015, the date of the moratorium. He said the City conducted a public hearing pursuant to state law on February 25, 2015, in which we received two written comments and public testimony from six interested parties. He said the City is not designated mineral resource lands nor do we provide development regulation resources for the same and we are required to do so by law. He said prior to the moratorium, mining was a permitted use in the I-2 zones and no restrictions were in place. Mr. Lamb said there are several mines in existence in Spokane Valley, that there can be impacts from open pit mining and that there is a finite amount of undeveloped industrial land in Spokane Valley. The City has begun the process for developing its 2015 legislative Comprehensive Plan update and through that plan, the City will analyze available industrial lands and the designation of mineral resource lands to meet statutory requirements. Without the moratorium, new proposals may occur that could frustrate the Comprehensive Plan process whereas a moratorium maintains the status quo. The moratorium is in effect for one year from the date of the moratorium. He said that it is not in the findings but we have received a citizen comment requesting we add a new chapter for mineral resource designation and an overlay map that we are considering. Councilmember Pace said staff has said the gravel pits are irreversible but he has heard testimony that we can repurpose the pits. Mr. Lamb said they are not always irreversible but the findings state they are usually irreversible, depending on the individual Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-14-2015 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT pits. Councilmember Pace said he did not think the moratorium would affect existing businesses. Mr. Lamb said as long as there is no new permit required for expansion or modifications there would be no effect to existing operations and the intent was not to impact current mining operations. Mayor Grafos asked how many pits there are in Spokane Valley and Mr. Lamb said he will provide that information for the next reading. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if the City controls whether the pit goes into the aquifer and to what level either above or into the aquifer they go. Mr. Lamb said the City does not have that control but it might be through a SEPA analysis or through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Deputy Mayor Woodard said that would make a difference to him for reclamation purposes and he would like more information for the second reading. Mayor Grafos invited public comment: Janna McDonald — said the moratorium will impact current business and the issues are not hypothetical. She said that Central Premix currently has an agreement with Spokane County to move the joint property line at the Sullivan Rd site and a revision of the Department of Natural Resources DNR permit is moving forward. She said this is an expansion that requires a permit modification and she said she believes under the moratorium the City will not be able to approve and issue a permit. She said Central Premix just bought the Havana site and changing the ownership requires a DNR modification and the City will not be able to sign off. She said Central Premix owns the mineral rights at the Tshirley site and the moratorium impacts them at that location even though the County owns the land. She said the needs are constantly changing and anything requiring a permit for footings, structures or adding cement silos would not be able to happen under the moratorium. She said she would like the moratorium amended as stated in the letter from their attorney. To answer Deputy Mayor Woodard's question about the depth of pits to the aquifer, at the Sullivan site the depth to the aquifer is about seventy feet below ground. Stacy Bjordahl — said she represents Central Premix and testified at the March hearing. She said she submitted comments and modifications to the moratorium so that current businesses will not be affected and those changes have not been included. She said staff has said the moratorium is not intended to impact businesses already in operation but if not drafted with her suggested changes, there is an adverse impact to future operations. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked for the legal definition of "existing operations" and Mr. Lamb said it is not defined in the moratorium other than "were in existence and in continuous operation as of the effective date of this ordinance." He said he does not think the Tshirley site would qualify as an existing operation because there is nothing on that site. Mayor Grafos said there should be no impact on those existing operations and he would like to have that clarified. Mr. Lamb said he will provide clarification for the next reading of the ordinance. Councilmember Hafner said he would also like that defined and would like to know how the moratorium is affecting current business. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mayor Grafos called for a break at 7:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:20 p.m. City Manager Jackson informed Council that according to the Governance Manual, ordinances need a majority vote of the full Council to pass and with two Councilmembers absent, the previous ordinance for CPA -2015-0002 did not have an affirmative vote of at least four councilmembers and therefore it did not pass as was stated by Mayor Grafos. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to reconsider Ordinance 15-006a at the next regular Council meeting. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mr. Jackson said the zoning map ordinance should be considered at the same time. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to reconsider Ordinance 15-007a at the next regular Council meeting. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Mr. Jackson said staff will notify the interested parties that have already left tonight's meeting. 8. First Reading Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping — John Hohman After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance 15-010 adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-14-2015 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT and prohibiting the keeping of nutria to a second reading. Community and Economic Development Director Hohman said this is the first reading of the ordinance for code text amendment CTA -2015-0001 adding beekeeping requirements and modifying Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.40.150. He said Council has heard about this topic previously and the proposed changes include changing the maximum number of hives from twenty-five to having no limit, but the number of hives would be a ratio of hives per lot area. He said the ordinance will change the rear yard setback to five feet and the front and flanking yard setbacks to twenty feet. He said it will also require a fly -away barrier, source of water and bee certification. Mr. Hohman said the Planning Commission recommends approval of the changes to the ordinance. Councilmember Pace asked Council if they would consider dropping the certification piece of the ordinance to eliminate an extra layer of government. Councilmember Hafner said he thinks certification is a safety factor for him and he thinks it will be much safer than if we do not require the certification. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked who does the certification and asked how it is enforced. Mr. Hohman said the State does the certifying and the City would check into complaints, typically the complaint would concern other aspects of the code but staff could additionally ask if they have their certification. Mayor Grafos said he thinks certification is a teaching tool and thinks the certification is important. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 9. Motion Consideration: SRTMC Interlocal Agreement — Sean Messner It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to finalize and execute the SRTMC Interlocal Agreement Amendment 1 as presented. Sr. Traffic Engineer Messner said this was discussed a couple weeks ago and questions were brought up that he will try to answer. He said SRTC is no longer the lead agency and now WSDOT is the lead agency. He said the services have not changed, only the lead agency. He said the other agencies agreed to a trial period as an interim fix and they will investigate the program over the next year. Councilmember Pace asked if this will be at no cost for this year only. Mr. Messner confirmed and said the agreement ends December 31, 2015 so he will come back to Council prior to the end of the year with a new proposition that will include a cost to determine what happens for next year. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 10. Motion Consideration: CMAQ/TA Call for Projects — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize the City Manager to apply for CMAQ/TA grants for the following projects: 1) Appleway Trail, Evergreen to Sullivan; 2) Appleway Trail, University to Balfour; 3) Opportunity Elementary Sidewalks; 4) Evergreen and Broadway ITS; and 5) Sullivan and Wellesley Intersection Improvement. Sr. Engineer Worley said he has discussed these projects in the past to apply for federal funds for under the congestion mitigation and air quality program and the transportation alternatives program. He said staff looked at the Pines Road Undercrossing project but they are not recommending it for one of these grants because it did not score well based on previous application submittals but they think it may work well under different types of grants. He said last Friday was the deadline for the grant pre -applications which were submitted and approved so they are ready to move forward with the final applications that are due the end of April. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 11. Gambling Tax — Mark Calhoun Finance Director Calhoun said that in 2003 the City adopted an ordinance approving gambling tax on certain gaming activities, the proceeds of which go to our general fund and are used to offset law Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-14-2015 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT enforcement costs. He said that through the years, establishments have opened and closed and the revenue from the gambling tax fluctuates. In November 2014, the City of Spokane reduced their gambling tax on card games from ten percent in 2014 to eight percent in 2015 and two percent in 2016. He said Council has heard public comment from a citizen who said this lower tax in Spokane puts Spokane Valley businesses at a disadvantage and it would help businesses in our community compete if we reduce the gambling tax on card games from ten percent to six percent. He said this reduction amounts to a $178,400 reduction in revenue for the 2015 budget. It was the consensus of Council to prepare an ordinance for a future meeting. 12. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos: There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. INFORMATION ONLY: N/A CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: City Manager Jackson had no comments. ADJOURNMENT: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-14-2015 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington April 21, 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 Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Morgan Koudelka, Sr Administrative Analyst John Pietro, Administrative Analyst Gloria Mantz, Engineer Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka 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. Proposed Amended Interlocal for Prosecuting Attorney Services — John Pietro, Morgan Koudelka Administrative Analyst Pietro said this is a countywide change of indirect cost methodology impacting all County departments and our contracts for prosecutor and public defender services. He said in addition to the indirect rate change, there are also other cost methodology modifications and because the cost structure goes back a couple years, they look for better ways to describe the service provided. Mr. Pietro went through his PowerPoint presentation and explained we are proposing retroactive application of the changes to deal with the indirect rate. He said the last six years of the contract have been relatively stable. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked how far back it would be retroactive; Mr. Pietro said the indirect rate goes back to 2010. He said the net effect of the amendment is a cost savings expected to carry over from year to year. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if the changes proposed are to align this contract with other County contracts in directing the costs of the contracts. Mr. Pietro confirmed and added that it is specifically the indirect rate and it will be a more accurate methodology. It was the consensus of Council to move forward for motion consideration on a future agenda. 2. Historic Preservation — Gloria Mantz, Karen Kendall Development Engineer Mantz said Council requested information on historic preservation in February and at the workshop. She said once the City becomes a Certified Local Government (CLG), we will need to maintain a historic inventory of properties in the City. The Historic Properties Inventory is a database used to archive the property inventory. She said the state has developed a statewide database called WISAARD with an estimated 264 Spokane Valley properties listed but after mapping the listings she said she estimates approximately fifty of those properties are not in Spokane Valley and said most of the properties listed have no historic value but are listed because they are more than fifty years old. She said Council Study Session: 04-21-2015 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT the museum also has a registry containing approximately 120 properties and they estimate half of those properties might meet the criteria to be designated a historic property. Ms. Mantz said there are no restrictions or expectations of property owners to list properties on the Historic Properties Inventory. Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), managed by the National Park Service and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, need to meet certain criteria and go through a nomination process. Once the City becomes a CLG, staff will be able to review the nominations and provide recommendations for properties to be listed on the NRHP but the state makes the final decision. If the property meets the criteria, they are not required to be restored or go through a review board if they want to make changes or demolish the property, but they do qualify for incentives if they do rehabilitation work that meet the minimum standards. She said they can receive up to twenty percent investment tax credit if they are income producing properties and could qualify for special tax valuation. She said many local jurisdictions do not extend the special tax valuation to properties listed on the NRHP because there are no protections on the property but that would be up to the City to decide. She said only the properties applying for incentives would need to meet the minimum standards. Ms. Mantz said the Local Historic Register (LHR) is the registry the City would manage when it becomes a CLG and these are the only properties that can be protected because they would have to go through our commission to make changes or demolish the property. She said as we develop the ordinance we have some control over how it is written and we can decide if the properties listed need owner consent to go through the nomination process and if a property owner can remove their property from the LHR once it has been listed. She said the state discourages property removal because we lose the ability to preserve those historic properties and landmarks. She said we could also extend the special tax valuation to properties on the NRHP for property owners that do not want to go through the review board of the LHR. Mayor Grafos asked how properties originally get on the National Register and Ms. Mantz said the property owner or a third party starts the process for a nomination but the owner has to provide consent. Mayor Grafos asked if the City has any properties listed now and Ms. Mantz said the Museum is listed. She said the review standards are somewhat subjective and while there are no prescribed standards that we have to adopt, we have to adopt standards. The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation are recommended because they are companion guidelines that offer design and technical recommendations and standards for restoration reconstruction and preservation. Councilmember Hafner asked what "loss of historical integrity" means and Ms. Mantz said that any changes to the property that did not receive permission from the commission and changes to the historical aspects of the property. Councilmember Pace said one of the things they talked about was the ability of the property owner to demolish the property but this looks like the owner will need permission for that. Ms. Mantz confirmed and said once a property is on the local register the property owner will need to get permission of the commission to make changes or demolish the property. She referred Council to page nine, section three of the Model Ordinance for information as to what a property owner can do if the commission denies their request. She said the owner could apply for a waiver and the commission will try to encourage a different solution from demolition and if they do not come to an agreement, it may require mitigation. Mayor Grafos said the property owner decides to be on the register so they know the criteria and if they receive the tax credit, they will need to pay the penalty if they demolish the property. Councilmember Higgins asked if the City can put stringent requirements as to who sits on the commission and Ms. Mantz said the City can put that language in the ordinance and bylaws. Councilmember Hafner asked if a new property owner will have to comply if the property changes ownership. Ms. Mantz confirmed and said the special tax valuation lasts for ten years and the seller would pay the penalty if they sell to someone who does not intend to comply. Councilmember Pace said he wants to know who benefits from this program and what the incentive is to be on the registry. He said he does not see why anyone would want to do this and it will only make government fatter. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if he wanted to nominate the Vera Pump site to be on the registration and they declined whether he could then recommend they be on the register. Ms. Mantz said we can put our own language in the ordinance so that only the property owner can nominate their property for the registry. Deputy Mayor Woodard said part of the problem is that when we start to put a more restrictive ordinance on what people can do, we can end up with a nightmare. He questioned if Council Study Session: 04-21-2015 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT there is a notification that tells the public a particular property is listed on the registry so when people research the property they know it is restricted and subject to certain criteria. City Attorney Driskell said he thinks it would be recorded and should show up on the title. Councilmember Hafner said if Council approves, they are simply allowing the homeowner to put their property on the historical register and he said he thinks that is a value as a City. Councilmember Pace said he sees a lot of cost in having a commission and selecting commissioners and searching through titles and said he does not see a benefit and that we should stay away from it. Councilmember Wick said we could say only the property owner can nominate their property and they are not automatically granted the incentive and this is only a ten- year agreement so the penalty would only be applied if they did not comply with the agreement during that ten years. He asked if the opt -out section of the ordinance could address future changes in Council so the property owner would not be faced with new requirements. Ms. Mantz said that sounds reasonable and she will ask the state. She said we have no jurisdiction over the tax credit. Mr. Driskell said he can look at the tax implications but it is likely we will be dealing with the state to see how much flexibility we can draft into the ordinance and still meet the intent of the program. Councilmember Hafner said he would like to move forward and get more information. Councilmember Pace asked if we would have to hire a consultant and Ms. Mantz said the recommendation is that staff manages the program but retains a consultant as needed but that is ultimately up to Council. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested putting out a notice or survey to see how many people would be interested in putting their property on a historic registry. It was the consensus of Council to have staff do more research on the questions raised and bring forward on a future agenda. 3. Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell said two years ago Council passed an ordinance granting Avista a natural gas franchise and this franchise applies to their electrical facilities and is proposed to be a twenty-five year franchise. He said we have a different franchise form than what Avista is used to but they have worked well with us and the negotiating has gone smoothly. Mr. Driskell said telecommunication franchises are typically ten-year franchises because of the frequent changes in technology; however, reviewing and negotiating franchises can be rather work intensive so unless there is a need to review it sooner, for this type of franchise the twenty-five year term is preferred. It was the consensus of Council to place on a future agenda as a first reading ordinance. 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos. There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 5. Council Comments — Mayor Grafos. There were no comments from Council. 6. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said the TIGER grant opportunity has an extremely short timeframe for application. He said the pre -application is due May 4th and the final application is due June 5th. He said last year we submitted an application for the Barker Overpass project and spent $65,000 on the application and the economic benefit cost analysis. He said this year staff has been looking at the Pines Underpass project and whether we should use that project to apply for a TIGER grant and focus on the state for the Barker Overpass. He said he is meeting with Patty Murray and they will discuss the best way to apply for grant funds. He said it looks almost impossible to put together an application for the Pines Underpass in thirty days and typically TIGER awards five or six of the applications and they keep tightening the criteria for matching funds and partnerships making it difficult to generate an application on a fast track. Mr. Jackson said he is asking Council for the authority to meet with Patty Murray and decide the best projects and grants for which to apply. He said it is a long shot to achieve the grants because there is only five million dollars for the whole United States so they do not fund very many projects. He said at the least the City has a strong application with the Barker Overpass and we have already done the benefit cost analysis if we want to use that to apply for the grant. It was the consensus of Council for Mr. Jackson to meet with Senator Murray to discuss grant opportunities. Council Study Session: 04-21-2015 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 04-21-2015 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 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: Second Reading Ordinance 15-006a CPA -2015-0002 (Reconsideration) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140, and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On April 14, 2015, Ordinance 15-006a was heard for a second reading and Council subsequently voted on April 14th to bring it back for reconsideration. 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. Patricia Abraham submitted a timely application for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. To maintain consistency between the City's Comprehensive Plan and its development regulations, the City Council will also consider zoning classification changes concurrently with the proposed comprehensive plan amendments under proposed Ordinance No. 15-007a. 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 deliberations, CPA -2015-0002 was forwarded to City Council with a recommendation to approve with a 4 to 3 vote. The amendment was presented to the City Council as an administrative report on March 10, 2015, and as an Ordinance first reading on March 24, 2015, as part of Ordinance 15-006 which also included CPA - 2015 -0001. After hearing public comments City Council moved to bring the amendment back for a second reading as a separate ordinance from CPA -2015-0001. On April 14, 2015 Council conducted a second reading of the ordinance. Following a vote on a motion to approve the ordinance the Council was unable to reach a required four vote consensus. Council moved to reconsider the ordinance and subsequently approved the motion. OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance with or without further amendments; or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-006a adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as described in CPA -2015-0002. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Staff Report to Planning Commission CPA -2015-0002 2) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3) Draft Ordinance 15-006a CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-006a AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN CPA -2015-0002; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, through Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-010, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, consisting of the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and related maps (collectively and as subsequently amended, the Comprehensive Plan); and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A.130); and WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Economic Development Director based upon citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted public participation guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides that amendment applications for the Comprehensive Plan shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 06-010, has been amended by Ordinance No. 07-026, Ordinance No. 08-011, Ordinance No. 09-008, Ordinance No. 09- 039, Ordinance No. 10-007, Ordinance No. 11-001, Ordinance No. 11-007, Ordinance No. 11-009, Ordinance No. 12-014, Ordinance No. 12-018, Ordinance No. 13-008, and Ordinance 14-005; and WHEREAS, an application was submitted by the applicant or owner to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described in CPA -2015-0002 and herein; and WHEREAS, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impact from the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and Ordinance 15-006a 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2015, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing and voted to forward CPA -2015-0002 to Council with a recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth the basis for recommending approval of the proposed amendment and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0002 is being considered concurrently with CPA -2015-0001. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Comprehensive Plan as described in CPA -2015-0002. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council hereby approves the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map. The Council has read and considered the Commission's findings. The Council hereby makes the following findings applicable to the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0002: 1. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. 2. On November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. On December 12, 2014, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Valley News Herald. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in RCW 43.21C (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment. Ordinance 15-006a 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 2 of 4 5. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. 6. On December 12, 2014, a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued for the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. 7. On December 12, 2014, the DNS was published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, consistent with SVMC 21.20. 8. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 9. On January 6, 2015, individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposal was or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the proposed amendment site. 10. On January 6, 2015 the property subject to the site-specific amendment was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 11. On January 22, 2015, the Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. After receiving public testimony, the Commission deliberated and voted to forward the amendment to Council with a recommendation for approval. 12. The Commission adopted findings for CPA -2015-0002. Such findings were presented to Council. 13. The Council adopts the Commission findings as the Council findings for CPA -2015-0002, as set forth in Attachment "B". 14. The Commission and Council have reviewed CPA -2015-0002 concurrently with CPA -2015-0001 to evaluate the cumulative impacts. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 15. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies within the Comprehensive Plan itself. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140H (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public general health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Section 3. Property. The property subject to this Ordinance is described in Attachment "A" (maps). Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as set forth below and in Attachment "A" (maps). File No. CPA -2015-0002: Ordinance 15-006a 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 3 of 4 Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the 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. Applicant: Patricia Abraham, 1920 North Greenacres Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Amendment Location: Parcels 45124.0203 & 45124.0151; addressed as 1603 & 1625 N. Flora Rd; generally located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road; further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Decision: The request is approved. Section 5. Copies on File - Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan (with maps) is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City's Department of Community and Economic Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scriveners errors. Section 6. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. 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 as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Mayor, Dean Grafos City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-006a 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 4 of 4 Comprehensive Plan Map Nora Baldwin CPA -2015-0002 Mission CPA -2015-0002 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map City of Spokane Valley designation from LDR to MUC; subsequent zoning Community Development Department change from R-3 to MUC. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-0002 February 26, 2015 A. Background: 1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from November 2"d to November 1 st of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November 1St, typically in late winter/early spring of the following year, with a decision by City Council typically in late spring/early summer. 2. For the 2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle, the City received two privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments, designated as CPA -2015-0001 and CPA -2015-0002. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. The City did not initiate any Comprehensive Plan text amendments. The two proposed amendments were considered concurrently and cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.80.140(H), the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA -2015-0002: 1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. 2. On December 15, 2014, the Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment. 4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists, and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Optional Determinations of Non -Significance (DNS) were issued for each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on December 12, 2014. 5. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 6. On January 2, 2015, notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and the subject site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 7. Individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposal was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject site. 8. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). 9. On January 22, 2015 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2015-0001. 10. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment may be served by the proposed amendment. A change to Mixed Use Center (MUC) would provide opportunities for a variety of uses to occur on the site. The allowed new uses are varied and include retail, office, storage, and multi -family residential. At Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2015-0002 Page 1 of 4 the time of development, improvements such as sidewalks and drainage facilities may be required. Development may also provide employment opportunity, increased housing options, or access to neighborhood amenities such as a self - storage facility, convenience store, daycare, restaurant, medical or dental clinic, or banks as examples. 11. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. b. Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. c. Encourage the development of mixed use areas that foster community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle, and regional transit. d. Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. e. Cities required to plan under GMA shall ensure amendments to their comprehensive plans provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions. This shall include the accommodation of medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to growth. 12. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. Several single-family and duplex dwelling subdivisions have occurred north and east of the site. Substantial multi -family development has occurred west of the site with the construction of the River House apartments. Mission Avenue and Flora Road are designated minor arterial roadways and a round -about was constructed at their intersection. A large vacant MUC parcel is located south of the site, and a greenhouse operation occurs adjacent to the site. The site has been impacted by the increased traffic, construction, and commercial activity. These changing conditions combine to make the extension of the MUC zoning to the parcels reasonable and appropriate. 13. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 14. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 15. The proposed amendment and zone change would allow the construction of multi- family or commercial buildings to a height of up to 60 feet. Regulations such as relational height standards, setbacks, screening, and landscaping would address impacts from incompatible uses. Environmental impacts would be addressed at time of development and impacts not addressed by regulations would require mitigation prior to permit approval. 16. The proposed amendment and zone change have the potential to reduce open space if developed with buildings. However, this is privately owned property and development is allowed consistent with zoning regulations. The smaller lot located on the northwest corner of Mission and Flora consists of a residential home with an accessory building. The larger parcel consists of a residential home with an accessory building. Approximately two acres of the larger parcel are vacant and covered with natural vegetation. No effect on streams, lakes, or rivers is anticipated. 17. Commercial and multi -family development may have an impact on the adjacent residential uses. All development shall adhere to the development requirements contained in SVMC Title 22. Those requirements include Type I screening and 20 foot setbacks for any building on the site adjacent to a residential use or zone. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2015-0002 Page 2 of 4 Type 1 screening consists of a six-foot sight obscuring fence with a five-foot wide landscaped area vegetated with a combination of trees and shrubs that will reach at least six feet in height at maturity. The proposed amendment would be compatible with multi -family and commercial uses located west of the site. Several single- family residences lie adjacent to the site along the north boundary and across Flora Road from the site. Development requirements would serve to mitigate impacts to the single family uses, but the single family uses may experience visual and noise impacts from new development. 18. The site is located at the intersection of two minor arterial roadways. Sewer is provided by Spokane County Utilities and is available to the site. Public transportation is not available to the site but is identified in the Spokane Transit Authority Comprehensive Plan as a future route. A Centennial Trail trailhead and Greenacres Park are both located near the site. The site is located within the Central Valley school district, and is within the Consolidated Irrigation District service area. 19. The change to MUC would provide opportunities for a variety of uses including retail, office, storage, and multi -family residential. Development may provide employment opportunity, increase housing options, or access to neighborhood amenities such as a self -storage facility, convenience store, daycare, restaurant, medical or dental clinic, or a bank. 20. As shown in Figure 2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, 3.5% of the land in the City is designated MUC. The MUC designation is primarily located along the Indiana and Trent Avenue corridors. Over half (56%) of the MUC designated land is found in the six largest parcels. The property owners have requested the MUC designation in order to develop the property. 21. Due to the size of the property, the proposed amendment would not significantly increase population density and does not require population analysis. 22. The proposed amendment is generally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10 — Neighborhoods. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 2 — Land Use; Chapter 3 — Transportation; and Chapter 7 — Economic Development. C. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA -2015-0002. Proposed 2015 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2015-0002 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve proposed 2015 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2015-0002. Approved this 26th day of February, 2015. Joe Stoy, Chairman ATTEST Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2015-0002 Page 3 of 4 a_ Deanna orton, Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2015-0002 Page 4 of 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Spokane Valley STAFF REPORT TO 'I'HE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2015-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 31, 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 -2015-0002 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 1/4 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@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 dimers 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 1/2 mile of a bus stop is within walking distance. This is nearing the cut-off distance niost 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 fxed routes that run all/most days for most hours) within % mile distance. iii. Within 3/4 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 3/4 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. (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: Significant 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 1/4 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 %Z - 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. 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 iculties 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. (3) 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 farnily, and townhouse dwelling development. Both zones pernit Manufactured Home Park development. Public, quasi public, and communication uses such as utility facilities and cell towers (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 the 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 different 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. 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; (7) 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 fancily 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 Cornprehensive 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 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 of4 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 STV -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. 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. Harnois 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 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 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. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Digitally signed by Deanna Horton DN: cn=Deanna Horton, o=City of Spokane Deanna Horton Valley, ou=Community Development, emaildhorton@spokanevalley.org, c=US Date: 2015.02.0411:57:05 -08'00' 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 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 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, 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 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 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 testify, 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 testify 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 of9 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 1St 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 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 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 Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 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: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map CPA -2015-0002 (Reconsideration) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On April 14, 2015, Ordinance 15-007a was heard for a second reading and Council subsequently voted on April 14th to bring it back for reconsideration. 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. Patricia Abraham submitted a timely application for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. To maintain consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the development regulations, the City Council also considers zoning classification changes concurrently with the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. Staff presented the proposed amendment 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 deliberations, CPA -2015-0002 was forwarded to City Council with a recommendation to approve with a 4 to 3 vote. The zoning map amendment was presented to the City Council as an administrative report on March 10, 2015, and as an Ordinance first reading on March 24, 2015, as part of Ordinance 15-006 which also included CPA -2015-0001. After hearing public comments City Council moved to bring the amendment back for a second reading as a separate ordinance from CPA -2015-0001. On April 14, 2015 Council conducted a second reading of the ordinance. Following a vote on a motion to approve the ordinance the Council was unable to reach a required four vote consensus. Council moved to reconsider the ordinance and subsequently approved the motion. OPTIONS: Approve the ordinance with or without further amendments; or take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-007a BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Ordinance 15-007a with attachments 2) Staff Report to Planning Commission CPA -2015-0002 3) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-007a AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AS DESCRIBED IN CPA - 2015 -0002; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-015, the City of Spokane Valley (City) repealed and replaced certain titles of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVCM) with SVMC Titles 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, which included the "City of Spokane Valley Zoning" map (the Official City Zoning Map), on September 25, 2007; and WHEREAS, the SVMC amendments adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-015 became effective on October 28, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A130); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Economic Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, zone changes under consideration with the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments are to be considered as area -wide rezones pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans and area -wide rezones; and WHEREAS, the SVMC provides that amendment applications for the Comprehensive Plan shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the Official City Zoning Map has been amended by Ordinance 07-027, Ordinance No. 08-012, Ordinance No. 09-006, Ordinance No. 09-009, Ordinance No. 09-040, Ordinance No. 10- 008, Ordinance No. 11-002, Ordinance No. 11-008, Ordinance 11-010, Ordinance No. 12-015, Ordinance 12-019; Ordinance 13-009 and Ordinance 14-006; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Official City Zoning Maps for the purpose of beneficially using the property described in CPA -2015- 0002 and herein; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, after reviewing the environmental checklist, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2014, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015, notice of the Commission hearing had been posted on the subject property; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2015, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing and voted to forward CPA -2015- 0002 to Council with a recommendation for approval; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, Council considered a second ordinance reading at which time Council approved written findings of fact setting forth the basis for recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0002 is being considered concurrently with CPA -2015-0001. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Official City Zoning Map as described in CPA -2015-0002. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Official City Zoning Map, and the Council hereby approves the amendment to the Official City Zoning Map. The Council has read and considered the Commission's findings. The Council hereby makes the following findings applicable to the amendment proposed in CPA -2015-0002: 1. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 2 of 5 2. On November 26, 2014, the Washington State Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. On December 12, 2014, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Valley News Herald. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment. 5. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. 6. On December 12, 2014, a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued for the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. 7. On December 12, 2014, the DNS was published in the City's official newspaper, the Valley News Herald, consistent with SVMC 21.20. 8. The procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 9. On January 6, 2015, notice of the site-specific map amendment proposal was, or had been previously, mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the site. 10. On January 6, 2015 the site was, or had been previously, posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 11. On January 22, 2015, the Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. After receiving public testimony, the Commission voted to forward CPA -2015-0002 to Council with a recommendation for approval. 12. The Commission adopted findings for CPA -2015-0002. Such findings were presented to Council. 13. The Council adopts the Commission findings as the Council findings for CPA -2015-0002, as set forth in Attachment "B". 14. The Commission and Council have reviewed CPA 2015-0002 concurrently with CPA -2015-0001 to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the proposed amendments. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW. 15. The proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map is consistent with GMA and does not result in internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. 16. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. Findings were made and factors were considered to ensure compliance with approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140H (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 18. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public general health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 3 of 5 Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (map). Section 4. Map Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and RCW 35A.63.100, the Official City Zoning Map, as adopted through Ordinance No. 07-015 and as subsequently amended, is hereby amended as set forth below and in Attachment "A" (map). The Zoning Map amendment is generally described as follows: File No. CPA -2015-0002: Proposal: Site-specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the 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. Applicant: Patricia Abraham, 1920 North Greenacres Road Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Amendment Location: Parcels 45124.0203 & 45124.0151; addressed as 1603 & 1625 N. Flora Rd; generally located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road; further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Decision: The request is approved. Section 5. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the SVMC, or any other law, rule, or regulation referenced in the attached Zoning Map(s) is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability, or interpretation of the Zoning Map(s), then such provision of the SVMC, or other law, rule, or regulation is hereby adopted by reference. Section 6. Map - Copies on File -Administrative Action. The Zoning Map is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of Community and Economic Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Zoning Map in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scrivener's errors. Section 7. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 8. 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 9. 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 as provided by law. Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 4 of 5 PASSED by the City Council this day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Mayor, Dean Grafos City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map Amendment CPA -2015-0002 Page 5 of 5 Zoning Map CPA -2015-0002 Mission CPA -2015-0002 Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map City of Spokane Valley designation from LDR to MUC; subsequent zoning Community Development Department change from R-3 to MUC. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2015-0002 February 26, 2015 A. Background: 1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from November 2"d to November 1st of the following year. The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November 1st, typically in late winter/early spring of the following year, with a decision by City Council typically in late spring/early summer. 2. For the 2015 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle, the City received two privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments, designated as CPA -2015-0001 and CPA -2015-0002. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. The City did not initiate any Comprehensive Plan text amendments. The two proposed amendments were considered concurrently and cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.80.140(H), the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA -2015-0002: 1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public hearing requirements. 2. On December 15, 2014, the Department of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), environmental checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment. 4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists, and a threshold determination was made for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Optional Determinations of Non -Significance (DNS) were issued for each of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on December 12, 2014. 5. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. 6. On January 2, 2015, notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and the subject site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. 7. Individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposal was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject site. 8. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment concurrently to evaluate the cumulative impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). 9. On January 22, 2015 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2015-0001. 10. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment may be served by the proposed amendment. A change to Mixed Use Center (MUC) would provide opportunities for a variety of uses to occur on the site. The allowed new uses are varied and include retail, office, storage, and multi -family residential. At Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2015-0002 Page 1 of 4 the time of development, improvements such as sidewalks and drainage facilities may be required. Development may also provide employment opportunity, increased housing options, or access to neighborhood amenities such as a self - storage facility, convenience store, daycare, restaurant, medical or dental clinic, or banks as examples. 11. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW, Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. b. Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. c. Encourage the development of mixed use areas that foster community identity and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle, and regional transit. d. Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. e. Cities required to plan under GMA shall ensure amendments to their comprehensive plans provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for development within their jurisdictions. This shall include the accommodation of medical, governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to growth. 12. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. Several single-family and duplex dwelling subdivisions have occurred north and east of the site. Substantial multi -family development has occurred west of the site with the construction of the River House apartments. Mission Avenue and Flora Road are designated minor arterial roadways and a round -about was constructed at their intersection. A large vacant MUC parcel is located south of the site, and a greenhouse operation occurs adjacent to the site. The site has been impacted by the increased traffic, construction, and commercial activity. These changing conditions combine to make the extension of the MUC zoning to the parcels reasonable and appropriate. 13. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 14. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 15. The proposed amendment and zone change would allow the construction of multi- family or commercial buildings to a height of up to 60 feet. Regulations such as relational height standards, setbacks, screening, and landscaping would address impacts from incompatible uses. Environmental impacts would be addressed at time of development and impacts not addressed by regulations would require mitigation prior to permit approval. 16. The proposed amendment and zone change have the potential to reduce open space if developed with buildings. However, this is privately owned property and development is allowed consistent with zoning regulations. The smaller lot located on the northwest corner of Mission and Flora consists of a residential home with an accessory building. The larger parcel consists of a residential home with an accessory building. Approximately two acres of the larger parcel are vacant and covered with natural vegetation. No effect on streams, lakes, or rivers is anticipated. 17. Commercial and multi -family development may have an impact on the adjacent residential uses. All development shall adhere to the development requirements contained in SVMC Title 22. Those requirements include Type I screening and 20 foot setbacks for any building on the site adjacent to a residential use or zone. Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2015-0002 Page 2 of 4 Type 1 screening consists of a six-foot sight obscuring fence with a five-foot wide landscaped area vegetated with a combination of trees and shrubs that will reach at least six feet in height at maturity. The proposed amendment would be compatible with multi -family and commercial uses located west of the site. Several single- family residences lie adjacent to the site along the north boundary and across Flora Road from the site. Development requirements would serve to mitigate impacts to the single family uses, but the single family uses may experience visual and noise impacts from new development. 18. The site is located at the intersection of two minor arterial roadways. Sewer is provided by Spokane County Utilities and is available to the site. Public transportation is not available to the site but is identified in the Spokane Transit Authority Comprehensive Plan as a future route. A Centennial Trail trailhead and Greenacres Park are both located near the site. The site is located within the Central Valley school district, and is within the Consolidated Irrigation District service area. 19. The change to MUC would provide opportunities for a variety of uses including retail, office, storage, and multi -family residential. Development may provide employment opportunity, increase housing options, or access to neighborhood amenities such as a self -storage facility, convenience store, daycare, restaurant, medical or dental clinic, or a bank. 20. As shown in Figure 2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, 3.5% of the land in the City is designated MUC. The MUC designation is primarily located along the Indiana and Trent Avenue corridors. Over half (56%) of the MUC designated land is found in the six largest parcels. The property owners have requested the MUC designation in order to develop the property. 21. Due to the size of the property, the proposed amendment would not significantly increase population density and does not require population analysis. 22. The proposed amendment is generally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10 — Neighborhoods. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 2 — Land Use; Chapter 3 — Transportation; and Chapter 7 — Economic Development. C. Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(11) — Comprehensive Pian Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA -2015-0002. Proposed 2015 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2015-0002 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. D. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve proposed 2015 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2015-0002. Approved this 26th day of February, 2015. Joe Stoy, Chairman ATTEST Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2015-0002 Page 3 of 4 C-t Deanna orlon, Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA -2015-0002 Page 4 of 4 Spokane _Va11ey COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2015-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 31, 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 -2015-0002 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 'A 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, palaniuk(c ispokaneval ley.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-terin 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 1/2 Haile 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'/ mile distance. iii. Within % 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 3/4 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: Significant 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 '/ of a Haile 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 1/2 - 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. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. (5) 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 the 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 different 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 farnily 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 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 STV -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. 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. Harnois 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. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Digitally signed by Deanna Horton Deanna Horton VII y, ou=ComHorton, o{ityofSpokane nt, Valley, ou=Community Development, email=dhortoneaspokanevalley.org, c=US Date: 2015.02.04 11:57:05 -08'00' 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 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 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, 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 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 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 testify, 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 testify 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 1st 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 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 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 Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 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: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact for the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.390; RCW 36.70A; SVMC 19.120.050; SVMC 24.50. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted a moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing on February 24, 2015. City Council conducted a public hearing on the moratorium on March 24, 2015. City Council conducted a first reading of Ordinance No. 15-009 on April 14, 2015. BACKGROUND: The City recently began its 2015 Comprehensive Plan update. As part of that process, the City is undertaking a comprehensive review of existing land inventory and all existing and desired land uses. One of those is the industrial zone, which includes gravel mining as an allowed use. There are several existing gravel mining operations in the City, which take up significant acreage and result in large open pits once the mining use is concluded. One of the unique features of mining is the permanent impact on the land where it is sited. Once a mine is opened, the impacts of the mine on the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts can mean that the land may be permanently removed from other future available industrial uses, even after the mine closes. Currently, mining activities are defined in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") as a heavy industrial use. SVMC 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix identifies mining as a permitted use in the 1-2, Heavy Industrial Zone. While the SVMC does not identify a specific "mining permit" governing mining, there are several chapters of the SVMC, such as SVMC 24.50 Land Disturbing Activities, which would be applicable to new mining, mineral resource operations, and related mining activities. The City's first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2007 and has been updated annually. The Comprehensive Plan did not and currently does not specifically discuss or address mining or mineral resources operations. The Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands, including the following: Goal LUG -10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the Tong -term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan update process will consider the economic and physical impacts of mining on the City's limited supply of available undeveloped industrial land. Appropriate recommendations for development regulations will result from this activity. The current work program for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update anticipates that a draft Comprehensive Plan will be completed by the end of 2015. Proposals for new mines and mining operations that are submitted pending the Comprehensive Plan update process will be governed by the rules in effect now and may be permitted on industrial lands, thereby limiting the City's choices on how to plan for industrial uses and mining operations in the future. With that in mind, it is appropriate to maintain the status quo by prohibiting new mining operations while the City undertakes its Comprehensive Plan review to determine if mining is an appropriate use of that land given the unique permanence of mining. Thus, staff believed a moratorium on new mining and mineral manufacturing sites was appropriate while the City processes its Comprehensive Plan update and determines whether open pit mining and mineral manufacturing is compatible with other uses in an urban setting. RCW 36.70A.390 authorizes the City to adopt a moratorium on mining and mining site operations without conducting a public hearing and without utilizing the City's standard approval process through the Planning Commission and multiple readings by City Council. A moratorium preserves the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. After adoption of the moratorium, the City Council must conduct a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days and adopt findings of fact for the moratorium. Additionally, the proposed moratorium includes a work plan and can be effective for up to 365 days from the date of adoption. After adoption of the moratorium, the City will work through the work plan and develop policy and final regulations through its standard process. A moratorium may be extended if the City conducts a public hearing on the ongoing work plan and extension of the moratorium and adopts findings of facts for the extension. Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.390, on February 24, 2015, City Council considered and adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, which provided for a declaration of emergency and established a moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification, or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. The moratorium became effective on the date it was passed (February 24, 2015). Further, Ordinance No. 15-005 set a public hearing for Tuesday, March 24, 2015, established a work plan to develop the Comprehensive Plan Update and subsequently appropriate regulations, adopted preliminary findings of fact, and established an effective period of up to 365 days for the moratorium. Finally, Ordinance No. 15-005 was designated as a public emergency and was effective upon adoption. The adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 as an emergency was categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-880. Staff has conducted SEPA review and determined the ongoing moratorium to be categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. Pursuant to state law, City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the moratorium on mining on March 24, 2015. Written public testimony was received from two interested parties and City Council heard verbal testimony from six interested parties at the public hearing. Proposed Ordinance No. 15-009 will adopt findings of fact justifying the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the moratorium on mining and related mining site operations as required by law. The City will continue on the work plan in working through the City's Comprehensive Plan update. During the first reading, Council requested information regarding the number of existing mining operations and staff has provided a map of the existing operations with this RCA. Additionally, based upon public comment, Council asked for clarification regarding the impact of the moratorium on existing uses. Based upon review of the moratorium, staff believes that no modification is necessary to the moratorium as the moratorium states that it will not affect current operations at those sites with mining operations that were in existence and continuous and lawful operation at the time of the imposition of the moratorium. OPTIONS: Move to approve the proposed ordinance, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact justifying the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director; Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 15-009 Ordinance No. 15-005 Copies of the portion of the minutes from the public hearing on March 24, 2015 Copies of the written testimony received Maps of existing mining pits/operations DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFYING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-005 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MORATORIUM ON MINING, MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on February 24, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-005 establishing a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390, and Ordinance No. 15-005, on March 24, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching; and WHEREAS, written public testimony was received from two interested parties. City Council heard verbal testimony from six interested parties during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, the City Council is required to adopt findings of fact after conducting the public hearing. Ordinance 15-009 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 1 of 4 DRAFT NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on March 24, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance No. 15-005 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. The City Council hereby adopts the following as findings of fact in support of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 RCW, the City is required to designate "where appropriate...[m]ineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals." 2. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the City is required to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. 3. The City has not designated any mineral resource lands within its boundaries nor has it developed regulations specific to mineral resource lands. 4. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") 19.120.050, mining is currently a permitted heavy industrial processing use within the heavy industrial (I-2) zone. 5. The City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands, including the following: Goal LUG -10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. 6. The City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zones taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once the mining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the impacts on the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning These impacts are permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site, even after the mine closes. 7. The City has a fmite amount of available undeveloped industrial land. 8. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, the City has begun the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. 9. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the City will analyze and complete an inventory of available industrial lands and review designation and regulation of mineral resource lands in order to reach a reasoned policy decision in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that addresses (a) consideration of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate within the boundaries of the City, and (b) whether mining and mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, are compatible and appropriate when undertaken on industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the City. Ordinance 15-009 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 2 of 4 DRAFT 10. The current work program for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update anticipates that a draft Comprehensive Plan will be completed by the end of 2015. 11. New proposals for mining and mining site operations that may be submitted pending the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update process would pose an imminent threat to public health and safety because they can permanently alter the built environment and limit the City's choices in the exercise of its land use authority, thereby thwarting the Comprehensive Plan Update process and impairing the City's ability to reach a reasoned policy approach related to industrial land capacity, determining where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands would be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operation. 12. Pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City. 13. RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal." 14. A moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. 15. RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided a public hearing is held within 60 days of the adoption of the moratorium. 16. A moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing will maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of City permits and licenses for new mining operations beyond those presently vested while the City undertakes development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including giving due consideration to the determination of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits. 17. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005, City Council adopted a work plan to address the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 18. Staff has completed SEPA review of the moratorium and has determined the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations under Ordinance No. 15-005 is categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11- 800(19). Ordinance 15-009 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 3 of 4 DRAFT 19. On March 24, 2015, City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance 15-005 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. 20. The City Council received written testimony from two interested parties and six interested parties spoke at the public hearing. The City Council has given due consideration to all public testimony received. 21. The adoption of Ordinance No. 15-005 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 22. The City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by Ordinance No. 15- 005 is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. Section 2. Duration. The moratorium set forth in Ordinance No. 15-005 shall be and remain in effect for a period of 365 days from the date of Ordinance No. 15-005, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 4. 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 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of April, 2015. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-009 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-005 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON MINING, MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") has begun the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be thwarted or rendered moot by intervening development; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, the City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zone taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once the mining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the impacts on the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts are permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site, even after the mine closes; and WHEREAS, the City has a finite amount of available undeveloped industrial land; and WHEREAS, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update Process, the City will analyze and complete an inventory of available industrial lands and review designation and regulation of mineral resource lands in order to reach a reasoned policy decision in the interest of public health, safety and Ordinance 15-005 Page 1 of 3 welfare that addresses whether mining and mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, are compatible when undertaken on industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the City; and WHEREAS, additional time is necessary to allow the City to continue the development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including the determination of what the City's long-term goals are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits; and WHEREAS, new proposals for mining and mining site operations that may be submitted pending the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update process pose an imminent threat to public health and safety because they can permanently alter the built environment and limit the City's choices in the exercise of its land use authority, thereby thwarting the Comprehensive Plan Update process and impairing the City's ability to reach a reasoned policy approach related to industrial land capacity, mining and mining site operation; and WHEREAS, a moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing will maintain the status quo by prohibiting new mining operations while the City undertakes development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including the determination of what the City's long-term goals are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Preliminary Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 2. Moratorium Established. A. The City Council hereby declares an emergency and imposes a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. B. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already - submitted complete land -use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as provided under Washington law. C. This moratorium shall not affect any mining or mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operation as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 3. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted to address the issues involving the City's consideration and regulation of mining: A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements, testimony, positions, and other documentation or evidence related to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of mining uses. Specifically, the Planning Commission shall consider mining in its consideration and deliberations for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update and shall develop proposals for mining and mining site operations within the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update to be Ordinance 15-005 Page 2 of 3 forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. The schedule for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update process is included in the City's Public Participation Program, adopted by the City Council on January 6, 2015, which identifies phases of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and anticipated meeting dates relevant to each of the phases. B. Upon adoption of the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Planning Commission shall work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to mining and mining site operations to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. Section 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and 36.70A.390, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on March 24, 2015 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall, City Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague, Spokane Valley, 99206, to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance. Section 5. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall be in effect as of the date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect for a period of 365 days from the date of this Ordinance, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Declaration of Emergency; Effective Date. This Ordinance is designated as a public emergency necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and therefore shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 24th day of February, 2015. ATTES ity Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approve • . t, Form: Office o the City Attorney Ordinance 15-005 can Grafos, Mayor Date of Publication: Effective Date: February 24, 2015 Page 3 of 3 DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, March 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 Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Gabe Gallinger, Senior Development Engineer Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Christina Janssen, Planner Marty Palaniuk, Planner Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Prior to the invocation, Mayor Grafos announced that Council would hold an executive session at the end of tonight's meeting. In the absence of a pastor, Mayor Grafos asked for a few moments of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and audience stood 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 Higgins, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's 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 that he attended the Health Board meeting where they continue examining the composition of the board as well as the Board's governing manual; and that he went to a STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting. Councilmember Pace: said he judged a Home School science fair; went to the Greater Valley Support Network meeting, the STA Board meeting, and the State of the County address. Councilmember Higgins: said he went to the Japanese American Citizens League annual get-together; said he and City Attorney Driskell testified in Olympia on the transportation bill, which he said will be explained further later by Mr. Driskell. Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the State of the County address; as part of the Chamber of Commerce trip, he went to Olympia where the focus was on transportation projects, and said the Barker Grade Separation and Interchange are in the Senate package now; went to a Spokane Valley Business Association meeting which focused on transportation and said he gave a report on issues being addressed by the legislature. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT Deputy Mayor Woodard: as part of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee, said concerning the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) applications, they found an additional $68,000 to go toward the sidewalks around Seth Woodard School, and said that recommendation was unanimously forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final consideration. MAYOR'S REPORT: Reported that he attended the State of the County address; and went to the NE Mayor's Conference where they talked about the need for a transportation bill for the State. In that regard, he asked for Council support to submit the following proposed testimony and/or letter of support: "The City of Spokane Valley requests legislative action to address the need for increased transportation funding in the 2015 Legislative Session, including direct funding for local transportation needs. We all recognize that quality transportation infrastructure is an important aspect of economic development. Yet, local revenues simply cannot support the high cost of bridge and road construction projects. The City of Spokane Valley is supportive of the legislature's consideration of the transportation revenue package that includes Barker Road overpass. The Barker/State Route 290 (Trent) overpass would open up 500 acres of industrial property for development with a potential economic output of $2 Billion creating up to 9,800 new jobs in the state. Recognizing that state, county and city government in Washington all face the immense financial challenge of maintaining our transportation infrastructure, we support statewide measures to fund essential projects. The City of Spokane Valley is maximizing their local support for the Barker Overpass and we have committed a $2.9 million City match for this critical project. We are deeply appreciative of the past and present funding support from the State of Washington transportation programs and we offer our support as you consider transportation funding options to address statewide needs." City Manager Jackson said it has been our practice to sign in to support or not to support a bill; and said he recommends extending our support by providing the testimony as stated. There was Council discussion about the suggested testimony versus the actual transportation bill, and/or a letter of support, and it was ultimately determined that Council would support the testimony as stated. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Sandy Pavelich: said she represents residents of the Valley concerned about the Painted Hills Golf Course purchased by the Black Development Company; said she sent Council a notice that Black had sent to residents, and said residents are concerned about the environmental impact resulting from the floodplain and the consequence that might occur with the aquifer and wetlands in the Chester Creek watershed; said they are also concerned with increased traffic; said if there is another fire storm in the area, there is a concern about evacuating people in the area. Bob Race, Spokane Valley: he invited Council to a Kiwanis sponsored "Paint -A -Helmet" event April 25 at the Spokane Fair & Expo Center and he handed the Clerk a flyer advertising the event; on another topic, said he spent more than 40 years in the transportation industry and noticed that the Industrial Park in Spokane is full and there are no opportunities for development unless this Council fully supports the issue so there is an opportunity for funding the Barker Road Interchange; said railroad crossings will be closed in various areas so this is a vital interchange to compensate for that; said the project is supported by the Valley Business Association, Valley Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Club, and others and for those who choose not to support this he thinks there will be a major issue "come election time" with 9,800 jobs that don't happen because this Council has chosen not to support the issue. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Mining Moratorium — Erik Lamb Mayor Grafos opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb gave a brief overview of the moratorium, and emphasized that this does not impact existing uses today; that after tonight's hearing and review of comments, this will be placed on a future Council agenda for consideration of approval of the Findings of Fact. Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT John Pederson, Spokane County Planning Director: said he is authorized to speak on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, mentioned and then read most of the Commissioners March 24, 2015 letter to Council, which in summary states that the County believes the current moratorium will have unintended consequences of precluding mineral extraction on Spokane County owned property in the City of Spokane Valley, that it will significantly increase the cost of materials for future road maintenance and construction, and that it will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley Road area, and they request Council either repeal the ordinance, or repeal it and in its place adopt chapter 14.260 of the Spokane County Code as this City's interim development regulation chapter. Mr. Peterson also included as an attachment to the letter, a copy of the County's Code Chapter 14.620, Mineral Lands. John Shogren, Central Pre -Mix: spoken in opposition to the moratorium; said he realizes this is temporary but it will lead to making it more difficult to run a business; said he noted this was not intended to impact existing businesses but said that is rarely the case as it will lead to more regulations and red tape; said he has over 300 employees and he feels this will financially damage his business; said a gravel pit and land use are not mutually exclusive in the long term. Paul Franz, Local General Manager for Central Pre -Mix: said the ordinance mentions that reclamation renders the land unusable for anything else; said he has picture that shows that is false; said mining is an interim use of a piece of land and it is very common to be reclaimed into useful property; said to say it destroys property permanently in incorrect; said the land doesn't go away and is still valuable and can be re -used; said this moratorium stops changes they were going to make. Juno McDonald, Licensed Professional Engineer: said she is the corporate environmental engineer for Central Pre -Mix; she disagreed that the moratorium does not affect existing operations; said they are often expected and required by the Department of Natural Resources to make updates, and under the moratorium would be in direct conflict with their permitting agency; she asked Council to repeal the moratorium and if not, their attorney will submit comments to hopefully be fully exempt. Stacy Bjordahl: Attorney speaking on behalf of CPM Development Corporation, which she said owns and operates four mining sites in the City of Spokane Valley; she submitted a letter explaining their position, which letter she said was previously submitted to legal counsel; said the Growth Management Act mandates that natural resource lands be preserved and protected, but the City's development regulations currently do not do that; said the City does not have a shortage of industrial land but rather has 80 years' worth of industrial land so the supply is not in jeopardy; said the sites are interim and will be reclaimed and are put to good use; said her letter suggests some amendments to the moratorium; and asks that the moratorium either be repealed or amended so that existing mining operations are not adversely impacted. Lance Senter: said he is a recently retired exploration geologist and said the moratorium will hurt the City's economy as well as the economy of the surrounding area; said he is not a member of Central Pre- mix or any other industry, but speaks for himself as a private citizen; he knows the importance of using natural resources; said the land can be reclaimed; said this City advertises itself as being business friendly, but this seems contrary to that and he would like the moratorium repealed. There were no other public comments and Mayor Grafos closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: S16kall� �` .00°galley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor and Councilmembers cc: Mike Jackson, City Manager; Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Date: March 26, 2015 Re: Mining Moratorium The attached materials are those that were handed to me by Spokane County Planning Director John Peterson. Although Councilmembers each received a copy of the letter at the Council meeting, I don't believe the attached seven pages from the County's Zoning Code were included (Chapter 14.620 Mineral Lands). SPOKANE COUNT Y OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' TODD MIELKE, 1ST DISTRICT • SHELLY O'QUINN, 2ND DISTRICT • AL FRENCI I, 3RD DISIRICr March 24, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard Councilman Rod Higgins Councilman Ed Pace Councilman Chuck Hafner Councilman Ben Wick Councilman Bill Bates City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL mayor councilmembersnspokanevalley.org RE: City of Spokane Valley Moratorium adopted under Ordinance No. 15-005 Dear Mayor Grafos and Council members: The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony on Ordinance No. 15-005 on March 24, 2015, as required under RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. The purpose of this correspondence is to share with you certain issues and concerns which Spokane County has regarding Ordinance No. 15-005 as well as to encourage the Council to consider revision or repeal of said Ordinance. As you are aware, and by way of background, entities planning under the Growth Management Act have certain obligations when updating or revising their Comprehensive Plans and/or development regulations. The City of Spokane Valley is currently in the early stages of a periodic update of its Comprehensive Plan and as such is subject to these obligations. With respect to mineral resources which are the subject of Ordinance No. 15-0004, several provisions of the Growth Management Act must be followed. They include the following: • RCW 36.70A.170 Natural resource lands and critical areas—Designations. (1) On or before September 1, 1991, each county, and city shall designate, where appropriate: (c) mineral resources that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals..." • RCW 36.70A.050 Guidelines to classify agriculture, forest, and mineral lands and critical areas. 1 116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509) 477-2265 March 24, 2015 Page 2 (1) Subject to the definitions provided in RW 36.70A.030, the department shall adopt guidelines, under chapter 34.05 RCW...to guide the classification of: (a) Agricultural lands; (b) forest lands; (c) mineral resource lands; and (d) critical areas. The department shall consult with the depat tient of agriculture regarding guidelines for agricultural lands, the department of natural resources regarding forest lands and mineral lands, and the department of ecology regarding critical areas.... • RCW 36.70A.060 Natural resource lands and critical areas—Development regulations. (1) (a) ...each city within such county, shall adopt development regulations ...such regulations shall ensure that the use of lands adjacent to agriculture, forest, or mineral lands shall not interfere with continued use of the designated land for the production of food, timber or for the extraction of minerals. A review of the current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code confirms that the City of Spokane Valley has not identified or designated resource lands or mineral lands as mandated under the Growth Management Act nor has it adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands including mineral lands. Most counties and cities subject to the Growth Management Act have adopted development regulations protecting mineral lands which at the same time address environmental issues in conjunction with mining activities. We bring the above facts to your attention as information to consider in the periodic update of your Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and to provide you with additional options to consider in taking action on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-005 or repealing said Ordinance and replacing it with an Interim Zoning Ordinance that provides a regulatory framework to address the impacts of mineral extraction and associated processing. According to Figure 2.1 of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, 20% of the City of Spokane Valley land is designated as Heavy or Light Industrial. The premise of the moratorium under Ordinance No. 15-005 is that existing gravel mining operations are utilizing significant acreage that results in large open pits when mining is complete and the associated impacts are usually irreversible. With a significant portion of the City of Spokane Valley designated as Heavy or Light Industrial there appears to be an adequate supply of land available for industrial use. Moreover, any impacts of mining may be mitigated by adoption of detailed regulations to address reclamation and other site specific impacts. As a result of the substantial amount of land designated as Heavy or Light Industrial, the City has not demonstrated or documented the amount of these lands being utilized or converted for mineral extraction/processing or the need for the moratorium as the City has not received or accepted any current applications for mining activity. To address the perceived conversion of industrial lands to mining and processing activities and to provide a specific regulatory framework to mitigate the impacts of mineral extraction and processing, we would strongly advise repeal of the present moratorium and adoption on an Interim Zoning Ordinance that includes performance standards for mineral extraction, processing, site reclamation, setbacks, etc. This would address the basis for the enactment of the Ordinance. For example, adoption of Chapter 14.620 (Mineral Lands) of the Spokane County Zoning Code as an Interim Zoning Ordinance will ensure continued use and development of natural resource lands that do not detrimentally impact the March 24, 2015 Page 3 environment or surrounding land uses. Adoption of Chapter 14.620 will also afford greater protection to the environment, preclude penetration of the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie aquifer, ensure site reclamation consistent with chapter 78.44 RCW as administered by the Department of Natural Resources, and serve as a means to protect the rights of current property owners until the City completes an update of its Comprehensive plan and development regulations consistent with the mandates of the Growth Management Act. In summary, we believe that the current moratorium provided for under Ordinance 15-005 will have the unintended immediate consequence of precluding mineral extraction on Spokane County owned property in the City of Spokane Valley which includes mineral resources having a life value of approximately $5,000,000. It will also significantly increase the cost of materials for future road maintenance and construction impacting the citizens of Spokane County to include the City of Spokane Valley. Finally, it will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley road area. The Board of County Commissioners respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider the above observations and: (1) Repeal Ordinance No. 15-005, or (2) Repeal Ordinance No. 15-005 and in its place adopt as interim development regulation chapter 14.620 of the Spokane County Code. Very truly yours, TODD MIELKE, Chair 10 &V • 1 LLY rQ ' it Vice Chair AL F' "' , Commissioner 2014 Printing Chapter 14.620 Mineral Lands 14.620.100 Purpose and Intent The Mineral Lands zone is provided to allow for the quarrying, blasting, reduction, processing and mining of minerals or materials in urban, industrial, rural, and resource areas. The Mineral Lands (M) zone is intended to ensure continued development of natural resources through inclusion of deposits of minerals and materials within this zone reserved for their development and production, to assure that the best undeveloped mineral and material resources will not be lost forever by developing of the land for other purposes, to allow for the necessary processing to convert such minerals and materials to marketable products, and to assure that mining activities do not detrimentally impact the environment or surrounding land uses. 14.620.200 Types of Uses The uses for Mineral Lands shall be as permitted in table 620-1, Mineral Lands Matrix. Accessory uses and structures ordinarily associated with a permitted use shall be allowed. Multiple uses are allowed per lot. Additional use restrictions may apply pursuant to the Critical Areas Ordinance as amended, chapter 11.20 of the Spokane County Code. The uses are categorized as follows: 1. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letter "P". These uses are allowed if they comply with the development standards of the zone. 2. Limited Uses: Limited uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letter "L". These uses are allowed if they comply with the development standards of the zone and specific performance standards in section 14.620.220. 3. Conditional Uses: Conditional uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letters "CU". These uses require a public hearing and approval of a conditional use permit as set forth in chapter 14.404, Conditional Use Permits. Some of the conditional uses illustrated in table 620-1 are also subject to specific standards and criteria as required in this chapter under section 14.620.230. 4. Not Permitted: Uses that are not permitted are designated in table 620-1 with the letter "N". 5. Essential Public Facilities (EPF): Facilities that may have statewide or regional/countywide significance are designated in table 620-1 with the letters "EPF". These uses shall be evaluated to determine applicability with the "Essential Public Facility Siting Process", as amended. 6. Use Determinations: It is recognized that all possible uses and variations of uses cannot be reasonably listed in a use matrix. The Director may classify uses not specifically addressed in the matrix consistent with section 14.604.300. Classifications shall be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. 7. Prohibited Uses: Uses not specifically authorized on mineral lands are prohibited, including, but not limited to the following. a. Commercial uses b. Residential uses c. Any use not specifically listed and permitted in this section. Spokane County Page 620 -1 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 14.620.210 Mineral Lands Zone Matrix Table 620-1, Mineral Lands Matrix Uses Mineral Lands Adult entertainment establishment N Adult retail use establishment N Commercial composting storage/processing CU Caretakers residence L Forestry P General agriculture/grazing/crops, not elsewhere classified P Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, on-site L Landfill CU Landfill, inert waste disposal facility CU Public utility transmission facility (EPF) L Quarying, blasting and mining L Reduction and processing of minerals L Sewage sludge land application CU Solid waste recycling/transfer site (EPF) L Stormwater treatment/disposal P Tower L Wireless communication antenna array L Wireless communication support tower CU 14.620.220 Uses with Specific Standards Uses that are categorized with an "L" in table 1, Mineral Lands Matrix, are subject to the corresponding standards of this section. 1. Caretakers residence A caretakers residence may include a dwelling that is used and required by mining or quarrying operations for continuous supervision by a caretaker or superintendent and his immediate family. 2. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities, on-site. a. On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with and be subject to the State's siting criteria adopted pursuant to section 70.105.210 RCW, as administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology or any successor agency. b. The hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be limited to wastes produced or used on the site. 3. Public utility transmission facility. a. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the proper construction, maintenance, and general safety of properties adjoining the public utility transmission facility. b. All support structures for electrical transmission lines shall have their means of access located a minimum of 12 feet above the ground. c. The height of the structure above ground shall not exceed 125 feet. 4. Quarrying, blasting and mining Quarrying, blasting and mining of minerals or materials, including but not limited to, sand and gravel rock, and clay. Spokane County Page 620 -2 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 5. Reduction and processing of minerals The primary reduction and processing of minerals or materials including, but not limited to, concrete batching, asphalt mixing, brick, tile, and concrete products manufacturing plants, and rock crushers and the use of accessory minerals and materials from other sources necessary to convert the minerals or materials to marketable products. 6. Solid waste recycling/transfer site a. The minimum lot area is 2 acres. b. Adequate ingress and egress to and on the site for trucks and/or trailer vehicles shall be provided. c. A paved access route on-site shall be provided. d. The site will either be landscaped (bermed with landscaping to preclude viewing from adjacent properties) and/or fenced with a sight -obscuring fence as determined by the Planning Director. 7. Tower. a. The tower shall be enclosed by a 6 -foot fence with a locking gate. b. The tower shall have a locking trap door or the climbing apparatus shall stop 12 feet short of the ground. c. The tower collapse or blade impact area, as designed and certified by a registered engineer, shall lie completely within the applicant's property or within adjacent property for which the applicant has secured and filed an easement. Such easement(s) shall be recorded with the County Auditor with a statement that only the Division of Building and Planning or its successor agency can remove the easement. d. Before the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all applicable requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration and any required avigation easements can be satisfied. 8. Wireless communication antenna array. a. The use complies with the requirements of chapter 14.822, Wireless Communication Facilities. 14.620.230 Conditional Uses with Specific Standards and Criteria Conditional uses are listed in table 620-1 with the letters "CU". Conditional uses require an approved conditional use permit as set forth in chapter 14.404, Conditional Use Permits. Some of the conditional uses identified in table 620-1 are subject to the corresponding specific standards as follows: 1. Commercial composting storage/processing. a. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing Examiner under chapter 14.404. 2. Landfill. a. The minimum lot area is 10 acres. b. The minimum distance for disposal operations from existing residences shall be 300 feet. This distance may be reduced provided the adjacent resident provides a signed waiver agreeing to the reduction of the minimum distance. c. The applicant shall submit for approval a site reclamation plan and the site shall be rehabilitated consistent with the plan after disposal terminates. d. The conditional use permit may be revoked by the Hearing Examiner if the landfill operation is found in violation of any local, state or federal regulation related to the landfill operation. e. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing Examiner under chapter 14.404. Spokane County Page 620 -3 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 3. Landfill — Inert Waste Disposal Facility a. The minimum lot area is 10 acres. b. The minimum distance of disposal operations shall be 300 feet from existing residences. This distance may be reduced provided the adjacent property owner signs a waiver agreeing to the reduction in the minimum distance. c. The applicant shall submit for approval a site reclamation plan and the site shall be rehabilitated consistent with the plan consistent after disposal terminates. d. Compliance with the standards of the Spokane Regional Health District and the state criteria for inert landfills adopted pursuant to WAC 173-350-410. e. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing Examiner under chapter 14.404. f. The conditional use permit may be revoked by the Hearing Examiner if the operation is found in violation of any local, state or federal regulation related to the inert landfill operation. 4. Sewage sludge land application (for agricultural, beneficial purposes). a. The minimum lot area for application is 5 acres. b. The minimum distance from any application area to the nearest existing residence, other than the owner's, shall be 200 feet. c. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing Examiner under chapter 14.404. 5. Wireless communication support tower, provided that: a. The tower complies with the requirements of chapter 14.822, Wireless Communication Facilities. b. The use shall be subject to restrictions and conditions, as may be imposed by the Hearing Examiner under chapter 14.404. 14.620.240 Mining Operations Conditions for the approval of a proposed mining operation include but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. The extraction proposal meets all applicable zoning requirements. 2. The proposed extraction operation is buffered from existing or potential developments within the vicinity of the proposed operation. 3. An applicant shall prepare and provide an acceptable reclamation plan to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to obtaining a reclamation permit. The plan shall be prepared with the standards set forth in RCW 78.44. DNR shall have the sole authority to approve reclamation plans. 4. After July 1, 1993, no miner or permit holder may engage in surface mining without having first obtained a reclamation permit from DNR. The permit holder shall comply with the provisions of the reclamation permit unless waived and explained in writing by DNR. 5. Provide for protection of groundwater and surface water, including wetlands, during and after operation. 6. Mining shall not be allowed to penetrate the elevation 20 feet above the highest known elevation of an aquifer within the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area. 7. The monitoring and clean up of contaminants should be ongoing. 8. A sand and gravel permit shall be obtained, when applicable, from the Washington State Department of Ecology. 9. A sufficient amount of topsoil or suitable material shall be retained on-site for revegetation/rehabilitation purposes. 10. The operators shall comply with all existing water quality monitoring regulations of the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Spokane County Health District. Spokane County Page 620 -4 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 14.620.250 Environment 1. Sound pressure levels, as measured on properties adjacent to Mineral Lands property, shall conform to the provisions of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Section 173-60-040 Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels for noise originating in a Class C EDNA. 2. Provisions of Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority (SCAPCA) shall be adhered to in the development of Mineral Lands property. Specifically reference SCAPCA Regulation 1, Section 6.04 Odors and Nuisances; Section 6.05, Particulate Matter and Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming Airborne; and Section 6.06, Emission of Air Contaminants or Water Vapor, Detriment to Persons or Property. 14.620.260 Reclamation Standards In order to ensure a further use of land used for mining subsequent to the removal of native materials, the following provisions covering land rehabilitation or reclamation shall be conformed to. 1. Mined excavations must be reclaimed consistent with the reclamation plan submitted and approved by DNR under the provisions of RCW 78.44. Reclamation shall proceed simultaneously with surface mining and upon the permanent abandonment of the quarrying, mining or processing operation. 2. Upon the exhaustion of minerals or materials or upon the permanent abandonment of the quarrying, mining or processing operation, all buildings, structures, apparatus or appurtenances accessory to the quarrying or mining operation shall be removed or otherwise dismantled. All demolition must be consistent with chapter 3 of the County Code. A maintenance building may be permitted to remain or be constructed on sites used for storage of road maintenance materials. 3. The legal owner or his agents shall provide the Division with copies of the following documents prior to development or use of the property. a. Permits/approved reclamation plans filed with the Department of Natural Resources. b. Bonds as required by the Department of Natural Resources. 14.620.270 Standards for Mining Within the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Area In addition to those provisions listed in sections 14.620.220 through 14.620.260 the following provisions shall apply. 1. Excavation into the aquifer is prohibited within the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area as determined by the Division of Utilities. A minimum of 10 feet of undisturbed material shall remain above the highest known level of the aquifer. If excavation into any aquifer outside this area is allowed, the operator shall stockpile a sufficient quantity of fill material to backfill a minimum of 10 feet above the highest known aquifer elevation. 2. The owners of small surface mining sites (as defined in RCW 78.44), in areas of high aquifer susceptibility, shall obtain the required grading permits from Spokane County. 3. A drainage channel shall be constructed around the active gravel pit area to keep surface runoff from outside the pit excavation from entering the pit area. 4. Fuel storage areas and service facilities shall incorporate provisions to prevent lubricants and petroleum products from contaminating either the pit area or drainage channels. 5. No liquid, asphalt, cement, or water used in mixing and truck washing operations shall be disposed of in the bottom of the pit. 6. A protective 8 -foot -high berm or retaining wall shall be required adjacent to property lines where the edge of the pit is within 100 feet of a street or railroad right-of-way. 7. The use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and critical materials shall not be allowed within 100 feet of an active pit. Spokane County Page 620 -5 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 14.620.280 Pit Reclamation and Allowable Land Uses In addition to those standards listed in sections 14.620.220 through 14.620.270 the following standards shall apply. 1. Reclamation plans for mining sites shall include: a. The depth of remaining materials between the aquifer high-water mark and the final grade of the reclaimed site, for surface mining sites inside the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area. b. The depth of remaining or backfilled materials between the aquifer high-water mark and the final grade of the reclaimed site, for surface mining sites outside the Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area. c. Physical barriers, as required in section 14.620.270 shall remain. d. Provisions shall be made for limitation of access to, and activities within, the rehabilitated site until the use of the land is changed. 2. Subsequent land uses in reclaimed gravel pits within Spokane County may be limited or specifically conditioned. 14.620.290 Development Standards Prior to the issuance of a building permit, evidence of compliance with provisions of this Section shall be provided. 1. Lot Standards: Lot standards are illustrated in table 620-2 as follows: Table 620-2 — Lot Standards for Mineral Lands a. There is no minimum frontage for permitted uses on Mineral Lands, but all required access permits shall be obtained from the County Engineer prior to use of the site. b. Provided that such mining or quarrying does not impair lateral or subjacent support or cause earth movements or erosions to extend beyond the exterior boundary lines of the mining zoned property. c. If a mining or quarry operation is located adjacent to another mining or quarry operation, the mining or quarry operation shall be permitted up to the property line. 2. Parking, Signage, and Landscaping Standards: Parking, signage and landscaping standards shall be as provided in chapter 14.802, Off Street Parking and Loading Standards; chapter 14.804, Signage Standards; and chapter 14.806, Landscaping and Screening Standards. 3. Storage Standards a. The storage of materials and equipment normally associated with farm and agricultural activities is permitted. b. All storage (including storage of recyclable materials) on lots not qualifying as a primary agricultural parcel shall be entirely within a building, or shall be screened from view from the surrounding properties, and shall be accessory to the permitted use on the site. There shall be no storage in any of the front yard or flanking street yards. c. The private, noncommercial storage of 2 junked vehicles shall be allowed, provided they are completely sight -screened year-round from a non -elevated view with a fence, maintained Type Spokane County Page 620 -6 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 Permitted uses Minimum lot area 5 Acres Minimum frontage No Requirement (a) Minimum yards For Mining/Quarrying 50 feet — To property lines (b) (c) For Structures/Buildings 100 feet — From residential zone 50 feet — To property line(s) a. There is no minimum frontage for permitted uses on Mineral Lands, but all required access permits shall be obtained from the County Engineer prior to use of the site. b. Provided that such mining or quarrying does not impair lateral or subjacent support or cause earth movements or erosions to extend beyond the exterior boundary lines of the mining zoned property. c. If a mining or quarry operation is located adjacent to another mining or quarry operation, the mining or quarry operation shall be permitted up to the property line. 2. Parking, Signage, and Landscaping Standards: Parking, signage and landscaping standards shall be as provided in chapter 14.802, Off Street Parking and Loading Standards; chapter 14.804, Signage Standards; and chapter 14.806, Landscaping and Screening Standards. 3. Storage Standards a. The storage of materials and equipment normally associated with farm and agricultural activities is permitted. b. All storage (including storage of recyclable materials) on lots not qualifying as a primary agricultural parcel shall be entirely within a building, or shall be screened from view from the surrounding properties, and shall be accessory to the permitted use on the site. There shall be no storage in any of the front yard or flanking street yards. c. The private, noncommercial storage of 2 junked vehicles shall be allowed, provided they are completely sight -screened year-round from a non -elevated view with a fence, maintained Type Spokane County Page 620 -6 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 1 or II landscaped area or maintained landscaped berm. Storage of additional junked vehicles shall be within a completely enclosed building with solid walls and doors. Tarps shall not be used to store or screen junked vehicles. Vehicle remnants or parts must be stored inside a vehicle or completely enclosed building, including doors. Fences over 6 feet in height require a building permit and/or a zoning variance. 4. Fencing Six-foot fencing shall be provided and maintained in good condition at all times in the following locations. a. Exterior boundary of any portion of any site on which active operations exist. b. Exterior boundary of any portion of the site which has been mined and not yet rehabilitated. 14.620.300 Resource Activity Notification All subdivisions, short plats, binding site plans, zone reclassifications, manufactured home park site plan approvals, variances, conditional use permits, shoreline permits and building permits issued or approved for land on or within 1,000 feet of lands designated as natural resource land (agricultural, forest or mineral lands), pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70A.170, shall contain or be accompanied by a notice. The Public Works Department shall maintain maps of designated natural resource lands. The notice shall include the following disclosure: "The subject property is adjacent or in close proximity to designated agricultural, forest or mineral resource land on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development. Potential disturbances or inconveniences may occur 24 hours per day and include but are not limited to: noise, odors, fumes, dust, smoke, insects, operation of machinery including aircraft, application of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and removal of vegetation. Agricultural and forestry -related activities which are performed in accordance with local, state and federal laws shall not be subject to legal action as a public nuisance." In the case of plats, short plats and binding site plans, notice shall also be included in the plat or binding site plan dedication Spokane County Page 620 -7 Zoning Code Mineral Lands Chapter 14.620 Sj�1"`' ��Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall®spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor and Councilmembers cc: Mike Jackson, City Manager; Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk , !L/ i/ Date: March 26, 2015 Re: Mining Moratorium The attached materials are those that were handed to me by Stacy Bjordahl, of Parsons/Burnett/ Bjordahl/Hume regarding Council's March 24, 2015 Public Hearing on the Mining Moratorium. PARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL/HUMELLP ATTORNEYS Stacy A. Bjordahl sbjordahl@pblaw.biz March 24, 2015 City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Emergency Moratorium on Mining and Mineral Product Manufacturing Ordinance No. 15-005 Dear Councilmembers: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City's adoption of an Emergency Moratorium prohibiting Mining and Mineral Product Manufacturing (Moratorium). This letter is submitted on behalf of CPM Development Corp. (CPM), which through its related entities owns and operates four mining sites in the City of Spokane Valley.1 For the reasons discussed herein, we request that the Moratorium either be repealed or, in the alternative, be amended to ensure continued uninterrupted operations on each site. First, we have concerns regarding the Moratorium and its impact upon each of the CPM sites for various reasons, as well as an overall concern that the City's adoption of an "anti - mining" ordinance is in direct violation of the Growth Management Act's mandate that cities and counties designate, preserve, and protect natural resource lands, including mineral lands. Second, the City does not have a shortage of industrial land. A moratorium is a drastic measure and does not appear justified given that the City has an abundance of industrial land supply. The City's Land Quantity Analysis prepared in September 2010 for the UGA Update concluded, "[e]ssentially, the City has four times the industrial land needed in tier one industrial properties alone. In conclusion, the City of Spokane Valley has an adequate supply of industrial land for the next 20 years." See Exhibit "A" (Land Quantity Analysis for the City of Spokane Valley, September 2010.) We respectfully request the City Council to repeal the Moratorium because there is no shortage of industrial land or demonstrated need to preserve industrial lands pending the City's Comprehensive Plan update. 1 These entities are: Central Pre -Mix, Inland Asphalt and Acme. 505 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 500, Spokane WA 9920I • T (509) 252-5066 • F (509) 252-5067 • www.pblaw.biz A Limited Liability Partnership with offices in Spokane and Bellevue City of Spokane Valley City Council March 24, 2015 Page 2 Finally, the Moratorium may impact CPM's non -conforming rights. As noted in Exhibit B, CPM has two sites, Sullivan and Park, which are both zoned Heavy Industrial and thus, appear to be conforming sites. The other two sites, Carnahan and 8th and Havana, are both zoned residential which does not allow mining; therefore, both of those sites are non- conforming under Chapter 19.20 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). As the holder of legal non -conforming use rights, CPM has the right to continue and conduct mining and mining related activities pursuant to Section 19.20.060 (B) of the SVMC, which provides in pertinent part: B. Continuing Lawful Use of Property. 1. The lawful use of land at the time of passage of this code, or any amendments thereto, may be continued, unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months. The right to continue the nonconforming use shall inure to all successive interests in the property. While it appears the Moratorium is not intended to affect mining and mining operations "that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operation as the effective date" of the Moratorium, there is conflicting language between Sections 2(A) and 2(C). Specifically, Section 2(A) of the Moratorium expressly prohibits the City from processing a modification or approval to an existing permit or license without regard to the permitting agency, and yet Section 2(C) states that the Moratorium does not affect mining and mining operations that were in effect prior to the effective date of the ordinance. In the case of each CPM site, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may require changes to the Reclamation Plan which will require the City's Planning Department to sign DNR Form SM -6. It is our opinion that Form SM -6 would likely constitute either a permit or license under Section 2(A) of the Moratorium and as such, could not be signed by the Planning Department as long as the Moratorium is in effect. If the City is unable to sign Form SM -6, this could potentially cause a site to fall out of compliance with Washington State Surface Mining rules. Based upon the above and the stated purpose and intent of the Moratorium not to impact vested or non -conforming rights, we respectfully request the following amendments be made to Section 2 of the Moratorium. Requested Amendments to the Moratorium. A. The City Council hereby declares an emergency and imposes a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, process' • :, •• : . - : . • : - . of any permit applications or licenses by or for new mining and/or related mining site City of Spokane Valley City Council March 24, 2015 Page 3 operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. B. [No proposed changes.] C. The moratorium shall not affect any mining or mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operations as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Provided further, this moratorium shall not preclude the acceptance. processing and approval of permits or licenses required to maintain and operate any mining or mining site operations in existence and in continuous and lawful operation as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and respectfully request that the Moratorium either be repealed or, in the alternative, be amended so that existing mining operations are not adversely impacted or interrupted. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Thank you for your courtesies. Sincerely, PARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL/HU E, LLP Stacy A. Bi Encl. EXHIBIT "A" Urban Growth Area Update Land Quantity Analysis for The City of qpokane Valley September 2010 City of qpokane Valley RESIDENTIAL LAND QUANTITYANALYSS The City of Spokane Valley is responsible for developing its own Land Quantity Analysis (LQA) report to determine the amount of land available within existing urban areas to support residential and non-residential growth. The Steering Committee of Beefed Officialswill use this quantitative information to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. County -wide Planning Policies direct jurisdictions to utilize the LQA methodology developed by the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development and from the guidebook, "Issues in Designating Urban Growth Areas". The Steering Committee of Bected Officials adopted this methodology on November 3, 1995. This report analyzes land quantity using the most current data. The analysis incorporates an aerial photography review to verify the accuracy of various sources of land use data. Below is a summary of the City of Spokane Valley's application of the adopted methodology: Step 1 Identify land that can accommodate future growth. In determining residential land quantity, these landsfalI under three categories Preliminary and final plats Platted lots that have not been built on are considered as available and calculated at one dwelling unit per lot. Vacant land Vacant lands are any lot or parcel that does not contain a structure or building, as determined from the Assessor's records. Partially used land Partially used land is land that contains existing residential development but is large enough to be further subdivided based on the current zoning classification. Partially used residential land includes properties that can be subdivided into five (5) or more lots, consistent with the current zoning dassification. Step 2 Subtract all parcels that your community defines as not developable due to physical limitation. In most cases throughout Spokane Valley, land can be developed with mitigating measures. While recogniangthat most land has development potential, certain properties have physical and/or regulatory constraints, such aswetlands, steep slopes, or regulated shorelines. Some properties may never develop or may develop at densities less than allowed by zoning. City of Spokane Valley Therefore, lands containing physical limitations are not included in the residential land supply. These include the following critical areas deduct ions: Critical areas deduction Wetlands Identified wetlands and an associated 100 foot buffer area are subtracted from land inventory. Rsh and Wildlife Geologically Hazardous Streams and associated riparian area buffers are subtracted from the land inventory. Certain geologic units and slopes over 30%are deducted from available land inventory. The geologic units indude alluvium, mass wasting deposits and the Latah formation. The above deductions amount to a 9.6 % reduction of available land supply. Step 3 Subtract lands that will be needed for other public purposes. Land needed for public purposes is addressed in two different ways. In the first case, land that is necessary for new infrastructure, primarily for road right-of-way, is subtracted from the acreage figures generated in Step 1. A20%reduction is taken from residential land initially identified as vacant or partially -used for these purposes. In the second instance, the Spokane County Assessor's property Bass codes and exemptions are used to identify lands that may appear to be vacant but, in reality, are not available for residential development. These situations involve both public and private properties owned by entities such as utility companies, school districts, or parks departments. Table 6 illustratesthe Assessor property use codes and exemptionsthat are deducted from the vacant land supply. Table 6 - Assessor Exemption Property Use Codes 41 Trans—Railroad 42 Trans— Motor 43 Trans—Aircraft 44 Trans— Marine 45 Trans— Highway 46 Trans— Parking 47 Communication 48 Utilities 49 Trans — Other 67 Service—Governmental 68 Service — Educational 71 Cultural Activity 72 Public Assembly 73 Amusement 74 Recreational 75 Resort- Camping State Levy Exempt Public Stools Exempt 76 Park 77 Churches 79 Other Cultural Cemetery Exempt DoRlnstitutional Exempt Government Property Exempt Operating Property Exempt Qty of Spokane Valley Step 4 Subtract all parcelswhich your community determines are not suitable for development for social and economic reasons. Deduction for parcels with low improvement value Parcels appraised at less than $500 land value per Assessor's code are removed from the available land supply. Deduction for parcels with high improvement value Sngle family residential parcels that have an improvement value greater than 3 times the lot area are considered unlikely to redevelop and are exduded from available land supply. Step 5 Subtract .. that percentage of land...which you assume will not be available for development within your plan's 20 year time -frame. In the adopted Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County, a technical committee of elected officials and technical experts determined that a build -out factor of 70%was an acceptable average countywide, also referred to as a "market factor". Therefore, the City of Spokane Valley assumes that approximately 30%of the total land identified will not be available for development during the 20 -year planning horizon. Step 6 Build a safety factor Building a safety factor is considered a local methodology option to be used if a jurisdiction is not able to monitor land supply and consumption on a regular basis. The City of Spokane Valley has not employed a safety factor in past studies due to GScapabilitiesenabling effective monitoring. Additionally, an amendment to the Countywide Planning Polides in 2008 established a strategy for monitoring population growth and mandating land quantity and population capacity studieswhen certain growth triggers are met. This strategy is intended to ensure that adequate land supply will be monitored and maintained throughout the planning horizon. Sep 7 Determine total capacity. Assumptions Residential zones Low Density: Available vacant land is calculated at a density of 4 dwelling units per acre Medium Density: Available vacant land is calculated at a density of 11 dwelling units per acre High Density: Available vacant land is calculated at a density of 22 dwelling units per acre City of Spokane Valley Mixed use, commercial and industrial zones Mixed Use: Within the Mixed Use zone, 25%of available vacant land is counted for residential use at a density of 17 units per acre. Light Industrial: No residential use within Light Industrial zones. Heavy Industrial: No residential use in heavy industrial zones. Commercial: No residential use in commercial zones. Population per dwelling unit Low density residential units are assigned a value of 2.5 residents per household. Medium density residential units are assigned a value of 2.0 residents per household. High density residential units are assigned a value of 2.0 residents per household. Mixed use residential units are assigned a value of 1.5 residents per household. Aerial Photography Review Afinal step in the analysis included a review of recent aerial photography to compare the results of the GSanalysis to the existing landscape and identify any major errors or anomalies. The review identified a number of anomalies relating to land determined to be vacant using the Assessor's property use codes. The LQA was modified to exdude the identified areas from lands available for development. 2010 Population Capacity Table 7 illustrates the 2010 population capacity for the Qty of q)okane Valley using the adopted land quantity methodology and assumptionsasdescribed in this report. Qty of a)okane Valley Vacant and Partially Used Land Net Developable Acres Potential New Dwelling Units Population Capadty Qty of Spokane Valley 3,485.43 1,448.72 7,763.84 17,337.49 Assessor Errors -46.42 -16.71 -109.69 -239.33 Adjusted Total 3,439.01 1,432.01 7,654.15 17,098.16 Qty of a)okane Valley OOM M BRQAL LAND QUANT1TYANALYSIS On March 15, 1996, the Growth Management :leering Committee adopted a methodology for determining commercial land demand. The following is a summary of the City of Spokane Valley's commercial land analysis using the adopted methodology. The formula does not take into account current commercial vacancy rates and current developed commercial property that is currently under-utilized. The first step in determining the commercial land demand is to identify a growth factor. The growth factor is calculated by taking the City of Spokane Valley's official population allocation adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCa and dividing it by the current population determined by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). The growth factor is then calculated by the City of Spokane Valley's commercial acres currently in use. Table 8 illustratesthe Assessor property use codes used to identify commercial acres in use. Table 8 —Assessor Commercial Property Use Codes Code Description 16 Hotels and Motels 17 Lodging and daycare 46 Automobile parking 52 Building materials, lumber yard, nursery, florist, and farm equipment 53 Shopping centers 54 Grocery stores, convenient stores, and auto body repair 55 Automobile sales and service 56 Apparel, photography, and Laundromats 57 Furniture and equipment 58 Restaurants, fast food, and taverns 59 Miscellaneous retail trade 61 Financial institutions 62 Pdrsonal services 63 Business services 64 Repair services 65 Professional services Spokane Valley did not apply a land utilization factor. The adjusted commercial acres of demand are then calculated by a market factor of 25%to determine the total demand of commercial acres. The total demand of commercial acres is then subtracted from the commercially zoned acres resulting in the demand for commercial acreage. Using this methodology the City of Spokane Valley determined that there was adequate commercial property for the next twenty years of comrnercial growth (see formula below). Qty of Spokane Valley Population Allocation +Current Population / Current Population 08,956.00 Growth Factor 90.21 0.00' = Growth Factor 1.21 Commercial Acres X in Use = Commercial Acres of Demand 1.21 1,133,56 1,369.11 Land Utilization Commercial Acres of Demand X Factor 1,369.11 .00 Adjusted Commercial Acres = of Demand 1,369.11 Adj. Commercial Acres of Commercial Acres Total Vacant Commercial Demand - in Use = Acres of Demand 1,369.11 1,133.56 235.56 Vacant Commercial Acres of Demand X Market Factor 235.56 1.25' Total Commercial Acres of = Demand 294.45 Total Commercial Acres of Commercial Acres Total Commercial Acres of Demand + in Use = Demand 294.45 1,133.56 1,428.00 Commercial Acres Additional Comm. Acreage Total Comm. Acres of Demand - Zoned = needed 1,428.00 2,638.53 -1,210.53 Minus indicates surplus INDUSTRIAL LAND QUANTITYANALYSIS The industrial employment forecast for 2031 is determined using a ratio method that compares industrial employment to total population. Thisforecast is needed to determine the adequacy of industrial lands to meet the land quantity needs for the 2031 planning horizon. The forecast and needs analysis involves several steps as follows: 1. Establish a ratio of industrial employment to total Population The ratio is established using the 2000 census, which indudesdetailed employment data for industrial employees. The categories considered as industrial indude construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, and utilities. In the year 2000, there were 49,344 people employed in these industrial categories. Snce the land quantity analysisfocuseson urban growth area needs, rural industries sudh as agriculture, City of Spokane Valley forestry, and mining are not induded. This number is compared to the total population for 2000 (417,939) to determine a percentage ratio as follows: 10,644 divided by 79,000 = 0.135 or 13.5% 2. Estimate industrial employment for 2010 Estimating industrial employment for 2010 can be achieved by applying the ratio established in step 1 to the 2010 population for 800kane County. The equation is illustrated as follows: 2010 population x 0.135 = Industrial employees for 2010 90,210 x 0.135 =12,178 employees 3. Estimate industrial employment for 2031 The UGA update contemplates land use needs for the year 2031. Estimating industrial employment for 2031 is necessary to determine future industrial employment needs and can be estimated similarly to step 2. The equation is illustrated as follows: 2031 population x 0.135 = Industrial employees for 2031 108,956 x 0.135 =14,709 employees 4. Estimate the increase in industrial employment between 2010 and 2031 To estimate the increase in industrial employment simply subtract the current estimate of industrial employees (2010) from the 2031 estimate for industrial employees 2031 employees- 2010 employees= increase in employment for planning period 14,709-12,178 =2,531 employees 5. Estimate the need for available industrial lands An industrial lands study was done by Spokane County in 2000. The study provided a detailed analysis of industrial lands in the unincorporated areas of the County. Research within that study established a ratio of 16 employees per net acre of industrial land. This ratio is used to determine the net acres of industrial land needed to meet the employment needs for 2031: (16 employees per acre) / 2,531 employees =158 acres The conclusion isthat 138 acres of available industrial land is needed to maintain the current level of industrial use per capita for the 2031 planning horizon. This conclusion is city-wide and does not indude the industrial land needsfor unincorporated UGAs. City of Spokane Valley In order to evaluate the industrial Iandswithin the Qty, staff used an industrial land study developed in 2000 by a committee composed of representatives from various economic development, business, and real estate organizations. This committee developed a rating system to evaluate the marketability of land designated for industrial use. The rating system utilized Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data to evaluate the industrial land in terms of lot size, availability of infrastructure, and environmental limitations. In this study, industrial land was classified into five categories or "tiers" . Tier one lands were determined to have all the attributes to be immediately available for development. Tier two and three lands were dassified as being usable within a 20 -year timeframe. Ter four and five lands were considered constrained with improvement value, size, or critical area limitations, which essential made them unavailable for development. Using this methodology, it was determined that there is 839 acres of tier one industrial property within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. In addition, there is 250 acres of tier one industrial property currently in a public/quasi-public use. There is no tier two or three industrial properties located within the aty of Spokane Valley. The majority of the remaining industrial property was dassified as tier four and five considered as land that is built out" with little opportunity for redevelopment in the near term. Table 9 summarizes the industrial land analysis in the aty of Spokane Valley. Table 9: Industrial Land Analysis Industrial Analysis Acres Tier 1 838.9046 Tier 1 (P/Q-P) 250.4862 Tier 4 2349.5993 Tier 4 (P/ Q -P) 2.6502 Tier 5 54.5821 Tier 5 (P/Q-P) 22.9966 Totals 3,519.22 Based on the analysis, the needed industrial land for the 2031 planning horizon is 158 acres. Currently, the City has839 acres of tier one industrial land. Essentially, the City has four times the industrial land needed in tier one industrial properties alone. In condusion, the City Spokane Valley has an adequate supply of industrial land for the next 20 years PREVIOUS BOUNOM ICSTUDI ES& ANALYSIS The City of Spokane Valley, as part of the planning process for the Sprague-Appleway Revitalization Plan, conducted economic analyses providing a basis for recommendations in the Plan. The most recent study performed by Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. in 2007 specifically examined the economic feasibility of establishing a town center in Spokane Valley. The Gbbs Qty of Spokane Valley study examined three trade area scenarios: 1) Micro Trade Area, 2) Primary Trade Area, and 3) 100 Mile Trade Area. These trade areas are discussed in more detail below. Micro Trade Area This model established the minimal possible trade area for the proposed town center site. The Spokane Valley Mall and downtown q:tokane were excluded from the trade area (supply side) in an effort to create the largest possible retail void. It was expected that this model would yield a strong demand for neighborhood goods and services. However, the Micro Trade Area analysis indicated an over -supply of all retail categories except for specialty foods such as ice cream, bagels, and coffee. Overall, the Micro TradeArea2006 retail sales were reported at $1.29 billion, with a consumer demand of only $738 million. The Micro Trade Area thus had an over- supply of $550 million per year or approximately 2 million square feet. Primary Trade Area The Primary Trade Area included most of the q)okane Valley region where most of the study area's (Spokane Valley Town Center) potential shoppers reside. The Spokane Valley Mall and surrounding retail were induded in this model; downtown 8pokanewas exduded from this model. The estimated Primary Trade Area's overall 2006 retail sales (supply) were $2.23 billion with total consumer demand (spending) of only $1.46 billion. This resulted in an over -supply of $805 million per year or almost 3 million square feet surplus retail stores in the Primary Trade Area. 100 Mile Trade Area Due to the relatively remoteness of iokane, Gibbs' opinion was that it is likely that the total Spokane trade area extends 100 miles or beyond. The 100 Mile Trade Area would account for the largest potential demand for retail and restaurants in the greater 4okane region. Within the 100 Mile Trade Area, most categories are over -supplied especially jewelry, sporting goods and books. Asmall demand was indicated for home furnishing, appliances, electronics, and limited service restaurants. The overall 2006 retail sales (existing supply) was estimated at $9.48 billion, while the 2006 overall consumer demand was estimated at $8.17 billion yielding retail over -supply of $1.31 billion. This results in an existing over -supply of up to 4.7 million square feet of retail space in the 43,okane Region. City of 81okane Valley 10 City of Sp, am Palley 2010Re.eend4 Land Quararey a o u.ema NES Partaiennei 43.,r4 W..; City of q)okane Valley EXHIBIT "B" Site Sullivan Acreage Parcel # Current usesfzoning CurrentZoning Comp Pian Histoncal uses Years m operation Moratorium impact Road Spokane County Approx 242 45123.9008 45123.9007 45122.9005 45122.9004 45123.9006 45123.9011 45125.9157 451.35.9007 45124.9012 45121.9016 Mining/Industrial Asphalt Production Concrete Production Shop Facilities Recycling 1-2 Heavy Industrial Mining Asphalt Production Concrete Production Shop facilities 35+ Modifications to Reclamation plan to lakude removing the common boundary between CPM and Cou to maximaizethe resources in both mining permits including but not limited to mining the Flora Pit Road and the existing house property. Flora Pit under lease/buy option Park Road Approx. 30 45121.9015 Mining/Industrial Shop Facilities 1-2 Heavy Industrial Mining/industrial Shop Facilities 35+ See5uliivan Road Details Above Approx. 108 35134.9095 Mining/Industrial 1-2 Heavy Industrial Mining 35+ Not known at this time 35134.9057 Quality Cgntrol Concrete Production 35134.9028 LC' Shop Facilities 35134.9075 Quality Control 35134.9030 351.34.9029 35134.3232 Camahan 35134.9081 Approx. 34 35234.9099 Mining, Recycling MF -1 Medium Density Mining, Recycling 35+ Not known atthis time Residential 8th & Havana Quarry Approx. 50 35233.9191 35233.9192 Mining Asphalt Production R-4 tight Density Mining 35+ CPM just purchased the property in 35233.0709 Recycling Residential Asphalt Production December. DNR Plan is under review and Recycling may require modifications in which the City 35233.0710 would need to sign off. 35233.0604 35233.0605 35233.0606 35233.0607 35233.0608 35233.0609 35233.0505 35233.9176 Broadwa 351330501 -4518'3 .9190 45 12.7. 00i. 4 51 B3191 5 ,5 352E -,233 y173 35224.2 ;0 35233:0711 5.233 0413 35733 0t 10 I41 35233.0704 35233.0705 352., b7C: 1,35233.05 1 3 i •_35233 0 8TH & HAVANA 55233.0707 35233!IDE, -7 SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 24, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET SUBJECT: Mining Moratorium Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. There may be a time limit for your comments. Any documents for Council consideration should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution. NAME PLEASE PRINT Your City of Residence 0 1i _ec, p/ -,40K\ 6Ki2__ i 4o //'-)accti il?a�; 1 -E ,, CP ___, PI,,. 1r-3 C -1-abt/ R ��� (cam ,, \J0.fl e Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 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: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-010; amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.150 Animal Raising and Keeping. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On March 17, 2015 an administrative report was provided, and on April 14, 2015, the ordinance first reading was advanced. BACKGROUND: CTA -2015-0001 is a City -initiated Code text amendment adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. On February 26, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the amendment. On April 14, 2015, Council considered the First Reading and advanced the Ordinance to a second reading. No changes occurred. OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance with or without further modifications. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance 15-010, amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.40.150 by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Ordinance 15-010 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE 19.40.150, ANIMAL RAISING AND KEEPING BY ADDING BEEKEEPING REQUIREMENTS, CLARIFYING VARIOUS TERMINOLOGY, AND PROHIBITING THE KEEPING OF NUTRIA; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on September 25, 2007, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19, pursuant to Ordinance 07-015; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2007, SVMC Title 19 became effective; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, on January 30 and February 6, 2015, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2015, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, providing a 60 -day notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2015, the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation followed by deliberations and provided a recommendation; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2015, the Planning Commission approved the findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, City Council reviewed the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, SVMC 19.40.150, as amended, bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare, and protection of the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend SVMC 19.40.150 by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the amendments and Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 1 of 5 DRAFT recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. 1. Land Use Policy LUP-1.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning 2. Land Use Policy -13.1: Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. 3. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. 4. Economic Policy EDP -7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious. 5. Economic Policy EDP -7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. 6. Neighborhood Goal NG -2: Preserve and protect the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. 7. Neighborhood Policy -NP -2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning 8. Neighborhood Policy -NP -2.4: Encourage the dedication of open spaces for local food production in and adjacent to residential areas. 9. Neighborhood Policy -NP -2.6: Encourage community gardens in residential areas. C. Conclusions 1. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 2. The proposed City -initiated Code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F). 3. The GMA requires that the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 2 of 5 DRAFT Section 3. Amendment. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 19.40.150 is hereby amended as follows: 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping. Where permitted, the keeping of poultry and livestock (excluding swine and chickens) is subject to the following conditions: A. Minimum Lot Requirements. 1. In residential zones, the lot or tract shall must _exceed 40,000 square feet in area, except as set forth in SVMC 19.40.150(G) and (I), below; 2. In mixed-use zones, on lots or tracts with legally established residential uses that exceed 40,000 square feet. B. The keeping of swine is not permitted; 1 C. Beekeeping for noncommercial purposes is limited to 25 hives; DC. Any building or structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be located not less than 75 feet from any dwelling habitation ; ED. No building or structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be located within the front yard nor be closer than 10 feet from any side property line; EE. The keeping of animals and livestock is limited as follows: 1. Not more than three horses, mules, donkeys, bovines, llamas or alpacas shall be permitted per gross acre; or 2. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acre; or 3. Any equivalent combination of SVMC 19.40.150subscction (E)(1) and (E)(2), above of this section; Q F. Small Animals/Fowl. A maximum of one animal or fowl (excluding chickens), including duck, turkey, goose or similar domesticated fowl, or rabbit, mink, , nutria, chinchilla or similar animal, may be raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area. In addition, a shed, coop, hutch or similar containment structure shall must be constructed prior to the acquisition of any small animal/fowl; I G. In residential areas, the keeping of chickens is subject to the following conditions: 1. A maximum of one chicken may be raised or kept per 2,000 gross square feet of lot area, with a maximum of 25 birds allowed; Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 3 of 5 DRAFT 2. The keeping of roosters is prohibited; 3. Coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall must be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line, five 5- feet from side and rear property lines, and 15 feet from flanking streets; 4. Coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall must be kept a minimum of 25 feet from dwellings occupied structures on neighboring properties; and 5. All chickens shall must be contained within the subject property. L.H. Structures, pens, yards, enclosures, pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. I. In residential areas, beekeeping is subject to the following conditions: 1. The number of beehives shall be limited to one beehive per 4,356 gross square feet of lot area. 4-2. Beehives shall be set back a minimum of five feet from a side or rear property line and 20 feet from the front or flanking street property line. 3. A flyaway barrier shall be provided that shall be at least six feet high and consisting of a solid wall, solid fencing material, dense vegetation or combination thereof, that is parallel to the side or rear property line(s) and extends beyond the beehive(s) in each direction that bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the beehives. hives. 44. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to the 45. The beekeeper shall be certified by the Washington State Beekeeper's Association. Section 4. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Chapters 19.140 not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. 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 6. 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 April, 2015. Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 4 of 5 DRAFT ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 5 of 5 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE 19.40.150, ANIMAL RAISING AND KEEPING BY ADDING BEEKEEPING REQUIREMENTS, CLARIFYING VARIOUS TERMINOLOGY, AND PROHIBITING THE KEEPING OF NUTRIA; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on September 25, 2007, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 19, pursuant to Ordinance 07-015; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2007, SVMC Title 19 became effective; and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, on January 30 and February 6, 2015, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2015, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, providing a 60 -day notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2015, the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation followed by deliberations and provided a recommendation; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2015, the Planning Commission approved the findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, City Council reviewed the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, SVMC 19.40.150, as amended, bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare, and protection of the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend SVMC 19.40.150 by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the amendments and Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 1 of 4 DRAFT recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council has read and considered the Planning Commission's findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Growth Management Act Policies - Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted County -Wide Planning Policies, set forth below. 1. Land Use Policy LUP-1.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning 2. Land Use Policy -13.1: Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. 3. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. 4. Economic Policy EDP -7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable, cost-effective, and expeditious. 5. Economic Policy EDP -7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. 6. Neighborhood Goal NG -2: Preserve and protect the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. 7. Neighborhood Policy -NP -2.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning 8. Neighborhood Policy -NP -2.4: Encourage the dedication of open spaces for local food production in and adjacent to residential areas. 9. Neighborhood Policy -NP -2.6: Encourage community gardens in residential areas. C. Conclusions 1. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 2. The proposed City -initiated Code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150(F). 3. The GMA requires that the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Section 3. Amendment. Spokane Valley Municipal Code section 19.40.150 is hereby amended as follows: 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping. Where permitted, the keeping of poultry and livestock (excluding swine and chickens) is subject to the following conditions: A. Minimum Lot Requirements. 1. In residential zones, the lot or tract shall exceed 40,000 square feet in area, except as set forth in SVMC 19.40.150(G) and (I), below; 2. In mixed-use zones, on lots or tracts with legally established residential uses that exceed 40,000 square feet. B. The keeping of swine is not permitted; Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 2 of 4 DRAFT C. Any building or structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be located not less than 75 feet from any dwelling ; D. No building or structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be located within the front yard nor be closer than 10 feet from any side property line; E. The keeping of animals and livestock is limited as follows: 1. Not more than three horses, mules, donkeys, bovines, llamas or alpacas shall be permitted per gross acre; or 2. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acre; or 3. Any equivalent combination of SVMC 19.40.150(E)(1) and (E)(2), above; F. Small Animals/Fowl. A maximum of one animal or fowl (excluding chickens), including duck, turkey, goose or similar domesticated fowl, or rabbit, mink, , chinchilla or similar animal, may be raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area. In addition, a shed, coop, hutch or similar containment structure shall be constructed prior to the acquisition of any small animal/fowl; G. In residential areas, the keeping of chickens is subject to the following conditions: 1. A maximum of one chicken may be raised or kept per 2,000 gross square feet of lot area, with a maximum of 25 birds allowed; 2. The keeping of roosters is prohibited; 3. Coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line, five feet from side and rear property lines, and 15 feet from flanking streets; 4. Coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall be kept a minimum of 25 feet from dwellings on neighboring properties; and 5. All chickens shall be contained within the subject property. H. Structures, pens, yards, enclosures, pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. I. In residential areas, beekeeping is subject to the following conditions: 1. The number of beehives shall be limited to one beehive per 4,356 gross square feet of lot area. 2. Beehives shall be set back a minimum of five feet from a side or rear property line and 20 feet from the front or flanking street property line. 3. A flyaway barrier shall be provided that shall be at least six feet high and consisting of a solid wall, solid fencing material, dense vegetation or combination thereof, that is parallel to the side or rear property line(s) and extends beyond the beehive(s) in each direction that bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the beehives. 4. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to the hives. 5. The beekeeper shall be certified by the Washington State Beekeeper's Association. Section 4. Other sections unchanged. All other provisions of Chapters 19.140 not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. 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. Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 3 of 4 DRAFT Section 6. 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 April, 2015. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 15-010 Beekeeping Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 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: First Reading — Ordinance 15-011, proposed franchise to Avista Corporation regarding electrical transmission and distribution in the rights-of-way. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report April 21, 2015. BACKGROUND: Avista Corporation operates an electrical utility throughout this region, including parts of the City. The provision of those services requires use of the public rights-of- way for transmission and distribution of electricity via above -ground poles and wires, underground wires, and other related facilities. Avista has operated this utility for many years, formerly under the name Washington Water Power, and is one of four electrical utility providers in the City. This would be similar in many respects to other franchises granted by the City, and would be for 25 years, the same length as the natural gas distribution franchise granted to Avista in 2013. OPTIONS: (1) move to a second reading for motion consideration; or (2) request additional information. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we place Ordinance 15-011 granting Avista a 25 year electrical franchise on a future agenda for a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 15-011 granting an electrical franchise to Avista Corporation. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING TO AVISTA CORPORATION A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN POLES, ELEVATED AND UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION, CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service"; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body, nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective"; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "Avista" means Avista Corporation, dba Avista Utilities, a Washington corporation, and its respective successors and assigns, agents and contractors. "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee. "Commission" means the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission or such successor regulatory agency having jurisdiction over investor-owned public utilities in the State of Washington. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility. Ordinance 15-011 Page 1 of 13 DRAFT "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. "facilities" means, collectively, any and all electric transmission and distribution systems and appurtenances owned by Avista, now and in the future in the franchise area, including but not limited to, poles, towers, overhead and underground wires and cables, conduits, vaults, transformers, meters, meter -reading devices, communication and control systems and other equipment, appliances, fixtures, attachments, appurtenances and other items necessary, convenient, or in any way appertaining to any and all of the foregoing for the purposes of transmission, distribution, and control of electricity, whether the same be located above or below ground. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "public property" shall mean any real estate or any facility owned by the City. "Public Works Director" shall mean the Spokane Valley Public Works Director or his/her designee. "right-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, trail, bike path, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City, to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "streets" or "highways" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley, or highway within the City used or intended to be used by the general public, to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "tariff" means the rate schedules, rules, and regulations relating to utility service, filed with and approved by the Commission during the term of this Franchise. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter "City" or "the City"), hereby grants unto Avista (hereinafter "Avista" or "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 25 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, maintain, replace, upgrade and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place electric facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along, or below the public rights-of-way located in the City of Spokane Valley, and other public places as agreed to by the parties in writing (which may be accomplished by written agreement of the City Manager and Grantee's Director of Operations), as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). The parties may renew this franchise for an additional 25 years by mutual written agreement, which may be exercised at any time within the final year of the initial franchise term. Ordinance 15-011 Page 2 of 13 DRAFT Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any, between the parties. Section 4. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 5. Non -Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights- of-way that do not materially interfere with Grantee's rights under this franchise. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights-of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. City may not, however, award an electric franchise to another party under more favorable or less onerous terms than those of this franchise without this franchise being amended to reflect such more favorable or less onerous terms. Section 6. Non -Interference with Existing Facilities. Grantee shall have the discretion to determine the placement of its Facilities as may be necessary to provide safe and reliable electric service within the Franchise Area, subject to the following non-interference requirements. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. In the event the City, its agents or its contractors, perform grading, excavating, or other necessary road work contiguous to Grantee's facilities, the City shall give Grantee not less than 10 business days' notice of said work. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of the City. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the facilities of the Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to the Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use, or with any other wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights- of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, the Grantee shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Section 7. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, laws and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its facilities. Ordinance 15-011 Page 3 of 13 DRAFT If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro -rata basis. Section 8. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 9. Tree Trimming All such pruning, trimming and removal shall be done by Grantee or its authorized contractors at the Grantee's sole cost and expense. State law requires electric utilities to comply with the National Electric Safety Code, including the guidance for the trimming or removal of vegetation interfering or potentially interfering with energized power lines. The right of Grantee to maintain its facilities and appurtenances under this franchise shall accordingly include the right, as exercised in Grantee's professional discretion, to utilize an integrated vegetation management program to minimize the likelihood that vegetation encroaching (either above or below the ground) on Grantee's facilities can lead to power outages and other threats to public safety and welfare. Grantee or its agents may inhibit the growth of, prune, or remove any trees and vegetation which overhangs or encroaches upon its electric transmission and distribution corridors within the franchise area, whether such trees or vegetation originate within or outside of the rights-of-way. Grantee shall consult with the City Parks and Recreation Department prior to removing any tree in excess of six inch diameter at breast height. The parties agree to develop a pilot program under separate agreement that promotes the replacement of inappropriate vegetation that interferes with Grantee's facilities. Section 10. Emergency Response. The Grantee shall, within 30 days of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency contact, along with the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to respond in a timely manner with action to aid in the protection of the health and safety of the public. In the event the Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property and the Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 11. One -Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee is responsible for becoming familiar with and understanding the provisions of Washington's One -Call statutes. Grantee shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the One -Call statutes. Section 12. Safety. All of Grantee's facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the facilities. Section 13. Temporary Movement of Grantee's Facilities for Others. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, Grantee, upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's Ordinance 15-011 Page 4 of 13 DRAFT facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided, that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's facilities, as mutually agreed upon by Grantee and the City. Upon good cause shown by Grantee, the City may provide more than 14 days' notice to Grantee to move its facilities. Section 14. Acquiring New Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon Grantee's notice of any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such facilities in the rights-of-way, the Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement with an electronic GIS map describing all facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 15. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever Grantee's excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may direct Grantee to hire an appropriate number of private contractors to perform all necessary services to address such conditions which threaten the public health, safety and welfare, and Grantee agrees to comply with such directive. Grantee shall be liable for all costs and expenses thereof. Section 16. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind, whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its facilities within the City's rights-of-way. Section 17. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee to fully comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee, whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 18. Relocation of Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, remove, or convert from overhead to underground any of its facilities when so required by the City, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then -existing Ordinance 15-011 Page 5 of 13 DRAFT facilities, the City shall: (A) At least 60 days prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; (B) Provide Grantee with copies of the plans and specifications for such improvement project; and After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its facilities at no charge or expense to City so as to accommodate the improvement project. Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its facilities, submit to the City's written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its facilities as otherwise provided in this section. In the event the proposed relocation results in Avista being required to relocate outside of the right of way, City agrees to assist Avista in attempting to procure an easement or other rights. Additionally, if the City requires the subsequent relocation of any of Grantee's Facilities within five years from the date of relocation of such Facilities or installation of new Facilities, the City shall share one-half of the cost of such subsequent relocation. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee, then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorneys' fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 19. Abandonment of Grantee's Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre -removal condition when: (A) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility and the location of the abandoned facility will impede the progress of such project; (B) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; or (C) the facilities are owned by Grantee and have not been in continuous use for a 24 month Ordinance 15-011 Page 6 of 13 DRAFT period. Grantee may delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (B) above applies. When (B) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of-way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 20. Maps and Records Required. Upon request, Grantee shall provide the City, at no cost to the City: (A) An electronic GIS route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict service lines to individual subscribers and is not survey grade. Avista does not warrant the accuracy of such facility location information provided and, to the extent the location of facilities are shown, such facilities may be shown in their approximate location. (B) In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City, upon the City's reasonable request, copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such facilities. Grantee shall field locate its facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. (C) Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. (D) In addition to the requirements of subsection (A) of this section, the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee and the City are prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained under this franchise to any third parties. (E) Public Record Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Record Act codified in RCW 42.56. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide the Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non -disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees with the Grantee's basis for non -disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Ordinance 15-011 Page 7 of 13 DRAFT Section 21. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, the Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then -adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. The City is a party to the Inland Northwest Regional Pavement Cut Policy, and shall maintain a copy of the currently adopted Policy on its website or similar broad means of dissemination. Section 22. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the Public Works Director that extending the facilities, as proposed, would materially interfere with the public health, safety or welfare. Section 23. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 24. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law or the tariff. In the event of a conflict between the Municipal Code and this franchise, the Municipal Code shall control. Section 25. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. The City shall timely notify Avista of any proposed street vacations so that Avista may request the inclusion of an appropriate easement in the area to be vacated. Section 26. Indemnification. (A) Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: 1) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; 2) By virtue of the City permitting grantee's use of the City's rights -of -ways or other public property; 3) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate Ordinance 15-011 Page 8 of 13 DRAFT warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right-of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise. (B).Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though Grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. (C) The City shall indemnify and hold harmless Grantee and its officers, volunteers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the City, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of the performance of this franchise. (D) If the comparative negligence of the parties and their officers, volunteers, agents, and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion. (E) Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim. (F) In the event any matter (for which the City intends to assert its rights under this Section) is presented to or filed with the City, the City shall promptly notify Grantee thereof and Grantee shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to settle and compromise such matter as it pertains to Grantee's responsibility under this Section 26. In the event any suit or action is commenced against the City based upon any such matter, the City shall likewise promptly notify Grantee thereof, and Grantee shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to settle and compromise such suit or action, or defend the same at its sole cost and expense, by attorneys of its own election, as it pertains to Grantee's responsibility under this Section 26. Failure of the City to give notice as required herein shall not be a defense except and to the extent that Grantee demonstrates actual prejudice therefrom. (G) In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorneys' fees, the reasonable costs of the City, and reasonable attorneys' fees of recovering under this subsection. (H) Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Ordinance 15-011 Page 9 of 13 DRAFT Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. (I) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City -owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. (J) The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 27. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain insurance for the duration of the franchise, or provide self-insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents, representatives or employees. Grantee's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. (A) Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and (B) Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be named as an insured under the Grantee's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured -State or Political Subdivisions -Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and Employer' s Liability. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: (A) The Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as Ordinance 15-011 Page 10 of 13 DRAFT outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (B) The Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled, except after 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the City. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Section 28. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed $25,000.00, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. Section 29. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 30. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise, and an adequate opportunity to cure the violation or non-compliance has been given in writing to Grantee, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 31. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to the City to, any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee, by merger, sale, consolidation or otherwise. Section 32. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, the Grantee must accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Ordinance 15-011 Page 11 of 13 DRAFT Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 -day period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 33. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 4, 5, 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 36, 37 and 38 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 34. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should 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. In the event that any of the provisions of this Ordinance are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 35. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated by the City. Section 36. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing: The City: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 11707 East Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Grantee: Avista Corporation Attn: Director of Operations 1411 East Mission Ave. MSC -46 Spokane, WA 99202 Phone: (509) 495-4590 Section 37. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 38. Non -Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 39. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, Ordinance 15-011 Page 12 of 13 DRAFT written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 40. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2015. Mayor, Dean Grafos ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Date of Publication: Office of the City Attorney Effective Date: Accepted by Avista Corporation: By: The Grantee, Avista Corporation, for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of_ 2015. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 2015. Notary Public in and for the State of residing in My commission expires Ordinance 15-011 Page 13 of 13 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session X AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Ordinance #15-012 reducing the gambling tax on card games from 10% to 6%. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC Chapter 3.25 and RCW Chapter 9.46. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion topic at the February 27, 2015 Council Workshop, and on April 14, 2015 an Administrative Report was provided to Council. BACKGROUND: In 2003 the City of Spokane Valley adopted an ordinance which authorized certain gaming/gambling activities and imposed related taxes, the proceeds of which are used to partially offset law enforcement costs. Since that time a number of businesses that offer gambling as a form of entertainment have opened and closed and revenues have fluctuated from year-to-year with an overall downward trend, which is conceivably due to a combination of competition from both regional and on-line gaming establishments. There are currently 30 businesses in Spokane Valley that offer gaming in one form or another. Gambling tax revenues for 2010 through 2014, and the 2015 Budget projection are as follows: Actual Revenues Type of Gambling Activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Budget Punch Boards & Pull Tabs 71,778 64,310 64,771 70,504 64,585 71,000 Bingo & Raffles 825 1,260 1,802 638 1,227 1,200 Amusement Games 10,063 10,882 10,125 10,799 11,063 10,800 Card Games 563,477 447,778 541,696 446,497 429,376 446,000 Total 646,143 524,230 618,394 528,438 506,251 529,000 Inc. (Dec.) from previous yr. $ (80,861.18) $(121,913.00) $ 94,164.00 $ (89,956.00) $ (22,187.00) -11.12% -18.87% 17.96% -14.55% -4.20% At the September 23, 2014 meeting, Council heard public comment from a business owner who operates a local gaming establishment. He stated that the gambling taxes on social card playing in Spokane Valley are a significant expense to his business and that he believes these taxes have been a factor in why other gaming establishments within the City have closed over the last several years. He requested that Council consider either eliminating or reducing gambling tax rates and noted that the City of Spokane was at that time considering reducing their own social card game tax rate. On November 3, 2014, the City of Spokane approved an ordinance reducing rates effective in both 2015 and 2016. At the February 27, 2015 Winter Workshop, Council was presented with an information report and had an opportunity to discuss the issue. At a March 30, 2015 Finance Committee meeting this topic was discussed and consensus was reached to bring this forward to Council with a recommendation that the City reduce its rate on card games from 10% to 6%. 1 Finally, at the April 14, 2015 meeting Council reached consensus to bring this topic forward as an action item. Listed below is gambling tax rate information which includes the maximum allowed by State law, the current rates in Spokane Valley, and rates in the City of Spokane: Type of Gambling Activity Gambling Tax Rates Maximum Allowed by State of Washingtor City of Spokane Valley City of Spokane (3) Through Effective Effective 12/31/2014 1/1/2015 1/1/2016 Punch Boards & Pull Tabs (1) Bingo & Raffles Amusement Games Card Games 10.0% (1) 5.0% (1) 2.0% (2) 20.0% 5.0% 5.0% 2.0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 2.0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 2.0% 8.0% (1) Rates are applicable to gross receipts, less amounts awarded as cash or merchandise prizes. (2) Rates are applicable to gross revenue. (3) City of Spokane rates were changed via the adoption of their Ordinance C35153 on 11/3/2014. 10.0% 5.0% 2.0% 2.0% Proposed Ordinance #15-012 will reduce the City's gambling tax on card games from 10% to 6% effective June 1, 2015. The Ordinance also provides clarification of Code language, including its application to bona fide charitable or nonprofit organizations. OPTIONS: Options range from making no changes to the current tax rate or changing the tax rate on card games from the existing 10% to as much as 20% or as little as 0%. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance #15-012 amending SVMC 3.25.020, affecting gambling taxes, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2015 Budget includes a revenue estimate of $529,000 in gambling taxes including: • $ 71,000 Punch Boards and Pull Tabs • $ 1,200 Bingo and Raffles • $ 10,800 Amusement Games • $446,000 Card Games Given that a 10% tax on card games is estimated to generate $446,000 in 2015: • A 1% reduction in the tax rate would cause General Fund revenues to decrease by $44,600. • If the City were to reduce the tax rate on card games from 10% to 6%, it would result in annual revenues of $267,600, which is $178,400 less than is in the adopted 2015 Budget. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: - Proposed Ordinance #15-012. - A single page reflecting SVMC 3.25.020 as it currently exists. - A single page reflecting SVMC 3.25.020 as it will be clarified through adoption of the ordinance. 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-012 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE 3.25.020(C), GAMBLING TAX REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance 03-028 on January 28, 2003, to be effective upon the date of incorporation. Ordinance 03-028 was later codified into Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 3.25, Gambling Tax; and WHEREAS, SVMC 3.25.020 states the percentage of tax to be imposed on various types of gambling activity. SVMC 3.25.020(C) requires that operators of social card playing establishments pay "a tax equal to 10 percent of the gross revenue from such card games;" and WHEREAS, the level of tax imposed by the City for social card playing is now higher than that imposed by other larger governmental entities in this region; and WHEREAS, the City desires to have the percentage of gambling tax on social card playing at a more competitive level than it currently is as a way to attract and maintain social card playing businesses; and WHEREAS, the City desires to add a new subsection, SVMC 3.25.020(C)(2), to more -clearly identify what exemptions apply for bona fide charitable or nonprofit organizations engaging in specified gambling activities under this chapter; and WHEREAS, the City further desires to draft minor modifications to SVMC 3.25.020 to ensure it is consistent with RCW 9.46.110. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Intent. The City of Spokane Valley declares that the intent of this Ordinance is to amend 3.25.020 amend the percentage of gambling tax on social card playing from 10 percent to six percent, and to make other minor amendments to ensure consistency with RCW 9.46.110. Section 2. Amending SVMC 3.25.020 — Imposition of Tax. SVMC 3.25.020 is hereby amended as follows: 3.25.020 Imposition of tax. (A) Pursuant to RCW 9.46.110, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended, there is levied upon all persons, associations or organizations conducting or operating in the City of Spokane Valley for any of the activities listed below, a tax to be paid to the City of Spokane Valley, in the amount hereinafter specified: 4-(1) Bingo and Raffles. Ordinance 15-012 Amending SVMC 3.25.020, Gambling Tax Page 1 of 3 DRAFT 4—A tax in the amount ofequal to five percent of the gross receipts from a bingo game or raffle, less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes. B(2) Punchboards and Pulltabs. _ charitable, shall pay aA tax in an amount ofequal to five percent of the gross receipts from the operation of punchboards and pulltabs, less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes, and regardless of whether the entity is a for-profit, bona fide charitable non-profit. .0_) Social Card Playing. 1. Operators shall pay aA tax egualin the amount of4e six -1-0 percent of the gross revenue from such card games. P(4) Amusement Games. 4 -Amusement games authorized for operation pursuant to the provisions of the Washington Administrative Code shall be subject to the levy of a tax in the amount not to exceed two percent of the gross receipts from the amusement game, less the amount awarded as prizes, and shall be equal to the amount of actual costs and expenses incurred for enforcement of Chapter 9.46 RCW by the City of Spokane Valley. (B) The following shall apply to bona fide charitable or nonprofit organizations pursuant to chapter 9.46 RCW: (1) No tax shall be imposed on bingo or amusement games when such activities or combination thereof for an organization which has no paid operating or management personnel, and has gross receipts from bingo or amusement games, or a combination thereof, not exceeding five thousand dollars per year, less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes. (2) No tax shall be imposed from raffles on the first $10,000 of gross receipts less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes conducted by a qualifying entity. Section 3. Remainder of SVMC 3.25. Unchanged. The remaining provisions of chapter 3.25 SVMC are unchanged by this amendment. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence or clause of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Approved this day of May, 2015. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Ordinance 15-012 Amending SVMC 3.25.020, Gambling Tax Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 15-012 Amending SVMC 3.25.020, Gambling Tax Page 3 of 3 3.25.020 Imposition of tax. Pursuant to RCW 9.46.110, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended, there is levied upon all persons, associations or organizations conducting or operating in the City of Spokane Valley any of the activities listed below, a tax to be paid to the City of Spokane Valley, in the amount hereinafter specified: A. Bingo and Raffles. 1. A tax in the amount equal to five percent of the gross receipts from a bingo game or raffle, less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes. B. Punchboards and Pulltabs. All organizations, whether for profit, nonprofit or bona fide charitable, shall pay a tax in an amount equal to five percent of the gross receipts from the operation of punchboards and pulltabs, less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes. C. Social Card Playing. 1. Operators shall pay a tax equal to 10 percent of the gross revenue from such card games. D. Amusement Games. 1. Amusement games authorized for operation pursuant to the provisions of the Washington Administrative Code shall be subject to the levy of a tax in the amount not to exceed two percent of the gross receipts from the amusement game, less the amount awarded as prizes, and shall be equal to the amount of actual costs and expenses incurred for enforcement of Chapter 9.46 RCW by the City of Spokane Valley. (A) Pursuant to RCW 9.46.110, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended, there is levied upon all persons, associations or organizations conducting or operating in the City for any of the activities listed below, a tax to be paid to the City of Spokane Valley, in the amount hereinafter specified: (1) Bingo and Raffles.A tax in the amount of five percent of the gross receipts from a bingo game or raffle, less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes. (2) Punchboards and Pulltabs. A tax in an amount of five percent of the gross receipts from the operation of punchboards and pulltabs, less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes, and regardless of whether the entity is a for-profit, bona fide charitable non-profit. (3) Social Card Playing. A tax in the amount of six percent of the gross revenue from such card games. (4) Amusement Games. Amusement games authorized for operation pursuant to the provisions of the Washington Administrative Code shall be subject to the levy of a tax in the amount not to exceed two percent of the gross receipts from the amusement game, less the amount awarded as prizes, and shall be equal to the amount of actual costs and expenses incurred for enforcement of Chapter 9.46 RCW by the City of Spokane Valley. (B) The following shall apply to bona fide charitable or nonprofit organizations pursuant to chapter 9.46 RCW: (1) No tax shall be imposed on bingo or amusement games when such activities or combination thereof for an organization which has no paid operating or management personnel, and has gross receipts from bingo or amusement games, or a combination thereof, not exceeding five thousand dollars per year, less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes. (2) No tax shall be imposed from raffles on the first $10,000 of gross receipts less the amount awarded as cash or merchandise prizes conducted by a qualifying entity. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 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: Bid Award for Broadway Avenue Storm Drain Retrofits GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.48, Chapter 173-200 WAC, Title 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376; Storm and Surface Water Utility: SVMC 3.80; Aquifer Protection Area Fund: RCW 36.36. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan 2014-2019, May 28, 2013. Directed staff to proceed with retrofit -only option on January 6, 2015. BACKGROUND: The Broadway Avenue Storm Drain Retrofit is a Department of Ecology stormwater grant funded project. The intent is to retrofit or eliminate several direct -injection drywells along Broadway Avenue between Havana and Fancher Roads. The City applied for Ecology stormwater grants in June 2013. Broadway was not selected during the first round of awards, but additional funding became available in May 2014 and this project was awarded funding. Final grant documents were finalized in August 2014. Staff received approval from the Department of Ecology for the retrofit design on April 6, 2015, which allowed us to move forward with the construction phase. The project was advertised for public bids on April 10 and April 17, 2015, with a bid opening date of April 27, 2015. OPTIONS: 1) Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, 2) Not award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, or 3) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Broadway Avenue Storm Drain Retrofits project to in the amount of $ and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Preliminary construction estimate of $1,300,000 for improvements, with up to $975,000 reimbursed by the Department of Ecology. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulations to be provided at the Council meeting To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of April 23, 2015; 11:15 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 May 5, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Bid Award for Sullivan Rd Street Preservation #0188 — Steve Worley NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Proposed 2016-2021 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley 3. Admin Report: 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP — Eric Guth 4. Admin Report: Comp Plan Update Contract — LQA and Market Analysis — John Hohman 5. Admin Report: Potential Admissions Tax — Cary Driskell 6. Advance Agenda [due Mon, April 27] (10 minutes) (25 minutes) (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 minutes] Mav 12, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, May 4] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 15-011 Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 15-012 Gambling Tax Amendment to SVMC 3.25 — Mark Calhoun(10 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Prosecutor Services Interlocal Amendment — John Pietro, M Koudelka (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 minutes] May 19, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, May 11] 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) May 26, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 5. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports June 2, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Admin Report: Sidewalks and Developments — Eric Guth 2. Admin Report: Bus Shelter Plan — Eric Guth 3. Admin Report: Historic Preservation — Gloria Mantz 4. Admin Report: Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) — Erik Lamb 5. Advance Agenda [due Mon, May 18] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 10 minutes] [due Mon, May 25] (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 minutes] June 9, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, June 1] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2016-2021 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley (20 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP — Eric Guth (10 minutes) 4. Admin Report: WSDOT Presentation — I-90/Barker Interchange — DOT Rep (Eric Guth) (20 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Mansfield Avenue Connection Project #0156 — Steve Worley [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] June 16, 2015, Special Meeting: Budget Workshop, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. [due Mon, June 8] Spokane Valley Council Chambers Draft Advance Agenda 4/23/2015 11:27:58 AM Page 1 of 2 No evening meeting June 16, 2015 June 23, 2015, Formal Meetin2 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: Bid Award for Mansfield Avenue 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 5. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports July 7, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda July 14, 2015, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda July 21, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda July 28, 2015, Formal Meetin2 Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports *time for public or Council comments not included [due Mon, June 15] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) Connection Project #0156 — S. Worley (15 min) (5 minutes) OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Governance Manual LID (Local Improvement District) Marijuana, Minor in Consumption Nat'l League of Cities (Nashville, Nov 4-7) Outside Agency Presentations (Sept 1) Public Safety Quarterly Costs Referendum Discussion Setback Requirements Used Oil Signage Ordinance Draft Advance Agenda 4/23/2015 11:27:58 AM [due Mon, June 29] (5 minutes) [due Mon, July 6] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, July 13] (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 15] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 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: Draft 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual advanced six-year plans for coordinated transportation program expenditures. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: The City is required by RCW 35.77.010 to prepare and, after public hearing, adopt a revised and extended comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years. This plan must be submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation by July 1st of each year. The attached draft Six Year TIP incorporates comments received from previous Council comments on the City's transportation network. This year's TIP continues with an emphasis on street preservation projects in accordance with Council goals. Street Preservation Projects are included for each year in this six-year TIP. Staff reviewed historical funding levels for federal, state and City funds from the past five years to estimate projected funding levels available during the next six years. The Six -Year TIP is required to be financially constrained and reflect realistic expectations of annual funding levels. Other needed and worthwhile projects that do not fit within the amount of funding anticipated from state and federal grants and City revenues are listed in the document titled `Projects w/ No Currently Identified Local Match within Existing Resources'. OPTIONS: Information only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Project costs are currently being developed in more detail for each project. The City's match on federal and state funded projects is typically between 13.5% and 20%. An initial review of the projected REET funds through 2021 appears to indicate sufficient funds to provide the City's match for the recommended projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric Guth, PE - Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program S`pokane Valley City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department "DRAFT" 2016 - 2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program 4-28-2015 Funding Sources: • ARRA • BR • City • CDBG • CMAQ • Developers • EECBG • FHWA • FMSIB • HSIP • HUD • QRSP • REET • Other Fed • Other RR • Other State • SP • SRTS • SW • STA • STP(E) • STP(U) • TA • TIB • UAP • UCP • WSDOT • WTSC • WUTC City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works 2016 — 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Glossary & Abbreviations American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Bridge Replacement Program City Funds Community Development Block Grant Congestion Management/Air Quality Private Developer Funds Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Federal Highway Administration Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Program Highway Safety Improvement Program Housing & Urban Development Quick Response Safety Program Real Estate Excise Tax Misc. Federal Funding Sources Railroad Funding Misc. State Funding Sources TIB Sidewalk Program Safe Routes to School City Stormwater Funds Spokane Transit Authority Surface Transportation Program (Enhancement) Surface Transportation Program (Urban) Transportation Alternatives Transportation Improvement Board TIB Urban Arterial Program TIB Urban Corridor Program Washington Department of Transportation Washington Traffic Safety Commission Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission Spakane .Valley Funding Status: • S Project Funding is Secured • P Project Funding is Planned. The Most Probable Funding Sources have been Identified. Project Phases: • PE Preliminary Engineering • RW Right -of -Way • CN Construction Construction Type: • PCC Portland Cement Concrete • HMA Hot Mix Asphalt • ITS Intelligent Transportation System (Integrated Traffic Signal Control Systems) • S/W Sidewalk Street Functional Classifications: Urban: • 14 • 16 • 17 • 19 Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Arterial Local Access Spokane Valley Project / Description / Current Status Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Length PE RW CN Total Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 1 Sullivan Road West Bridge S Reconstruct and widen west (southbound) bridge Recv'd FMSIB, BR & TIB grants; City Project #0155 0.08 0 0 5,064 5,064 BR 1,711 1,711 City 536 536 FMSIB 600 600 Other 1,167 1,167 Fed UCP 1,050 1,050 Project Total 5,064 5,064 2 Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Rd. (PE/RW) 1 155 160 0 316 City 43 43 S STP(U) 273 273 Reconstruct with curb, sidewalks, bike lanes and stormwater facilities; PE & RW Funding Secured, (SRTC #09-01) City Project #0123, Project Total 316 316 3 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates S New Traffic Signal Backplates at 10 City Intersections 2015-2017 HSIP Grant Award 0 0 0 72 72 City HSIP 72 72 Project Total 72 72 4 McDonald Rd ROAD DIET, 16th to Mission S 2 28 0 545 574 HSIP 571 571 City 3 3 4 -lane to 3 -lane, added bike lanes each direction, signal reconfigurations and new ramps at signals Project Total 574 574 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an, are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 4/21/2015 Page 1 Spokane _Valley Project / Description / Current Status Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Length PE RW CN Total Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 5 Seth Woodard Elem Sidewalk Imp, Mission & 0.25 42 0 319 361 City 30 30 p Park CDBG 331 331 Construct ADA sidewalk & curb ramps on the South side of Mission from Lily to Park, and along Park north along the school and E Spokane Grange frontage Project Total 361 361 6 Fancher/BNSF RR Overpass Joint Repair p Project Repair bridge expansion joints on RR overpass 0 29 0 172 201 City 201 201 Project Total 201 201 7 2016 Street Preservation Project P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 60 0 1,940 2,000 City 2,000 2,000 Project Total 2,000 2,000 8 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements P Intersection improvements to improve capacity Developer + City Partnership 0 39 12 422 472 City 12 211 223 DEV 38 211 249 Project Total 50 422 472 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an, are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 4/21/2015 Page 2 Spokane _Valley Project / Description / Current Status Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Length PE RW CN Total Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 9 Appleway - Park to Dishman Mica Preservation S Grind and Overlay, ADA Upgrades Funded with STP(U) funds. 1.1 83 0 1,071 1,154 City 11 145 156 STP(U) 72 926 998 Project Total 83 1,071 1,154 10 Appleway Trail - Pines to Evergreen 1 146 0 1,885 2,030 City 31 405 436 S STP(U) 69 901 970 TA 45 579 624 Construct Shared Use Pathway along abandoned RR R -O -W Funded with STP(U) funds. Project Total 145 1,885 2,030 11 2017 Street Preservation Project P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 60 0 1,940 2,000 City 2,000 2,000 Project Total 2,000 2,000 12 Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (RW/CN) P Reconstruct intersection in concrete pavement PE Obligated 9/2010 0 0 26 2,082 2,110 City 406 406 TIB 1,704 1,704 Project Total 2,110 2,110 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an, are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 4/21/2015 Page 3 Spokane _Valley Project / Description / Current Status Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Length PE RW CN Total Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 13 Sullivan Corridor ITS - 1-90 to Trent (SR 290) 1.75 105 0 809 914 City 14 109 123 S CMAQ 91 700 791 Extend ITS conduit and contols along Sullivan Corridor CMAQ Funded Project Total 105 809 914 14 Argonne - Broadway to Indiana 0.8 64 0 576 640 City 9 78 87 S STP(U) 55 498 553 Pavement Preservation - Grind and Overlay Funded with STP(U) funds. Project Total 64 576 640 15 2018 Street Preservation Project P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 30 0 1,370 1,400 City 1,400 1,400 Project Total 1,400 1,400 16 Opportunity Elementary, SRTS P 0.25 85 10 390 485 City 11 54 65 TA 76 344 420 Construct sidewalk along the east side of Bowdish from 8th to 12th, and along the south side of 11th from Bowdish to Wilbur TA Grant Application for 2018-2020 grant cycle Project Total 87 398 485 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an, are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 4/21/2015 Page 4 Spokane _Valley Project / Description / Current Status Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Length PE RW CN Total Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 17 Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project P 1 140 30 830 1,000 City 152 848 1,000 Infill gaps in Sidewalks and add sidewalks to access completed portions of the Appleway Trail. Project Total 152 848 1,000 18 Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan P Construct Shared Use Pathway along abandoned Railroad Right -of -Way 2.35 180 0 1,600 1,780 City 24 216 240 CMAQ 156 1,384 1,540 Project Total 180 1,600 1,780 19 Argonne Road Concrete Pavement - 1-90 to p Montgomery 0.25 512 0 3,211 3,723 City 102 642 744 TIB 410 2,569 2,979 Reconstruct pavement in concrete; OCI Mullan to Knox 24, OCI Knox to Montgomery 35 (2014 Rpt) Project Total 512 3,211 3,723 20 Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin Preservation 0.85 177 0 1,593 1,770 City 24 215 239 S STP(U) 153 1,378 1,531 Pavement Preservation, ADA upgrade Funded with STP(U) funds. Project Total 177 1,593 1,770 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an, are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 4/21/2015 Page 5 Spokane _Valley Project / Description / Current Status Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Length PE RW CN Total Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 21 Appleway Trail - University Rd. to Balfour Park 0.5 100 400 700 1,200 City 68 94 162 p TA 432 606 1,038 Extend Shared Use pathway to Balfour Park Project Total 500 700 1,200 22 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Project P Traffic Signal or Roundabout 0.25 160 0 1,600 1,760 City 22 216 238 STP(U) 138 1,384 1,522 Project Total 160 1,600 1,760 23 Broadway Improvement Project - Flora to p Barker 0 543 1,000 4,163 5,706 City 309 833 1,142 TIB 1,234 3,330 4,564 Extend Broadway arterial to Barker Rd, Realign Broadway connection east of Barker Project Total 1,543 4,163 5,706 24 Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Rd. (CN) P Widen & Overlay with curb, sidewalks, bike lanes and stormwater facilities 0 0 3,697 3,697 City 499 499 TIB 1,599 1,599 STP(U) 1,599 1,599 Project Total 3,697 3,697 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an, are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 4/21/2015 Page 6 Spokane _Valley Project / Description / Current Status Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Length PE RW CN Total Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 25 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Concrete p Intersections (CN Only) Reconstruct intersections in concrete pavement ROW Obligated 11/2013 0 0 0 1,703 1,703 City 230 230 STP(U) 1,473 1,473 Project Total 1,703 1,703 26 2019 Street Preservation Project P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 30 0 1,370 1,400 City 1,400 1,400 Project Total 1,400 1,400 27 Barker Rd Improvements - South City Limits to 0.81 326 25 2,502 2,853 City 47 338 385 p Appleway TIB 304 2,164 2,468 Widen and Improve roadway to 3 -lane urban section Project Total 351 2,502 2,853 28 Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW & CN) 0.75 0 150 2,877 3,027 City 20 388 408 p STP(U) 130 2,489 2,619 Reconstruct to a 3 -lane section with curb, sidewalks, bike lanes and stormwater facilities PE Funding 6/2009 Project Total 150 2,877 3,027 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an, are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 4/21/2015 Page 7 Spokane _Valley Project / Description / Current Status Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Length PE RW CN Total Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 29 Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Underpass - (PE only) P Railroad underpass at Pines (SR -27) / BNSF / Trent 0 3,000 0 0 3,002 City 128 128 256 Other 1,298 1,298 2,596 Fed Other- 75 75 150 RR Project Total 1,501 1,501 3,002 30 Evergreen & Broadway ITS P 2 125 0 705 830 City 17 95 112 CMAQ 108 610 718 ITS along Broadway from Pines Rd (SR -27) to Evergreen, along Evergreen from Sprague to 16th Ave. 2018-2020 CMAQ Grant Application funding Project Total 125 705 830 31 2020 Street Preservation Project P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 30 0 1,370 1,400 City 1,400 1,400 Project Total 1,400 1,400 32 Barker Rd - Euclid to 0.1 mi. S. of Trent Ave p (SR290) Reconstruct Barker to 3 -lane urban section 0.75 471 100 3,613 4,184 City 114 723 837 TIB 457 2,890 3,347 Project Total 571 3,613 4,184 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an, are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 4/21/2015 Page 8 Spokane _Valley Project / Description / Current Status Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Length PE RW CN Total Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 33 Barker Rd Improvement Project -Appleway to I- 0.28 382 1,146 2,397 3,629 City 167 324 491 p 90 STP(U) 1,065 2,073 3,138 Widen and improve to 5 -lane urban section, Roundabout @ Broadway, Realign east leg of Broadway Project Total 1,232 2,397 3,629 34 Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin P Shared Use Path along Old Milwaukee R/R ROW 1.33 200 0 2,200 2,400 City 27 297 324 CMAQ 173 1,903 2,076 Project Total 200 2,200 2,400 35 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Spokane p River to Euclid Reconstruct and widen to 3 -lane urban section Developer Funds Rec'd 6/2014, $29,500 0.53 378 25 0 403 City 52 52 TIB 322 322 DEV 29 29 Project Total 403 403 36 2021 Street Preservation Project P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 30 0 1,370 1,400 City 1,400 1,400 Project Total 1,400 1,400 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an, are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 4/21/2015 Page 9 Spokane _Valley Project / Description / Current Status Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Dollars in Thousands Length PE RW CN Total Funding Sources 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 37 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation P Construct Grade Separation at Barker/BNSF RR/ Trent (SR290) FY09 Federal Earmark for $720K, 20% of CN (up to $10M) received from FMSIB 0.5 1,538 450 0 1,988 City 308 308 Other 180 180 Fed Other 1,500 1,500 State Other - RR Other Fed FMSIB Project Total 1,988 1,988 Totals: 9,248 3,534 56,158 68,939 8,866 7,657 6,096 23,040 10,988 12,001 68,648 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an, are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 4/21/2015 Page 10 Spokane �� Valley Draft 2016 - 2021 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Totals Secured Projects Planned Projects Totals Year Federal State Other City Total Federal State Other City Total Federal State Other City Tota 2016 $4,114 $1,650 $0 $595 $6,359 $604 $0 $38 $2,273 $2,915 $4,718 $1,650 $38 $2,868 $9,274 2017 $1,144 $0 $0 $199 $1,343 $3,618 $0 $188 $3,048 $6,854 $4,762 $0 $188 $3,247 $8,197 2018 $2,678 $0 $0 $592 $3,270 $4,477 $1 599 $0 $2,349 $8,425 $7,155 $1,599 $0 $2,941 $11,695 2019 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,730 $0 $0 $2,763 $11,493 $8,730 $0 $0 $2,763 $11,493 2020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,317 $2,013 $75 $3,182 $13,587 $8,317 $2,013 $75 $3,182 $13,587 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,478 $10,039 $75 $3,972 $15,564 $1,478 $10,03 $75 $3,972 $15,564 9 Total $7,936 $1,650 $0 $1,386 $10,972 $27,224 $13,651 $376 $17,587 $58,838 $35,160 $15,301 $376 $18,973 $69,810 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. 4/21/2015 Page 1 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Projects w/ No Currently Identified Local Match Within Existing Resources Dollars in Thousands Project Name Bowdish Road - 16th to Sprague Bowdish Road - 24th to 16th Bowdish Road - 32nd to 24th Bowdish Sidewalk - 12th to 16th Park Road #2 Sidewalk Project - Marietta Ave. to Buckeye Ave. Park Road / BNSF Grade Separation Pavement Management Program - Local Access Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Underpass (RW, CN Only) Pines Corridor ITS - Sprague to 16th Sprague / Argonne -Mullan Concrete Intersections Sprague / Fancher Concrete Intersection Sprague / Thierman Concrete Intersection Sprague / University Concrete Intersection Sullivan / Kiernan Concrete Intersection Sullivan / Marietta Concrete Intersection Sullivan Rd / BNSF Grade Separation Improvements Wellesley Realignment @ Barker/SR290 Description Sprague to 8th: Inlay & Enhancement; 8th to 16th: Reconstruct as 2 -lane section w/ curb, sidewalk, bike lanes and new stormwater facilities Reconstruct Roadway as 2 -lane section w/ curb, sidewalk and new stormwater facilities; Reconstruct Roadway as 2 -lane section w/ curb, sidewalk and new stormwater facilities; Construct Sidewalk along both sides of Bowdish Construct sidewalk along one side of Park Road and 160 -ft gap on north side of Buckeye Ave east of Park Road Reconstruct Park Road to separate the grades of Park Road and the BNSF railroad tracks. Annual street preservation projects Construct grade separation at Pines Rd (SR -27) / Trent Ave (SR 290) / BNSF RR Traffic Signal Control System for Corridor Reconstruct intersections in concrete pavement Reconstruct Intersection in concrete pavement Reconstruct intersection in concrete pavement Reconstruct intersection in concrete pavement. Reconstruct Intersection in concrete pavement Reconstruct intersection in concrete pavement Upgrade and widen grade separation at Sullivan/BNSF/Trent (SR290) Realign connection of Wellesley to Barker Rd and SR290, 3 -lane section, Part of Barker/BNSF Grade Separation Total Cost $2,858 $2,846 $2,637 $557 $143 $18,993 $11,664 $17,184 $785 $2,342 $1,572 $1,243 $1,660 $1,423 $1,493 $16,150 $5,187 Totals: $88,737 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. Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Page 1 of 1 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Total Project Costs (Including costs before and beyond the six years of this TIP) Projects Listed by Category for the 2016-2021 Six -Year TIP Dollars in Thousands Arterial Improvements Project Name Description Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Reconstruct with curb, sidewalks, Rd. (PE/RW) bike lanes and stormwater facilities; Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Traffic Signal or Roundabout Project Broadway Improvement Project - Flora to Barker Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Rd. (CN) Extend Broadway arterial to Barker Rd, Realign Broadway connection east of Barker Widen & Overlay with curb, sidewalks, bike lanes and stormwater facilities Barker Rd Improvements - South Widen and Improve roadway to 3 - City Limits to Appleway lane urban section Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW & CN) Reconstruct to a 3 -lane section with curb, sidewalks, bike lanes and stormwater facilities Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Underpass - Railroad underpass at Pines (SR -27) (PE only) / BNSF / Trent Barker Rd - Euclid to 0.1 mi. S. of Reconstruct Barker to 3 -lane urban Trent Ave (SR290) section Barker Rd Improvement Project - Appleway to 1-90 Widen and improve to 5 -lane urban section, Roundabout @ Broadway, Realign east leg of Broadway Barker Rd Improvement Project - Reconstruct and widen to 3 -lane Spokane River to Euclid urban section Total: City Cost Total Cost $124 $918 $238 $1,760 $1,142 $5,706 $499 $3,697 $385 $2,853 $418 $3,102 $255 $3,000 $837 $4,184 $491 $3,925 $632 $3,302 $5,021 $32,447 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. Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Page 1 of 5 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Total Project Costs (Including costs before and beyond the six years of this TIP) Projects Listed by Category for the 2016-2021 Six -Year TIP Dollars in Thousands Bridge Projects Project Name Sullivan Road West Bridge Fancher/BNSF RR Overpass Joint Repair Project Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation Description Reconstruct and widen west (southbound) bridge Repair bridge expansion joints on RR overpass Construct Grade Separation at Barker/BNSF RR/ Trent (SR290) Total: City Cost Total Cost $2,360 $19,750 $201 $201 $2,910 $29,200 $5,471 $49,151 Congestion Improvements Project Name Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements Description Intersection improvements to improve capacity Total: City Cost Total Cost $223 $489 $223 $489 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. Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Page 2 of 5 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Total Project Costs (Including costs before and beyond the six years of this TIP) Projects Listed by Category for the 2016-2021 Six -Year TIP Dollars in Thousands Pedestrian/Bicycle Program Project Name Description City Cost Total Cost Seth Woodard Elem Sidewalk Imp, Construct ADA sidewalk & curb $32 $389 Mission & Park ramps on the South side of Mission from Lily to Park, and along Park north along the school and E Spokane Grange frontage Appleway Trail - Pines to Evergreen Construct Shared Use Pathway $450 $2,093 along abandoned RR R -O -W Opportunity Elementary, SRTS Construct sidewalk along the east $65 $485 side of Bowdish from 8th to 12th, and along the south side of 11th from Bowdish to Wilbur Citywide Sidewalk InfiII Project Infill gaps in Sidewalks and add $1,000 $1,000 sidewalks to access completed portions of the Appleway Trail. Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan Construct Shared Use Pathway $240 $1,780 along abandoned Railroad Right -of - Way Appleway Trail - University Rd. to Extend Shared Use pathway to $162 $1,200 Balfour Park Balfour Park Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin Shared Use Path along Old $324 $2,400 Milwaukee R/R ROW Total: $2,273 $9,347 Safety Program Project Name Description Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates New Traffic Signal Backplates at 10 City Intersections City Cost Total Cost $1 $81 McDonald Rd ROAD DIET, 16th to 4 -lane to 3 -lane, added bike lanes $7 $616 Mission each direction, signal reconfigurations and new ramps at signals Total: $8 $697 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. Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Page 3 of 5 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Total Project Costs (Including costs before and beyond the six years of this TIP) Projects Listed by Category for the 2016-2021 Six -Year TIP Dollars in Thousands Street Preservation Projects Project Name 2016 Street Preservation Project Appleway - Park to Dishman Mica Preservation 2017 Street Preservation Project Argonne - Broadway to Indiana 2018 Street Preservation Project Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin Preservation 2019 Street Preservation Project 2020 Street Preservation Project 2021 Street Preservation Project Description Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Grind and Overlay, ADA Upgrades Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Pavement Preservation - Grind and Overlay Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Pavement Preservation, ADA upgrade Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Total: City Cost Total Cost $2,000 $2,000 $161 $1,190 $2,000 $2,000 $87 $640 $1,400 $1,400 $239 $1,770 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $10,087 $13,200 Street Reconstruction Projects Project Name Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (RW/CN) Argonne Road Concrete Pavement - 1-90 to Montgomery Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Concrete Intersections (CN Only) Description Reconstruct intersection in concrete pavement Reconstruct pavement in concrete; OCI MuIlan to Knox 24, OCI Knox to Montgomery 35 (2014 Rpt) Reconstruct intersections in concrete pavement Total : City Cost Total Cost $406 $744 $230 $1,380 $2,108 $3,723 $1,703 $7,534 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. Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Page 4 of 5 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Total Project Costs (Including costs before and beyond the six years of this TIP) Projects Listed by Category for the 2016-2021 Six -Year TIP Dollars in Thousands Traffic Operations and Maintenance Project Name Description Sullivan Corridor ITS - 1-90 to Trent Extend ITS conduit and contols along (SR 290) Sullivan Corridor Evergreen & Broadway ITS ITS along Broadway from Pines Rd (SR -27) to Evergreen, along Evergreen from Sprague to 16th Ave. Total: City Cost Total Cost $123 $914 $112 $830 $235 $1,744 Overall Total: $24,698 $114,609 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. Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Page 5 of 5 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Six Year Transportation Improvement Program 2016 - 2021 Dollars in Thousands 2016 Item # Project Name Primary Source 1 Spokane Valley -Millwood Trail - Felts Field to STP(E) Evergreen Rd (PE) 2 Sullivan Road West Bridge BR 3 Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Rd. (PE/RW) STP(U) 4 Bowdish Sidewalk - 8th to 12th SRTS 5 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates HSIP 6 McDonald Road Safety Improvement - Mission HSIP to 16th 7 Seth Woodard Elem Sidewalk Imp, Mission, Lily CMAQ to Park 8 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements 10 2016 Street Preservation Project 11 Appleway - Park to Dishman Mica 12 ancher/BNSF RR Overpass Joint Repair Project Developers City STP(U) City City Amount 0 536 43 52 0 0 8 12 2,000 16 201 Total Amount 243 5,064 316 386 72 545 278 50 2,000 119 201 2016 Totals: $2,868 $9,274 2017 Item # Project Name 8 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements 11 Appleway - Park to Dishman Mica 13 2017 Street Preservation Project 14 Appleway Trail Phase 2B - Pines to Evergreen 15 Argonne - Broadway to Indiana 16 Barker Rd Improvements - South City Limits to Appleway 17 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Concrete Intersections (CN Only) 18 Saltese/Sullivan Traffic Signal 19 Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (RW/CN) Primary Source City STP(U) City STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) Spo. Co. STP(U) City Amount 422 145 2,000 45 9 47 230 62 287 Total Amount 422 1,071 2,000 208 64 351 1,703 250 2,128 2017 Totals: $3,247 $8,197 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. Added Projects are shown in Green Funded Projects are shown in Blue Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Page 1 of 3 2018 Item # Project Name 9 Sullivan Corridor ITS - 1-90 to Trent (SR 290) 14 Appleway Trail Phase 2B - Pines to Evergreen 15 Argonne - Broadway to Indiana 16 Barker Rd Improvements - South City Limits to Appleway 20 2018 Street Preservation Project 21 Appleway Trail Phase 3 - Evergreen to Corbin 22 Argonne Road Concrete Pavement - 1-90 to Montgomery 23 Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Rd. (CN) 24 Spokane Valley -Millwood Trail - Felts Field to Evergreen Rd (RW&CN) 25 Evergreen - Mission Connector to Indiana 26 Sprague, Sullivan to Corbin Primary Source CMAQ STP(U) STP(U) STP(U) City CMAQ STP(U) STP(U) TA STP(U) STP(U) City Amount 109 405 78 338 1,400 29 69 499 14 9 24 Total Amount 809 1,885 576 2,502 1,400 214 512 3,697 100 66 177 2018 Totals: $2,974 $11,938 2010 Item # Project Name 21 Appleway Trail Phase 3 - Evergreen to Corbin 22 Argonne Road Concrete Pavement - 1-90 to Montgomery 24 Spokane Valley -Millwood Trail - Felts Field to Evergreen Rd (RW&CN) 25 Evergreen - Mission Connector to Indiana 26 Sprague, Sullivan to Corbin 27 2019 Street Preservation Project 28 Appleway Trail Phase 4 - University Rd. to Balfour Park 29 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Appleway to I- 90 30 Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW & CN) Primary Source CMAQ STP(U) TA STP(U) STP(U) City TA STP(U) STP(U) City Amount 386 433 289 80 215 1,400 68 167 20 Total Amount 2,860 3,211 2,140 594 1,593 1,400 500 1,232 150 2019 Totals: $3,058 $13,680 2020 Item # Project Name 24 Spokane Valley -Millwood Trail - Felts Field to Evergreen Rd (RW&CN) 28 Appleway Trail Phase 4 - University Rd. to Balfour Park 29 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Appleway to I- 90 30 Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW & CN) 31 2020 Street Preservation Project 32 Barker Rd - Euclid to 0.1 mi. S. of Trent Ave (SR290) 33 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Spokane River to Euclid 34 Broadway Improvement Project - Flora to Barker 35 Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Underpass - (PE only) 36 Sullivan Road North Extension (Bigelow Gulch) Primary Source TA TA STP(U) STP(U) City UAP UAP UAP STP(U) City City Amount 289 94 324 388 1,400 114 81 309 128 55 Total Amount 2,140 700 2,397 2,877 1,400 571 403 1,543 1,501 55 2020 Totals: $3,182 $13,587 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. Added Projects are shown in Green Funded Projects are shown in Blue Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Page 2 of 3 2021 Item # Project Name Primary Source City Amount Total Amount 32 Barker Rd - Euclid to 0.1 mi. S. of Trent Ave UAP 723 3,613 (SR290) 33 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Spokane River UAP 580 2,899 to Euclid 34 Broadway Improvement Project - Flora to Barker UAP 833 4,163 35 Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Underpass - (PE only) STP(U) 128 1,501 37 2021 Street Preservation Project City 1,400 1,400 38 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation Other State 308 1,988 2021 Totals: $3,972 $15,564 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. Added Projects are shown in Green Funded Projects are shown in Blue Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 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: Draft Update 2016-2021 Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.48, Chapter 173-200 WAC, Title 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376; Storm and Surface Water Utility: SVMC 3.80; PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of 2015-2020 Stormwater CIP May 27, 2014. BACKGROUND: Staff is working on a 6 -year Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Plan (SW CIP), updating last year's 2015-2020 plan to a new 2016-2021 SW CIP. The formulation of a project list is central to the development of the SW CIP. The project list reflects public requests for service or improvement, and the identification of needs by staff and City Council. The projects are prioritized and listed by year based on available local funds and projected grant funding. Project priority is determined based upon issues and concerns such as: flood mitigation need, regulatory requirements, opportunity for cost sharing and savings with other community projects, or as a long-term cost savings measure. In this proposed approach, staff would seek to apply for outside funding in upcoming years based on this list. Obtaining outside funding for listed projects leverages and maximizes local funds to allow the City to do more work with the same amount of local funding. Staff will bring a draft 2016-2021 SW CIP to the Council for consideration and approval in May. OPTIONS: n/a. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: n/a BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Impacts include 2016 budget requests and discussion for future budget years in the 402 and 403 funding accounts. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, Public Works Director Art Jenkins, Stormwater Engineer ATTACHMENTS: none CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 28, 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: Sullivan Street Preservation Project — Sprague to Mission #0188 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: July 10, 2012, approved the Federal Surface Transportation Program (Urban) (STP(U)) grant application; June 24, 2014, approved the 2015 - 2020 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan; March 24, 2015, approved the amended 2015 Transportation Improvement Program; BACKGROUND: The Sullivan Road Street Preservation project will place a two inch Hot Mix Asphalt overlay on Sullivan Road between Sprague Avenue and Mission Avenue. The pedestrian ramps will be updated, the storm water facilities will be replaced, and the traffic signal facilities will be updated. The existing concrete intersection at Sullivan Road and Broadway Avenue will not be resurfaced. This project is funded with a federal STP(U) grant. Public Works staff designed the project. Bids were advertised on April 10 and April 15, 2015, and are scheduled to be opened on Friday, May 1, 2015. A copy of the bid tabulation will be provided at the May 5th council meeting for award consideration. OPTIONS: Info only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The project budget is $1,156,500. The federal STP(U) grant share of 86.5% is $1,000,372. The City's local share is $156,128, of which approximately $45,629 is stormwater work that will be paid from Fund 402. The remaining local share will be paid by the Street Preservation Fund 311. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric Guth, PE - Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: None Spokane Walley City of Spokane Valley Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 Page Title 1 Cover Sheet 2 Pre -Application Meetings Requested 3 Online Applications Received 4 Construction Applications Received 5 Land Use Applications Received 6 Construction Permits Issued 7 Land Use Applications Approved 8 Development Inspections Performed 9 Code Enforcement 10 Revenue 11 Building Permit Valuations Printed 04/09/2015 13:59 Page 1 of 11 l��Ol.il .0 00.0 Valley Pre -Application Meetings Requested Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 A Pre -Application Meeting is a service provided to help our customers identify the code requirements related to their project proposal. Community Development scheduled a total of 14 Pre -Application Meetings in March 2015. 15 1 5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre -Application MN Commercial Pre -App Meeting Commercial Pre -App Land Use Pre -Application Meeting Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 6 10 12 Oct Nov Dec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 10 11 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: 35 Printed 04/09/2015 13:59 Page 2 of 11 l��Ol.ile 4000 Valley Online Applications Received Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 Community Development received a total of 115 Online Applications in March 2015. 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Trade Permit Sign Permit Right of Way Permit Reroof Permit Demolition Permit - Approach Permit Approach Permit Demolition Permit Reroof Permit Right of Way Permit Sign Permit Trade Permit Monthly Totals Annual Total To -Date: Printed 04/09/2015 13:59 320 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 13 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 37 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 54 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 108 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 3 of 11 .000 Valley Construction Applications Received Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 Community Development received a total of 470 Construction Applications in March 2015. 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New IN Other Construction Permits Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New Commercial - Trade Residential - Trade Residential - Accessory Demolition Sign Other Construction Permits Monthly Totals Annual Total To -Date: Printed 04/09/2015 14:01 1,004 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 3 3 51 0 0 0 14 12 24 0 0 0 0 0 8 11 22 0 0 0 0 0 *23 *23 *26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *86 *83 *146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 *4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 *9 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *97 *131 *169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 253 281 470 Page 4 of 11 *Includes Online Applications. .000 Valley Land Use Applications Received Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 Community Development received a total of 89 Land Use Applications in March 2015. 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits oundary Line Adjustment • hort Plat Preliminary ong Plat Preliminary inding Site Plan Preliminary inal Platting r oning Map/Comp Plan Amendment tate Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) dministrative xception/Interpretation ther Land Use Permits 2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 51 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 onthly Totals 54 58 89 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 04/09/2015 14:01 201 Page 5 of 11 .00 Valley, Construction Permits Issued Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 Community Development issued a total of 360 Construction Permits in March 2015. 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New ® Other Construction Permits Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New Commercial - Trade Residential - Trade Residential - Accessory Demolition Sign Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2 3 22 12 12 23 6 14 13 24 20 23 80 92 120 10 5 14 0 4 7 11 9 11 68 99 127 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 213 258 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 04/09/2015 14:02 831 Page 6 of 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 Valley Land Use Applications Approved Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 Community Development approved a total of 56 Land Use Applications in March 2015. 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary fin Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 52 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 43 52 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 04/09/2015 14:02 151 Page 7 of 11 .010 Valley Development Inspections Performed Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 Community Development performed a total of 1059 Development Inspections in March 2015. Development Inspections include building, planning, engineering and ROW inspections. 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -6— 2013 2014 --- 2015 2015', 20141 2013 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 800 975 1,059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 601 633 996 1,281 1,321 1,295 1,412 1,223 1,306 1,478 973 1,024 465 503 808 1,026 1,060 1,015 1,084 1,078 1,186 1,015 833 673 Printed 04/09/2015 14:04 Page 8 of 11 Totals i��a.Ile p_Malley, Code Enforcement Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 Code Enforcement Officers responded to 32 citizen requests in the month of March. They are listed by type below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. 40 20- 0 0- 0 ii1�14 I u IIsl h4i111D( a, Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Complaint, Non -Violation Environmental General Nuisance Property yry Complaint, Non -Violation Environmental General Nuisance Property Monthly Totals Annual Total To -Date: 81 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 18 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 26 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Printed 04/09/2015 14:04 Page 9 of 11 .010 Valley Revenue 2015 Trend 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Community Development Revenue totaled $161,174 in March 2015. 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -4-- 2015 2014 - Five -Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals $74,775 $108,328 $161,174 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 " $344,277 $79,763 $67,972 $133,730 $131,195 $224,961 $199,161 $138,904 $100,987 $134,164 $109,327 $91,979 $67,777 $1,479,920 $74,628 $66,134 $198,571 $160,508 $282,086 $152,637 $117,776 $127,540 $153,838 $149,197 $84,442 $97,689 $1,665,046 $158,912 $51,536 $102,538 $106,496 $184,176 $409,592 $277,553 $102,021 $129,174 $133,561 $98,386 $66,559 $1,820,504 $34,204 $60,319 $177,737 $173,932 $268,672 $223,888 $123,137 $103,703 $113,731 $112,542 $108,948 $51,745 $1,552,558 $43,842 $77,247 $80,774 $118,237 $84,684 $106,909 $88,247 $83,949 $167,076 $78,237 $95,172 $58,881 11,083,255 $87,229 $84,626 $109,029 $96,800 $305,185 $102,781 $87,805 $87,724 $107,002 $73,100 $72,948 $64,009 e,278,238 Printed 04/09/2015 14:13 Page 10 of 11 .000 Valley Building Permit Valuation 2015 Trend 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 Community Development Building Permit Valuation totaled $8,068,975 in March 2015. 35,000,000 30, 000, 000 25,000,000 20, 000, 000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -0- 2015 2014 --- Five -Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals $2.93M $10.71M $8.07M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $21.71M $7.58M $3.92M $6.13M $6.87M $23.25M $18.45M $11.28M $6.65M $10.76M $7.63M $4.10M $2.93M $3.18M $2.45M $9.90M $8.92M $34.58M $7.44M $6.37M $9.47M $11.99M $7.70M $3.59M $6.30M 111.89M $25.49M $1.92M $3.59M $7.30M $22.22M $41.88M $32.91M $6.52M $8.11M $14.22M $7.25M $2.54M p173.95M $0.72M $2.95M $5.29M $5.32M $24.39M $33.08M $7.91M $9.89M $6.47M $8.78M $3.76M $1.66M $1.46M $5.95M $5.03M $6.15M $2.53M $4.98M $3.83M $3.45M $21.54M $4.46M $3.97M $1.85M MI $7.06M $6.34M $6.82M $6.64M $32.55M $4.86M $5.36M $3.91M $5.71M $3.01M $1.93M $2.29M 109.55M Printed 04/09/2015 14:13 Page 11 of 11 Spk' �Ualley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Mark Calhoun, eputy City Manager Date: April 22, 2015 Re Finance Department Activity Report — March 2015 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of March 2015 and included herein is an updated 2014 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end of December. At this point we anticipate no further changes to the 2014 figures reported herein but it's always possible we'll receive an extremely late invoice that would force us to recognize the related expense. Subsequent Finance Activity Reports will focus on 2015 operations. 2014 Yearend Process In March we continued to work on closing the books for 2014. This process typically continues through March because we continue to receive additional information pertaining to both revenues and expenditures (particularly construction related activity). We are not beginning the process of preparing our annual financial report which will be finished by the end of May. We hope to have the State Auditor's Office on site by early June to begin the audit of 2014. Lodging Tax The schedule leading to the award of funds was as follows: • September 3 — Courtesy letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers. • October 3 - Grant applications due at City Hall. • October 27 - Grant applicant presentations to the lodging tax advisory committee and an award recommendation was advanced to the City Council. • November 17 - Admin report to Council on results of lodging tax advisory committee meeting. • December 16 - City Council motion consideration: Award lodging tax for 2015 — remanded back to the LTAC. • February 25, 2015 — Initial grant applications were again reviewed by the LTAC and an award recommendation was advanced to the City Council. • March 10, 2015 — City Council motion consideration: Award lodging tax for 2015. P:IFinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.docx Page 1 2016 Budget Development The process of developing the 2016 Budget calendar was initiated. This involves setting up schedules for the 2016 Budget, 2015 Budget Amendment, 2016 Outside Agency process, 2016 Lodging Tax award process, 2016 property tax levy, and fee resolution process. We also began updating worksheets that will ultimately be reviewed by Council at a June 16, 2015 workshop. Budget to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2014 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2014 Budget was adopted (and amended on November 17) is located on pages 5 through 17. We've included the following information in the report: • Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. • A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund. • The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that are reflected in our 2013 Annual Financial Report. • Columns of information include: o The amended 2014 Budget as adopted. o December 2014 activity. o Cumulative 2014 activity through December 2014. o Budget remaining in terms of dollars. o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed. A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 5): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 102.50% of the amount budgeted with 100.0% of the year elapsed. This is due to several revenue sources, such as Community Development service revenues and sales taxes, ending the year in excess of budgeted amounts. • Property tax collections have reached $11,129,377 or 100.72% of the amount budgeted. Receiving more revenue than was actually assessed is a result of the assessor collecting delinquent taxes from previous years. Property taxes are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser amounts typically remitted in June and December. In January we received one final payment related to 2014 collections that is reflected herein. • Sales tax collections finished the year at $17,440,083 which was $450,083 or 2.65% greater than the amount budgeted. • Gambling taxes are at $513,954 or 83.24% of the amount budgeted. These taxes are paid quarterly with the fourth quarter taxes due by January 31. The 2014 revenues are less than budgeted due to the closure of a business in 2014. This has been factored into the 2015 Budget estimate. • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. These revenues reached $1,249,848 which was $36,848 or 3.04% greater than the amount budgeted. • State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a calendar quarter but some are only once per quarter. These have collectively finished the year at $1,834,198 or $52,302 (2.77%) less than the amount budgeted. • Fines, forfeitures and penalties revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine P:IFinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.docx Page 2 and false alarm fees. These have finished the year at $1,460,264 or $10,536 (0.72%) less than the amount budgeted. • Community Development service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. These have finished the year at $1,569,479 or $312,079 (24.86%) greater than the amount budgeted. • Recreation program fees are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in -season), and CenterPlace. They have finished the year at $598,941 or $19,141 (3.30%) greater than the amount budgeted. Recurring expenditures finished the year at $34,518,319 or $2,380,591 (6.45%) less than budgeted. Fund Balance / Reserves The fund balance at 12/31/2014 was anticipated to be $20,711,392 but actually finished the year at $24,411,106. The difference of $3,699,714 is the result of: • Recurring revenues are $937,298 greater than budgeted. • Recurring expenditures are $2,380,591 less than budgeted. • Non-recurring revenues are $32 Tess than budgeted. • Non-recurring expenditures are $381,825 less than budgeted. Investments (page 18) Investments at December 31 total $48,350,479 and are composed of $43,283,196 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,067,283 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 19) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through December and total $19,707,676 including general, criminal justice and public safety taxes. This figure is $1,001,214 or 5.35% greater than for the same 12 -month period in 2013. Economic Indicators (pages 20 — 22) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 20) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 21) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 20 provides a 10 -year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2006. • Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $81,095 or 2.85%. • Tax receipts peaked in 2014 at $17,440,083, besting the previous record year of 2007 when $17,437,467 was collected. In terms of dollars collected this represents an increase of $2,616, but when one considers the increase in the CPI over that seven-year period plus the fact that Spokane Valley now has considerably more businesses, one could reasonably argue that our local economy is still in a recovery mode. Page 21 provides a 10 -year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2006. • Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $2,764 or 5.37%. P:IFinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.docx Page 3 • Collections reached an all-time high in 2014, exceeding the previous high in 2013 by $30,595 or 5.90%. Page 22 provides a 10 -year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2006. • Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $71,409 or 55.68%. • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at nearly $2.6 million, decreased precipitously in 2008 and 2009, and continue to slowly gaining ground. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 23) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value for property taxes which for 2015 is $7,393,971,582. Following the August 2014 refunding of the 2003 LTGO Bonds and the December 1, 2014 debt service payment the City has $6,675,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 6.02% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.20% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. Of this amount: o $5,425,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $1,250,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 24 and 25) New to the report in the last few months are charts that reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101. These include: • Page 24 provides a 10 -year history of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2006. o Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have decreased by $2,971 or 0.99% o Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at just approximately $2.1 million, and subsequently decreased to a range of approximately $1,857,000 to $1,878,000 in the years 2011 through 2014. • Page 25 provides a 6 -year history of Telephone Utility Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2009 (the month in which the tax was imposed). o Unlike tax revenues collected by the State and remitted monthly, these taxes are paid to the City directly by the service provider. Consequently there is not a "clean cutoff' in terms of when a vendor pays the tax. Tax revenues currently reported for February include only those that were received through February 28 and will be adjusted for future collections pertaining to that month. o Tax receipts peaked in 2009 at $3,054,473 and have decreased each year since due to what we suspect is the reduction in land lines by individual households. o The 2015 Budget was adopted with a revenue estimate of $2,565,100. We will watch this closely as we progress through the coming months. P:IFinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.docx Page 4 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget Revenues Property Tax 11,049,400 529,409 11,129,377 79,977 100.72% Sales Tax 16,990,000 2,809,850 17,440,083 450,083 102.65% Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 1,330,000 240,373 1,455,313 125,313 109.42% Sales Tax - Public Safety 745,000 134,527 812,280 67,280 109.03% Gambling Tax & Other Miscellaneous Taxes 617,400 115,077 513,954 (103,446) 83.24% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,213,000 303,097 1,249,848 36,848 103.04% State Shared Revenues 1,886,500 467,204 1,834,198 (52,302) 97.23% Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 1,470,800 194,971 1,460,264 (10,536) 99.28% Community Development 1,255,400 90,843 1,567,479 312,079 124.86% Recreation Program Fees 579,800 4,208 598,941 19,141 103.30% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 85,500 31,518 114,512 29,012 133.93% Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 117,600 13,467 101,450 (16,150) 86.27% Transfer -in - #101 (street admin) 39,700 3,308 39,700 (0) 100.00% Transfer -in - #105 (h/m tax -CP advertising) 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 100.00% Transfer -in -#402 (storm admin) 13,400 1,117 13,400 0 100.00% Total Recurring Revenues 37,423,500 4,968,968 38,360,798 937,298 102.50% Expenditures City Council 468,850 43,755 405,808 63,042 86.55% City Manager 660,843 56,486 635,605 25,238 96.18% Legal 470,922 37,168 446,787 24,135 94.87% Public Safety 23,384,643 1,973,933 22,096,628 1,288,015 94.49% Deputy City Manager 653,215 54,638 535,460 117,755 81.97% Finance 1,180,659 85,065 1,098,737 81,922 93.06% Human Resources 237,883 22,556 229,683 8,200 96.55% Public Works 882,694 66,782 710,086 172,608 80.45% Community Development - Administration 290,883 19,553 243,001 47,882 83.54% Community Development - Engineering 807,114 62,386 671,045 136,069 83.14% Community Development - Planning 928,906 102,433 892,336 36,570 96.06% Community Development - Building 1,267,656 104,071 1,178,214 89,442 92.94% Parks & Rec - Administration 274,743 19,984 255,135 19,608 92.86% Parks & Rec - Maintenance 796,200 126,276 794,250 1,950 99.76% Parks & Rec- Recreation 229,152 16,339 199,164 29,988 86.91% Parks & Rec - Aquatics 490,400 4,546 437,028 53,372 89.12% Parks & Rec - Senior Center 89,882 8,418 83,846 6,036 93.28% Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 828,842 108,232 801,436 27,406 96.69% Pavement Preservation 888,823 74,069 888,823 0 100.00% General Government 1,741,600 320,041 1,590,246 151,354 91.31% Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 325,000 27,083 325,000 0 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 36,898,910 3,333,813 34,518,319 2,380,591 93.55% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 524,590 1,635,155 3,842,479 3,317,889 Page 5 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 01 - GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues SCRAPS Pass -Through 56,600 0 56,568 (32) 99.94% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 56,600 0 56,568 (32) 99.94% Expenditures Transfers out - #309 (park grant match) 247,500 242,298 242,298 5,202 97.90% Community & Econ Dev (comp plan update) 30,000 32,410 32,410 (2,410) 108.03% SCRAPS Pass -Through 56,600 0 56,568 32 99.94% City Hall Remodel - Permit Cntr to Main Bldg 20,000 0 0 20,000 0.00% Law Enforcement Contingency 350,000 0 0 350,000 0.00% Public Works (autocad licenses) 8,800 0 8,800 0 100.00% Parks & Recreation (CP chairs) 11,350 0 11,192 158 98.61% Public Safety (precinct improvements) 24,000 4,408 15,146 8,854 63.11% Transfers out - #106 (solid waste ed/marketing) 60,000 60,000 60,000 0 100.00% Transfers out - #312 ('12 fund bal > 50%) 2,443,507 2,443,507 2,443,507 0 100.00% Police Capital - precinct workstations 14,500 0 14,480 20 99.86% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 3,266,257 2,782,622 2,884,401 381,856 88.31% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (3,209,657) (2,782,622) (2,827,832) 381,825 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (2,685,067) (1,147,467) 1,014,647 3,699,714 Beginning unrestrictedfund balance 23,396,459 23,396,459 Ending unrestricted fund balance 20,711,392 24,411,106 Page 6 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 - STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax 1,858,600 307,169 1,878,476 19,876 101.07% Investment Interest 3,000 298 2,037 (963) 67.89% Insurance Premiums & Recoveries 0 0 4,204 4,204 #DIV/01 Utility Tax 2,750,000 415,532 2,461,060 (288,940) 89.49% Miscellaneous Revenue 0 0 5,185 5,185 #DIV/0! Total Recurring Revenues 4,611,600 723,000 4,350,962 (260,638) 94.35% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 627,288 67,057 681,165 (53,877) 108.59% Supplies 386,500 59,975 476,756 (90,256) 123.35% Services & Charges 2,392,201 111,526 2,197,089 195,112 91.84% Intergovernmental Payments 798,000 434,004 876,680 (78,680) 109.86% Interfund Transfers -out - #001 39,700 3,308 39,700 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers -out - #501 (plow replace.) 75,000 6,250 75,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers -out - #501 (non -plow vehicle 10,777 898 10,777 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers -out - #311 (pavement preservt 282,000 23,500 282,000 0 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 4,611,466 706,518 4,639,168 (27,702) 100.60% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 134 16,482 (288,206) (288,340) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants 0 0 15,150 15,150 #DIV/0! Transfer -in - #302 0 0 23 23 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 0 0 25 25 #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 15,198 15,198 #DIV/0! Expenditures 133 Sprague/Sullivan ITS 0 0 173 (173) #DIV/0! Capital 0 188 7,090 (7,090) #DIV/0! Patch Trailer 30,000 0 33,532 (3,532) 111.77% 204 Hawk Signal 25,000 0 15,670 9,330 62.68% Software 6,750 0 0 6,750 0.00% 214 City Fiber Connection 11,000 3,571 13,542 (2,542) 123.11% Transfers out - #303 (Sprague/Thierman Int) 18,830 5,038 5,038 13,792 26.75% Transfers out - #501 (new pickup) 15,000 25,849 25,849 (10,849) 172.33% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 106,580 34,645 100,894 5,686 94.66% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (106,580) (34,645) (85,696) 20,884 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (106,446) (18,163) (373,902) (267,456) Beginning fund balance 2,063,234 2,063,234 Ending fund balance 1,956,788 1,689,332 Page 7 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 KPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued #103 - PATHS & TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest Total revenues Budget Budget Year 2014 Elapsed = 100.0% 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget 7,800 7,923 7,923 123 101.58% 0 7 34 34 #DIV/0! 7,800 7,930 7,957 157 102.02% Expenditures Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Transfers out - #309 (Appleway Trail) 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 100.00% Total expenditures 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 100.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (42,200) (42,070) (42,043) 157 Beginning fund balance 71,871 71,871 Ending fund balance 29,671 29,828 #105 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest 530,000 72,856 549,267 19,267 103.64% 300 52 299 (1) 99.78% Total revenues 530,300 Expenditures Interfund Transfers - #001 30,000 Tourism Promotion 547,000 72,909 549,567 19,267 103.63% 30,000 30,000 0 100.00% 172,443 546,545 455 99.92% Total expenditures 577,000 202,443 576,545 455 99.92% Revenues over (under) expenditures (46,700) (129,534) (26,978) 18,812 Beginning fund balance 236,927 236,927 Ending fund balance 190,227 209,949 #106 - SOLID WASTE Revenues Charges for Goods and Services Transfers in - #001 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 60,000 60,000 60,000 0 100.00% Total revenues 60,000 Expenditures Professional Services 60,000 Total expenditures 60,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 Beginning fund balance 236,927 Ending fund balance 60,000 60,000 0 100.00% 26,967 52,661 7,340 87.77% 26,967 33,033 52,661 7,340 236,927 7,340 87.77% 236,927 244,267 Page 8 (7,340) P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget #120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Expenditures Operations Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 #121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer 7,300 943 4,697 (2,603) 64.34% 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 7,300 943 4,697 (2,603) 64.34% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Revenues over (under) expenditures 7,300 943 4,697 (2,603) Beginning fund balance 5,448,502 5,448,502 Ending fund balance 5,455,802 5,453,199 #122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 700 92 456 (244) 65.08% Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Subtotal revenues 700 92 456 (244) 65.08% Expenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Total expenditures 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (499,300) 92 456 (500,244) Beginning fund balance 503,565 503,565 Ending fund balance 4,265 504,021 #123 - CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer - #001 1,700 218 1,083 (617) 63.70% 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total revenues 1,700 218 1,083 (617) 63.70% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 616,284 51,357 616,284 0 100.00% Total expenditures 616,284 51,357 616,284 0 100.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (614,584) (51,139) (615,201) (617) Beginning fund balance 1,789,271 1,789,271 Ending fund balance 1,174,687 1,174,070 Page 9 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget #204 - DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 441,520 0 423,844 (17,676) 96.00% Interfund Transfer -in - #301 93,152 6,565 89,559 (3,593) 96.14% Interfund Transfer -in - #302 93,151 6,565 89,559 (3,592) 96.14% Proceeds from Bond Refunding 7,661,000 0 7,660,694 (306) 100.00% Total revenues 8,288,823 13,130 8,263,656 (25,167) 99.70% Expenditures Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace 441,520 316,106 425,072 16,448 96.27% Debt Service Payments - Roads 186,303 160,263 177,889 8,414 95.48% Issuance Costs on Bond Refunding 112,000 0 107,341 4,659 95.84% Payments to Refunded Debt Escrow Agent 7,549,000 0 7,549,304 (304) 100.00% Total expenditures 8,288,823 476,369 8,259,607 29,216 99.65% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (463,239) 4,049 (54,383) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 0 4,049 Page 10 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 - REET 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Investment Interest Total revenues Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining of Budget 600,000 144,974 790,781 190,781 131.80% 1,000 160 793 (207) 79.33% 601,000 145,135 791,574 190,574 131.71% Expenditures Interfund Transfer -out - #204 93,152 6,565 89,559 3,593 96.14% Interfund Transfer -out - #303 275,575 14,715 58,607 216,968 21.27% Interfund Transfer -out - #311 (pavement presen 184,472 0 184,472 0 100.00% Total expenditures 553,199 21,280 332,638 220,561 60.13% Revenues over (under) expenditures 47,801 123,855 458,937 (29,987) Beginning fund balance 968,021 968,021 Ending fund balance 1,015,822 1,426,958 #302 - REET 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2 - Taxes 600,000 144,934 776,648 176,648 129.44% Investment Interest 1,000 183 909 (91) 90.89% Total revenues 601,000 145,117 777,557 176,557 129.38% Expenditures Interfund Transfer -out - #101 0 0 23 (23) #DIV/0! Interfund Transfer -out - #204 93,151 6,565 89,559 3,592 96.14% Interfund Transfer -out - #303 599,097 353,302 501,736 97,361 83.75% Interfund Transfer -out - #311 (pavement presen 184,472 0 184,472 0 100.00% Total expenditures 876,720 359,867 775,790 100,930 88.49% Revenues over (under) expenditures (275,720) (214,750) 1,767 75,627 Beginning fund balance 1,323,378 1,323,378 Ending fund balance 1,047,658 1,325,145 Page 11 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget #303 - STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 8,324,808 278,864 1,825,974 (6,498,834) 21.93% Developer Contribution 166,020 191 191 (165,829) 0.12% Miscellaneous 0 0 350 350 #DIV/0! Transfer -in - #101 18,830 5,038 5,038 (13,792) 26.75% Transfer -in - #301 275,575 14,715 58,607 (216,968) 21.27% Transfer -in - #302 599,097 353,302 501,736 (97,361) 83.75% Transfer -in - #312 Appleway Landscaping 250,000 239,196 253,645 3,645 101.46% Transfer -in - #312 Sullivan Rd W Bridge 200,000 386,418 443,688 243,688 221.84% Transfer -in -#402 7,101 0 0 (7,101) 0.00% Investment Interest 0 4 21 21 #DIV/0! Total revenues 9,841,431 1,277,728 3,089,249 (6,752,182) 31.39% Expenditures 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06-31 860,280 34,155 206,188 654,092 23.97% 061 Pines (SR27) ITS lmporvement SRTC 06-26 10,000 0 67 9,933 0.67% 113 Indiana/Sullivan PCC Intersection 0 0 113 123 Mission Ave -Flora to Barker 382,410 29,997 40,012 342,398 10.46% 141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 123,090 2,520 49,556 73,534 40.26% 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 50,000 0 3,564 46,436 7.13% 145 Spokane Valley -Millwood Trail 100,000 0 1,924 98,076 1.92% 149 Sidewalk Infill 364,425 1,882 288,304 76,121 79.11% 154 Sidewalk & Transit Stop Accessibility 0 0 435 (435) #DIV/01 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 4,000,000 588,785 925,421 3,074,579 23.14% 156 Mansfield Ave. Connection 1,158,727 4,098 669,533 489,194 57.78% 159 University Rd / 1-90 Overpass Study 50,000 8,305 32,716 17,284 65.43% 166 Pines Rd. (SR27) & Grace Ave. Int. Safety 538,850 19,021 50,516 488,334 9.37% 167 Citywide Safety Improvements 341,928 7,377 12,159 329,769 3.56% 168 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk & Adams Rd Sidewalk 30,000 0 3,318 26,682 11.06% 169 Argonne/Mullan Safety Indiana - Broadway 0 0 558 (558) #DIV/0! 170 Argonne road: Empire Ave - Knox Ave. 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 175 Sullivan UP Tracks UC (SB) Resurfacing 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 100,000 15,546 106,305 (6,305) 106.31% 181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade 50,000 0 96,561 (46,561) 193.12% 185 Appleway Landscaping - Phase 1 250,000 85,204 253,695 (3,695) 101.48% 191 Vista Rd BNSF Xing Safety Improvements 0 328 48,501 (48,501) #DIV/0! 196 8th Avenue - McKinnon to Fancher 300,000 4,617 264,439 35,561 88.15% 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE Start 2014) 91,891 0 149 91,742 0.16% 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements 0 0 191 (191) #DIV/01 206 2015 CDBG Sidewalk Project 0 5,526 7,513 (7,513) #DIV/0! 210 Alcazar Driveway Reconstruction 7,000 6,968 7,901 (901) 112.88% 211 Trent Lighting Replacement 14,000 3,465 3,465 10,535 24.75% 213 Sprague/Thierman Intersection 18,830 5,038 5,038 13,792 26.75% Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0.00% Total expenditures 9,841,431 822,834 3,078,146 6,763,398 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 454,894 11,103 (13,515,580) Beginning fund balance 61,827 61,827 Ending fund balance 61,827 72,930 Page 12 31.28% P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget #309 - PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Interfund Transfer -in - #001 247,500 242,298 242,298 (5,202) 97.90% Interfund Transfer -in - #103 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer -in -#312 1,452,100 911,433 911,433 (540,667) 62.77% Investment Interest 500 89 444 (56) 88.88% Developer Contribution 0 0 7,300 7,300 #DIV/0! Miscellaneous 500 500 550 50 110.00% Total revenues 1,750,600 1,204,320 1,212,025 (538,575) 69.23% Expenditures 203 Sand volleyball courts at Brown's Park 0 369 14,390 (14,390) #DIV/0! 217 Edgecliff picnic shelter 9,000 2,111 7,297 1,703 81.08% 195 Discovery Playground equipment 51,400 0 51,280 120 99.77% Shade structure at Discovery Playground 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! City entry sign 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 209 Park signs 22,500 15,681 19,319 3,181 85.86% 176 ApplewayTrail 1,502,100 664,157 961,483 540,617 64.01% 208 Old Mission Trailhead Parking Improvements 55,000 49,563 49,798 5,202 90.54% 212 Edgecliff Park Restroom Sewer Project 13,000 7,173 9,518 3,482 73.21% Total expenditures 1,653,000 739,053 1,113,084 539,916 67.34% Revenues over (under) expenditures 97,600 465,267 98,941 (1,078,490) Beginning fund balance 352,779 352,779 Ending fund balance 450,379 451,720 #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Miscellaneous 839,285 0 839,285 0 100.00% Investment Interest 1,900 240 1,193 (707) 62.78% Total revenues 841,185 240 840,478 (707) 99.92% Expenditures Capital 0 8,418 20,630 (20,630) #DIV/0! Professional Services 30,000 0 2,202 27,798 7.34% Total expenditures 30,000 8,418 22,831 7,169 76.10% Revenues over (under) expenditures 811,185 (8,178) 817,647 (7,876) Beginning fund balance 1,101,903 1,101,903 Ending fund balance 1,913,088 1,919,550 Note: The fund balance includes $839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. if the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City will repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,285.10. Page 13 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget #311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION FUND Revenues Interfund Transfers in- #101 282,000 23,500 282,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in -#123 616,284 51,357 616,284 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in- #301 184,472 0 184,472 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in- #302 184,472 0 184,472 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in- #001 888,823 74,069 888,823 (0) 100.00% Grant Proceeds 2,886,736 143,561 2,042,665 (844,071) 70.76% Miscellaneous 0 0 50 50 #DIV/0! Investment Interest 0 372 1,853 1,853 #DIV/0! Total revenues 5,042,787 Expenditures 162 2012 Street Preservation 163 Sprague Ave Swale Upgrade, Park to 1-90 174 2013 Street Preservation Ph1 179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2 180 Carnahan, Indiana & Sprague Presery 186 Adams Road Resurfacing 187 Sprague Ave Preservation Project 188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 202 Appleway Street Preservation Project 211 Sullivan Trent to Wellsley & Wellsley Pre -Project Geo Tech Total expenditures 3,916,386 Revenues over (under) expenditures 1,126,401 Beginning fund balance 798,609 Ending fund balance 292,859 4,200,619 (842,168) 83.30% 2,000 0 2,097 (97) 104.85% 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 200 0 191 9 95.54% 1,520,583 2,157 1,159,255 361,328 76.24% 330,000 1,911 289,708 40,292 87.79% 205,000 15,911 182,718 22,282 89.13% 1,374,683 33,627 1,032,889 341,794 75.14% 33,920 26,547 42,412 (8,492) 125.04% 400,000 9,524 299,456 100,544 74.86% 0 2,271 13,195 (13,195) #DIV/0! 50,000 0 55,293 (5,293) 110.59% 91,948 200,912 3,077,215 1,123,404 798,609 1,925,010 1,922,013 839,171 (1,681,339) 78.57% #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 2,443,507 2,443,507 2,443,507 0 100.00% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Developer Contribution 0 0 4,675 4,675 #DIV/0! Total revenues 2,443,507 2,443,507 2,448,182 4,675 100.19% Expenditures Capital Outlays 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Transfers out - #303 - Appleway Landscaping 250,000 239,196 253,645 (3,645) 101.46% Transfers out - #303 - Sullivan Rd W Bridge 200,000 386,418 443,688 (243,688) 221.84% Trasfers out - #309 - Appleway Trail 1,452,100 911,433 911,433 Total expenditures 1,902,100 1,537,046 1,608,766 (247,333) 84.58% Revenues over (under) expenditures 541,407 906,461 839,416 252,008 Beginning fund balance 7,742,299 7,742,299 Ending fund balance 8,283,706 8,581,715 Page 14 2014 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,835,000 125,792 1,865,413 30,413 101.66% Investment Interest 2,500 270 1,342 (1,158) 53.69% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Total Recurring Revenues 1,837,500 126,062 1,866,755 29,255 101.59% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 505,535 32,903 347,503 158,032 68.74% Supplies 15,900 1,052 8,389 7,511 52.76% Services & Charges 1,065,076 86,000 980,324 84,752 92.04% Intergovernmental Payments 26,500 0 27,167 (667) 102.52% Compensated Absences 0 3,555 3,555 3,555 #DIV/0! Interfund Transfers -out -#001 13,400 1,117 13,400 (0) 100.00% Interfund Transfers -out - #502 1,567 131 1,567 0 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,627,978 Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 209,522 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY 124,757 1,381,905 253,183 84.88% 1,304 484,849 282,438 Revenues Grant Proceeds 50,000 (26,100) 76,097 26,097 152.19% Interfund Transfers -in 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Developer Contributions 0 0 51,492 51,492 #DIV/0! Total Nonrecurring Revenues 50,000 (26,100) 127,590 77,590 255.18% Expenditures Capital - various projects 900,000 15,268 189,252 710,748 21.03% Property acquisition 250,000 0 0 250,000 0.00% VMS Trailer 16,000 188 22,636 (6,636) 141.48% 150 Sullivan Bridge Drain Retrofit 0 0 1,152 (1,152) #DIV/0! UIC Retrofits on Pvmnt Pres Projects 0 0 99,836 (99,836) #DIV/0! 168 Wellesley Ave Sidewalk & Adams Rd Sidewalk 0 0 117 (117) #DIV/0! 185 Appleway Landscaping 0 9,610 192,484 (192,484) #DIV/0! 186 Adams Road Resurfacing 0 713 77,331 (77,331) #DIV/0! 187 Sprague Ave Preservation Project 0 (623) 70,768 (70,768) #DIV/0! 193 Effectiveness Study 0 88,117 103,306 (103,306) #DIV/0! 196 8th Ave - McKinnon to Fancher 0 0 17,513 (17,513) #DIV/0! 198 Sprague, Park to University LID 0 4,909 8,940 (8,940) #DIV/0! 199 Havana - Yale Diversion 0 745 9,489 (9,489) #DIV/0! 200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion 0 745 11,005 (11,005) #DIV/0! Transfers out - #403 (Decant Proj - DOE) 50,125 50,125 50,125 0 100.00% Transfers out - #501 (new pickup) 30,000 25,843 25,843 4,157 86.14% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,246,125 195,641 879,798 366,327 70.60% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (1,196,125) (221,740) (752,208) 443,917 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (986,603) (220,436) (267,359) 726,355 Beginning working capital 2,319,423 2,319,423 Ending working capital 1,332,820 2,052,064 Page 15 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 ENTERPRISE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 500,000 202,722 461,828 (38,172) 92.37% Grant DOE - Decant Facility 634,523 (79,194) 550,710 (83,813) 86.79% Grant DOT - Decant Facility 100,000 0 100,000 0 100.00% Grant DOE - LID/Retrofit Design 120,000 0 0 (120,000) 0.00% Grant DOE - SE Yardley Retrofits 750,000 0 49,203 (700,797) 6.56% Grant DOE - Broadway SD Retrofit 40,000 0 0 (40,000) 0.00% Transfer -in - #402 (Decant Proj - DOE) 50,125 50,125 50,125 0 100.00% Total revenues Expenditures 163 Sprague swales 2,194,648 173,653 1,211,866 (982,782) 55.22% 0 0 510 (510) #DIV/0! 173 Decant Facility 910,159 10,066 893,514 16,645 98.17% 197 Broadway SD retrofit 100,000 40,887 41,114 58,886 41.11% Outfall Diversion (design only) 60,000 0 0 60,000 0.00% 192 SE Yardley Retrofits 1,000,000 3,733 728,565 271,435 72.86% Total expenditures 2,070,159 54,687 1,663,703 406,456 80.37% Revenues over (under) expenditures 124,489 118,966 (451,837) (1,389,237) Beginning working capital 333,610 333,610 Ending working capital 458,099 (118,227) Page 16 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Transfer -in - #001 Transfer -in - #101 Transfer -in - #101 (plow replace.) Transfer -in - #402 Investment Interest Transfer -in - #101 (new pickup) Transfer -in - #402 (new pickup) Total revenues Expenditures Vehicle Acquisitions Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital #502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer - #001 Budget Year Elapsed = 2014 100.0% 2014 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget 15,400 1,283 15,400 0 100.00% 10,777 898 10,777 0 100.00% 75,000 6,250 75,000 0 100.00% 1,567 131 1,567 0 100.00% 1,000 159 792 (208) 79.23% 15,000 25,849 25,849 10,849 172.33% 30,000 25,843 25,843 (4,157) 86.14% 148,744 60,413 155,228 6,484 104.36% 90,000 0 102,782 (12,782) 114.20% 90,000 0 102,782 (12,782) 114.20% 58,744 60,413 52,446 19,266 1,183,348 1,183,348 1,242,092 1,235,794 0 1 5 5 #DIV/0! 325,000 27,083 325,000 (0) 100.00% Total revenues 325,000 Expenditures Auto & Property Insurance Unemployment Claims Miscellaneous Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital 27,084 325,005 5 100.00% 355,000 0 272,435 82,565 76.74% 0 709 8,531 (8,531) #DIV/0! 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 355,000 709 280,966 74,034 79.15% (30,000) 26,375 44,038 (74,029) 124,171 124,171 94,171 168,209 SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 76,665,725 11,717,207 68,717,069 Per revenue status report 76,665,725 11,717,207 68,717,069 Difference 0 0 0 Total of Expenditures for all Funds Per expenditure status report 79,137,418 11,620,974 66,015,503 79,137,418 11,620,974 66,015,503 0 0 0 Total Capital expenditures (included in total expenditures) 17,230,126 991,811 8,271,224 Page 17 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Investment Report For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 Beginning Deposits W ithdrawls Interest Ending 001 General Fund 101 Street Fund 103 Trails & Paths 105 Hotel/Motel 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 Winter Weather Reserve 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 301 Capital Projects 302 Special Capital Projects 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 309 Parks Capital Project 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 311 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ 312 Capital Reserve Fund 402 Stormwater Management 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 Risk Management *Local Government Investment Pool 4/14/2015 $ 44,094,400.55 $ 3,064,608.90 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 49,159,009.45 2,180,013.11 0.00 0.00 2,180,013.11 (3,000,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (3,000,000.00) 8,782.59 2,674.18 0.00 11,456.77 $ 43,283,196.25 $ 3,067,283.08 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 48,350,479.33 matures: 6/28/2015 rate: 0.35% 11/4/2015 0.50% Balance Earnings Budget Total LGIP* BB CD 2 BB CD 3 Investments $ 44,094,400.55 $ 3,064,608.90 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 49,159,009.45 2,180,013.11 0.00 0.00 2,180,013.11 (3,000,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (3,000,000.00) 8,782.59 2,674.18 0.00 11,456.77 $ 43,283,196.25 $ 3,067,283.08 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 48,350,479.33 matures: 6/28/2015 rate: 0.35% 11/4/2015 0.50% Balance Earnings Budget Current Period Year to date $ 31,048,955.98 1,643,046.11 37,998.40 288,689.31 300,000.00 5,193,882.21 503, 798.76 1,197, 598.71 882,885.01 1,005,080.74 22,861.89 491,432.24 1,319,186.09 2, 049, 598.39 0.00 1,484,231.05 0.00 876,130.87 5,103.57 $ 8,368.33 298.47 6.91 52.44 0.00 943.49 91.52 217.55 160.38 182.58 4.16 89.27 239.64 372.32 0.00 269.62 0.00 159.16 0.93 $ 43,010.04 2,036.62 34.37 299.33 0.00 4,696.64 455.57 1,082.94 793.29 908.87 20.68 444.39 1,192.91 1,853.37 0.00 1,342.15 0.00 792.26 4.62 $ 65,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 7,300.00 700.00 1,700.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 500.00 1,900.00 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 $ 48,350,479.33 $ 11,456.77 $ 58,968.05 $ 85,900.00 Page 18 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 03 - 2014 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Receipts For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2014 Month 4/14/2015 Difference Received 2013 2014 $ February 1,876,298.24 1,891,031.43 14,733.19 0.79% March 1,279,426.01 1,324,975.84 45,549.83 3.56% April 1,295,166.24 1,357,736.39 62,570.15 4.83% May 1,531,483.94 1,636,894.44 105,410.50 6.88% June 1,486,879.22 1,579,545.34 92,666.12 6.23% July 1,568,524.87 1,653,343.86 84,818.99 5.41% August 1,612,535.63 1,751,296.73 138,761.10 8.61% September 1,646,673.39 1,772,033.14 125,359.75 7.61% October 1,650,525.59 1,754,039.63 103,514.04 6.27% November 1,630,334.91 1,802,029.08 171,694.17 10.53% December 1,544,088.55 1,619,010.52 74,921.97 4.85% January 1,584,524.73 1,565,739.35 (18,785.38) (1.19%) 18,706,461.32 19,707,675.75 1,001,214.43 5.35% 18,706,461.32 19,707,675.75 Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.7%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.7% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Crminial Justice 0.10% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * - Public Safety 0.10% * 2.20% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% * - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * - Spokane Transit Authority 0.60% J 8.70% * Indicates voter approved sales taxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 19 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Collections - February For the years 2006 through 2015 January February Collected to date March April May June July August September October November December Total Collections Budget Estimate Actual over (under) budg Total actual collections as a % of total budget % change in annual total collected % of budget collected through February P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Sales Tax\2015\sales tax collections 2015.xlsx 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1,572,609 1,759,531 1,729,680 1,484,350 1,491,059 1,460,548 1,589,887 1,671,269 1,677,887 1,732,299 1,068,743 1,155,947 1,129,765 1,098,575 963,749 990,157 1,009,389 1,133,347 1,170,640 1,197,323 2,641,352 1,072,330 1,371,030 1,392,111 1,362,737 1,555,124 1,405,983 1,487,155 1,526,910 1,369,940 1,366,281 16,550,953 16,002,000 548,953 2,915,478 1,196,575 1,479,603 1,353,013 1,428,868 1,579,586 1,516,324 1,546,705 1,601,038 1,443,843 1,376,434 17,437,467 17,466,800 (29,333) 2,859,445 1,219,611 1,423,459 1,243,259 1,386,908 1,519,846 1,377,943 1,364,963 1,344,217 1,292,327 1,129, 050 16,161,028 17,115,800 (954,772) 2,582,925 1,068,811 1,134, 552 1,098,054 1,151,772 1,309,401 1,212,531 1,227,813 1,236,493 1,155,647 1,070,245 14,248,244 17,860,000 (3,611,756) 2,454,808 1,018,468 1,184,137 1,102,523 1,123,907 1,260,873 1,211,450 1,191,558 1,269,505 1,139,058 1,141,012 14,097,299 14,410,000 (312,701) 2,450,705 1,015,762 1,284,180 1,187,737 1,248,218 1,332,834 1,279,500 1,294,403 1,291,217 1,217,933 1,247,920 14,850,409 14,210,000 640,409 2,599,276 1,067,733 1,277,621 1,174, 962 1,290,976 1,302,706 1,299,678 1,383,123 1,358,533 1,349,580 1,323,189 15,427,377 14,210,000 1,217,377 2,804,616 1,148,486 1,358,834 1,320,449 1,389,802 1,424, 243 1,465,563 1,466,148 1,439,321 1,362,021 1,408,134 16,587,617 15,250,000 1,337,617 2,848,527 1,201,991 1,448,539 1,400,956 1,462,558 1,545,052 1,575,371 1,552,736 1,594,503 1,426,254 1,383,596 17,440,083 16,990,000 450,083 2,929,622 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,929,622 17,628,400 (14,698,778) 103.43% 99.83% 94.42% 79.78% 97.83% 104.51% 108.57% 108.77% 102.65% n/a 10.02% 5.36% (7.32%) (11.84%) (1.06%) 5.34% 3.89% 7.52% 5.14% n/a 16.51% 16.69% 16.71% 14.46% 17.04% 17.25% 18.29% 18.39% 16.77% 16.62% % of actual total collected through February 15.96% 16.72% 17.69% 18.13% 17.41% 16.50% 16.85% 16.91% 16.33% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of February 4/6/2015 2015 to 2014 Difference 54,412 26,683 81,095 3.24% 2.28% 2.85% February 3,500,000 3,000,000 ■February II January 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 -a ; 500,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Page 20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - February Actual for the years 2006 through 2015 January February Total Collections March April May June July August September October November December Total Collections Budget Estimate Actual over (under) budg P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax\2015\105 hotel motel tax 2015.xlsx 2006 1 2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 20,653.49 25,137.92 28,946.96 23,280.21 22,706.96 22,212.21 21,442.32 24,184.84 20,946.09 25,310.66 24,623.06 23,283.95 23,416.94 22,792.14 21,548.82 25,974.98 25,425.40 27,092.20 26,013.62 27,111.00 41,599.58 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 50,448.58 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 53,570.02 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 46,564.16 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) 46,123.90 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 45,004.35 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) 42,991.14 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 50,159.82 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 51,439.02 29,383.93 48,245.81 41,122.66 52,617.63 61,514.48 70,383.93 76,099.59 45,604.07 39,600.06 33,256.28 549,267.46 530,000.00 19,267.46 54,203.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54,203.20 510,000.00 (455,796.80) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 119.17% 115.39% 116.77% 82.81% 118.04% 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% % change in annual total collected % of budget collected through February 103.64% n/a 7.54% 10.67% 1.19% (9.23%) 5.79% 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% n/a 11.89% 12.61% 13.39% 9.09% 12.14% 9.38% 10.00% 10.24% 9.71% 10.63% % of actual total collected through February 9.97% 10.93% 11.47% 10.98% 10.28% 9.83% 8.77% 9.67% 9.37% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of 60,000.00 50,000.00 40,000.00 30,000.00 - 20,000.00 10,000.00 - 0.00 - 2006 2007 2008 2009 February February 4/6/2015 2015 to 2014 Difference 1,667 6.56% 1,097 4.22% 2,764.18 5.37% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 o February January Page 21 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 1st and 2nd 1/4% REET Collections through February Actual for the years 2006 through 2015 January February Collected to date P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\REET\2015\301 and 302 REET for 2015.xlsx 2006 1 2007 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 243,894.16 172,154.72 228,896.76 129,919.79 145,963.47 159,503.34 55,281.25 59,887.08 64,128.13 46,358.75 56,898.40 61,191.55 96,140.79 45,180.53 64,121.61 36,443.36 56,114.56 155,226.07 67,048.50 103,507.94 4/6/2015 2015 to 2014 Difference 34,949 57.11% 36,459 54.38% 416,048.88 358,816.55 305,466.81 100,461.78 124,008.69 100,571.49 102,473.31 212,124.47 128,240.05 199,648.73 71,408.68 55.68% March 182,065.71 263,834.60 133,513.35 73,306.86 86,204.41 95,879.78 71,729.67 72,171.53 81,723.70 0.00 April 173,796.61 211,787.08 128,366.69 81,155.83 99,507.19 79,681.38 86,537.14 90,376.91 105,448.15 0.00 May 306,871.66 222,677.17 158,506.43 77,463.58 109,624.89 124,691.60 111,627.22 116,164.91 198,869.74 0.00 June 226,526.64 257,477.05 178,202.98 105,020.98 105,680.28 81,579.34 124,976.28 139,112.11 106,675.77 0.00 July 2,104.30 323,945.47 217,942.98 122,530.36 84,834.48 79,629.06 101,048.69 128,921.02 208,199.38 0.00 August 451,700.06 208,039.87 133,905.93 115,829.68 72,630.27 129,472.44 106,517.19 117,149.90 172,536.46 0.00 September 188,066.23 165,287.21 131,240.36 93,862.17 75,812.10 68,019.83 63,516.73 174,070.25 152,322.59 0.00 October 211,091.20 206,442.92 355,655.60 113,960.52 93,256.02 61,396.23 238,094.79 117,805.76 123,504.75 0.00 November 141,729.09 191,805.53 147,875.00 133,264.84 72,021.24 74,752.72 104,885.99 78,324.02 172,226.74 0.00 December 161,285.23 179,567.77 96,086.00 71,365.60 38,724.50 65,077.29 74,299.65 75,429.19 117,681.62 0.00 Total distributed by Spokane County 2,461,285.61 2,589,681.22 1,986,762.13 1,088,222.20 962,304.07 960,751.16 1,185,706.66 1,321,650.07 1,567,428.95 199,648.73 Budget estimate 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 760,000.00 800,000.00 950,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,200,000.00 1,200,000.00 Actual over (under) budget 461,285.61 589,681.22 (13,237.87) (911,777.80) 202,304.07 160,751.16 235,706.66 321,650.07 367,428.95 (1,000,351.27) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 123.06% 129.48% 99.34% 54.41% 126.62% 120.09% 124.81% 132.17% 130.62% n/a % change in annual total collected (1.19%) 5.22% (23.28%) (45.23%) (11.57%) (0.16%) 23.41% 11.47% 18.60% n/a % of budget collected through February 20.80% 17.94% 15.27% 5.02% 16.32% 12.57% 10.79% 21.21% 10.69% 16.64% % of actual total collected through February 16.90% 13.86% 15.38% 9.23% 12.89% 10.47% 8.64% 16.05% 8.18% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of February 450,000.00 400,000.00 350,000.00 300,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 February 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 • February ■ January e 22 H:\Bonds\debt capacity.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Debt Capacity 2/8/2015 2014 Assessed Value for 2015 Property Taxes Voted (UTGO) Nonvoted (LTGO) Voted park Voted utility 1.00% of assessed value 1.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value 7,393,971,582 Maximum Debt Capacity Outstanding as of 12/31/2014 Remaining Debt Capacity Utilized 73,939,716 110,909,574 184,849,290 184,849,290 554, 547, 870 0 6,675,000 0 0 6,675,000 73,939,716 104,234,574 184,849,290 184,849,290 547, 872, 870 T 0.00% 6.02% 0.00% 0.00% 1.20% Bonds Repaid Bonds Remaining 2014 LTGO Bonds Period Ending CenterPlace Road & Street Improvements Total 12/1/2014 12/1/2015 12/1/2016 12/1/2017 12/1/2018 12/1/2019 12/1/2020 12/1/2021 12/1/2022 12/1/2023 12/1/2024 12/1/2025 12/1/2026 12/1/2027 12/1/2028 12/1/2029 12/1/2030 12/1/2031 12/1/2032 12/1/2033 225,000 135,00b 360,000 225,000 135,00Q 360,000 175,000 185,000 190,000 230,000 255,000 290,000 320,000 350,000 390,000 430,000 465,000 505,000 395,000 300,000 245,000 225,000 180,000 130,000 165,000 125,000 130,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 315,000 320,000 365,000 395,000 430,000 465,000 500,000 545,000 430,000 465,000 505,000 395,000 300,000 245,000 225,000 180,000 130,000 165,000 5,425,000 1,250,000 6,675,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 Page 23 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\MVFT\2015\motor vehicle fuel tax collections 2015.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Collections - February For the years 2006 through 2015 January February 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 157,910 172,711 165,698 133,304 161,298 154,792 159,607 146,145 152,906 152,598 4/6/2015 2015 to 2014 Difference $ % (308) (0.20%) 145,663 162,079 149,799 155,832 145,869 146,353 135,208 145,998 148,118 145,455 (2,663) (1.80%) Collected to date 303,573 334,790 315,497 289,136 307,167 301,145 294,815 292,143 301,024 298,053 (2,971) (0.99%) March 144,867 156,194 159,316 146,264 140,486 141,849 144,297 135,695 131,247 0 April 158,729 175,010 165,574 161,117 161,721 165,019 153,546 156,529 156,269 0 May 152,049 173,475 162,281 156,109 158,119 154,700 144,670 151,595 156,850 0 June 166,506 183,410 176,085 173,954 168,146 158,351 159,827 167,479 161,965 0 July 162,989 178,857 166,823 169,756 164,221 165,398 160,565 155,348 157,805 0 August 183,127 183,815 171,690 179,012 176,869 153,361 164,050 173,983 172,308 0 September 187,645 191,884 176,912 175,965 175,067 173,820 171,651 195,397 173,299 0 October 178,782 180,570 165,842 163,644 164,475 158,889 153,022 133,441 160,539 0 November 177,726 181,764 193,360 167,340 168,477 160,461 162,324 164,303 165,871 0 December 159,974 159,750 142,230 144,376 143,257 124,714 138,223 142,140 141,298 0 Total Collections 1,975,967 2,099,519 1,995,610 1,926,673 1,928,005 1,857,707 1,846,990 1,868,053 1,878,475 298,053 Budget Estimate 1,753,000 2,000,000 2,150,000 2,050,000 1,900,000 1,875,000 1,897,800 1,861,100 1,858,600 1,858,600 Actual over (under) budg 222,967 99,519 (154,390) (123,327) 28,005 (17,293) (50,810) 6,953 19,875 (1,560,547) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 112.72% 104.98% 92.82% 93.98% 101.47% 99.08% 97.32% 100.37% 101.07% n/a % change in annual total collected 9.57% 6.25% (4.95%) (3.45%) 0.07% (3.65%) (0.58%) 1.14% 0.56% n/a % of budget collected through February 17.32% 16.74% 14.67% 14.10% 16.17% 16.06% 15.53% 15.70% 16.20% 16.04% % of actual total collected through February 15.36% 15.95% 15.81% 15.01% 15.93% 16.21% 15.96% 15.64% 16.02% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of February 400,000 February 350,000 300,000 250,000 ■ February 200,000 150,000 ■January 100,000 50,000 0, 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Page 24 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Telephone Tax\2015\telephone utility tax collections 2015.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Telephone Utility Tax Collections - February For the years 2009 through 2015 January February 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 128,354 234,622 241,357 193,818 217,478 210,777 177,948 4/6/2015 2015 to 2014 Difference (6,701) (3.08%) 282,773 266,041 230,366 261,074 216,552 205,953 212,845 (10,599) (4.89%) Collected to date 411,127 500,663 471,723 454,892 434,030 416,730 390,793 (17,300) (3.99%) March 230,721 264,175 245,539 234,113 223,884 208,206 0 April 275,775 254,984 238,561 229,565 214,618 206,038 0 May 242,115 255,056 236,985 227,469 129,270 210,010 0 June 239,334 251,880 239,013 234,542 293,668 210,289 0 July 269,631 250,593 244,191 226,118 213,078 205,651 0 August 260,408 246,261 349,669 228,789 211,929 205,645 0 September 249,380 240,111 241,476 227,042 210,602 199,193 0 October 252,388 238,500 237,111 225,735 205,559 183,767 0 November 254,819 247,848 240,246 225,319 212,947 213,454 0 December 368,775 236,065 236,449 221,883 213,097 202,077 0 Total Collections 3,054,473 2,986,136 2,980,963 2,735,467 2,562,682 2,461,060 390,793 Budget Estimate 2,500,000 2,800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,900,000 2,750,000 2,565,100 Actual over (under) budg 554,473 186,136 (19,037) (264,533) (337,318) (288,940) (2,174,307) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 122.18% 106.65% 99.37% 91.18% 88.37% 89.49% n/a % change in annual total collected n/a (2.24%) (0.17%) (8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) n/a % of budget collected through February % of actual total collected through February 16.45% 17.88% 15.72% 15.16% 14.97% 15.15% 15.24% 13.46% 16.77% 15.82% 16.63% 16.94% 16.93% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of February 600,000 February 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 a February January Page 25 Rick VanLeuven Chief of Police Spokane Valley Police Department Accredited Since 2011 Services provided in partnership with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and the Community, Dedicated to Your Safety. Ozzie Knezovich Sheriff TO: Mike Jackson, City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: April 20, 2015 RE: Monthly Report March 2015 March 2015: March 2014: CAD incidents: 5247 CAD incidents: 4823 Reports taken: 1799 Reports taken: 1865 Traffic stops: 1118 Traffic stops: 982 Traffic reports: 303 Traffic reports: 254 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self -initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing March residential burglaries, traffic collisions, vehicle prowlings, and stolen vehicles. Also attached are trend -line graphs for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015: Citations, Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls, Self -Initiated Calls, Collisions, Persons Crimes, Property Crimes, and Sex Crimes. Also included is the March Crimes by Cities stats report. This report reflects incidents that occurred in a specific city to which a deputy from Spokane County took the courtesy report. For example, an individual may have had his car stolen in Airway Heights, and he waited until he returned home in the Newman Lake area to make a report. In 2011, we switched from UCR to NIBRS classification. As a result, certain crimes were broken down to their violation parts for NIBRS and each part is now counted. Consequently, comparing certain crimes before 2011 to crimes during or after 2011 is not recommended using the graphs. The crimes that are impacted by the NIBRS classification changes that should not be compared to prior graphs include: Adult Rape, Assault, Forgery and Theft. ADMINISTRATIVE: Chief VanLeuven met with a local pastor in mid-March, who had recently taken on that role and wanted to meet with Chief VanLeuven. His purpose in reaching out to the Chief was to let him know that he and the church fully support and appreciate the Spokane Valley Police Department. He conveyed to Chief VanLeuven their hope to be a blessing to their neighbors and reinforce their support of the Spokane Valley Police. Page 1 Chief VanLeuven along with others from the Spokane Police Department, Washington State Patrol, and Traffic Safety Commission met in mid-March for a brief meeting with Nick Lovrich from Washington State University, who provided an update on the Marijuana/THC Breathalyzer project. A good deal of progress has been made, and they will likely be testing a prototype device in June. After that, they would like to start the field testing of the device in Spokane, with Spokane Valley Police Department being one of the participating agencies. In mid-March, Chief VanLeuven travelled to Olympia at the request of Laura Wells, State Director for Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. While in Olympia, Chief VanLeuven met with Senator Padden and State Representative McCaslin. As a member of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, Chief VanLeuven has learned about the rigorous research connecting high-quality early learning to lower crime down the road, and believes that if we are to achieve the full crime prevention benefits of early learning for at - risk youngsters, we must make sure that those programs are high-quality. One important element is parent engagement and education. Chief VanLeuven discussed his support of House Bill 1491 because of the positive impact it will have on the quality of early learning in Spokane Valley and throughout the state. The quality improvement elements of this bill hold the promise of interrupting the cycle of the violence we see in too many of our families and changing that culture of crime and failure to one of success and positive contribution to society. A half-day Executive Education Seminar on Homeland Security was held at the end of March. The Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) developed a multimedia scenario -based seminar to explore Spokane's homeland security risks and challenges, to strengthen our capability to plan for, prevent, respond to, and recover from catastrophic events and terrorism. Chief VanLeuven along with others from surrounding agencies attended this seminar at the Fire Training Center, gaining some very insightful information. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): S.C.O.P.E. Participated In: • Guides Mentoring WVHS • "Walking School Bus" Seth Woodard Elementary • East Valley Comm. Coalition Meeting • Crime Stoppers Meeting • GSSAC Coalition Meeting • Operation Family ID • Security Awareness Training March 2015 Volunteers Hours per Station *As of this month, we are including estimated volunteer service hours from S.C.O.P.E. stations West Valley and East that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. Location # Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 6 119.5 34.5 154.0 East Valley 22 277.0 267.5 544.5 Edgecliff 27 495.0 86.0 581.0 Trentwood 4 121.5 0 121.5 University 20 454.5 95.5 550.0 West Valley 28 602.0 41.0 643.0 TOTALS 107 2069.5 524.5 2,594.0 Volunteer Value ($21.62 per hour) $56,082.28 for March 2015 Page 2 Spokane Valley Graffiti Report TRAINING HOURS 2012 2013 2014 2015 Jan. 0 2 3 5 Feb. 0 7 16 8 March 2 13 11 7 April 14 9 30 May 16 4 4 June 15 9 13 July 41 7 12 Aug. 57 22 6 Sept. 26 4 12 Oct. 30 7 6 Nov. 19 7 2 Dec. 37 1 7 Total 257 92 97 20 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed on -scene hours (including travel time) in March, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control. Of those hours, _ hours were for incidents inside of Spokane Valley. There were no Special Events in Spokane Valley in March. It was a relatively quiet month for SIRT activities overall. Total March volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 456; year-to-date total is 1402 hours. Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in Spokane Valley in February totaled 22 and in March 16 with 6 vehicles in February and 3 in March, respectively, eventually cited and towed. Nine hulks were processed in February and 20 hulks processed in March. During the month of March, a total of 71 vehicles were processed; the total for 2015 to date is 201. SCOPE LATENT PRINT STATS Page 3 TRAINING HOURS SCSO SVPD TOTAL January 0 18 48 66 February 0 26 42 68 March YTD - TOTAL 0 48 90 134 Page 3 SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of Vol. # of Vol. # of Hrs # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 0 0 0 0 0 February 2 10 2 0 0 March YTD Total YTD Total 2 10 2 0 0 Spokane County # of Vol. # of Hrs # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 3 16.5 0 0 0 February 6 26.5 1 0 0 March YTD Total 9 43 1 0 0 OPERATIONS: Alert Walmart Loss Prevention Employee Leads to Arrest of Wanted Female — In early March, Spokane Valley Deputies responded to Walmart on East Sprague on a suspicious person call. The Loss Prevention Employee (LPE) advised she thought she had seen a female who Crime Stoppers had identified as wanted for several local felony warrants, and this female was accompanied by a male. As deputies were on their way to the store, the LPE told deputies the female had tried to cash a $609 forged check at the store and was now leaving. She also provided a description of both the female and male for deputies as they arrived. The LPE then advised the couple had gotten into a blue -colored vehicle, left the Walmart parking lot, turning west on Sprague. Deputies were in the area and watched as the vehicle turned into the Kmart parking lot, but couldn't catch up to it before observing the couple enter Kmart; once inside Kmart, deputies could not locate the couple, so they returned to the vehicle. During their investigation, they determined the couple who had fled the vehicle was not the registered owner. They also received a call back from the LPE, who had an ID left by the female, but was in a different individual's name than the female who had tried to cash the check. They were also advised a Walmart employee was missing their vehicle, which matched the description to the vehicle now at the Kmart. Kmart security advised deputies all the exits were locked and the only way out was the front door; and in checking the security video to see where the female had gone, it appeared she entered an "out -of -order" men's restroom just inside the main entrance. Deputies entered the restroom to find the only stall locked; the female suspect eventually unlocked the door and exited. She had taken off her shoes and jacket, and now had her hair up in a ball cap to change her appearance. The female told deputies that she had been with her boyfriend who had printed out checks earlier in the day with an app from his phone and they had gone to Walmart to try to cash one of them. She said the Walmart employee refused to cash the check so they left the store. The female also admitted to deputies that she had stolen the vehicle and that she Page 4 has a key "that works for most anything," which she had hidden in her bra. Deputies searched the Kmart for the female's boyfriend, but were unable to locate him. The female suspect was taken to the Spokane County Jail where she was booked on her outstanding warrants as well as Identity Theft 2"d Degree, Forgery, and Vehicle Theft. There was also probable cause to charge her with Possession of Vehicle Theft Tools as well as Trespass 1st Degree (due to her having previously been trespassing from Walmart for theft). In addition, based on the LPE's statements and video footage of the female's boyfriend, deputies also submitted a probable cause affidavit requesting he be charged with Identity Theft 2"d Degree, Forgery, and Vehicle Theft. Compressed Air Theft — In mid-March at approximately 1125 hours, Spokane Valley Deputies responded to the East Sprague Walmart in reference to an intoxicated or high white male who had passed out in a green belt area of the parking lot. Once on scene, Deputy Melton was advised the male had gone behind a nearby strip mall. Deputy R. Smith contacted the 32 -year-old male who had in his possession two brand new cans of compressed air used to clean electronics. He told deputies he had purchased them earlier when he was downtown. Upon further investigation, it appears the male had been huffing the contents of the cans in order to get high. He gave deputies the two cans of compressed air and left the scene. Deputies followed up with Walmart Loss Prevention and determined that the male had actually stolen six cans of compressed air at a value of approximately $24. Approximately an hour later, Deputy Melton responded to the alley in the 4900 block of East Sprague reference to a male acting crazy and then passing out. He found the same male sitting on the curb behind the dumpster with two cans of air between his legs. Deputy Melton told the male suspect he was under arrest at that time for 3rd Degree Theft, to which the male responded, "No, I am fine." When told again, the male said nothing and reached for one of the cans of air, placing it in his mouth. Deputy Melton grabbed the can and tossed it aside, and told the male suspect again that he was under arrest. The male suspect resisted a bit and attempted to continue sitting. Spokane Valley Fire personnel were on scene and evaluated the male suspect, and when once he was cleared by paramedics, the male suspect was then transported to the Spokane County Jail where he was booked on one count of 3rd Degree Theft. Cell Phone Cover in Exchange for Heroin — Spokane Valley Deputies were called to Home Depot on East Sprague in mid-March for a shoplifter who had taken an otter box cover for a cell phone, and exited the store without paying for the item. Deputy Melton responded and spoke with the 24 -year- old male who explained that he had been driven to the store by a female who told him specifically what item to steal. In exchange, the male suspect explained that the female had some heroin, which she would then be willing to share with the suspect. The male suspect had no means or intent to pay for the phone cover. He was trespassed from the store and transported to the county jail where he was booked for 3rd Degree Theft. 16 -Year -Old Arrested for Armed Robbery — In late March at 0219 hours, Spokane Valley Deputies responded to a report of a robbery at the 7-11 Store on North Pines. The store clerk reported two males and two females had just taken some beer from the store and had pointed a gun at him as they left the store. Deputy J. Hall responded and observed the clerk was visibly shaken by the event. He said the two females had entered the store earlier and attempted to shoplift, but he had run them off. He provided a description of each suspect. The clerk said the two females and the tall, thin male walked to three separate corners of the store in an attempt to distract him. He said the 16 - year -old female walked back toward a small hallway that led to an emergency exit. She grabbed an 18 -pack case of beer and walked toward the front of the store, kicking over a trash can and case of Gatorade on her way. The clerk said he was telling them to leave, that he would call the police, when one of the males attempted to hit him The clerk blocked the punch and the male fled the store. The clerk said the two female suspects claimed to be sisters and said the male was their brother. He Page 5 said the remaining three suspects walked out the door, looked back at him, and pointed a gun at him, tapping it on the glass. Deputies reviewed video surveillance tapes, which confirmed the clerk's account of the events. Hours later, a female matching the description of the 16 -year-old female was located by Sgt. Dowdy walking on N. Pines Road, just north of the 7-11 Store. The clerk was driven to that location where he positively identified her as the one who had robbed him. The female suspect was also in possession of several unopened cans of beer. When asked about the gun and the other two suspects, the female told deputies, "Good luck on finding them." She then stated she had been armed with a BB gun and had hid/discarded the handgun prior to being arrested. Because the 16 -year-old and her sister had been permanently trespassed from the 7-11 just weeks prior (in February 2015), she was transported to Juvenile Hall and booked on 1St Degree Burglary and 2"d Degree Robbery charges. Upon further investigations, Detective A. Buell was able to identify two of the other three suspects as a 15 -year-old female and a 17 -year-old male. When interviewed, the 15 -year-old female and 17 -year-old male confessed that they intended to go to the 7-11 Store with the 16 -year-old female to steal some beer and participated in an assault of the 7-11 employee. Detective Buell filed charges against the 15 -year-old female and 17 -year-old male for one count of 2"d Degree Robbery each. Suspect Threatens Store Employees with Knife — In late March, at approximately 5:10 p.m., Spokane Valley Sheriffs Deputies arrested a 22 -year-old male for robbery after he pulled a knife and threatened ShopKo employees when they confronted him for attempting to steal several items from the store. The incident started when a Loss Prevention Officer (LPO) at ShopKo, located at 13414 E. Sprague in Spokane Valley, noticed a male suspect walk out of the store without paying for the items he had placed in a shopping cart. The LPO grabbed the cart and asked the suspect for his identification. The male suspect ran away as the LPO brought the cart back into the store. A few moments later, the suspect reentered the store with a knife in his hand. He then grabbed a pink bag of items from the cart as he threatened to stab the employees if they tried to stop him. The LPO chased the male suspect who ran from the store into the surrounding neighborhood. Responding to the call, Spokane Valley Police Sergeant Dale Golman arrived in the area of 3rd and Leatha and observed a male matching the suspect's description running through a yard toward 4th Avenue. When Sergeant Golman turned onto 4th, he located the suspect hiding behind a parked car in the driveway of a residence. He ordered the suspect to show his hands; he complied with the orders, kept his hands visible and slowly walked out from behind the vehicle holding the pink bag. Assisting Deputies arrived and took the suspect into custody without incident. After being advised of his rights, the male suspect told Deputy Brent Miller he threw the knife as he ran through a field. Deputies searched the area but did not locate the knife. The male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Robbery 1st Degree. Traffic Violations Lead to Heroin and Meth — On the last day of March at approximately 1914 hours, Deputy Hilton was on patrol and stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. During the investigation, Deputy Hilton learned the 27 -year-old male driver did not have a valid driver's license, and in fact, was a habitual offender of driving with a license suspended (DWLS). He was arrested by Deputy Hilton for DWLS and placed in Deputy Hilton's patrol car. The 26 -year-old female passenger was identified by Deputy Hilton and determined to have outstanding warrants. She was also placed under arrest and taken into custody. After attempting to locate a licensed driver for the vehicle without success, Deputy Hilton contacted dispatch for a contract tow. As Deputy Hilton was completing an inventory prior to the tow, he collected the female's purse for her and noticed an open pack of cigarettes sitting in the door pocket next to where the female had been seated. As he collected the open pack of cigarettes, he noticed it contained two cigarettes and three small clear plastic bags. Upon closer examination, one clear baggie contained a brown tar -like substance, one contained a white crystalline substance, and one contained four white pills. The brown tar -like Page 6 substance tested positive for heroin, the white crystalline substance tested positive for methamphetamine, and the four white pills were identified as Hydrocodone, which is a narcotic and requires a prescription. Deputy Hilton stopped any further inventory of the vehicle and instead advised dispatch he was taking the vehicle and would be applying for a search warrant. The male and female were both transported to the Spokane County Jail where the male was booked for DWLS 1st Degree and the female was booked on her warrants as well as three counts of Possession of Controlled Substance. As the female was being searched at the jail, Detention Officer Muller collected another baggie of heroin from inside her bra and turned that over to Deputy Hilton. He field tested the substance in this baggie and received a positive reaction for heroin. The female suspect was booked on an additional charge of Possession of Controlled Substance, Heroin. Deputy Hilton then returned to the Spokane Valley Police Precinct where he applied for and received a signed search warrant from Judge Clark for the male's vehicle. Upon execution of the search warrant, Deputy Hilton located unused plastic baggies and drug paraphernalia in the vehicle to include ink pen bodies that had burnt residence inside of them. The investigation is continuing. ******************** Page 7 2015 MARCH CRIME REPORT To date: Yearly totals: Mar -15 Mar -14 2015 2014 2,014 2,013 2,012 2011 2010 2009 BURGLARY 73 117 227 264 1167 1101 1062 1027 936 725 FORGERY 50 52 157 152 659 850 826 593 341 297 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 127 157 421 391 1645 1628 1770 1566 1183 1245 NON -CRIMINAL 12 14 43 32 151 106 108 160 917 892 PROPERTY OTHER 141 121 377 342 1449 1469 1236 1126 837 933 RECOVERED VEHICLES 31 59 93 156 464 541 446 416 365 187 STOLEN VEHICLES 37 70 104 189 573 602 586 566 496 298 THEFT 260 226 762 626 3096 3040 2636 2512 2365 2162 VEHICLE OTHER 14 32 59 70 279 268 287 195 3 5 VEHICLE PROWLING 97 136 354 346 1196 1206 1165 1491 1395 920 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 842 984 2,597 2,568 10,679 10,811 10,328 9,615 8,852 7,668 ASSAULT 82 73 273 239 1087 950 936 963 895 927 DOA/SUICIDE 28 24 69 61 222 225 256 213 188 210 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 58 32 143 87 485 538 600 714 1297 1226 HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 3 1 3 KIDNAP 3 10 7 14 38 24 17 15 16 21 MENTAL 24 30 97 78 307 268 270 253 289 310 MP 17 12 37 27 138 156 154 125 128 115 PERSONS OTHER 279 2852 857 890 3366 3124 3112 2484 1692 1621 ROBBERY 7 6 27 16 94 96 79 98 68 75 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 14 11 34 34 132 148 212 162 153 159 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 512 480 1544 1283 5231 5531 5638 4997 4727 4,667 ADULT RAPE 3 9 19 20 70 38 89 67 44 35 CHILD ABUSE 5 6 10 9 42 26 27 89 115 159 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 13 19 57 63 237 236 190 184 206 157 SEX REGISTRATION F 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 2 1 2 INDECENT LIBERTIES 1 4 3 8 29 20 27 17 8 10 RAPE/CHILD 2 1 4 2 13 13 13 23 28 35 RUNAWAY 34 33 103 92 406 397 530 510 490 440 SEX OTHER 6 5 11 14 69 46 38 56 215 211 STALKING 2 2 5 3 24 21 24 19 18 15 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 50 41 152 140 604 440 424 341 215 175 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 116 120 364 351 1494 1271 1370 1294 1387 1271 TOTAL ITF 26 27 91 90 336 316 430 521 542 671 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 303 254 843 875 3216 3525 3957 3569 3081 3,183 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1,799 1,865 5,439 5,167 21,434 21,454 21,723 19,996 18,589 17,460 2015 March INCIDENTS BY CITIES (Only incidents handled by Spokane County Sheriffs Office) 4/8/2015 AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV TOTALS CAD INCIDENTS 37 168 223 16 3 0 23 184 64 18 3,307 5 568 5,247 0 9,863 SELF INITIATED INCIDENTS 26 10 117 4 1 0 16 109 10 6 1,096 1 480 2,038 0 3,914 DRUG SELF INT (PATROL) 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 10 TRAFFIC STOPS 4 0 29 0 1 0 5 38 5 0 467 0 222 1,118 0 1,889 TRAFFIC STOPS (ARST/CIT/IN) 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 189 0 87 491 0 778 TS (WARRANTS) 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 6 22 0 38 CALLS FOR SERVICE 11 158 106 12 2 0 7 75 54 12 2,211 4 88 3,209 0 5,949 ALARMS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 97 0 1 99 0 207 ACCIDENTS 0 5 6 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 147 0 10 191 0 368 ACCIDENTS (ARREST/CIT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 18 0 22 DRUG CALLS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 46 0 61 DV 15 0 5 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 113 2 7 179 0 331 DUI 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 85 0 5 67 0 162 DUI (ARREST) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 20 0 25 PURSUITS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY 7 8 28 1 0 0 1 20 7 2 413 0 36 657 0 1,180 VEHICLE RECOVERED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 0 2 34 0 59 911 ABANDON LINE 0 74 10 7 1 0 0 11 9 2 222 1 3 333 0 673 SHOPLIFTING 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 55 0 59 ALL ARRESTS (ARREST/CIT/IN) 7 0 14 2 0 0 0 12 1 0 274 0 111 758 0 1,179 CRIME CHECK REPORTS 2 0 15 1 0 1 0 14 9 0 457 0 2 558 1 1,060 4/8/2015 2015 MARCH CRIMES BY CITIES (Only crimes handled by Spokane County Sheriff's Office) 4/6/2015 AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV Total BURGLARY 5 0 8 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 76 0 0 73 0 166 FORGERY 3 0 2 1 0 0 6 2 2 0 49 0 0 50 0 115 MAL MISCHIEF 7 0 8 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 123 0 4 127 0 276 NON -CRIMINAL 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 5 12 0 24 PROP OTHER 19 1 5 1 0 0 9 2 0 0 54 0 32 141 0 264 RCRVD VEH 6 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 21 0 2 31 0 65 STL VEH 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 26 0 3 37 0 73 THEFT 40 0 4 1 0 0 6 6 1 0 121 0 4 260 1 444 VEH OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 14 0 27 VEH PROWL 11 0 2 0 0 0 4 1 3 1 55 0 0 97 0 174 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES ASSAULT 95 3 32 3 0 0 36 14 8 1 543 0 50 842 1 1,628 3 0 5 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 63 1 6 82 0 172 DOA/SUICIDE 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 25 0 1 28 0 61 DV 15 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 31 1 0 58 0 111 HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KIDNAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 MENTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 24 0 45 MP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 17 0 31 PERS OTHER 10 0 9 0 0 1 12 6 6 1 210 0 37 279 0 571 ROBBERY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 11 TEL -HARASS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 28 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES ADULT RAPE 29 0 17 1 0 1 19 20 8 1 379 2 45 512 0 1,034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 3 0 8 CHILD ABUSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 5 0 9 CUST INTFER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 13 0 22 SEX REGIS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 IND LIBERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 RAPE/CHILD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 6 RUNAWAY 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 47 0 0 34 0 87 SEX OTHER 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 7 0 3 6 0 21 STALKING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 SUSP PERSON 7 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 1 1 27 0 4 50 0 101 TOTAL SEX CRIMES TOTAL ITF TOTAL TRAFFIC 8 0 3 0 0 0 10 5 6 2 101 0 10 116 0 261 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 7 26 0 42 12 0 7 0 0 0 13 9 0 0 155 0 49 303 0 548 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 146 3 60 4 0 1 78 48 22 4 1,184 2 161 1,799 1 3,513 4/6/2015 • ilie Clemen 1021 irmont iv Fruit Hill .41 LL Wabash s nceton_ nEfellow Rich .,.utsr w � � 1CCa=E imucl$3; im omummuw Mal L� gro IN Pic elles Millratirej rland 111111117 �t --14.19 r �" r m amid," c Spokan Indiana MU A 190 Valle a ont c aNoti MB u.a PP H ® lL411) 25th aa o I r 5 nes 0 3 11 th 0 0.5 Co 0 a I Miles 1 i n ie I0 wilostain emmaroommiguirm iir 1 . speri • mis' i6 IMILISON tt# SIJ \stn ./4 • _NV Lacross' M■■■ F Y alley, Pit 0 Birch r altos B E id 0 rGrace Mon Old Miss' Des cR, �! © Herne ` Canidc berty Lake ra helley U �' e 111111V -J- 1, :-Egvir ...,„.msaI1 . MLR Z` we -ali :LOA maw mg MOH ■ MN En� 0 o,;-- so.erro AI �M!h Aunnic G0 1057, 51 lei• Sam o0` MOhah,4%k the 7J 41s 43r o, gene Terre n 0 2015 March Traffic Collision Hotspots •0 F°wvie., Traffic Collisions O 1 O 2 O 3 Low - Medium Low _ Medium High Map Produced: 13 Apr 2015 Clemen San a_ck ,j �Oa{ s •- atk'�olnmb�a Trail Rowan}%';- Fruit Hill es Wabash c Y """" 444��� n —'r -m- - 8, Fiase • n, Sc/d✓�i D —Con arlanc J �dl ro IIlss Is 0- I Lf ndin- E� Indutri a kA Kie an �ndutri Pak 8 Igdutri. Pa k In ust ial Par D b' nPark E•�, F rvi alley yuu ib! - i ; oat�I��:y.�•. � t • de7Cc -- MP • i�l� n u►► 'Bobne7 'C'%4 > a Spnngfield Broadw y Vallyway 1 Front Main tr Vista_, •Si• mn an lV �.:z_. mum arc =T■■ 4 mow,. iwatami ;3'ifiiifil 0 \ 21st 1,S8-niei IO >= oE\k ( j'''-dte 0 0.5 I Miles I S Uor ery Ferret] co o Moha oo, Sana I-�_• k Voce o� A nnic c4 P( gepe Terre Ball I h 4.§4 -r- i al aI 0 2015 March Commercial Burglary Hotspots oswiew Commercial Burglaries 0 1 0 2 Map Produced: 09 Apr 2015 Low Medium High Fruit Hill Granite ellesley Lacross c o I,n M Spokan �--Bu ke Grace ission 0 .1t _ W111/1117111121 �__.21 10TIMMIIi. IMIIIIIMPaillIMMEIMMIIIMMUNIIMINIIIMIN� esse %l u' ria+ �� �_� .ita �� ,� � Mil 3rd 1-��: , tl -'� �.. 'a _MO t811111., tirna� Iiali\ _ea ll 4F-- wows= z 1.1 him I� "� 111"111r ' ed11411 1 25th I0 37th 1st Be4e Terre 42ndn 3 Co„ I'm 55thj) 1£ 57th d N U E\k C° A:dge of ery ;U nob (-7 e S—a �MohaW�ok an moo' AUnnic CPPr" �R'0) ces d v1' view Residential Burglaries 0 1 O 2 0 3 _ Low _ Medium High 0 0I.5 I Miles 2015 March Residential Burglary Hotspots Map Produced: 09 Apr 2015 Lacrosse Gotietry Mica 4 i re 8 ma 0 5' 0 0.5 I Miles i 2015 February & March Stolen Vehicle Hotspots Stolen Vehicles 0 2 0 3 _ Low Medium High Map Produced: 09 Apr 2015 Clemen Mandalay Col Fruit Granite Mirab Lacross= Indupri '. kA Kie an industrial Pa k ar Insu mal 'arid D Mansfield Spokan : alley, id ■`ra yrr \� 7. � AL iPi v T' oJb�I r� A% A ��.:�+• Lake . Lam: ae Valle helley �+ e S elle Terre U sstfi- ) 1F Fr 57th ITT- -;I A 0 E\K o 1...\d8e 0.5 u r ery (GY`c_erf I Miles Sce• P crce A• �e61 MohaH,,� ok i A nnic = C. O U 1H 2015 March Vehicle Prowling Hotspots o 1st owview Vehicle Prowling o 1 O 2 O 3 _ Low ▪ Medium High Map Produced: 09 Apr 2015 e 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 Charge Count from Tickets: Spokane Valley JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ..2012 moi. 2013 --2014 -0-2015 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ..2012 t 2013 2014 -0...-• 2015 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 SPOKANE VALLEY TRAFFIC COLLISIONS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --2012 t 2013 ter--- 2014 -0-2015 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Spokane Valley Person Crimes JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -)-- 2012 2013 X2014 -0- 2015 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Spokane Valley Property Crimes JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2012 X2013 �- 2014 -0- 2015 • W'`Ilip • JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2012 X2013 �- 2014 -0- 2015 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Spokane Valley Self Initiated Incidents • .� 7P- JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -. 2012 2013 •LN- 2014 -0- 2015 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Spokane Valley Sex Crimes JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -).- 2012 t 2013 2014 -0-- 2015 SpUk ine 1 .� Val ley PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT March 2015 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION Contract Name Contractor Contract Total % of Expended as Contract Amount of 3/31/15 Expended Street Maintenance Poe Asphalt $1,366,663.00 $1,584.84** 0.12% Street Sweeping AAA Sweeping $490,199.94 $138,970.88 28.35% Storm Drain Cleaning AAA Sweeping $189,990.00 $22,709.48 11.95% Snow Removal Poe Asphalt $40,000.00 $5,792.62 14.48% Landscaping Senske $53,250.00 $0.00 0.00% Emergency Traffic Control Senske $10,000.00 $1,591.38 15.91% Litter and Weed Control Geiger Work Crew $60,000.00 $10,522.40 17.54% State Highway Maintenance WSDOT $265,000.00 $55,750.03** 21.04% Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping Spokane County $582,000.00 $59,059.49** 10.15% Dead Animal Control Brad Southard* $20,000.00 $1,960.00 9.80% * Budget estimates ** Does not include March 2015 — waiting on invoices Citizen Requests 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Citizen Requests for Public Works • Submitted Total Citizen Requests: Public Works 52 • Misc Requests 1111111111111 Dead Animal Roadway Removal Hazard Pothole Requests Sign & Storm Signal Drainage/ Traffic Requests Erosion Requests 6 3 6 6 14 6 11 • In Progress 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Resolved 52 6 3 6 6 14 6 11 *Information in bold indicates updates 1 WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/spokane/spokane river basin.htm, http://www.spokanecounty.orq/utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works/Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for March 2015: • AAA Sweeping continued with arterial maintenance sweeping. • AAA Sweeping began residential sweeping on March 7th (30% Complete). • AAA Sweeping began vactor operations (drywells, catchbasins, swale inlets & bridge drains. • Poe Asphalt began gravel road grading and shouldering operations. • The Geiger crew picked up 6,680 lbs. of litter and debris from our arterial roadways. • Snow Operations — Applied 2,250 gallons of Magnesium Chloride. A season total of 89,550 gallons of Magnesium Chloride and 235 tons of Iceslicer were applied. STORMWATER UTILITY The following is a summary of Stormwater Utility activities in the City of Spokane Valley for March 2015: • Roadway Landscaping Services Contract was executed with Senske Services. • Roadway Weed Control Services to eliminate weeds from paved surfacing was bid and is scheduled to open on April 3. • Started update and development of Stormwater Capital projects list for 2016-2021 • Continued work on various capital improvement projects, (see below). TRAFFIC CIP Projects Staff continues to coordinate with traffic related design and study items as part of CIP projects. Staff provided input and assisted with the 2018-2020 CMAQ and TAP call for projects. Specific Studies Staff is coordinating with the consultant to wrap up the University Overpass Study. Staff presented a summary of the study to Council in late March. Staff continues to coordinate with the consultant on the Sullivan Road Corridor Study. Development Projects Reviewing traffic impact studies and letters for several projects and assisting Development Engineering with the Comprehensive Plan Update. *Information in bold indicates updates 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS Spokane Va1Iey Public Works Projects Monthly Summary - Design & Construction March -2015 Street Projects 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement #4508 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection 0166 Pines Rd. (SR27) & Grace Ave. Int Safety 0206 Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project Street Preservation Projects 0188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 0211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley & Wellesley 0218 Montgomery Ave St Preservation 0220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell St Preservation FHWA- BR FHWA-CMAQ HSI P CDBG FHWA-STP(U) COSY COSY COSY Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06-3) FHWA-CMAQ 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements HSIP 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Back Plates HSIP Stormwater Projects 0197 Broadway, Havana to FancherSD Retrofit Other Projects 0149 Sidewalk Infill 0176 ApplewayTrail 06/27/14 07/18/14 06/05/15 06/26/15 10/02/15 10/23/15 04/24/15 05/15/15 04/10/15 05/01/15 03/27/15 04/17/15 04/17/15 05/08/15 04/17/15 05/01/15 11/07/14 12/05/14 05/25/15 06/12/15 08/30/15 09/28/15 100 10 99 0 85 0 60 0 99 100 60 50 09/30/16 08/31/15 10/31/15 06/30/15 O 10/31/15 O 07/30/15 O 12/31/15 O 12/31/15 $ 15,833,333 $ 2,002,350 $ 722,795 $ 287,094 $ 1,156, 500 660,279 285,890 316,965 100 0 08/31/15 $ 1,721,880 95 0 12/31/15 $ 474,580 50 0 10/28/16 $ 81,000 Dept of Ecology 05/15/15 06/05/15 60 0 07/31/15 $ 60,000 FHWA-CMAQ COSY 08/08/14 08/29/14 100 90 07/30/15 $ 1,139,955 08/22/14 09/09/14 100 80 5/15/2015 $ 1,605,400 Design & Construction $ 26,348,021 Design Bid Estimated Total Project DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION Funding Proposed Open % Complete Construction Project # Ad Date Date PE I CN Completion Cost Street Projects 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement #4508 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection 0166 Pines Rd. (SR27) & Grace Ave. Int Safety 0206 Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project Street Preservation Projects 0188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 0211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley & Wellesley 0218 Montgomery Ave St Preservation 0220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell St Preservation FHWA- BR FHWA-CMAQ HSI P CDBG FHWA-STP(U) COSY COSY COSY Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06-3) FHWA-CMAQ 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements HSIP 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Back Plates HSIP Stormwater Projects 0197 Broadway, Havana to FancherSD Retrofit Other Projects 0149 Sidewalk Infill 0176 ApplewayTrail 06/27/14 07/18/14 06/05/15 06/26/15 10/02/15 10/23/15 04/24/15 05/15/15 04/10/15 05/01/15 03/27/15 04/17/15 04/17/15 05/08/15 04/17/15 05/01/15 11/07/14 12/05/14 05/25/15 06/12/15 08/30/15 09/28/15 100 10 99 0 85 0 60 0 99 100 60 50 09/30/16 08/31/15 10/31/15 06/30/15 O 10/31/15 O 07/30/15 O 12/31/15 O 12/31/15 $ 15,833,333 $ 2,002,350 $ 722,795 $ 287,094 $ 1,156, 500 660,279 285,890 316,965 100 0 08/31/15 $ 1,721,880 95 0 12/31/15 $ 474,580 50 0 10/28/16 $ 81,000 Dept of Ecology 05/15/15 06/05/15 60 0 07/31/15 $ 60,000 FHWA-CMAQ COSY 08/08/14 08/29/14 100 90 07/30/15 $ 1,139,955 08/22/14 09/09/14 100 80 5/15/2015 $ 1,605,400 Design & Construction $ 26,348,021 Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 0201 ITS Infill Project - Phase 1 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 0221 McDonald Rd Diet (16th to Mission) 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF &Trent Traffic Projects 0159 University Road Overpass Study 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study Stormwater Projects 0193 Effectiveness Study 0198 Sprague, Park to University LID 0199 Havana -Yale Diversion 0200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-CMAQ COSY HSI P COSY 08/15/15 12/31/17 08/31/15 06/30/15 12/31/15 06/30/15 tbd FHWA-CMAQ 02/28/15 FHWA - STP(U) 06/30/15 Dept of Ecology Dept of Ecology Dept of Ecology Dept of Ecology 02/28/15 03/01/15 03/01/15 06/01/15 11 90 90 5 8 0 0 98 90 60 100 35 35 517,919 175,260 276,301 327,562 51,619 616,000 10,000 $ 249,711 $ 200,000 300,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Design only $ 2,784,372 *Information in bold indicates updates 3 Design Bid Total Project DESIGN ONLY Funding Complete Open % Complete Project # Date Date PE Cost Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 0201 ITS Infill Project - Phase 1 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 0221 McDonald Rd Diet (16th to Mission) 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF &Trent Traffic Projects 0159 University Road Overpass Study 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study Stormwater Projects 0193 Effectiveness Study 0198 Sprague, Park to University LID 0199 Havana -Yale Diversion 0200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-CMAQ COSY HSI P COSY 08/15/15 12/31/17 08/31/15 06/30/15 12/31/15 06/30/15 tbd FHWA-CMAQ 02/28/15 FHWA - STP(U) 06/30/15 Dept of Ecology Dept of Ecology Dept of Ecology Dept of Ecology 02/28/15 03/01/15 03/01/15 06/01/15 11 90 90 5 8 0 0 98 90 60 100 35 35 517,919 175,260 276,301 327,562 51,619 616,000 10,000 $ 249,711 $ 200,000 300,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Design only $ 2,784,372 *Information in bold indicates updates 3 PLANNING Amended 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) Staff reviewed the 2015-2020 TIP, project budgets and project progress through year end 2014, updated the planned work load for 2015 including grant awards that were received in 2014 and developed an Amended 2015 TIP for presentation and consideration by the City Council this March. Resolution 15-003, a resolution amending the 2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was adopted on March 24, 2015. GRANTS 2018-2020 CMAQ and TAP Call for Proiects City staff continues to evaluate proposed projects that would be good candidates for the upcoming round of CMAQ and TA Call for Projects due April 30th, 2015. City staff has met with STA and Spokane County staff to discuss projects these jurisdictions are pursuing in their 6 -year plans, especially those projects that interface with City of Spokane Valley streets. Staff met with WSDOT in February to discuss the City of Spokane Valley projects that interface with Washington highways. WSDOT is supportive of the City grant application candidates. WSDOT thanked the City for their efforts to communicate early and often. Staff presented a proposed list of grant candidates for the CMAQ/TA grant program to City Council on March 10, 2015. Project candidates with a rough estimated cost were: Argonne Rd Bridge @ 1-90, New SB Lane & Sidewalk (PE ONLY) $800,000 Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan $1,500,000 Appleway Trail - University to Balfour $700,000 Evergreen & Broadway ITS $830,000 Pines Rd Underpass, BNSF & Trent (SR -290) (PE ONLY) $2,000,000 Sullivan Rd & Wellesley Intersection Imp Project $800,000 After presenting the list to City Council, Staff had the opportunity to discuss the city's projects with SRTC staff. During that review, SRTC said the Argonne Rd Bridge project would not meet the CMAQ grant criteria because the project adds a lane, and therefore adds capacity to the roadway. CMAQ funding may not be used for capacity improvements. In addition, SRTC felt that the cost -to -benefit ratio of the Pines Rd Underpass project related to air quality improvements would most likely not be competitive with other projects. Staff confirmed this by looking at projects previously funded with CMAQ grants and the air quality improvements they provided. Staff met with Council on March 24th and reported the results of the SRTC discussion. *Information in bold indicates updates 4