2015, 08-11 Regular MeetingAGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FORMAL FORMAT MEETING
Tuesday, August 11, 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:
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: n/a
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 Aug. 11, 2015 Request for Council Action Form Totaling $2,912,631.66
b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 31, 2015: $460,087.81
c. Approval of July 21, 2015 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes
d. Approval of July 28, 2015 Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes
NEW BUSINESS
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-015 Adopting Mining Findings of Fact — Erik Lamb
[public comment]
3. Proposed Resolution 15-007 Amending Governance Manual — Chris Bainbridge [public comment]
4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project #0206 — Steve Worley
[public comment]
PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on
this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW
BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When
you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to
three minutes.
Council Agenda 08-11-15 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
5. 2016 Budget Estimated Revenues/Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor
6. Council Goals and Policies for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee — Mark Calhoun
7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos
INFORMATION ONLY: n/a
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
General Meetin,i 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 4t Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for
general public comments as well as comments after each action item.
The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1st 3rd and St'— 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 08-11-15 Formal Format Meeting
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 11, 2015
Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers:
VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT
07/23/2015 35912-35995; 629150025 $1,345,665.87
07/28/2015 35996-36054; 723150161 $1,255,293.22
07/29/2015 6253-6296 $3,118.00
08/04/2015 36055-36060 $9,752.51
08/05/2015 5212; 5226-5229; 5244; 36061-36062 $298,802.06
GRAND TOTAL: $2,912,631.66
Explanation of Fund Numbers found 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
#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. General Gov't -Finance related
001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply
001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services
001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services
001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation
001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Economic
001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services
001.090.000.594. General Gov't -Capital Outlay
001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preservation
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as
part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.]
STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Interim Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists
vchlist
07/23/2015 7:51:29AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
35912 7/23/2015 000921 ATO Z RENTAL & SALES INC
35913 7/23/2015 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC
211417-1
54024
54025
54026
35914 7/23/2015 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY RCB1175481
35915 7/23/2015 003078 ALLWESTTESTING & ENGINEERING 77754
35916 7/23/2015 001081 ALSCO LSPO1634220
LSPO1639818
35917 7/23/2015 003775 AM HARDWARE
35918 7/23/2015 004278 ARCHITECTS WEST INC
35919 7/23/2015 004460 AT&T MOBILITY SETTLEMENT FUND
35920 7/23/2015 000030 AVISTA
35921
7/23/2015 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING
35922 7/23/2015 004439 BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS INC
35519
8101
July 2015
July 2015
June 2015
15247
18802925
Fund/Dept Description/Account
001.058.057.558
402.402.000.531
402.402.000.531
402.402.000.531
001.076.305.575
311.000.188.595
001.016.000.521
001.016.000.521
001.076.302.576
310.000.215.594
101.042.000.519
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
001.058.055.558
001.076.305.575
Amount
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
Total :
STORM DRAIN CLEANING
STREET SWEEPING SERVICES
CAMERA INSPECTION OF SEWER
Total :
KEYS FOR CENTERPLACE
Total :
0188 -MATERIALS TESTING SERVIC
Total :
FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC
FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC
Total
KEYS FOR PARKS
Total
0215 -CITY HALL DESIGN & CN AEA
Total :
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SETTL
Total :
UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA
UTILITIES: PW ACCT NOT ON MAS'
Total :
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total :
PHONE SERVICE AT CENTERPLAC
Total :
43.48
43.48
25,117.35
59,058.06
515.00
84,690.41
112.50
112.50
2,471.00
2,471.00
20.39
20.39
40.78
120.55
120.55
36,380.80
36,380.80
20,077.34
20,077.34
25,985.93
36.00
26, 021.93
3,231.86
3,231.86
205.68
205.68
Page: 1
vchlist
07/23/2015 7:51:29AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 2
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
35923 7/23/2015 000673 BUDGET ARBOR & LOGGING LLC
35924 7/23/2015 001122 CAMERON-REILLY LLC
35925 7/23/2015 004455 CARLSON, CASSIE
35926 7/23/2015 004433 CARR, MELISSA
35927 7/23/2015 000572 CARTER, CAROL
35928 7/23/2015 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
35929 7/23/2015 003319 CO -ENERGY, CONNEL OIL
35930 7/23/2015 000619 COSTCO MEMBERSHIP
35931 7/23/2015 000365 DEPT OF LICENSING
35932 7/23/2015 002920 DIRECTV INC
35933 7/23/2015 003256 DISCOVERY BENEFITS INC, HRA PLAN
35934 7/23/2015 003717 DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES LP
11-2552
PAY APP 2
Aquatic Refund
Aquatic Refund
June 2015
July 2015
0120475 -IN
111810668149
DOL- Ford Escape
26192607295
0000555648 -IN
91201936
91201981
91202015
91202023
91202031
Fund/Dept
101.042.000.542
303.303.060.595
001.076.302.347
001.076.302.347
105.000.000.557
001.058.056.558
101.000.000.542
001.090.000.518
001.058.057.558
101.042.000.543
001.018.016.518
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
Description/Account
Amount
TREE REMOVAL
Total :
0060 - CONSTRUCTION CONTRAC'
Total :
AQUATIC REFUND: PELLETT
Total :
AQUATIC REFUND: CARR, MORALI
Total :
2015 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMI
Total :
PETTY CASH: 12844-12849,13052-1
Total :
SUPPLIES: PW
Total :
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL:
Total :
VEHICLE REGISTRATION
Total :
CABLE SERVICE MAINT SHOP
Total :
JUNE HRA SERVICE FEE
Total :
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER I
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER I
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER I
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER I
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER I
815.25
815.25
415,859.97
415,859.97
35.00
35.00
70.00
70.00
380.57
380.57
33.57
33.57
512.68
512.68
110.00
110.00
47.75
47.75
50.99
50.99
414.00
414.00
297.11
125.64
117.03
185.07
112.50
Page: 2
vchlist
07/23/2015 7:51:29AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 3
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
35934
7/23/2015 003717 DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES LP
35935 7/23/2015 003697 ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE LLC
35936 7/23/2015 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY
35937 7/23/2015 002255 ENTERPRISE INFO SOLUTIONS INC.
35938 7/23/2015 000106 FEDEX
35939 7/23/2015 003500 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES
35940 7/23/2015 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC
35941 7/23/2015 003136 GIBSON, CARLY
35942 7/23/2015 001009 GOTHMANN, WILLIAM
35943 7/23/2015 000007 GRAINGER
(Continued)
91203342
91205053
91205227
91205341
13112374
4239711
104116
5-069-56923
118110
44003
44006
44027
Expenses
July 2015
9779933945
9781275947
9784589872
Fund/Dept
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
Description/Account
Amount
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER I
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER I
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER I
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER 1
Total
001.090.000.586 SCRAPS INTERNET SERVICE
Total
101.000.000.542 FUEL FOR MAINT SHOP
Total
101.000.000.542 HOSTING CHARGE EROADTRACK
Total :
001.032.000.543 POSTAGE SERVICES
Total :
001.076.305.575 COFFEE SUPPLIES AT CENTERPL/
Total :
001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION
001.013.015.515 LEGAL PUBLICATION
001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION
Total :
001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
001.011.000.511 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE - PROR
Total :
001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW
402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: PW
402.402.000.531 SUPPLIES: PW
Total :
154.22
125.64
105.69
117.94
1,340.84
88.48
88.48
172.49
172.49
5,645.00
5,645.00
23.78
23.78
59.05
59.05
96.90
266.80
66.30
430.00
42.84
42.84
23.73
23.73
156.52
76.47
12.75
245.74
Page: 3
vchlist
07/23/2015 7:51:29AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 4
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
35944
35945
7/23/2015 002001 GUBLER, AMELIA
7/23/2015 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD
35946 7/23/2015 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC.
35947 7/23/2015 002831 HENDERSON, JEANNE
Aquatic Refund
828515
DEAL 12813
296339
296340
296853
296854
296863
296864
296870
296871
296882
296883
296985
296986
297025
Aquatic Refund
35948 7/23/2015 004089 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL, CONSULT/ 36883
35949 7/23/2015 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO
600458142
600460228
35950 7/23/2015 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO 94202
35951 7/23/2015 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 June 2015
Fund/Dept
001.076.302.347
402.402.000.531
501.000.000.594
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
001.076.302.347
402.000.193.531
001.090.000.548
001.090.000.548
Description/Account
Amount
AQUATIC REFUND: MARY, ANNIE, ,
Total :
SERVICE ON 2011 FORD F250
2015 FORD ESCAPE SE- COMMUN
Total :
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
Total :
AQUATIC REFUND: HENDERSON
Total :
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total :
SCHEDULE 572E3651:7/11-8/10/15
SCHEDULE 572DA494 6/19-7/18/20
Total :
101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: JUNE PW
Total :
52.50
52.50
179.19
23,789.92
23,969.11
23.74
9.20
343.92
14.67
98.43
16.15
110.02
32.29
60.13
12.45
608.34
38.44
3.65
1,371.43
35.00
35.00
27,490.98
27,490.98
830.28
839.80
1,670.08
367.38
367.38
101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW 84.75
Total : 84.75
Page: 4
vch l ist
07/23/2015 7:51:29AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 5
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
35952
7/23/2015 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES
35953 7/23/2015 000265 JACKSON, MIKE
35954 7/23/2015 004456 LYNCH, MAGGIE
35955 7/23/2015 000910 MANTZ, GLORIA
35956 7/23/2015 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW
35957 7/23/2015 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO
35958
35959
35960
35961
7/23/2015 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO
897787
899447
899448
901139
901660
901834
August 2015
Aquatic Refund
EXPENSES
CP M-7-14-15
June 2015
June 2015
June 2015
88228
7/23/2015 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC. 94993
7/23/2015 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC August 2015
7/23/2015 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
778528851001
778529260001
778531054001
778980591001
Fund/Dept
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
Description/Account
Amount
EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE
EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE
EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE
MONTHLY CLEANING AT CENTERP
EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE
EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE
Total :
001.013.000.513 AUTO ALLOWANCE
001.076.302.347
001.058.051.558
001.076.305.575
001.016.000.521
101.042.000.543
101.042.000.542
AQUATIC REFUND: LYNCH
Total :
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
MEDIA PURCHASE EXPENSE
Total :
UTILITIES: PARKS
UTILITIES: JUNE 2015: PW
ACCOUNTS NOT ON MASTER BILL
Total :
001.032.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW
001.018.016.518 SLOTTED NAME BADGE
001.090.000.518 CITY HALL RENT
001.032.000.543
001.032.000.543
001.032.000.543
001.032.000.543
SUPPLIES: PW
SUPPLIES: PW
SUPPLIES: PW
SUPPLIES: PW
Total :
Total :
Total :
47.41
121.16
570.80
7,136.00
26.34
94.82
7,996.53
300.00
300.00
35.00
35.00
103.50
103.50
2,882.35
2,882.35
3,890.33
10,446.87
138.31
14,475.51
25.92
25.92
16.85
16.85
35,511.52
35,511.52
85.84
17.99
5.71
17.99
Page: 5
vch l ist
07/23/2015 7:51:29AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 6
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
35961
7/23/2015 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
35962 7/23/2015 002243 ORBITCOM
35963 7/23/2015 000881 OXARC INC
35964 7/23/2015 003653 PARTSMASTER
35965 7/23/2015 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC.
35966 7/23/2015 001204 POWELL, DOUGLAS
35967 7/23/2015 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC
35968 7/23/2015 004453 RIVER CITY PAINTING INC
35969 7/23/2015 000191 RIVERFRONT PARK, GROUP SALES
35970 7/23/2015 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER
35971 7/23/2015 004333 SANDRY CONSTRUCTION CO INC
35972 7/23/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC.
(Continued)
779664487001
779790849001
833
R351364
20914806
44521/44522
EXPENSES
EXPENSES
41983
10594
16251
01-469886
Pay App 2
6172522
6746798
Fund/Dept
Description/Account
Amount
001.090.000.519 SUPPLIES: IT
001.018.016.518 SUPPLIES: HR
001.076.305.575
101.042.000.542
101.000.000.542
101.042.000.542
001.058.057.558
001.058.057.558
001.076.300.576
001.016.000.521
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
403.000.197.595
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
Total
PHONE SERVICE CP: FINAL BILLIN
Total :
Total :
Total :
CYLINDER RENTAL
SUPPLIES: PW
2015 STREET AND STORMWATER
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
SIGNS FOR PARKS
Total :
PRECINCT EXTERIOR PAINTING
Total :
SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP Al
Total :
SUPPLIES FOR REC PROGRAMS
Total :
BROADWAY AVE SD RETROFITS - I
Total :
15.99
27.12
170.64
209.26
209.26
106.06
106.06
131.28
131.28
102,375.91
102,375.91
416.30
504.42
920.72
104.35
104.35
12,685.29
12,685.29
768.00
768.00
68.20
68.20
424,646.00
424,646.00
ON-CALL EMERGENCY TRAFFIC C 530.46
ON-CALL EMERGENCY TRAFFIC C 847.86
Page: 6
vchlist
07/23/2015 7:51:29AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 7
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
35972 7/23/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC.
35973
35974
35975
35976
35977
35978
35979
35980
35981
35982
35983
7/23/2015 004131 SPOKANE CO SOLID WASTE MGMT
7/23/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
7/23/2015 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES
7/23/2015 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3
(Continued)
6747204
6752051
6759220
20150707-5491-31857
51502782
July 2015
July 2015
7/23/2015 003654 SPOKANE MALL LLC, SPOKANE VALLEY S0126415-1
7/23/2015 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE INC
488450
7/23/2015 000451 SPOKANE REG SPORTS COMMISSION 2nd QTR 2015
7/23/2015 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM July 2015
7/23/2015 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 53265
7/23/2015 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL
7/23/2015 004454 TANNER, HEATHER
890942
Fund/Dept
311.000.179.595
001.076.300.576
001.076.300.576
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
001.076.302.576
101.042.000.542
001.018.013.513
402.402.000.531
105.000.000.557
105.000.000.557
001.076.305.575
101.042.000.542
Aquatic Refund 001.076.302.347
Description/Account
Amount
REPAIRS ON HERALD AND SPRAG
WEEDING AT APPLEWAY TRAIL EN
REPLACED BAD CHLORINATOR OF
Total :
TRANSFER STATION CHARGES: P\
Total :
JUNE 2015 WORK CREW INVOICE
Total :
SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: JUI
Total :
WATER CHARGES: PW
Total :
SPACE RENTAL AT VALLEY MALL
Total :
2015 ROADSIDE WEEDSPRAYING •
Total :
2015 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEME
Total :
2015 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB
Total :
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AGREEME
Total :
TRANSFER STATION
AQUATIC REFUND: TANNER
Total :
132.84
163.05
648.65
2,322.86
30.00
30.00
5,422.70
5,422.70
1,598.65
1,598.65
128.06
128.06
1,000.00
1,000.00
2,771.43
2,771.43
30,000.00
30,000.00
3,165.06
3,165.06
7,896.92
7,896.92
97.17
97.17
90.00
Page: 7
vchlist
07/23/2015 7:51:29AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 8
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
35983 7/23/2015 004454 004454 TANNER, HEATHER
35984 7/23/2015 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 2320
35985 7/23/2015 000335 TIRE-RAMA
35986 7/23/2015 004457 TRAN, JOHNY
35987 7/23/2015 000723 US HEALTH WORKS
35988 7/23/2015 000295 VALLEYFEST
35989 7/23/2015 003175 VISIT SPOKANE
35990 7/23/2015 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE
35991 7/23/2015 000676 WEST- THOMAS REUTERS
35992 7/23/2015 000980 WESTERN SYSTEMS INC
35993 7/23/2015 000541 WONDERLAND NORTHWEST INC.
35994 7/23/2015 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE
(Continued)
8080036866
Aquatic Refund
0616465
July 2015
July 2015
6127
0061877-1518-7
0134380-2681-0
0134381-2681-8
0134382-2681-6
832107149
0000027825
5298
July 2015
Fund/Dept
309.000.217.594
402.402.000.531
001.076.302.347
001.018.016.518
105.000.000.557
105.000.000.557
105.000.000.557
402.402.000.531
402.402.000.531
001.076.305.575
001.016.000.521
001.013.015.515
Description/Account
Amount
Total :
0217-EDGECLIFF SHELTER PROJE
Total :
SERVICE: 47366D
AQUATIC REFUND: TRAN
PE -DOT PHYSICAL
Total :
Total :
Total :
2015 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB
2015 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB
Total :
2015 LODING TAX REIMBURSEMEI`
Total :
WASTE MGMT: PW VACTORING
WASET MGMT: MAINT SHOP
WASTE MGMT: CENTERPLACE
WASTE MGMT: PRECINCT
SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES
101.042.000.542 ETHERNET SWITCH
001.076.301.571
001.090.000.560
Total :
Total :
Total :
SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP Al
Total :
90.00
144.75
144.75
28.21
28.21
35.00
35.00
188.00
188.00
4,683.00
1,132.00
5,815.00
19,166.67
19,166.67
1,082.72
172.94
740.27
282.62
2,278.55
766.02
766.02
1,092.57
1,092.57
1,475.00
1,475.00
2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI 217.33
Page: 8
vchlist
07/23/2015 7:51:29AM
Voucher List Page: 9
Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank ,
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
35994 7/23/2015 003128 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE (Continued) Total : 217.33
35995 7/23/2015 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC July 2015 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICES 560.73
July 2015 B 001.090.000.518 DARK FIBER LEASE 253.01
Total : 813.74
629150025 6/29/2015 004438 APS INC
85 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
June 2015 001.143.70.00 POSTAGE FOR ACCT 10600059167 750.00
Total : 750.00
Bank total : 1,345,665.87
85 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,345,665.87
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: 9
vchlist
07/28/2015 11:42:47AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: /°'
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
35996 7/28/2015 000756 3CMA
35997 7/28/2015 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES
35998 7/28/2015 000135 APA
35999 7/28/2015 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC
36000 7/28/2015 000030 AVISTA
36001 7/28/2015 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC
36002 7/28/2015 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC
36003 7/28/2015 000101 CDW-G
36004 7/28/2015 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES
36005 7/28/2015 000235 DB SECURE SHRED
July 2015
A-153061
195827-1575
INV012123
June 2015
SPO -074725
9659661
9661592
9663589
S0112502
S0112880
S0113168
S0113182
S0113536
S20110669
WQ04493
358408
2721072015
Fund/Dept
001.018.013.513
001.076.300.576
001.058.056.558
001.016.000.521
001.076.300.576
001.090.000.518
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
Description/Account
Amount
ANNUAL DUES: 2016 C. BRANCH
Total :
PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARK:
Total :
2015-2016 RENEWAL C. JANSSEN
Total :
JANITORIAL SVCS: JUNE 2015
Total :
UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA
Total :
PHONE SERVICE CALL
LINEN SERVICE AND
LINEN SERVICE AND
LINEN SERVICE AND
LINEN SERVICE AND
LINEN SERVICE AND
LINEN SERVICE AND
LINEN SERVICE AND
LINEN SERVICE AND
LINEN SERVICE AND
001.090.000.518 IT SUPPLIES
303.000.224.595
001.090.000.518
Total :
SUPPLY AT C
SUPPLY AT C
SUPPLY AT C
SUPPLY AT C
SUPPLY AT C
SUPPLY AT C
SUPPLY AT C
SUPPLY AT C
SUPPLY AT C
Total :
Total :
SPV TRAFFIC SERVICES 2015
Total :
DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION
390.00
390.00
130.00
130.00
306.00
306.00
2,501.87
2,501.87
13, 317.53
13,317.53
738.07
738.07
62.08
35.97
251.98
37.82
77.00
116.07
13.75
17.19
19.90
631.76
379.80
379.80
1,495.00
1,495.00
156.30
Page:
vchlist
07/28/2015 11:42:47AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 2
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
36005 7/28/2015 000235 000235 DB SECURE SHRED
36006 7/28/2015 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST
36007 7/28/2015 003717 DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES LP
36008 7/28/2015 004461 EASTSIDE RV RENTALS
36009 7/28/2015 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC
(Continued)
July 2015
91207136
91207189
CSV REFUND
0615-0464
36010 7/28/2015 002887 ETTER,MCMAHON,LAMBERSON,CLARY, 2
36011 7/28/2015 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC
44049
44060
36012 7/28/2015 003188 GENERAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER SERV 0050466
0051090
36013 7/28/2015 002882 HOFFMAN MUSIC COMPANY SI -274529
36014 7/28/2015 000161 IIMC 21848
8688
36015 7/28/2015 002990 INPRO 2015-2016
36016 7/28/2015 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 June 2015
Fund/Dept
001.076.305.575
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
001.000.000.321
303.303.166.595
001.013.015.515
001.011.000.511
001.058.056.558
001.076.305.575
001.016.000.521
001.076.305.575
001.013.000.513
001.013.000.513
001.076.305.575
001.076.300.576
Description/Account
Amount
Total :
ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE
Total :
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER I
TRANSPORTATION FOR SUMMER I
Total :
CSV ENDORSEMENT REFUND
Total :
0166 - PINES RD & GRACE AVE INT
Total :
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
LEGAL PUBLICATION
LEGAL PUBLICATION
Total :
Total :
AMEREX RESTAURANT SYSTEM S
FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSPECTION
Total :
A/V SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
Total :
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP C. KOUDEL
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP: C. BAINBR
Total :
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR
Total :
UTILITIES: PARKS
156.30
3.15
3.15
230.43
122.47
352.90
13.00
13.00
336.41
336.41
4,876.00
4,876.00
161.20
96.05
257.25
112.23
144.52
256.75
59.55
59.55
95.00
195.00
290.00
150.00
150.00
1,333.98
Page: �2�
vchlist
07/28/2015 11:42:47AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
36016 7/28/2015 000388 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6
36017 7/28/2015 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES
36018 7/28/2015 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC.
36019 7/28/2015 004463 KIENBAUM, BONNIE
36020 7/28/2015 004274 KWIK BOND POLYMERS LLC
36021 7/28/2015 001944 LANCER LTD
36022 7/28/2015 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT
36023 7/28/2015 003959 MAX J KUNEY CO
36024 7/28/2015 003251 MDI MARKETING
36025 7/28/2015 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP
36026 7/28/2015 003596 MESSNER, SEAN
(Continued)
910436
00094897
Aquatic Refund
14026
0453920
June 2015
Pay App 10
10276
10301
10303
439
497
499
Expense
Fund/Dept
001.076.305.575
101.042.000.542
001.076.302.347
101.043.000.542
001.011.000.511
001.076.305.575
303.303.155.595
001.090.000.558
001.058.056.558
106.000.000.537
001.013.015.515
001.013.015.515
001.013.015.515
101.042.000.542
Description/Account
Amount
Total :
EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE
Total :
2015 TIP MAINTENANCE & UPDATE
Total :
AQUATIC REFUND: KIENBAUM
Total :
SANDS ROAD BRIDGE REPAIRS -
Total :
BUSINESS CARDS: GOTHMAN
Total :
OPERATING SUPPLIES: PARKS/CP
Total :
0155 - SULLIVAN RD WEST BRIDGE
Total :
ADVERTISING FOR COSV
ADVERTISING PHOTOGRAPHY
ADVERTISING SOLID WASTE
Total :
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
1,333.98
47.41
47.41
8,919.67
8,919.67
20.00
20.00
2,764.18
2,764.18
37.23
37.23
122.22
122.22
906,316.85
906, 316.85
2,670.00
2,475.00
23,538.00
28,683.00
5,771.95
1,774.73
333.60
7,880.28
323.58
323.58
36027 7/28/2015 004070 MOUNTAIN DOG SIGN COMPANY INC 11519 309.000.176.595 APPLEWAY TRAIL SIGN 3,992.28
Page:
,8/
vchlist
07/28/2015 11:42:47AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: /3,-4'
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
36027
7/28/2015 004070
004070 MOUNTAIN DOG SIGN COMPANY IN (Continued)
36028 7/28/2015 004462 MOUNTAIN WEST BANK, ATTN: CAROL [ Refund
36029 7/28/2015 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO
Fund/Dept
001.000.000.321
311.000.220.595
001.016.000.586 STATE REMITTANCE
Description/Account
Amount
Total :
CSV ENDORSEMENT REFUND
Total :
88204 SUPPLIES: PW
36030 7/28/2015 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER June 2015
36031 7/28/2015 003592 OGLEBAY RESPORT & CONFERENCE July 2015
36032 7/28/2015 001084 PAPICH, JENNIFER
36033 7/28/2015 001860 PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY
36034 7/28/2015 000119 PLESE PRINTING & MARKETING
36035 7/28/2015 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC
36036 7/28/2015 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER
36037 7/28/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC.
Expenses
H063164
H063212
H065657
1330057714
42050
01-476462
01-478939
10-849111
6172482
6710445
6736251
6764796
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.302.576
001.076.305.575
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
001.076.301.571
001.076.300.576
309.000.176.595
001.016.000.521
001.076.300.576
Total :
Total :
J. PAPICH CONFERENCE REGISTF
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
Total :
SWIMMING LESSON REGISTRATIC
Total :
POLO SHIRTS AND JACKETS/EMBf
Total :
SUPPLIES FOR REC PROGRAMS
SUPPLIES FOR REC PROGRAMS
SUPPLIES FOR REC PROGRAMS
Total :
CONTRACT MAINT: PARKS JUNE 2
APPLEWAY TRAIL WEED CONTROI
MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC-
ATHLETIC COURT PAINTING
3,992.28
13.00
13.00
226.36
226.36
49,210.14
49,210.14
1,436.72
1,436.72
98.00
98.00
117.45
31.31
65.94
214.70
492.00
492.00
537.52
537.52
45.90
119.99
23.45
189.34
58,934.26
1,005.48
493.28
934.82
Page:
vchlist
07/28/2015 11:42: 47AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: /Z/�
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
36037 7/28/2015 000709 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. (Continued)
36038 7/28/2015 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS
36039 7/28/2015 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY
36040 7/28/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
36041 7/28/2015 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3
50312986
June 2015
June 2015
July 2015
36042 7/28/2015 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 53236
53245
53266
36043 7/28/2015 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
36044
36045
36046
36047
7/28/2015 001922 SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC
3271082016
3271082027
3271082028
3271082031
3271082033
8035060179
RG 2070720
7/28/2015 001206 SWANSON'S REFRIGERATION &, RESTA 120838
7/28/2015 001250 SYTE NET SERVICES INC
7/28/2015 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC
8287
#1
Fund/Dept
001.018.013.513
001.016.000.586
001.016.000.521
001.076.300.576
001.076.305.575
001.016.000.521
001.016.000.521
001.013.000.513
001.011.000.511
001.011.000.511
001.013.000.513
001.011.000.511
001.058.056.558
001.076.301.571
001.076.305.575
001.090.000.518
310.000.215.594
Description/Account
Amount
Total :
COUNTY IT SUPPORT JUNE 2015
Total :
CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F
Total :
TARGET ZERO TEAM - IMPAIRED C
Total :
WATER CHARGES: PARKS
Total :
WORK ORDER #25660: CENTERPL
WORK ORDER # 25732
JUNE 2015 MONTHLY MAINT: PRE(
Total :
OFFICE SUPPLIES: OPS/ADMIN
OFFICE SUPPLIES: COUNCIL
OFFICE SUPPLIES: COUNCIL
OFFICE SUPPLIES: OPS/ADMIN
OFFICE SUPPLIES: COUNCIL
SUPPLIES: CD
Total :
MOVIE LICENSES FOR 7/24/2015
Total :
WORK ORDER/REPAIR ON WALK I
Total :
LABOR AND MATERIALS TO INSTAI
Total :
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROJE
61,367.84
12,962.05
12,962.05
791.94
791.94
1,623.61
1,623.61
503.70
503.70
128.27
448.93
605.46
1,182.66
35.60
10.79
23.25
44.44
34.21
110.64
258.93
571.76
571.76
438.57
438.57
664.59
664.59
1,995.00
Page:
vchlist
07/28/2015 11:42:47AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
36047 7/28/2015 001895 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC
(Continued)
36048 7/28/2015 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 59101142
36049 7/28/2015 000335 TIRE-RAMA
36050 7/28/2015 001464 TW TELECOM
8080036790
07675720
36051 7/28/2015 003135 UNITED RENTALS, (NORTH AMERICA) IN INV124919
INV125529
36052 7/28/2015 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD
36053 7/28/2015 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS
36054 7/28/2015 000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW
46595
46706
46718
9047594CR
9047594CR
9059841
9123876
9123877
9126108
July 15 2015
June 2015
23150161 7/24/2015 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-67
60 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
Fund/Dept
001.076.300.576
001.058.056.558
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
309.000.176.595
303.303.060.595
311.000.224.595
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.016.000.521
001.076.302.576
001.076.302.576
001.016.000.521
Description/Account
Amount
Total :
J1316-1 MONTHLY DRINKING WATI
Total :
SERVICE: 40205D
INTERNET AND PHONE
Total :
Total :
SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE
Total :
POSTAGE SERVICES
POSTAGE SERVICES
POSTAGE SERVICES
Total :
CREDIT FOR CP SUPPLIES RETUR
CREDIT FOR SUPPLIES RETURNEI
SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE
SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE
SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE
SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT
Total :
OPERATING EXPENSES
OPERATING EXPENSES AND MAN)
Total :
CRY WOLF CHARGES
Total :
Bank total :
1,995.00
27.00
27.00
714.15
714.15
1,247.30
1,247.30
423.40
185.88
609.28
184.88
591.23
306.68
1,082.79
-65.02
-15.98
15.98
840.03
141.31
652.42
1,568.74
47,494.04
77,609.00
125,103.04
3,080.47
3,080.47
1,255,293.22
60 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,255,293.22
Page:
- vchlist
07/29/2015 1:03:39PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : pk-ref
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
6253 7/29/2015 004473 BALINSKY, JULIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00
Total : 52.00
6254 7/29/2015 004501 BARE, KAY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER CAMP CANCELLATION 107.00
Total : 107.00
6255 7/29/2015 004491 BARTHOLOMEW, VICTORIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00
Total : 52.00
6256 7/29/2015 001689 BRADSTREET, JENNIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00
Total : 52.00
6257 7/29/2015 004486 BROWN, LILY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00
Total : 52.00
6258 7/29/2015 004467 BURGETT, SEAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00
Total : 52.00
6259 7/29/2015 004465 CARPENTER, HEATHER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER CAMP CANCELLATION 107.00
Total : 107.00
6260 7/29/2015 004479 CLARK BRAILEY, CANDACE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00
Total : 52.00
6261 7/29/2015 004485 DAVIS, EILEEN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES/ 52.00
Total : 52.00
6262 7/29/2015 004496 DEMARA, JACOB PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT FIRESIDE LOW 210.00
Total : 210.00
6263 7/29/2015 004488 EWAN, AMANDA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00
Total : 52.00
6264 7/29/2015 004482 GARCIA, SAMANTHA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT BROWNS PARk 52.00
Total : 52.00
6265 7/29/2015 004474 HALLETT, ALEXIS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00
Page: ��
vchlist
07/29/2015 1:03:39PM
Voucher List Page:
Spokane Valley
Bank code : pk-ref
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
6265 7/29/2015 004474 004474 HALLETT, ALEXIS
(Continued)
Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
Total : 52.00
6266 7/29/2015 004466 HAMED, IQBAL PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00
Total : 52.00
6267 7/29/2015 004481 HANKINS, SANDY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT BROWNS PARK 52.00
Total : 52.00
6268 7/29/2015 004286 HANLEY, NICOLE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT EXECUTIVE CC 52.00
Total : 52.00
6269 7/29/2015 004490 HOOPER, GRACE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT TERRACE VIEA 52.00
Total : 52.00
6270 7/29/2015 004489 HOYT, MARGARET PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00
Total : 52.00
6271 7/29/2015 004492 HRG, HEALTHCARE RESOURCE GROUP PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00
Total : 52.00
6272 7/29/2015 004484 INSHRM PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00
Total : 52.00
6273 7/29/2015 000979 IRS ENVIRONMENTAL OF WA INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 110 52.00
Total : 52.00
6274 7/29/2015 004469 JARED, RHONDA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00
Total : 52.00
6275 7/29/2015 004498 LUHN, HAYLEY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 200.00
Total : 200.00
6276 7/29/2015 004478 MARIGNY, MINDY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00
Total : 52.00
6277 7/29/2015 004483 MCKANNA, SEAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT SULLIVAN PARI 52.00
Total : 52.00
6278 7/29/2015 004499 MILLARD, ANNE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00
Page:
vchlist
07/29/2015 1:03:39PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
lO
Page:
Bank code : pk-ref
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
6278 7/29/2015 004499 004499 MILLARD, ANNE (Continued) Total : 210.00
6279 7/29/2015 004471 MOLLOTTE, RISSA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00
Total : 52.00
6280 7/29/2015 004477 MOORE, STEVE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT DISCOVERY PL 52.00
Total : 52.00
6281 7/29/2015 001428 NARFE - CHAPTER 32 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT EDGECLIFF 52.00
Total : 52.00
6282 7/29/2015 003787 NAT'L ASSOC OF LETTER CARRIERS, BF PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00
Total : 52.00
6283 7/29/2015 004500 NORTH CENTRAL CLASS OF '74 PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 210.00
Total : 210.00
6284 7/29/2015 004493 ORTON, FOSTER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00
Total : 52.00
6285 7/29/2015 004495 PAYTRACE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT ROOM 109 52.00
Total : 52.00
6286 7/29/2015 004480 PERRY, SHERRY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT SULLIVAN PARI 52.00
Total : 52.00
6287 7/29/2015 004468 QUIMBY, PHEDRE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU SPF 52.00
Total : 52.00
6288 7/29/2015 004475 ROSE, CRAIG PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00
Total : 52.00
6289 7/29/2015 004472 SCHIMMELS, MIKE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT TERRACE VIE1A 52.00
Total : 52.00
6290 7/29/2015 004476 SMITH, MELISSA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00
Total : 52.00
6291 7/29/2015 001769 SPALDING AUTO PARTS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00
Page:
vchlist
07/29/2015 1:03:39PM
Voucher List Page:
Spokane Valley
Bank code : pk-ref
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
6291 7/29/2015 001769 001769 SPALDING AUTO PARTS (Continued) Total : 52.00
6292 7/29/2015 000896 SPOKANE VALLEY MEALS ON WHEELS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00
Total : 52.00
6293 7/29/2015 004487 THOMPSON, WADE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREENACRES 52.00
Total : 52.00
6294 7/29/2015 004494 VAPOR LOUNGE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT BROWNS PARK 52.00
Total : 52.00
6295 7/29/2015 004497 WIEBE, ROBERT PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT GREAT ROOM 150.00
Total : 150.00
6296 7/29/2015 004470 WILSON, KATHY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT VALLEY MISSIC 52.00
Total : 52.00
44 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 3,118.00
44 Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers : 3,118.00
Page:
vchlist
08/04/2015 2:40:31 PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
36055 8/4/2015 001606 BANNER BANK 8573 July 2015
8573 July 2015
8573 July 2015
8573 July 2015
8573 July 2015
8573 July 2015
36056 8/4/2015 001606 BANNER BANK 8581 JULY 2015
8581 JULY 2015
8581 JULY 2015
8581 JULY 2015
8581 JULY 2015
8581 JULY 2015
8581 JULY 2015
8581 JULY 2015
36057 8/4/2015 001606 BANNER BANK 8565 July 2015
8565 July 2015
8565 July 2015
8565 July 2015
8565 JULY 2015
36058 8/4/2015 001606 BANNER BANK
36059 8/4/2015 001606 BANNER BANK
5214 July 2015
8599 July 2015
8599 July 2015
8599 July 2015
8599 July 2015
8599 July 2015
8599 July 2015
8599 July 2015
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
101.042.000.542
309.000.176.595
001.013.099.513
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM
PLANET HOLLYWOOD RESORT
PETERS HARDWARE
AMAZON.COM
38.62
49.50
78.96
14.13
3,161.46
001.018.016.518 AMAZON.COM 400.00
Total : 3,742.67
001.058.056.558 ROSAUERS
001.058.055.558 URISA- URBAN REGIONAL INFO S
001.058.056.558 HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS
001.090.000.558 ICMA
001.058.057.558 THE HOME DEPOT
001.058.057.558 HEATHMAN LODGE
001.058.050.558 NW REGIONAL FLOODPLAIN MGM
001.058.056.558 THE HOME DEPOT
101.043.000.542
001.016.000.521
001.090.000.518
001.018.013.513
001.090.000.518
ATLAS SUPPLY
CARUSOS SANDWICH CO
PARTS EXPRESS
LYNDA.COM
ATS ACOUSTICS
Total :
Total :
92.59
600.00
2.16
149.00
71.45
255.72
375.00
8.41
1,554.33
205.94
38.43
232.95
24.99
487.06
989.37
101.042.000.542 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 372.50
Total : 372.50
001.076.301.571 FRED MEYER 60.90
001.076.301.571 WALMART 349.94
001.076.302.576 FED EX OFFICE 130.36
001.076.301.571 PARTY CITY 31.70
001.076.305.575 TULALIP RESORT CASINO 285.10
001.076.301.571 DOLLARTREE 8.70
001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY 39.20
Page:
vchlist
08/04/2015 2:40:31 PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 2-/
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
36059 8/4/2015 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued)
8599 JULY 2015
8599 JULY 2015
8599 JULY 2015
8599 JULY 2015
8599 JULY 2015
8599 JULY 2015
8599 JULY 2015
8599 JULY 2015
8599 JULY 2015
8599 JULY 2015
001.076.301.571 YMCA
001.076.301.571 TARGET STORE
001.076.301.571 CAT TALES
001.076.301.571 DOLLARTREE STORES
001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY
001.076.305.575 WEST PLAINS CHAMBER OF COMI
001.076.301.571 DOLLARTREE STORES
001.076.305.575 SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER OF C
001.076.305.575 GREATER SPOKANE INC
001.076.301.571 HOBBY LOBBY
Total :
297.52
27.15
310.00
41.31
80.67
20.00
22.83
25.00
25.00
59.68
1,815.06
36060 8/4/2015 001606 BANNER BANK 8557 July 2015 001.011.000.511 ALBERTSONS 10.00
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 ROSAUERS 21.41
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 JIMMY JOHNS 90.50
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 CUPPA JOES CAFE 99.66
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 CUPPA JOES CAFE 233.04
8557 JULY 2015 001.090.000.519 APPLEWAY FLORIST 65.21
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER OF C 35.00
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER OF C 35.00
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 RED LION HOTEL 281.88
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 RED LION HOTEL 281.88
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER OF C 25.00
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER OF C 25.00
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER OF C 25.00
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER OF C 25.00
8557 JULY 2015 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER OF C 25.00
Total : 1,278.58
6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 9,752.51
6 Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers : 9,752.51
Page:
,/
vchlist
08/05/2015 7:43:30AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: `moi
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
5212 8/5/2015 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben62217 001.231.15.00 PERS: PAYMENT 92,047.98
Total : 92,047.98
5226 8/5/2015 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLi Ben62219 303.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 32,421.66
Total : 32,421.66
5227 8/5/2015 000682 EFTPS Ben62221 303.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 38,501.92
Total : 38, 501.92
5228 8/5/2015 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 4E Ben62223 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: I 7,050.06
Total : 7,050.06
5229 8/5/2015 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EX Ben62225 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,441.96
Total : 1,441.96
5244 8/5/2015 000682 EFTPS Ben62229 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 1,231.66
Total : 1,231.66
36061 8/5/2015 000120 AWC Ben62213 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS: PAYMENT 112,957.87
Ben62227 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS (COUNCIL): PAYME 10,757.68
Total : 123,715.55
36062 8/5/2015 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben62215 001.231.21.00 UNION DUES: PAYMENT 2,391.27
Total : 2,391.27
8 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 298,802.06
8 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 298,802.06
Page:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 11, 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 July 31, 2015
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
Budget/Financial impacts:
Employees Council Total
Gross: $ 288,798.27 $ 6,225.00 $295,023.27
Benefits: $ 153,662.77 $ 11,401.77 $165,064.54
Total payroll $ 442,461.04 $ 17,626.77 $460,087.81
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
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
July 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
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem
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 Dev. Director
Chelsie Taylor, Interim Finance Director
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present.
1. Comprehensive Plan Overview Progress Report — John Hohman
Director Hohman introduced Mr. Tadas Kisielius from Van Ness Feldman, who is assisting with our
Comprehensive Plan Overview. Mr. Hohman explained that tonight is similar to taking an intermission in
the Comp Plan development; that we have Mr. Kisielius available and Council should feel free to ask
questions about any aspect of the update process, from the Growth Management Act (GMA), to Council's
authority; he said tonight they will be discussing the City's authority to plan, the population allocation
process the County is going through, and then the next steps. Mr. Kisielius went through the PowerPoint
slides explaining the City's authority to plan, or its police power, and said our main concern is the GMA
and its key area of emphasis is to limit sprawl; he explained that the update must include an analysis of
the population allocated to a city or county from the most recent ten-year population forecast by the
Office of Financial Management (OFM); that the County Commissioners initiate the UGA (Urban
Growth Area) and population allocation review process, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials
(SCEO) reviews the population allocation recommendations by the Planning Technical Advisory
Committee (PTAC), and then forwards the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners; and
then the Board of County Commissioners adopts population allocations for the County and local
jurisdictions. Councilmember Higgins asked how the recommendations are being made since the SCEO
has failed to meet for some time. Mr. Kisielius said that he understand the process has stalled due to the
bigger legal battle that has engaged the County. Mr. Hohman added that there was an effort started by one
of the Commissioners to review the CWPP (County Wide Planning Policies), and that committee stalled
and although we have not heard from them, the County is moving forward to determine the population
allocation; he said the County met earlier this month to discuss it and to move forward with just that
component; said that Senior Planner Lori Barlow volunteered to work on the subcommittee to just
develop those numbers; that a meeting was held last week; that we are actively engaged in that process
and the County staff is looking at maybe recommending the OFM medium number as it tracks well with
the growth this area has experienced over the last ten years; said there is no guarantee whatever number
they arrive at will be the final number. Mr. Hohman explained that another issue is, when the number was
established, there were various other interest groups, like the one that initially appealed this, and that
those groups are still tracking the process; he said we are hopeful the number will be the universally
Council Study Session: 07-21-2015 Page 1 of 4
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
accepted number as we are getting to the point where many of the next steps depend on having that
correct number, and we don't want Van Ness Feldman to analyze numbers and then have those numbers
change.
Deputy Mayor Woodard said that it is his understanding that once the number is established, the other
groups will all file suit which will hold up the program as none of those groups want growth; and he
asked how then do we move forward. Mr. Kisielius agreed it is a frustrating situation; said the safest place
is to use the numbers based on what the County gives us, as there is a bigger risk in moving forward with
something inconsistent with what the County adopts; that the best path forward now is to wait for the
numbers to develop from the County process. Deputy Mayor Woodard stated that could end up in a few
months, having the process stalled for a few years. Mr. Kisielius said he would be hesitant to speculate on
the nature of what could happen, and that hopefully the County's process to arrive at a number won't take
three years, as it would be bigger in terms of wasted effort. In response to a question from Council about
the definition of sprawl, Mr. Kisielius said that it is neither urban nor rural densities, but somewhere in
the middle; and that there is no clear-cut answer as to what is urban or rural. A question was also raised
about the time limit for the County to produce a number, and Mr. Kisielius replied that the County is
governed as we are, to finish by 2017, and that they need the population allocation number approximately
three years before the deadline, so we are already late. Mr. Hohman added that the County is working on
coming up with that number. There was further discussion about the definition of sprawl with Mr.
Kisielius explaining that there is some discretion when it comes to that definition; that the state won't
dictate what that is nor will they dictate what are urban and rural densities; he said we have some
flexibility to define that as it is not a "one -size -fits -all" definition; he said although the population
allocation numbers are dictated by OFM, the County has discretion to choose the medium, high or low
number, make that allocation and divide it up among the cities, then we plan according to that number,
which is premised on efficient delivery of urban infrastructure. Mr. Kisielius further explained that we
have been in communication with the County regarding our most current land capacity analysis because
we need to make sure we can accommodate the numbers they come up with; and Mr. Hohman added that
is where the analyses come in, we have to examine different zones and traffic analysis to make sure the
growth is occurring where it can be supported by the infrastructure, which he said is a huge process.
Director Hohman said that we don't want to give the impression that the process has come to a halt or that
nothing has been done until the County determines that number; he said staff is compiling a detailed plan
on how to move forward; that we already commissioned and got the community visioning report, the
comp plan audit goals and policies, and the CARs (citizen action request) initiated, and are now working
on this review and finalizing the existing conditions report; said we have a draft and are reviewing it now;
that staff will work with Mr. Jackson to bring that forward for discussion. Mr. Hohman also mentioned
there is quite a bit of work to do on the CARs; that we look at what we can work on in the interim, we
look at how the documents are written through the state and what is the newest and best way to provide
the information, along with what other jurisdictions are doing; said staff is working on an outline template
for how the chapters should look and that approximately 30% of the plan is together; said some chapters
like natural environment haven't changed; and last year they deferred incorporating the Parks &
Recreation Master Plan into the Arts Chapter; said the next possible consultant contract will include
looking for amendments to develop what goals and policies are missing, adding that Van Ness Feldman
found several redundant goals and policies; said there will be an audit of existing development regulations
so we understand where we stand now and where we go in the future; and another aspect not directly
related is a traffic study that should be conducted in the Pinecroft Mirabeau area; said from an economic
development standpoint we have a lot of acreage and need to come forward with a cooperative study; said
they have talked with two of the three property owners and they are interested in working with us.
Council said they appreciate the information and update.
Council Study Session: 07-21-2015 Page 2 of 4
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
2. Admission Tax — Erik Lamb
Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that during the February 17, 2015 Council Workshop there was
some discussion about a potential admissions tax, at which time Council requested more information; that
an update was given to Council during the May 5, 2015 council meeting where Council requested more
research, including what are the taxes of some of the surrounding cities, and what we might see in the
form of revenues should such a tax be applied to the fairgrounds and Avista Stadium. Based on that
Council direction, Mr. Lamb said he did additional research on a potential admissions tax. As noted in his
July 21, 2015 Request for Council Action form, Mr. Lamb explained the City's authority to levy and
impose a tax, what the tax could and could not be levied upon, and the types of admissions charges. Mr.
Lamb explained that the City has broad authority to make distinctions and levy the tax to some places but
exclude others, provided a reasonable basis for the distinction is provided. He also explained that the tax
must be collected, administered and audited by the city imposing the tax, and that those revenues could be
used for most general governmental purposes with noted exceptions. Mr. Lamb's information included in
the Council packet showed the types of admission taxes for Spokane, Liberty Lake and Airway Heights,
and noted that Spokane imposes the admission tax on the Spokane Arena, INB Performing Arts Center
and Convention Center, but that all admissions tax collected on charges from those facilities is remitted to
the Spokane Public Facilities District. Mr. Lamb also discussed possible revenues we could realize from
the Fair Center and Avista Stadium. Council staff discussion included the amount of staff time required
for such a tax, and a reminder that this topic was brought up as staff was tasked to look at economic
development incentives including revenue generating sources for the City. There was Council consensus
that this tax is not needed and therefore, the subject would not be pursued further.
3. Marijuana Legislative Update — Erik Lamb
Now that the State Legislative session has ended, Mr. Lamb explained that there are many laws regulating
marijuana, but there were two major bills which passed, one dealing with the reconciliation of medical
and recreational marijuana, which included changing the name of the Liquor Control Board to the Liquor
and Cannabis Board, and the second bill which is an omnibus bill modifying the taxing structure for
marijuana, which directs some tax revenues to local jurisdictions. Attorney Lamb went over the details of
some of those changes as contained in his July 21, 2015 Request for Council Action form. One of the
major changes Mr. Lamb described was that after July 1, 2016, collective gardens will not be able to
operate, although those businesses could seek a retail license or pursue the area of medical cooperatives,
which means we might have to look at edits to our code. Mr. Lamb explained the local authority to
regulate these changes, criminal/civil infraction modifications, tax reforms, and tax distributions to local
governments. Mr. Lamb also noted that our retailers appear to be abiding by the law.
4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos
Councilmember Gothmann suggested adding the subject of trains and all associated aspects, such as quiet
zones, bridging the valley, etc., to alert residents about what we can or can't do, and several
Councilmembers agreed. Councilmember Higgins reminded everyone that Clean Air Agency Executive
Julie Oliver will be on next week's agenda. Mayor Grafos said he would like to add a discussion about the
false alarm ordinance and the associated fees and fines. City Manager Jackson said he is looking into the
issue and his goal is to advertise for RFPs (request for proposal) to determine how we could best contract
for that service, but that it might be better to wait until the new CAD (computer-aided dispatch) system is
in place.
5. Council Comments — Mayor Grafos
Mayor Grafos said he visited River Park Square where a Visit Spokane booth was in the foyer with a big
map of the area, but the map did not include Spokane Valley or the mall, but did include the City of
Liberty Lake; said he listened to some discussion from the representatives of Visit Spokane about areas to
visit, and said there was no discussion about the Valley or even going to the Valley Mall, or even about
CenterPlace or Mirabeau; said this is something to consider as we look at future lodging tax allocations
Council Study Session: 07-21-2015 Page 3 of 4
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
and our past allocations of $400,000 or $500,000, and that we might want to make some changes in the
future. Concerning our code enforcement, Mayor Grafos mentioned some items which he would like
examined: the property at Margaret and Broadway where a house has been torn down; what appears to be
a perpetual garage sale at Broadway and University, which would be an illegal business; and 21St and
University where a burned down house has been sitting in disrepair for a long time. Deputy Mayor
Woodard said that property has been sold and the new owner put up a fence and has started cleaning up
the property. Mayor Grafos said that enough is enough and we should look at prioritizing code
enforcement as nothing is being done, and that perhaps a report could be given to Council on these
mentioned properties.
6. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson said he would like to include on the August 18 Council agenda, some of the
unfinished business from the budget retreat, including discussion about Council goals as well as funding
312, capital reserve funds and how to allocate those funds; said he proposes incorporating the adoption of
fund 312 into the budget; said concerning the WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation)
property previously discussed, the property adjacent to Sullivan Park, that we received an extension from
WSDOT and have until September 1 to decide whether we would like to purchase the property; said there
is some hazardous waste on that property; and that the goal is to work through the process and make
options available for Council discussion, and to tie that in with available and capital reserve funds.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Study Session: 07-21-2015 Page 4 of 4
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, July 28, 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
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem
City Staff:
Mike Jackson City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Chelsie Taylor, Interim Finance Director
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Manuel Denning of Fountain Ministries gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, staff and audience rose for the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS:
Special Recognition of Eagle Scout Austin Dill Mike Stone
Parks and Recreation Director Stone introduced Eagle Scout Austin Dill, who will be a senior this fall at
University High School. Mr. Stone said that Austin has been working to get a basketball court for Browns
Park; said he was passionate about the game and about the need for more public outdoor courts, and through
his perseverance and work with Hoopfest and the City, and by sticking to his goals, this became a reality and
tonight we celebrate the results of his qualities and his work; said the basketball court is a wonderful
community asset and we join others in thanking him for his efforts. After a round of applause, Mr. Dill said
he just recently achieved Eagle Scout with Troop 420; said he had been wishing for an outdoor basketball
court since he was in middle school and as a member of the Boy Scouts, thought this would be a good Eagle
Scout project; said the idea was a little overwhelming and he realized it was a big project, but also realized it
would be a huge benefit for the community; said it took about two years to get approval and complete the
project, and that it is encouraging seeing the kids playing on the court, and he thanked the City and Mr. Stone
for supporting his efforts to make this happen. Councilmembers thanked Mr. Dill for his efforts.
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the Chamber's business connections lunch at CenterPlace
where he heard about storytelling; that he and Councilmember Pace got together with staff and discussed
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) goals.
Councilmember Gothmann- said he attended a neighborhood barbeque in his neighborhood in Ponderosa;
met with Councilmember Pace and others on the governance manual proposed changes; attended the
Chamber's storytelling business connections lunch; and last Saturday and Sunday participated in the
Cycle Celebration, which is part of Valleyfest; said there were about 300 in attendance including people
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 1 of 7
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
from the western side of our state, as well as others from other states; and that there were about thirty
volunteers working in various capacities.
Councilmember Higgins: said he also attended the Chamber's business connections event; went to the
City employee appreciation luncheon, and thanked Councilmember Wick for his contribution of
outstanding homemade ice cream.
Councilmember Pace: said that he and Councilmember Wick and others meet to discuss the LTAC goals
and policies; and he and Councilmember Gothmann and others met to discuss proposed changes to the
governance manual; and that he also enjoyed the employee appreciation luncheon put on by the senior
staff.
Councilmember Hafner: mentioned he is this year's Health District Chair and said he has been attending
many Health District meetings, some concerning the fee schedule, especially for small activities, and
which has been a contentious issue as some people feel the fees are very expensive; and they are working
to come up with a solution; said he heard a legislative report regarding what's happening with the Health
District requests to the state concerning e -cigarettes, which he said are very harmful yet the Health
District has very little authority in that regard, and that he hopes there will be more regulations in the next
few years; said he attended a strategic health planning group meeting with about twenty-seven action
items, that every five or six years they go through the plans and programs to see what is or is not
effective; said there is a most important issue of a whooping cough epidemic in our state as there were
834 cases during 2015, compared with 143 the year before, and said most cases are occurring in the
western part of the state; said the Health District is recommending vaccinations, especially for young
children and babies; said he attended the SCOPE picnic at Deer Park; went to another Board of Health
Executive meeting and a Board of Health Board meeting; went to the Chamber's business connection
meeting; had a special meeting with Visit Spokane where the big concern is how to endorse some
agencies relative to what they might want to do; that this is a contentious issue and the meeting mostly
included downtown Spokane people; said he attended our City's employee appreciation lunch, and he
thanked senior staff for that event.
Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he attended many Chamber of Commerce meetings, and he reminded
everyone of the Big 5 project of the chamber.
MAYOR'S REPORT There was no Mayor's report.
PROCLAMATION: n/a
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comments.
1. Lynn Plaggemeier: (a) mentioned photos he took the other day showing the east side of Value Village,
said there are lots of violations such as parked semi -trucks, and said this mess needs to get cleaned up; (b)
the other photo was of the "derelict store" of Albertson's with windows boarded up with plywood at an
intersection that gets a lot of traffic, said it doesn't reflect well on the city and something needs to be
done; (c) concerning Avista putting in a new gas line on Sprague, said Council needs to come up with a
resolution if a company makes those patches, they should not be issued another permit until the mess is
cleaned up, and said if we stall long enough they won't have to do it; (d) mentioned the proliferation of
real estate signs down Sprague and said it looks like the entire Sprague Avenue is for sale.
2. Rocky Sampson: said he is with Checker Cab; he's originally from New York; his great-grandfather
started Checker Cab in 1901; mentioned problems with "Uber" and "Lift" and that they don't have
liability insurance; many nights they raise their rates in excess of ten to twenty times higher than their
normal rates; they don't have a UBI number, and he asked that those companies not be allowed to operate
in our city limits; said Spokane had similar problems and agreed those companies are not running legally.
3. James Johnson: spoke about our Spokane Valley Vision Statement, said it is a stroke of brilliance and
he quoted the statement; said every once in a while we start to err on the side of business and the voice of
one is heard louder than the voice of the neighborhood, and when that happens we don't have public
involvement.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 2 of 7
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Mining Moratorium — Erik Lamb
Mayor Grafos opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained the
background of this ordinance as well as the previous moratorium ordinance, all as noted in his July 28,
2015 Request for Council Action; concerning the previous moratorium, said it was determined we did not
do all we could to provide all we could or that we normally do in hearings as we didn't publish a notice of
the hearing in the City's official newspapers; said there were comments at that other hearing, but to ensure
we heard from as much of the public as possible, we are offering this hearing tonight; said that this
ordinance repeals the other ordinances dealing with the mining moratorium, that this hearing is being held
within the sixty-day required time period; and that we feel we have now met those public notice
requirements having published notice of this hearing three separate times; said we are in the midst of our
comprehensive plan update process and part of that includes a comprehensive review of existing land
inventory and existing and desired land uses. Mr. Lamb spoke of the open mining pits and said once a
mine is opened, the impacts of the mine on land are usually irreversible. Mr. Lamb also explained that
state statute requires our City to designate where appropriate, resource lands that are not already
characterized by urban growth and that we are further required to adopt development regulations to assure
conservation of mineral resource lands; said we need to update our code and that there is potential for new
mining that might be inconsistent while we go through this process, so we feel the moratorium is
appropriate at this time. Mr. Lamb noted that Ordinance 15-013 declares an emergency and was therefore
effective upon its adoption; said we have established a work plan; and set the effective duration from the
effective date of June 30, to February 23, 2106, which he said is the same duration set under the original
moratorium, so we did not extend the moratorium; and again said that this hearing is simply to allow
additional public testimony. Mr. Lamb said that after research, staff determined that this is categorically
exempt from the SEPA process; and after tonight's hearing, we will proceed to adopt findings of fact as
required by law. Mr. Lamb again stressed that this moratorium will not affect any current lawful mining
operations and that we have not received any applications for any change or modification of any permit.
Mr. Lamb said that up to this point, we have received two written comments, one from Spokane County
Commissioners (dated July 27, 2015) and one from the County Engineer requesting to make part of the
record the testimony given by Deborah Firkins and John Pederson at the Planning Commissioner meeting
on June 8 and the March 24, 2015 meeting of the Spokane Valley Council along with letters submitted by
the County at both meetings. Mr. Lamb explained that the County Engineer's letter was received just prior
to the close of business today, so we have not had an opportunity to pull those minutes, but if Council
would like, said he can provide those materials at the first reading of the ordinance adopting the Findings
of Fact. Mayor Grafos invited public comments.
Mary Senter: read her prepared written comments (copy of which was handed to the City Clerk) about her
family supporting themselves for more than three generations with occupations in mining, lumber and
natural gas; said we need to understand the importance the sand and gravel pits have in our city; we need
the products created by the sand and gravel; and we need to support the businesses and projects that
benefit from the sand and gravel and the Council should not support a mining moratorium.
Lance Senter: read his prepared written comments (copy of which was handed to the City Clerk) about his
opposition to the moratorium; said he has a bachelor's and master of science degree in geology; is an
exploration economic geologist and discovered the world's largest deposit of molybdenum; said his
occupation is the first job that puts everyone to work in the United States; said he retired four years ago
because he can't put people to work because of environmentalists and over -regulations by governments;
and said now "you have brought the same liberal, left-wing thinking ideology I have fought against for
over 40 years, to my city with this mining moratorium" and that although we advertise that Spokane
Valley is business friendly, he said that isn't true except when the business suits Council's personal liking;
said he is in favor of the existing pits and in favor of future new sand and gravel pits in our City.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 3 of 7
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Mitch Reister: said he is the Spokane County Engineer who submitted the written comments late today,
and that he wanted to personally appear and ask Council to consider the comments and the importance of
the Eden Pit, which replaces the Flora Pit. Councilmember Gothmann asked about the Eden Pit and other
related information, and Mr. Jackson said staff will provide those past documents to Councilmember
Gothmann
Jana McDonald: she submitted a letter detailing her concerns, as were heard previously; and submitted a
flash drive to the Clerk of previous submittals; and she urged repeal of the moratorium.
Stacy Bjordahl: said she is speaking on behalf of Central Pre -Mix (CPM) Corporation, and for the sake of
time, submitted her letter for the record, as well as copies of previous comments and documents, to
reiterate their position and all the arguments heard before; said she appreciates the opportunity to be heard
tonight and that this is very validating as there is no support for a moratorium and Council should look to
repeal it; said there has been a lot of media coverage and we have done as much as we possibly could to
reach out to the community to take its temperature regarding a moratorium, and the City got a very cold
reception; that the only people here are from the County and CPM, who are the life and blood of mining
of Spokane Valley, and she asked Council to repeal the moratorium as it is not justified or supported.
There were no other comments and Mayor Grafos closed the public hearing at 6:51 p.m.
2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any
member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered
separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of vouchers on July 28, 2015 Request for Council Action Form Totaling $2,765,684.91
b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 15, 2015: $338,960.96
c. Approval of July 7, 2015 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes
d. Approval of July 14, 2015 Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent
Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-014 Fatbeam Franchise — Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to approve Ordinance 15-014 granting a telecommunications franchise to Fatbeam. City
Attorney Driskell said that this is what was previously owned by EMAN, and their franchise expired, and
Fatbeam will use these facilities to primarily provide telecommunications fiber to educational facilities.
Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
4. Motion Consideration: Stormwater Call for Projects — Eric Guth
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize the City Manager to apply for the
following fiscal year 2016 Ecology grants: 1. Stormwater Pre -Construction Grants (a) Appleway
Improvements Farr to University; and, (b) Chester Creek Diversions Bowdish to University; 2. Grants of
Regional or Statewide Significance: Effectiveness Study Development Phases two; and 3. Stormwater
Capacity Grant to help City update Stormwater Program Plan. Public Works Director Guth briefly
explained the call for projects, and said there have been no changes since the administrative report two
weeks ago. 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 comments; no comments were offered.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 4 of 7
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
5. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency — Julie Oliver, Agency Executive Director
Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Executive Director Julie Oliver shared information about the Clean
Air Agency as noted in her accompanying PowerPoint presentation, including how they are funded and
local assessments, which she explained have not changed since 1999, but which are anticipated to change
in calendar year 2017. Council thanked Ms. Oliver for her presentation and information.
6. Regional Wayfinding Concept Plan — Eric Guth
Public Works Director Guth explained that to highlight this program, we have the consultant here who
has a presentation to describe the project; that this is a collaborative effort among various governments
and the Downtown Partnership, Visit Spokane, WSDOT (Washington State Department of
Transportation), SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council), and the west plains Chamber of
Commerce, so it is a region -wide effort to look at gateways and wayfindings in order to attract visitors to
some of the activity centers we'd like them to visit; is it a plan to create a comprehensive conceptual plan
which lays out design guidelines and preliminary site locations where the signs might be installed; said it
was initiated by Visit Spokane and the Downtown Partnership; that it was sponsored by Spokane County
in 2012 when they applied for a STP (Surface Transportation Program) grant and received $242,000; said
for us, members of our public works and community economic development staff are participating with
this group, which is all funded through this grant; at this time, Mr. Guth explained, there is no funding for
construction, but tonight's purpose is to lay out some concepts and get Council's reaction; said he seeks
consensus from Council on whether or not they like the plan; again explaining that it is a planning
document for guidelines to help with regional wayfinding. Mr. Guth introduced Mr. Glen Swantak with
Merje Consulting Company, a Pennsylvania firm that is the lead consultant on this project.
Mr. Mark Richard, President of Spokane Downtown Partnership said the purpose of this regional gateway
and wayfinding approach is to create some symmetry among principals and to give people a sense that
"they have arrived" in the Spokane area; mentioned the Randall Report (Randall Travel Marketing
Report) which calls for wayfinding as a means to get people off I-90 and into our region; said the
Downtown Partnership approved doing this when he was on the Board of County Commissioners; and
said tonight they are looking for general consensus to move forward. Mr. Richard said that Mr. Swantak
is with Merje Consultants, contracted in 2014 to lead us through this process. Mr. Swantak said that his
company has been doing a tour of all city councils to keep everyone informed; he went over parts of the
project timelines starting in June 2013 through August 2015; discussed some of the Spokane County
Wayfinding and Gateway Program aspects, explained some of the benefits of the program and said that
this is a "tool" in a toolbox of devices to reach and entice visitors to our area; showed some examples and
types of signs and where they might be placed; discussed some of the more common funding sources, the
phasing plan, schematic design, and then showed the some of the gateway signs of the various
government entities in the area, such as Spokane County, Spokane Valley, Airway Heights, Cheney, and
Deer Park. Councilmember Pace remarked that he likes our City logo and compared with the others, likes
it even more and asked if we participate in this plan, would the plan affect our existing sign ordinance or
ability to change or remove signs. Mr. Swantak said the signs would be in the public right-of-way and act
as guidance signs for traffic, and that typically it would not affect our sign ordinance for nor involve
private businesses, although we could include something in our code about these signs if desired.
Councilmember Pace said that there appears to be a lot of emphasis on identifying the County, and said
that usually people don't care what county they are in, but are more concerned with the state or city. Mr.
Swantak explained that the philosophy is to have a regional program, and since this area is promoted
regionally, the County would be the formal boundary of the project. Mr. Richard explained that the
County is part of the plan but not the focal point; that the thought was it is important for people to know
when, for example, they are leaving Idaho and entering Spokane County; said there is some Welcome to
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 5 of 7
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Spokane County signage on Route 395 but it is very bland and nondescript; and said this plan is about
identity and creating a sense of place.
Deputy Mayor Woodard said that he has been a member of Council for about three years and the idea
three years ago was to find a way to direct traffic off the freeway; said he thinks this plan is way over
what was originally planned; that the initial idea was how to get people off the freeway with some
wayfinding signs; said he knows about the Randall report, but this plan is much deeper and more blown
up than what had been talked about three years ago; said he is not against the plan, but is not sure he is
ready for this either. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned biking signs along with auto signs, and to
include how far away a certain city is; said the trail is not designated in Spokane either and he would like
signs on trails, and to include such things as how long the trail is for example. Councilmember Wick
asked if the existing signs would be replaced by new signs, and said he didn't see anything in the
materials about identifying freeway signs. Mr. Swantak explained that we are not permitted to program
signs along freeways or highways as that falls under the authority of Washington State Department of
Transportation, although we can have signs on the off -ramps into the cities. Councilmember Wick
mentioned the lack of directional signs on Broadway for the Fair and Expo Center. Mr. Swantak said he
would look into that tomorrow as they would be doing an all -site location for Spokane Valley.
Councilmember Wick also asked about added amenities such as the volleyball courts at Browns Park, and
the Sullivan Bridge river take-out spot. Mr. Swantak said they submitted a list for review and are open to
any additions. Councilmember Wick suggested re -looking at the tier classification as the Fair had about
400,000 people in attendance but it wasn't classified as a tier one and perhaps should have been.
Councilmember Hafner said he feels the primary goal is to let people know what we have and how to get
there.
Mr. Richard explained that by going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one can see how easily the
information adds up to over one hundred pages; said they have been working with staff on areas they feel
should be included on the map, and would not preclude adding such things as Browns Park, but it is just a
matter of adding that to the plan and using consistent signage; said there are other areas such as Felts
Field that people traveling down I-90 don't even know exist; and said the goal is to have the template and
be able to capture as many sites as possible. Mayor Grafos said he is uncertain if he favors this; that it
started out with the idea of looking at freeway exists, but appears this has become a huge program; said
the extent of the program is overwhelming; that Council needs to look at cost and to see if this is a
priority for us now. Deputy Mayor Woodard added that he appreciates the work that went into this plan,
but that they have seen no updates nor heard anything about this for about three years; said he realizes
people need more signage but he also feels there is a tremendous cost associated with this; and said we
want to be able to work in the City's logo. Mr. Richard said he understands about transitions, and that
over time he has come to appreciate the value of the wayfinding system as a layer of gateways; that he
realizes Council has not had time to thoroughly review the material, and he is hopeful Council will take
some time to think about it; and again said this is a tool and each jurisdiction will decide what parts to
use; he also mentioned that the County sign's design is to capture the movement of the river; and he asked
Council to review the materials, and said they will provide follow-up as needed.
7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos
Councilmember Higgins said there have been national events surrounding the topic of "sanctuary cities"
and controversy about the City of Spokane; and that it seems advisable to emphasize our independence
and suggested bringing a resolution to Council to declare that our City is not a sanctuary city. There were
no objections from Councilmembers.
INFORMATION ONLY:
The (8) Department Reports; and (9) Washington State Auditor's Engagement Letter were for information
only and were not reported or discussed.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 6 of 7
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager Comments: Concerning railroad quiet zones, Mr. Jackson said he has a concept which will
take some time with staff, but he would like to build a page off of our website to include all the
information from past discussions about the railroad, including quiet zones, reports, studies, etc., thereby
making it accessible to all so when citizens ask Council about this topic, they can point the citizen to the
webpage; said we had previously reached a point on investment and determined not to move that further
forward; said he would plug in the investment component of the railroad study in his future discussion
with Council about capital programs/projects; said it will take some time to build and pull in all the
information and make it easy to understand; he also mentioned that Council could consider himself and a
Councilmember or two as part of an ad hoc committee and actually go talk with railroad representatives;
set some goals and work through them; said it will take a long time to work through these but without
goals, nothing happens; said it will be difficult to advance this and difficult to get some results. Mayor
Grafos agreed that information is very important, but said the bottom line is at some point Council needs
to decide if we have a serious safety problem and make something happen, whether an over or under pass
or something else; said we can't wait for the railroad to make a decision for our citizens; that we need to
talk about the capital program and get it started and once we start, maybe we would get help from the
feds. Councilmembers nodded in agreement. Councilmember Gothmann said he spoke with a conductor
and said they blow the horn/whistle on the BNSF for a variety of reasons, mostly every time the train
starts, or when a signalman gets on or off the train, not just at intersections.
Deputy Mayor Woodard announced that due to National Night Out Against Crime, there will be no
Council meeting next Tuesday, and he encouraged the public to attend a National Night Out function.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 7 of 7
Approved by Council:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 11, 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: First Reading Proposed Ordinance No. 15-015 adopting findings of fact
for the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing and repeal of Ordinances 15-
005 and 15-009.
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 and findings of fact on April 28, 2015.
Subsequently, on June 30, 2015, City Council adopted Ordinance 15-013 which simultaneously
repealed Ordinance 15-005 and 15-009 and re-established the moratorium on mining. City
Council conducted a public hearing on July 28, 2015.
BACKGROUND: The City previously adopted a moratorium on mining and mining site
operations on February 24, 2015, as set forth in Ordinance No. 15-005. Pursuant to
Washington State law, Section 4 of Ordinance No. 15-005 set a public hearing for March 24,
2015, at 6:00 p.m. in City Hall for the public to provide comments on the moratorium. The
moratorium and public hearing were described in multiple articles in local newspapers prior to
the public hearing. Further, the agenda for the meeting on March 24, 2015, including the public
hearing, was posted on the City's website and provided via email to citizens who have signed
up for the City's agenda packet distribution list, and the City received written testimony from two
interested parties and six interested parties spoke at the public hearing. However, the City did
not publish formal notice of the public hearing in the City's official newspaper, as is our practice.
Accordingly, to ensure that all of the public was provided adequate opportunity to comment,
staff presented and City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 to simultaneously repeal
Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 and to re-establish the moratorium and
provide for another public hearing on the moratorium on mining and mining site operations.
The City is in the process of conducting 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.
Importantly, RCW 36.70A.170 requires the City 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." Further, RCW 36.70A.060 requires the City to adopt
development regulations to assure conservation of mineral resource lands designated under
RCW 36.70A.170.
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 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.
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 believes a moratorium on new mining and mineral manufacturing sites is 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 June 30, 2015, City Council considered
and adopted Ordinance No. 15-013, which repealed Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009,
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 (June 30, 2015) so it did not and does not impact current lawful operations of
any existing businesses at this time. Further, Ordinance No. 15-013 set a public hearing for
Tuesday, July 28, 2015, established a work plan to develop the Comprehensive Plan Update
and subsequent appropriate regulations, adopted preliminary findings of fact, and established
an effective period from the effective date to 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2016. Finally,
Ordinance No. 15-013 was designated as a public emergency and was effective upon adoption.
The adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013 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.
15-013 and the moratorium on mining on July 28, 2015. Two written comments were submitted
prior to the public hearing. At the public hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony from five
interested parties. Further, at the public hearing, four persons who testified submitted written
comments, and one person submitted a flash drive with three electronic documents and five
video recordings of portions of City Council meetings held on February 24, 2015, March 24,
2015, April 14, 2015, April 28, 2015, and June 30, 2015.
Proposed Ordinance No. 15-015 will adopt findings of fact justifying the adoption of Ordinance
No. 15-013 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.
OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading, with or without further amendments.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 15-015 adopting
findings of fact justifying the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013 and its establishment of the
moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing and repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005
and 15-009, to a second reading.
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. 15-015
- Ordinance No. 15-013
- Map of existing mining pits (operational and non -operational)
- Copies of the written testimony received, including requested City
Council minutes from March 24, 2015 public hearing and Planning
Commission minutes from June 8, 2015 meeting.
- Copies of the portion of the minutes from the public hearing on July 28,
2015
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 15-015
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFYING THE ADOPTION
OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-013 AND THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NOS. 15-005 AND
15-009 AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A MORATORIUM ON MINING, MINERAL
PRODUCT MANUFACTURING, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is in the process of developing its 2015
Comprehensive Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of
Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and
other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations
governing land uses within the City; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a
moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a
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 June 30, 2015, the City
adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 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 repealing Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390, and Ordinance No. 15-013, on
July 28, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013 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 the repeal of
Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009; and
Ordinance 15-015 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 1 of 5
DRAFT
WHEREAS, two written comments were submitted prior to the public hearing. At the public
hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony from five interested parties. Further, at the public hearing,
four persons who testified submitted written comments and one person submitted a flash drive with three
electronic documents and five video recordings of portions of City Council meetings held on February 24,
2015, March 24, 2015, April 14, 2015, April 28, 2015, and June 30, 2015; 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.
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 July
28, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance No. 15-013 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 the repeal of Ordinance Nos.
15-005 and 15-009. The City Council hereby adopts the following as findings of fact in support of
Ordinance No. 15-013 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 the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009:
1. On February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, imposing and
establishing a moratorium on 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.
2. Pursuant to Section 4 of Ordinance No. 15-005, the City Council set March 24, 2015 at 6:00
p.m. at City Hall as the date, time and location for a public hearing on the moratorium.
3. On March 6, 2015, a summary of Ordinance No. 15-005 was published in the Valley News
Herald, the City's newspaper of general circulation, which summary included the statement "Section 4
sets March 24, 2015 as the date for a public hearing."
4. There were articles regarding the moratorium and pending public hearing prior to the public
hearing that were published in local newspapers that included reference to the public hearing on the
moratorium.
5. The agenda for the meeting on March 24, 2015, which included reference to the public hearing
on the moratorium, was posted on the City's website and provided to members of the City's agenda
packet distribution list via email in advance of March 24, 2015.
6. On March 24, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the moratorium imposed
and established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005 and received written testimony from two interested
parties. Six interested parties spoke at the public hearing.
7. On April 28, 2015, after giving due consideration to the public testimony received, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact justifying the moratorium on mining
established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005.
8. Though public information and notice was provided of the public hearing, there was no formal
publication of notice of the public hearing in the City's official newspaper as is the City's practice.
9. Repeal of Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 and re-establishment of an
emergency moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations with a new public hearing
Ordinance 15-015 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 2 of 5
DRAFT
preceded by new and more broadly disseminated public notice is appropriate to ensure full notice and
opportunity for interested parties to provide comments on the moratorium.
10. 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."
11. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the City is required to adopt development regulations to
ensure conservation of mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170.
12. The City has not designated any mineral resource lands within its boundaries nor has it
developed regulations specific to mineral resource lands.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. The City has a finite amount of available undeveloped industrial land.
17. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, the City is in the process of developing its 2015
Comprehensive Plan Update.
18. 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.
19. The current work program for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update anticipates that a draft
Comprehensive Plan will be completed by the end of 2015.
20. 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 and natural 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
Ordinance 15-015 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 3 of 5
DRAFT
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.
21. 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.
22. 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."
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013, City Council adopted a work plan to address the
development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update.
27. Staff has completed SEPA review of the moratorium and has determined the moratorium on
mining and/or related mining site operations under Ordinance No. 15-013 is categorically exempt from
threshold determination and EIS requirements pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-
800(19).
28. On July 28, 2015, City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance 15-
013 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 the
repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009.
29. Two written comments were submitted prior to the public hearing. At the public hearing,
City Council heard verbal testimony from five interested parties. Further, at the public hearing, four
persons who testified submitted written comments and one person submitted a flash drive with three
Ordinance 15-015 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 4 of 5
DRAFT
electronic documents and five video recordings of portions of City Council meetings held on February 24,
2015, March 24, 2015, April 14, 2015, April 28, 2015, and June 30, 2015. The City Council has given
due consideration to all public testimony received.
30. The adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013 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.
31. The City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by Ordinance No. 15-
013 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. 15-013 shall be and remain
in effect as of the effective date of Ordinance No. 15-013 and shall continue in effect until 11:59 p.m. on
February 23, 2016, 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.
The duration of the moratorium set forth in Ordinance No. 15-013 is expressly intended to preserve in
continuous force and effect the moratorium established in Ordinance No. 15-005 notwithstanding the
repeal of said Ordinance No. 15-005.
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 August, 2015.
ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 15-015 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 5 of 5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 15-013
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON MINING, MINERAL
PRODUCT MANUFACTURING, REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 15-005 AND 15-009,
AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is in 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 inay 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, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.I70 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"; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the City has not designated any mineral resource lands within its boundaries nor has
it developed regulations specific to mineral resource lands; and
Ordinance 15-013 Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, 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; 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 may be 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, 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 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 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; and
WHEREAS, 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 are with
regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, imposing
and establishing a moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any
Ordinance 15-013 Page 2 of 5
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 Section 4 of Ordinance No. 15-005, the City Council set March 24, 2015
at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall as the date, time and location for a public hearing on the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2015, a summary of Ordinance No. 15-005 was published in the Valley
News Herald, the City's newspaper of general circulation, which summary included the statement
"Section 4 sets March 24, 2015 as the date for a public hearing"; and
WHEREAS, there were articles regarding the moratorium and pending public hearing prior to the
public hearing that were published in local newspapers that included reference to the public hearing on
the moratorium; and
WHEREAS, the agenda for the meeting on March 24, 2015, which included reference to the
public hearing on the moratorium, was posted on the City's website and provided to members of the
City's agenda packet distribution list via email in advance of March 24, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the moratorium
imposed and established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005 and received written testimony from two
interested parties and six interested parties spoke at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2015, after giving due consideration to the public testimony received,
the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact justifying the moratorium on
mining established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005; and
WHEREAS, though public information and notice was provided of the public hearing, there was
no formal publication of notice of the public hearing in the City's official newspaper as is the City's
practice; and
WHEREAS, repeal of Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 and re-establishment of
an emergency moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations with a new public hearing
preceded by new and more broadly disseminated public notice is appropriate to ensure full notice and
opportunity for interested parties to provide comments on the moratorium; 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.
Ordinance 15-013 Page 3 of 5
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
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 July 28, 2015 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter niay 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 until 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2016, 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. Repeal. Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 are hereby repealed in
their entirety and shall be without any force or effect as of the effective date of this Ordinance as set forth
in Section 9 below.
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. 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.
Ordinance 15-013 Page 4 of 5
Passed by the City Council this 30th day of June, 2015.
A 'FE
Iv
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to' Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Dean Grafos, Mayor
(0jj
Date of Publication: j ii /(),
Effective Date: June 30, 2015
Ordinance 15-013 Page 5 of 5
PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENTATION
The attached materials are those associated with the mining moratorium public hearing held July 28, 2015
as part of that evening's Council meeting:
1. Public Hearing sign -in sheet
2. July 27, 2015 two-page signed letter to Council from the Board of County Commissioner, with
enclosures (three page signed May 14, 2015 letter to Spokane Valley Commissioners; two-page signed
March 24, 2015 letter to Council; two aerial photos
3. July 28, 2015 e-mail from Spokane County Engineer Mitchell Reister to Mayor and Councilmembers,
with attached two-page signed letter.
4. Written comments handed to City Clerk from Mary Senter during the July 28, 2015 Council meeting
hearing.
5. Written comments handed to City Clerk from Lance Senter during the July 28, 2015 Council meeting
hearing.
6. July 28, 2015 letter and flash drive handed to City Clerk from Jana McDonald of CPM Corporation,
during the July 28, 2015 Council meeting hearing. The contents of the flash drive include:
1101
14Apr2015spokanevalley_2x864932.685f•4c87•ae9c-86f4160843b1.mp4
24Feb2015spokanevalley_a4f981ff-efa5-49a1-86ab-284c895ab787.mp4
V 24Mar2015spokanevalley Od180e89.2d9c-4181-b053-ae1787dc4780,mp4
28Apr2015spokanevalley_86c767cc•fe38.4194-al8c•4955247c4aaa,mp4
30Jun2015spokanevalley_1504416-a4aa-43c5.92ad-1b394db1d858.mp4
j City Council links 271u12015.docx
t City of Spokane Valley map of mining sites for 28Apr2015 mtg.pdf
CPM map of WaDNRGeology permitted sites in city labeled 28Apr15.jpg
VOLE IM Un Ru ALC
7/16/2015 4:05 PM
7/16/2015 2:13 PM
7/16/2015 2:46 PM
7/16/2015 4:24 PM
7/27/2015 11:13 AM
7/27/2015 12:06 PM
4/28/2015 12:08 PM
4/28/2015 4:13 PM
Video
MP4 Video
MP4 Video
MP4 Video
MP4 Video
Microsoft Word D...
;;;i^'ae Acrobat D...
)PEG image
Note: The three documents that could be printed are attached to Ms. McDonald's letter.
7. July 28, 2015 letter and accompanying materials handed to City Clerk from Stacy Bjordahl
518,613 KB
251,386 KB
859,626 KB
611,890 KB
537,910 KB
12 KB
357 KB
592 KB
8. As requested by Spokane County Engineer Mitch Reister, minutes of June 8, 2015 Planning
Commission Meeting, with attached copy of letter of May 14, 2015 to Planning Commissioners from
Board of County Commissioners; copy of March 24, 2015 letter to Councilmembers from Board of
County Commissioners; aerial photo of Eden Pitt; aerial photo of Flora Pitt.
9. As requested by Spokane County Engineer Mitch Reister, minutes of March 24, 2015 Council meeting,
with attached copy of March 24, 2015 public comment sign -in sheet; March 24, 2015 public hearing sign -
in sheet; March 26, 2015 memorandum to Mayor and Councilmembers from City Clerk sending materials
from Spokane County Planning Director John Peterson, with noted attached materials; and March 26,
2015 memorandum to Mayor and Councilmembers from City Clerk sending materials from Stacy
Bjordahl, with noted attached materials.
10. Draft minutes from July 28, 2015 Public hearing, as part of that evening's Council meeting.
1. July 28, 2015 Public Hearing
Sign -in sheet
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
July 28, 2015
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
to 6
r<
S Po i< r.J E- \l' N Lu E!
"
L an Le_ &) rd &- r
Spokane V tt.,
Mu.- ti, .gQ.4,r-
r c? ,,,...L,
--GLS a, 11\k,\r„ ez
Sp, opik,,,,s
c-1--a-1-3d
s o F' a v1 -e___
o'radk
Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure.
2. July 27, 2015 letter to Council
From Board of County
Commissioners
Chris Bainbridge
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Chris,
Vasquez, Ginna <GVASQUEZ@spokanecounty.org>
Monday, July 27, 2015 3:01 PM
Chris Bainbridge
Letter signed by BOCC
Mayor Dean #2.pdf; Mayor Enclosure.pdf
Please see attached letter signed by the Board for the City of Spokane Valley's Council meeting tomorrow evening.
Thank you!
Ginna
Clerk of the Board
Spokane County Commissioners Office
1116 W. Broadway Ave. I Spokane, WA 99260
D. 509-477-2268 IF. 509-477-2274
1
OI 1-1c LC)) COI'.' n' C7,,\-1 ILvsio\tats
Tom mtt9.K1'., is'I' i nsTRlc: C • Si IK1.I v (YQUINN, 2ND 1) s Ili rt' • Al. FRGNcI1, 3RD UIsTRIc:r
July 27, 2015
Mayor Dean Grafos
Deputy Mayor Arne Woodward
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, WA 99206
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
mayor. counci 1 membersAsokaneval l ey.org
RE: City of Spokane Valley Moratorium adopted under Ordinance No. 15-013
Dear Mayor Grafos and Council Members:
The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony on Ordinance No. 15-
013 on July 28, 2015 as mandated by RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390.
The purpose of this correspondence is to reiterate Spokane County's concerns regarding
Ordinance No. 15-013. They were previous expressed in a letter to you dated March 24, 2015,
and a letter to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission dated May 14, 2015. We have attached
copies of both letters.
Both letters urged the City to consider the adoption of Chapter 14.620 of the Spokane County
Zoning Code as an interim development regulation in lieu of the present moratorium. This
would (i) insure continued use of natural resource lands that do no detrimentally impact the
environment, (ii) preclude penetration of the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, (iii)
insure site reclamation consistent with RCW 78.44, and (iv) 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 Growth Management Act.
The letters also noted that the City's Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code do not identify or
designate resource lands as mandated under the Growth Management Act. The letters finally
explained that Spokane County owned properties in the City identified as the Flora Road Pit and
Eden Pit. Both properties meet the criteria for designation of mineral lands of long term
commercial significance and were previously designated as such when under Spokane County
jurisdiction.
1116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (609) 477-2265
Di /JCA . ire -' - "'"
July 27, 2015
Page 2
We ask that the Council give careful consideration to the concerns raised in the correspondence
in taking action on Ordinance No. 15-013.
Very truly yours.
TODD MIELKE, Chair
Enclosures
N N, Vice Chair A FRENCH, Commissioner
SPOKAE
May 14, 2015
-1-d/2-/5-11, cit
6-.40‘19-4441..(_
COUNTY
OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TODD MIELKE, 1ST DISTRICT • SI -TELLY O'QUINN, 2ND DISTRICT • AI. FRENCH, 3RD DISTRICT
Planning Commissioner Kevin Anderson
Planning Commissioner Heather Graham
Planning Commissioner Tim Kelley
Planning Commissioner Mike Philips
Planning Commissioner Susan Scott
Planning Commissioner Joe Stoy
Planning Commissioner Sam Wood
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 101
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
RE: City of Spokane Valley Citizen Initiated Amendment Request Review,
Application No: CAR -2015-0018
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission will be considering public testimony on CAR -2015-
0018 on May 14, 2015, as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update.
The purpose of this correspondence is to encourage the Commission to consider other areas to be
designated as Mineral Resource lands consistent with the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.170.
As you are aware of and by way of background, the City of Spokane Valley adopted a moratorium
(Ordinance #15-009) on February 24, 2015, precluding new mining activities. At the March 24, 2015,
public hearing on the moratorium, the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners submitted the
attached comments. The attached comments explained that entities planning under the Growth
Management Act had certain obligations when updating or revising their Comprehensive Plans and/or
development regulations including designation of mineral resource lands.
Specifically, RCW 36.70A.170(1)(c) states:
(1) On or before September 1, 1991, each county, and each city, shall designate where
appropriate:
(c) Mineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that
have Tong -term significance for the extraction of minerals; and
RCW 36.70A.050 provides guidelines to classify agricultural, forest, mineral lands, and critical areas and
requires consultation with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and other stakeholders.
1116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509) 477-2265
MfiMfao-cb 24,1014
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 department 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
At 00 ta
Vice Chair AL F' •s Commissioner
SPOKANE
COUNTY
c)II1, I ,.i t id \n cu.vvesuhev.k•
11'1 M1111,1 . i<I I)1s1k1r 1 • Mit 1,1 \ (1Y )r►•1. 2rvnD(Sruu:! • \t PRI.'., II. 1(1) II II
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
VL4 ELECTRONIC MAIL
!flavor councilmen' bers(abspokanevalley.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 \VI SI L31tn\I) \\ A\ I M I • St'tft. \vl \V'1su11N(.1()r: )Q2(,() 001(1 • 15091.177•126,
Spokane Valley Planning Commissioners
May 14,2015
Page 2
RCW 36.70A.060 requires cities to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of agriculture,
forest, and mineral lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170 and:
RCW 36.70A.060(1)(a)
... Such regulations shall assure that the use of lands adjacent to agricultural, forest, or
mineral resource lands shall not interfere with the continued use, in the accustomed
manner and in accordance with best management practices, of these designated lands for
the production of food, agricultural products, or timber, or for the extraction of minerals.
The current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code does not identify or
designated resource lands or mineral lands as mandated under the Growth Management Act or adopted
development regulations applicable to resource lands including mineral lands.
We bring the above factors to your attention as information to consider in periodic update of your
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and in consideration of CAR -2015-18.
We have reviewed CAR -2015-18 and after such review fully support the applicant's request that the City
of Spokane Valley adopt a new Comprehensive Plan chapter and associated goals and policies to
designated mineral resource lands of long-term commercial significance; a corresponding map
amendment designating mineral resource lands; as well as a new section of Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC) that includes specific regulations for mining activities.
In addition, we respectfully request that additional properties owned by Spokane County be designated as
mineral resource lands. These properties are illustrated on the enclosed maps and are identified as the
Flora Road Pit (Pit #5412) located on Assessor's Parcel #45121.9015 and the Eden Pit (Pit #55-06)
located on Assessor's Parcel #55065-0190. Both of these properties meet the criteria under the Growth
Management Act for designation as resource lands of long-term commercial significance and prior to
creation of the City of Spokane Valley were designated by the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and
official zoning map as Mineral lands.
In summary, we reiterate our previous comments on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-009
and urge you to designate the above -referenced Spokane County properties as mineral lands of long term
commercial significance as part of your periodic review and update of your Comprehensive Plan.
D MIELKE, Cha LW O'QU ` , Vice Chair ALFR NCH, mm ssioner
Enclosures
Flora Pit Aerial
523.5
261.77 523,5 Feet
0
J'hls map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site end Is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate. current, or otherwise
reliable.
*It
Eden Pit No. 55-06
582.9
U
291.45 582.9 Feet
0
This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or othenvtse
.reliable.
3. July 28, 2015 e-mail from
Mitch Reister with attached
Letter
Chris Bainbridge
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Reister, Mitch <MREISTER@spokanecounty.org>
Tuesday, July 28, 2015 4:56 PM
mayor.councilmembers@spokanevalley.org
Chris Bainbridge; Pederson, John; Firkins, Deborah
County Engineer's Letter in re: Orin 15-013 Spokane Valley
County Engineer Letter re Orin 15-013 Spokane Valley.pdf
Mayor Grafos & Councilmembers,
Please find attached my comments representing Spokane County Engineering & Roads in regards to the moratorium on
mining, to be considered at this evening's council meeting.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
Mitch
Mitche bS. Reinter, PE
i ;nnnty F,npineer
Engineering & Roads Division
Spokane County, Washington
(509) 477-3600
1
SPoMt\TJ CouS
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS
A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mayor Dean Grafos
Deputy Mayor Arne Woodward
Councilman Rod Higgins
Councilman Ed Pace
Councilman Chuck Hafner
Councilman Ben Wick
Councilman Bill Bates
City of Spolcane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
mayor.councilmembers@sokanevalley.org
RE: City of Spokane Valley Moratorium adopted under Ordinance No. 15-013
Dear Mayor Grafos and Council Members:
The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony on Ordinance No. 15-013 on July
28, 2015 as required under RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390.
We would like to make a part of the record for the July 28, 2015 meeting the testimony given by
Deborah Firkins and John Pederson for Spokane County at the Planning Commissioner Meeting on June
8, 2015 in regards to CAR -2015-0018 and the March 24, 2015 meeting of the Spokane Valley City Council
on Ordinance No. 15-005 along with the letters submitted by the County at both meetings.
This proposed Moratorium is quite detrimental to Spokane County and as a result, to the cities of
Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake as well. Spokane County currently owns two parcels that were zoned as
mineral lands while said parcels were under the County's comprehensive planning jurisdiction. The first
parcel is Flora Pit (parcel number 45121.9015); Spokane County acquired this property August 12, 1965
and has operated it as a pit site with a District Shop and the Spokane County Regional Animal Protection
Services (SCRAPS) Office. Flora pit has been continually mined over the last 50 years. When the City's
initial mining moratorium came into effect, the County was in the process of setting terms for the sale of
this property to Central Premix for their operations, which would have been a mutual benefit to both
parties. The present Moratorium presents a major stumbling block for the long-term viability of
publicly -owned mineral aggregate production for public projects, and also undermines steps already
taken by Central Premix to consolidate their operations in the Flora area. If the County retains
ownership of Flora Pit, we will continue to mine the property, taking out an average of 25,000 cubic
yards per year for the next 3-4 years; after that, the County will have no remaining mineral resources to
utilize in the east -central county area, substantially increasing the costs to public infrastructure projects
as well as eliminating the ability for Spokane County to offer the sale of mineral aggregate resources to
the cities of Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake for their own municipal projects.
• 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WA 99260-0170
PHONE: (509) 477-3600 • FAX: (509) 477-7655 • TDD: 509-477-7133
The second parcel is Eden Pit located approximately 1,600 feet north of the intersection of Eden Street
and Euclid Avenue (parcel number 55065.0190). This property has been zoned for mining since 1980.
The County has been preparing this site for mining activity for a number of years. An Environmental
Assessment, which included a Cultural Resource Survey, has been completed for the site. Spokane
County also completed SEPA review for mining 39 acres of the 44 acre site, and a Determination of Non
significance was issued December 2012. We currently have an application for a mining permit under
review by the Department of Natural Resources which includes SM -6 (surface Mining permit application)
signed by the City of Spokane Valley in August 2012. This site is estimated to be capable of providing
mineral aggregate products for the next 65 years, (based on removing approximately 25,000 cubic yards
per year).
The Eden Pit site is critical to the County's immediate and long-range transportation programs. It is
ideally situated within the east -central County, reducing the resources and subsequent costs required to
transport mineral aggregates to project locations. The County's standard cost for hauling gravel is
approximately 18.6% per mile per cubic yard, which makes it necessary to have pit sites that are in close
proximity to the areas they serve. Minimizing material transport distances also reduce traffic
congestion, fuel consumption, and air pollution.
It is also important to recognize that not all mineral resource sites are created equal. An important
aspect for County pit sites is that the material taken from the pit must meet or exceed the State
Specified Gravel Standards. At the Flora Pit, 60% of the material removed meets those standards.
Based on testing of the Eden Pit Site, it's been determined that 80% of the material removed will meet
the State Specified Gravel Standards. Other mineral sites in nearby areas have not achieved this high of
a usable material percentage as the Eden Pit, making it a highly prized production site for mineral
aggregates.
The appraisal that the County had commissioned from John Sweitzer Company, Inc., dated April 15,
2013 stated that the rock "in place" was worth $2,718,250. This value would be lost if this property is
not protected as a mineral resource.
We appreciate your time and consideration of our continued request for designating and protecting
both the Flora and Eden Pit Sites, as referenced above, as mineral resource lands.
Very truly yours,
Mitchell S. Reister, P.E.
Spokane County Engineer
4. Mary Senter comments
I am Mary Senter. I was raised in the Spokane Valley and have lived here the majority of my life and
consider it to be my home.
My family has supported themselves for more than 3 generations with occupations in mining, lumber
and natural gas so I have a better understanding of the impact our natural resources have in our daily
lives and livelihood than many people I know.
The industries and businesses that utilize natural resources provide important materials and products.
Everything we are surrounded by is made from something that is mined, logged or farmed. We are
very fortunate in our area to be located close to so many of these important resources - BUT we take
them for granted.
We need to understand the importance the sand & gravel pits have in our City. We need the
products that are created by the sand & gravel. The more we limit our access, the more expensive it
becomes. The cost will be paid by US thru increased cost to purchase products, increased property
taxes, sales taxes and gas taxes.
We need to support the businesses and projects that benefit from the sand & gravel that is mined
within our City's borders. We should NOT support a mining moratorium.
5. Lance Senter comments
SPOKANE VALLEY MINING MORATORIUM
I am Lance Senter, born and raised in Spokane and have lived in my home on South
Pines Rd. for 38 years; with the majority of my life, living in the Valley. I graduated from
North Central in 1968 and graduated from Eastern Washington State College with both
a Bachelor and Master of Science degree in 1972 and 1976, (both in Geology). I am
an Exploration/Economic Geologist and have been very successful in discovering,
drilling and delineating ore deposits for 40 years in Alaska, British Columbia and in all
the western United States. I discovered the world's largest deposit of molybdenum in
S.E. Alaska and was the project geologist who developed this deposit. The deposit
resulted in being 10% of all the known molybdenum resources on the planet; and today
it still sits in Alaska undeveloped because of environmentalists and the E.P.A. My
occupation is the FIRST JOB that puts everyone to work in the United States. Yes, the
exploration Geologist (prospector) is the one that puts you and your family to work no
matter what your job is. The occupation responsible for all of this is -- "MINING".
I retired 4 years ago, because I no longer can put people to work because of
environmentalists and over -regulations by the City, State and Federal governments.
And now you have brought the same liberal, left-wing thinking ideology, I have fought
against for over 40 years, to my city with this Mining Moratorium.
The economy of the Spokane Valley has always been based on using our natural
resource of the sand and gravel pits to supply cement for buildings and homes, and
rock needed for asphalt for our roads in our County and the surrounding area. Sand
and Gravel pits and Central Pre -Mix are only economic when located within and next to
urban areas and close to major roads and railroad tracks. That, we have presently; but
you are bound -and -determined with this Mining Moratorium to end the economic future
of mining in our city.
I have been out to see the 45 -acre site east of Tschirley Rd. that represents the future
growth for the economy of the Valley. This land, owned by our County for a future sand
and gravel pit, is a necessity for the economic growth of our city and the Mining
Moratorium is just another way you 7 environmentalists have figured out how to stop
mining again. You keep advertising that the Spokane Valley is a "Business Friendly"
city. What a lie, this is only true if the business suits your personal liking. If you don't
like the business, you simply come up with an ordinance to try to block and stop it;
whether it is something as small as a coffee stand or one of our major companies, such
as Central Pre -Mix.
I am not only in favor of existing pits, such as the one at Eight Ave. and Havana, but I
am also in favor of future brand new sand and gravel pits in our city, not a Mining
Moratorium trying to stop them.
Lance E. Senter - Exploration Geologist
6. Jana McDonald letter and
Listed contents of flash drive
.CPM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
CORPORATE OFFICE • 5111 E BROADWAY • SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99212
P.O. BOX 3366 • SPOKANE, WA 99220-3366 • OFFICE: (509) 534-6221 • FAX: (509) 536-3051
Central Pre -Mix
Concrete Co.
Central Pre -Mix
Prestress Co.
Inland Asphalt Co.
Interstate Concrete
& Asphalt Co.
ICON Materials
WSG
Wenatchee
Sand and Gravel
Central Washington
Concrete
Eugene
Sand & Gravel
401
Viking Redi-Mix
Green & White
Rock Products
Klamath Pacific
Corporation
Bandon Concrete
& t evelnpment
River Bend
Sand and Gravel
Salem
Road & Driveway
Valley
Concrete & Gravel
Oldcastle®
Materials
July 28, 2015
City Council
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E Sprague Ave., Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE: Moratorium on Mining and Mineral Product Manufacturing
Ordinance No. 15-013
Dear Councilmembers,
CPM Development Corp. (CPM) would like to thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the City's new moratorium prohibiting Mining and Mineral Product
Manufacturing. CPM has testified on record and in opposition to the previous
Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009. As you have already heard through prior
testimony, CPM's key points against the moratorium are summarized as follows:
• City contends mining impacts are irreversible, which CPM has provided
several examples of reclamation projects that are an asset to the
communities they are in. For example, the north Spokane Wandermere
area developments, River Run mixed-use development at Fort George
Wright, and the Riverstone and Ramsey Park projects in Coeur d' Alene,
Idaho. In fact, the PGA US Golf Open Championship was played on in a
reclaimed gravel mine at Chambers Bay outside of Tacoma, Washington.
• Growth Management requires the protection and designation of natural
resources that are of long term commercial significance.
• City staff has indicated that there are 9 mine sites in the City, however,
there are only 5 DNR permitted sites in the City. Four are operated by
CPM and one by Spokane County. The other 4 sites no longer have
mining permits and have been reclaimed to other uses.
• The moratorium prevents sites that have adequate resources on them
from being used. These resources cannot be moved or re-created if lost
to urban development or mismanaged.
• Costs increase the farther the material is from the market and has to be
transported,
• Potential impacts to the aggregate reserves owned by CPM on the County
property off Tschirley.
• Unknown impacts to existing operations that may affect future
mining/expansion plans.
I have attached to this letter and to be added to the record, a thumb drive that
contains documents, agendas and links to City Council meetings related to the
previous 2 ordinances, including:
• Video and Audio of February 24, 2015 Council meeting;
• Video and Audio of March 24, 2015 Council meeting;
• Video and Audio of April 14, 2015 Council meeting;
• Video and Audio of April 28, 2015 Council meeting;
• Video and Audio of June 30, 2015 Council meeting;
• City Clerk links to key documents including Staff Reports, etc., all of
which relate to the moratoriums;
• City of Spokane Valley Map of mining sites within City limits;
• Central Pre -Mix map of DNR permitted mining sites within City
limits;
In the event the City Clerk desires hard copies of the files contained in the flash
drive, please advise and we will provide those documents for the record.
In closing, CPM's position has not changed and CPM still requests that the
Moratorium be wholly repealed and we respectfully request this letter and its
enclosures be included in the record. Please feel free to contact me at
509.534.6221 or by email at imcdonaldt oldcastlematerials.com if you have any
questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
CPM Development Corp.
J/2/(/2
Jana McDonald, PE
Environmental Engineer
Links to City of Spokane Valley City Council Meeting agendas and videos:
February 24, 2015 link to agenda and video — Mining Moratorium added item at 19:38 in video
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=3&clip id=323
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=3&clip id=323
March 24, 2015 link to agenda and video
http://spokanevallevgranicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=3&clip id=333
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=3&clip id=333
April 14, 2015 Zink to agenda and video
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=3&clip id=336
htto://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=3&clip id=336
April 28, 2015 Zink to agenda and video
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=3&clip id=338
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlaver.php?view id=3&clip id=338
June 30, 2015 Zink to video of new mining moratorium — at beginning of meeting
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=3&clip id=356
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlaver,php?view id=3&clip id=356
DNR Permits in CSV
Spo, Co. Flora Road
PM Sullivan Road
CPM 8th & Carnahan
7. July 28, 2015 materials
From Stacy Bjordahl
PARSONS/BURNE7r/BJORDAHL/HUMELLP
ATTORNEYS
Stacy A. Bjordahl
sbjordahl@pblaw.biz
July 28, 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. 15-0013
Dear Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City's re -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 and holds the
reserves under another property located on Tshirley Road.'
As you are aware, we have previously testified both orally and in writing as to the original
moratorium passed on February 24, 2015, which comments still remain applicable to the
re -adopted Moratorium. In an effort to save time and limit testimony this evening, through
this letter we are submitting the following items:
1) Copy of March 24, 2015 comment letter by Parsons/Burnett/Bjordahl/Hume,
LLP;
2) Copy of February 9, 2015 Minutes of Special Joint Meeting between Spokane
County Board of Commissioners and City Council;
3) Copy of February 10, 2015 Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting;
4) Copy of February 17, 2015 Minutes of City Council Special Workshop Meeting;
5) Index of Record for City of Spokane Valley Ordinance Nos. 15-0005 and 15-0009
filed with Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in Case No.
15-1-0001 (CPM Development Corporation v, City of Spokane Valley).
1 These entities are: Central Pre -Mix, Inland Asphalt and Acme.
505 W. Riverside Ave. Suite 500, Spokane WA 99201 • 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
July 28, 2015
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and respectfully request that the Moratorium
be repealed 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,
ARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL/HUME, LLP
Stacy A. Bj.r�
Encl.
�Ll
EXHIBITS
PARSONS/i" Lil?NETT/BJORDAHL/HUMELp
A zTORNEYs
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.' 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, acceptanc-, - • - . . - •- ... of any
permit applications or licenses by or for new mining ander 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/HUMS, LLP
Stacy A.
Encl.
EXHIBIT "A"
Urban Growth Area Update
Land Quantity Analysis for
The City of gaokane Valley
September 2010
City of qpokane Valley
1
RESIDENTIAL LAND QUAN11Tr ANALYSS
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 Elected Offidalswill usethis
quantitative information to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
County -wide Planning Policies direct jurisdk ionsto utilize the LOA methodology developed by
the Washington nate Department of Community Trade and Economic Development and from
the guidebook, "Issues in Designating Urban Growth Areasi'. The Steering Committee of
[Elected 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 qookane Valley's application of the adopted methodology:
aep 1
Identify land that can accommodate future growth.
In determining residential land quantity, these landsfall under three categories
Preliminary and final plats
Platted Tots 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 island that contains existing residential development but is large enough to
be further subdivided based on the current zoning classification. Partially used residential land
indudespropertiesthat can be subdivided into five (5) or more lots, consistent with the current
zoning classification.
aep 2
attract 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 recognizing that most land has development potential, certain properties have physical
and/or regulatory constraints, such as wetlands, steep slopes, or regulated shorelines. Some
properties may never develop or may develop at densities less than allowed by zoning.
City of qookane Valley
Therefore, lands containing physical limitations are not induded in the residential land supply.
These indude the following critical areas deductions:
Q-itical areas deduction
Wetlands Identified wetlands and an associated 100 foot buffer area are
subtracted from land inventory.
Fish and Wildlife
Geologically Hazardous
Breams and associated riparian area buffers are subtracted from the
land inventory.
c rtain 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 Iandsthat 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 aep 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 Iandsthat 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
aate Levy Exempt
Public ShoolsExempt
76 Park
77 Churches
79 Other Cultural
Cemetery Exempt
DoRlnstitutional Exempt
Government Property Exempt
Operating Property Exempt
City of Spokane Valley
PIP
Step 4
attract 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 Tess than $500 land value per hr's code are removed from the
available land supply.
Deduction for parcelswith high improvement value
Single family residential parcels that have an improvement value greater than 3 times the lot
area are considered unlikely to redevelop and are excluded from available land supply.
Step 5
Subtract .. that percentage of land...which you assume will not be available for development
within your plan's20 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.
aep 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 a)okane Valley
has not employed a safety factor in past studies due to GJScapabilities enabling effective
monitoring. Additionally, an amendment to the Countywide Hanning Policies 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.
Step 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 vaunt land is counted for
residential use at a density of 17 units per acre.
Light Industrial: No residential usewithin 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 Ibview
Afinal step in the analysis included a review of recent aerial photography to compare the
results of the GS analysis 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 LQAwas modified to exdude the identified areas from
lands available for development.
2010 Population Opacity
Table 7 illustrates the 2010 population capacity for the City of 4okane Valley using the
adopted land quantity methodology and assumptions as described in this report.
City of Spokane Valley
Vacant and
Partially Used
Land
Net
Developable
Acres
Potential New
Dwelling Units
Population
Capacity
City 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
City of Spokane Valley
COMM HQAL LAND QUANI1TYANALYSSS
On March 15, 1996, the Growth Management Steering Committee adopted a methodology for
determining commercial land demand. The following is a summary of the Qty of Saokane
Valley's commercial land analysis using the adopted methodology. The formula does not take
into account current commercial vacancy ratesand 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 Qty of Spokane Valley's official population allocation
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BoXC) and dividing it by the current
population determined by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). The growth factor is
then calculated by the Qty of Spokane Valley's commercial acres currently in use. Table 8
illustrates the Assessor property use codes used to identify commercial acres in use.
Table 8 —Assessor Commercial Property Use Codes
Cade
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
Personal services
63 _
Business services
64
Fepair 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 Qty of Spokane Valley determined that there was adequate
commercial property for the next twenty years of commercial growth (see formula below).
Qty of Spokane Valley
Population Allocation +Current
Population / Current Population
90,210.00
108,956.00
Growth Factor
Commercial Acres
X in Use
121
1,133.56
Land Utilization
Commercial Acres of Demand X Factor
1,369.11
= Growth Factor
1.21
= Commercial Acres of Demand
1,369.11
Adjusted Commercial Acres
= of Demand
1.001 1,369.11
Adj. Commercial Acres of Commercial Acres
Demand
1,369.11
Vacant Commercial Acres of
Demand
235.56
- in Use
Total Vacant Commercial
= Acres of Demand
1,133.56 235.56
X Market Factor
1.25
Total Commercial Acres of Commercial Acres
Demand + in Use
294.45
Total Commercial Acres of
= Demand
294.45
Total Commercial Acres of
= Demand
1,133.56 1,428.00
Commercial Acres
Total Comm. Acres of Demand - Zoned
1,428.00
2,638.53
INDUSTRIAL LAND QUANTITYANALYSS
Additional Comm. Acreage
= needed
-1,210.53
Minus indicates surplus
The industrial employment forecast for 2031 isdetermined 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 needsfor 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 includes detailed 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 such as agriculture,
aty of gaokane Valley
forestry, and mining are not included. 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 q)okane County. The equation is illustrated
as follows:
2010 population x 0.135 = Industrial employees for 2010
90,210 x0.135 =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 asfollows:
2031 population x0.135 = 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 condusion is that 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
dty-wide and does not indude the industrial land needsfor unincorporated UGAs.
City of 53okane Valley
In order to evaluate the industrial landswithin the Qty, staff used an industrial land study
developed in 2000 by a committee composed of representativesfrom 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 dassified into five categories or "tier' . Tier one Iandswere determined to have all
the attributes to be immediately available for development. Tier two and three lands were
classified as being usable within a 20 -year timeframe. Tier 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 Qty of qookane 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 looted within the Oty of qookane Valley. The majority of the
remaining industrial property was classified as tier four and five considered as land that is" built
out" with little opportunity for redevelopment in the near term. Table 9 summarizesthe
industrial land analysis in the City of 4Jokane 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 (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 Qty has 839 acres of tier one industrial land. Essentially, the City hasfour times
the industrial land needed in tier one industrial properties alone. In conclusion, the City
Spokane Valley has an adequate supply of industrial land for the next 20 years
PREVIOUS IMONOM ICSTUDI ES & ANALYSIS
The aty of qookane Valley, as part of the planning process for the Prague-Appleway
Revitalization Flan, conducted economic analyses providing a basis for recommendations in the
Pian. The most recent study performed by Gibbs Planning Croup, Inc in 2007 specifically
examined the economic feasibility of establishing a town center in 4Jokane Valley. The Gbbs
aty of qookane 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
P:lokane Valley Mall and downtown Spokane 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 Trade Area 2006 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 induded most of the q;ookane Valley region where most of the study
area's (Spokane Valley Town Center) potential shoppers reside. The Sxxokane Valley Mall and
surrounding retail were induded in this model; downtown Spokane was 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 q3sokane, 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 Spokane 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 (exdsting supply) was estimated at
$9.48 billion, while the 2006 overall consumer demand was estimated at $8.17 billion yielding
retail over -supply of $1.31 billion. This results in an existing over -supply of up to 4.7 million
square feet of retail space in the Spokane legion.
City of Spokane Valley
•
•
'I1
•
XI
•
•V
7� e3 .r-
.ry$)�
�� s.1.,1. x"1_3' ' L,'s•S'.� 1� t
.
-
7541,
r;,
• rat)!
•
•
:I
f
u1 , -'- —�—
{ 1 i
' ITLI ::
t
74:1711i -
City of 4okane Valley
he
?.
•
r, -
I
•
l lift• .. �.:n,21
1.tr J
Gr*ISO.=PnOg•
2910rttiler AnabrisResuU
Q .+.Av. nR
�Ie1gn.M para
—�
"'j
EXHIBIT "B"
Moraton
Modifications to Reclamation plan to
inlcude removing the common boundary
between CPM and County property to
'maximaize the resources In both mining
permits including but not limited to mining
the Flora Pit Road and the existing house
property.
See Sullivan Road Details Above
Not known at this time
Not known at this time
CPM just purchased the property in
December. DNR Plan is under review and
may require modifications in which the City
would need to sign off.
C
O
E
C
O
C
t°, +N
M
+
M
+
M
+
1/1
M
+
M
0
O
p if,
J
Wj •O
tn C O
on.=
N C d1
m Y d �
x2¢u-
Mining/Industrial
Shop Facilities
'Mining
Concrete Production
Shop Facilities
Quality Control
Mining, Recycling
C
0
V
O
m
m — c
2.2s
cZ.
oca
0.. >
E y
U 2
'Heavy Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Medium Density
Residential
•-
m—
o w
Lv
m pl
..1 K
m
C
0 O
N
C
t'..'
N
V —
r.
—
N
—
2
V
K
Current uses zoning
Mining Industrial
Asphalt Production
Concrete Production
Shop Facilities
Recycling
Mining/Industrial
Shop Facilities
Mining/Industrial
Quality Cool
Mining, Recycling
C
O
J
1
C
m -6'V
'c an
Parce 9
45123.9008
45123.9007
45122.9005
45122.9004
45123.9006
45123.9011
45125.9157
45135.9007
45124.9012
45121.9016
0
m
.ti
N
ci
N
p
35134.9095
35134.9057
35134.9028
35134.9075
35134.9030
35134.9029
35134.3232
35134.9081
at
CO
m
c
co
N
111
m
otar to tor-cocnto 05
ri rl O. m T o tin in LO lww IwO N 1^-1
m m 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 an
nmmmcnmmm mmmmrri
m m in MRI M m m m m 01 m rt)
N N CO N N N N N N N tV N N
N h 1n N N N N M' 1n UI N N M
m M M M M M M M m M m m M
a
04
at XLIt�
DO O
4
0
a
CO
t-1
O
Approx. 34
Inn
KO
D.
0
ro0
cO
c
d
0
N N
Spokane County Flora Pit
under lease/buy option
Park Road
Carnahan
8th & Havana Quarry
5132 1338
352,1 '142:
.• .
3522.•42.610
•
r ;
'':' •, i!t•;-767...i... ,3;123.3,ul 43. •;,--..3-;-2.s3 , >,..,_.*-1,- ,,,,,.,,,..,;;„,.. ,,r
i.
i..t.
8TH & HAVANA
-,-,-;•If;i**;,7-
..,...,,,,,-.4.-;....;.: .=.
,....
,,,,04 .,,,,, •
052 33:0F31 7;.f , _ .
. t "rik,s'stf
1"..523:5?
5'6?•1E, 1 . - "c*•_- [1,-•-• 5,',i : [,.;•g, ''
....____—
•
okY; • • 'RI' I • --2,3
1;t1,..„1 •
1.4 "
• r,„
�
):
!
�
(
(
«
\
«:
>
!
:
+,
a
.m
\
\
<
}
t ±
Q
�
,
<
r
� .
:!
:
Z
»
!
+
!
a
)
>
:
;\
:
,
i
MINUTES
Special Joint Meeting
Spokane County Board of Country Commissioners
Spokane Valley City Council
Monday, February 9, 2015
9:00 son. — 11:30 a.na.
Spokane Valley Council Chambers
11707 E. Sprague Avenue
Attendance:
City of Spokane Vallev
Dean Grafos,Mayor
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Ben Wick, Councilmember
ABSENT:.
Bill Bates, Councilmember
Rod Higgins, Councilmember
Spokane Valley Staff:
Mike Jackson, City Manager
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
John Hohman, Community Development Director
Caro1be11e Branch, Public Information Officer
Gabe Gallinger, Senior Development Engineer
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Spokane County
Todd Mielke, Chair
Shelly O'Quinn, Vice -Chair
Al French, Commissioner (arrived 9:26 a.m.; Left
at approximately 10:45 a.m.)
Spokane County Staff
John Peterson, County Planning Director
Doug Chase, Parks & Recreation Director
Kevin Cooke, Utilities Director
Others in Attendance
Jim Murphy, Sports Commission
Eric Sawyer, Sports Commission
Torn Towey
Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m., followed by self -introductions from Spokane
Valley Council, and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners. It was then moved by Deputy
Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmembers Bill Bates and Rod
Higgins. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, Commission Chair Mielke also called the
meeting to order. Mayor Grafos welcomed everyone to the meeting and said this is an opportunity for
informal discussion.
1. County Potential Ballot Measures
Commissioner Mielke explained that the focus of the ballot out now is mostly schools; the next ballot will
contain the Juvenile Justice Proposal of 1/10t'' of 1% sales tax, which has been approved about four times
now, and which measure has seen an increased margin of success each time, usually 65% approval or
higher. Mr. Mielke said that the juvenile justice 1/10t1i of 1 % tax should not be confused with any
discussion to replace the jail or community corrections. Mayor Grafos asked about the sportsplex.
Mr. Mielke said the County has not done major improvements to the park system for twenty-seven years;
and prior to that did some subarea votes like the Valley or South Hill, with mixed results; the last county-
wide park system improvement proposal twenty-seven years ago passed with an approximate 69%
margin, and he asked staff tolook at that, which prompted the City of Spokane's efforts to push hard for
Joint Spokane Valley/Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02-09-2015 Page 1 of 6
Approved by Council: 03-24-2015
their pool update, and then last fall, there was the Riverfront Park update; he said parks are a popular
item; said many families use Plantes Ferry Park, and they have continuously had requests for other sports
complexes, so staff was asked to look at what that might look like. Mr. Mielke said if the issue went to
the voters, the question would be what are the highest prioritized projects to pursue; and at the same time,
the Sports Commission has continually voiced the demand for an indoor sports facility to bring sports to
the region. Mr. Mielke said that is not to say there is an exclusive demand for an indoor facility, but there
is a demand for both in and outdoor; and said the other option of an outdoor venue in Spokane Valley is
being discussed; he said these are early discussions and everyone involved is still trying to determine the
land options, along with the question of who would bear the operational cost, and would such an event
center cover all its costs; he said he is still waiting for the completed business plan. There has been some
discussion at the PFD (Public Facilities District), Mr. Mielke explained, about the idea of pursuing this
jointly with others; or if the PFD would underwrite any shortfalls, how would that be accomplished. Mr.
Mielke said they continue to wait for a detailed presentation of the proposal. Commissioner O'Quinn said
there is no ballot date for the renewal of the I/I0`i' of 1% as research continues; and it probably will not
occur until 2017. Councilmember Pace suggested all the sales tax increases coming up on the ballot could
lead to taxpayer shock; mentioned his concern about re -mapping the flood plain and the effects on
property owners to make sure no one's property rights are hurt; and he asked the Commissioners and the
Sports Commission to reconsider the location of an indoor sportsplex as he feels Spokane Valley is an
ideal place.
Commissioner Mielke mentioned some of the upcoming ballot measures, such as school bonds or levies,
fire bond, renewal of the juvenile justice measure; the anticipated Spokane County Library District;
perhaps a County Parks ballot measure in the fall; and maybe an effort for a vote for a port district; said
that 2017 will likely include discussion on emergency communications and where do we go and how to
maintain an ongoing program; at some future point facilities repairs will need to be addressed, maybe
combined with criminal justice on a community correction center, together with the idea of the Geiger
Building, which he said is a building that won't stand a lot longer without a lot of cash; said there is a
need to consider investment in upgrading, or doing something else. Concerning the Saltese Flats and the
floodplain and mapping, Mr. Mielke said we need to make sure we allow science to dictate what the end
point would be, but it all still comes back to what is the evaluation of someone's property; he said the
hope is the right questions are asked and thereis due diligence as the property risks are important. [9:26
a.m. Commissioner French arrived,] Regarding the field house or sportsplex, Mr. Mielke explained that
the business plan is not yet complete and it has not been determined who will oversee the operation,
although the PFD (Public Facilities District) has expressed an interest; and he said they are prepared to
take on that operating loss; said the PFD also likes the idea of being able to walk from one facility, like
the arena, to the other, Like the field house; he added that the PFD indicated that if they feel their board
members can't get any leverage, then they are not interested in overseeing the operations, which Mr.
Mielke explained, means someone else would have to do that; said if an entity in Spokane Valley would
be interested, perhaps the hotel room rates could be increased to help those costs, Mayor Grafos expressed
concern about Spokane Valley being left out of the research and out of the discussions; said we would
like to participate especially since our citizens will be asked to pay for it; adding that he does not feel it
should be located downtown. Commissioner Mielke said the Board of County Commissioners has not
been the driving effort in this project.
The discussion about thefield house or sportsplex continued including Council comments about the need
for research, study, and working together, and not wanting to make a commitment until the demand is
known. Councilmember Hafner said the perception is that the City of Spokane, the Sports Commission
and others have already made a decision and Spokane Valley was not included in those discussions.
Commissioner O'Quinn said she urged Eric Sawyer to make sure Spokane Valley is included in
discussions, and that she asked Mr. Sawyer to consider the Valley as a location. Councilmember Pace
said that Spokane Valley does not have a representative on the PFD and that should be rectified. Deputy
Joint Spokane Valley/Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02-09-2015 Page 2 of 6
Approved by Council: 03-24-2015
Mayor Woodard noted that about one quarter of the county population is within the Spokane Valley City
limits; he agreed with the need to make sure about the facility and its location. Commissioner O'Quinn
said she is willing to work with Eric Sawyer and whichever Councilmembers would like to be included in
that conversation. Mayor Grafos added that another consideration is that there is no "free land" downtown
as the PFD would lease that .back from the City of Spokane; suggested it might be more feasible to buy
property in the Valley and have no debt service; said those are some of the issues he would like to discuss
with all involved. Mayor Grafos also said that Mr. Sawyer had indicated they had discounted the valley as
a location. Commissioner Mielke suggested a joint meeting might be prudent to examine ballot proposals;
look at regional facilities and how they serve the entire county; said he is not aware of the quantity of land
in the Valley, or other cities such as Cheney, and that he is trying to balance the investments across the
community. Councilmember Pace suggested purchasing land in Spokane Valley might be a better
investment than leasing downtown; that Spokane Valley has great roads and plentiful free parking; and
that the train track issue will be mitigated in the one area of concern; said trains haven't stopped people
from getting to Valleyfest every year; and said this issue can't go anywhere unless an elected official from
Spokane Valley becomes a representative on the PFD Board. Commissioner Mielke said the PFD
operates under state statutes; that it has a defined objective and is not about geographical representative;
said the members who are appointed are based on business expertise of running an enterprise and not on
where they reside.
2.. Marijuana —Regulations/Issues
Mayor Grafos explained that we have a moratorium on marijuana uses other than those already licensed
by the State liquor Control Board; that we are waiting for the State to come to some decision about
medical and recreational marijuana. Councilmember Hafner suggested the need to work together with the
County and other municipaliteis to find common ground on this topic. There was also brief discussion
about buffer zones and .moratoriums; and about what changes might take place concerning criminal
infractions.
3. New City Hall/University Center
Mayor Grafos said that the City has purchased property at University City for a future city hall; and that
he anticipates the project will move quickly; and that it is an exciting project. Mayor Grafos added that
most of the old mall at University City would also be taken down, which will enhance the area as well.
4. Sewer Extensions — Sullivan to FIora, Barker
The industrial areas shown on the map as proposed for sewer hookups were briefly discussed and it was
mentioned that this is an issue where the City and County can likely work together.
5. Legislative Agenda — Spokane Valley and_ Spokane County
Mayor Grafos explained the Recouping Code Enforcement Costs/Lien proposed legislation, and said we
are trying to get the state to agree that we can recoup some of the property cleanup costs. Deputy Mayor
Woodard mentioned that Councilmember Higgins and City Attorney DriskelI are in Olympia today
testifying before the senate regarding this lien authority proposal, that counties have the right to have first
position lien authority but cities do not. Commissioner Mielke stated that they are experiencing some
similar challenges and frustrations in dealing with nuisance property. The possible $5,000 cap wa
mentioned but it was noted that several .legislators have refused that suggestion and that the community
banks oppose the Iegislation.
4. Back to Sewer extensions
Staff distributed copies of the information for sewer extensions in the industrial areas, and discussion
included mention of the County planning to run a sewer line in 2015 to Tschirley; with Mayor Grafos
asking about the possibility of that line being extended. Spokane County Utilities Director Cooke said
that originally they planned to serve this area east of the Spokane Industrial park to the pump station; that
Joint Spokane Valley/Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02-09-2015 Page 3 of 6
Approved by Council: 03-24-2015
as a result of a recent study, they realize they can get there just by extending the gravity line to Euclid;
they mentioned exceptions from that point and possible extensions through developer or late corner
agreements; said it has been in their six-year plan to get sewer to thisarea and up until about six months
ago, were planning on building a pump station at approximately the termination point shown on the red
line in the map; but now it appears that would be very expensive; said part of the problem with a pump
station with no flow is it becomes an operational problem; said they will have to do some additional
cleaning because it will be some time before they have enough flow from that area to flush out that line.
Mayor Grafos said he would like to see if the County could extend the lineup to Tschirley to the north
end of the proposed gravel pit as that would be an economic benefit to the County and to the City; said if
that were done, we could upgrade the road and he mtneiond the idea of possibly working together; said
there are about 144 acres of industrial ground that could be developed.
Commissioner O'Quinn said the Commissioners are obviously not going to make any decisions today, but
will consider all these issues for future discussions. Mayor Grafos suggested the Commissioners also
examine the gravel pit and sewer utilities; and asked if there would be a potential to move the gravel pit
for possible better location, which would open the area for more development. Commissioner Mielke said
the County already owns the area, and that re -locating a gravel pit is not an easy thing and they would
need to find an alternate location first; said -they they own the property but not the mining rights and again
stated that it is challenging to try to findlocations for gravel pits. Councilmember Hafner asked how
imperative is the gravel pit and when did the use of the pit start. Commissioner Mielke replied that they
have already executed agreements with Central Pre -Mix to leave the site on Sullivan, and that they are
already slated to leave there in a couple years; said they just came to the Boardto renovate the old
SCRAPS building for their purposes and said that move is imminent; also noted that the engineering and
road departments were looking to move to that site within eighteen months, and to clarify, he said the
County is moving, not Central Pre -Mix. In response to a question about other gravel pits, Commissioner
Mielke said that there are some scattered about, but some don't have enough acreage to house
maintenance crews. There was brief discussion about the City's plan to resurface Euclid, which would be
a fill and overlay rather than a complete "tearing up" of the entire road. Mr. Guth said it would be prudent
to look at what utilities could make that area more viable, and Mr. Cooke said he would be happy to work
with the City to put in a late -comer's agreement. Concerning the anticipated future needs due to
expansion, water was also discussed as some of the water districts are getting close to their limit of water
rights. Commissioner Mielke stressed the need to continue to have state policy changed, as the original
calculation of what was needed for one residential unit, is vastly different today from what it was twenty
years ago using old formulas.
6. Rail Transport Issues — (Oil; Coal)
Discussion included the number of trains coming through Spokane Valley and that they end up separating
half of the city; of the needfor support in pushing the issue of train safety on our side of the state and not
just the west side; the idea of pressuring the railroads to combine the lines as a way to- work together on
Bridging the Valley; the realization that the railroads are protective of their lines and generally not
interested in joining with others; that sometimes it seems as if the railroads are a sovereign nation and no
matter how much discussion or pressure, they can still just tell people 'no' that they are not changing. The
Barker Road overpass/underpass was also mentioned and of the estimated $30 million cost to do that
project. Councilmember Wick said that the state did their own ecology study on the topic of trains and
transport safety, and that Spokane Valley was left out of the entire study. [Commissioner French left
about 10:45 a.m.] Councilmember Wick said there is a need to find some sort of funding source for the
grade separations; that it is a big issue but it is not getting a lot of conversation. Commissioner Mielke
said he feels we won't get far without working jointly with the railroad; but when we focus ori oil and coal
the railroads tend to get defensive; perhaps a better angle would be to discuss volume of train traffic and
that delays for them represents an economic impact that we do not want to disrupt communities and at
the same time, don't want to do anything to hamper their ability to increase their volumes. Deputy Mayor
Joint Spokane Valley/Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02-09-2015 Page 4 of 6
Approved by Council: 03-24-2015
Woodard said that a large issue for property values is also trains blowing their horns and that properties
are devalued as the trains use their super horns; stressing that is a critical aspect to getting those crossings.
separated.
7. Status of the UGA (Urban Growth Area) 2014 Expansion
Spokane County PIanning Director Peterson said the UGA is presently under appeal and working its way
through the courts and hearings board, which had invalidated the County's previous UGA update; said.
there were a number of land use applications that were vested before the appeal was filed, and some of the
areas were near or adjacent to Spokane Valley; the Morningside subdivision connection was vested, and a
short plat was vested for the Central Valley high School site; said that until the appeal is resolved, no
further vesting can be declared; and that of course they would like it resolved as soon as possible. Mr.
Peterson said they are seeing some good progress with the appellants, and once accomplished, then the
County and the jurisdictions can look at the 2017 update of the UGA boundary; said there is no
requirement to expand, but this is an opportunity to look if there is a need to do so.
Commissioner Mielke said the County only adopted one plan since the Road Management Act passed,
that it was updated in 200I, and they are now looking to see if they missed anything; said they had to go
back and check some assumptions about urbanized areas and what is anticipated in the next twenty years.
Mr. Mielke said they have about twenty-one different study areas and they feel many of them are already
urban in nature, and he mentioned some of the areas previously missed, such as Monte Del Ray, and the
Humane Society Property around Havana, which is half in and half out of the UGA, and half Light
Industrial and half Low Family Residential. Mr. Mielke said the Mead, Mt .Spokane area is the Largest
area and there are some mobile home parks on one side and several housing developments on the other
side, but the houses weren't hooked to sewer. Mr. Mielke also noted there is a hearing tomorrow night to
change the low density in the Glenrose area, and that the company FutureWise doesn't think. that is
appropriate and will sue; said the County can always appeal but hearings boards always rule against
Spokane County; and he said that some of these issues stay in the appeals court process for years.
S. Spokane Valley Parks Master Plan and Vision
The "recommended capital projects" list was discussed briefly with mention of such projects as the
development of Balfour Park where the new library is planned; development and replacement of some
facilities in Browns Park, such as the bathroom and picnic shelter, as well as the sand volleyball courts;
property acquisition with a yet undetermined area; and mention that the projects are contingent upon
funding. Mr. Jackson mentioned that it could be six to ten years before some of these projects are actually
accomplished as they are part of a long range plan. The development of a dog park was also briefly
mentioned and Commissioner O'Quinn said they have a proposal for a dog park at Dishman Hills but
have no funds for that yet; but she is aware of some citizens in the community willing to help with
funding.
9. County/City Mutual Support
Concerning the Justice Commission, Councilmember Pace said that Commissioner Mielke previously
told him that the state mandates the size and composition of this Commission, but actually the state
statues indicate the composition and size of that board are determined by the Board of County
Commissioners; and he asked why Spokane Valley is not treated as an independent entity like the City of
Spokane, and then have the smaller cities have their own representation_ Commissioner Mielke went over
the structure of the commission, which includes a variety of representatives, such as Chief VanLeuven
who is also co-chair of a subcommittee; adding that Chief VanLeuven found that other city police chiefs
were fine with him serving; and said that Mr. Jackson took a similar initiative about contacting other
cities to get input about Spokane Valley representing those entities. Mr. Mielke said the City of Spokane
is the only jurisdiction specified in the interlocal because the focus is on felonies, which is what the
prosecutors spends most of their time on as 70% are inside the Spokane City limits; said the number of
Joint Spokane Valley/Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02-09-2015 Page 5 of 6
Approved by Council: 03-24-2015
commission members is limited by state statute and they don't want a large commission; said that he and
Commissioner O'Qdinn's roll in this is to serve as facilitators. There was some further discussion about
only having elected officials versus .having others, such as city managers or attorneys, on the commission.
Commissioner. O'Quinn said that the Council's voice at that table is important and she encouraged
councilmembers and staff to join a sub -committee. There was also some brief discussion about the status
of the Bigelow Gulch project
There being no further business it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously
agreed to adjourn. Commissioner Mielke also adjourned the Board of County Commissioners. The
meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.
1 ST? Dn Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Joint Spokane Valley/Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02-09-2015 Page 6 of 6
Approved by Council: 03-24-2015
frll UTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Mayor Grafoscalled the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
City 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
Cary DriskelI, City Attorney
John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Karen Kendall, Planner
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: In the absenceof a pastor, a few moments. of silence were observed.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council, Staff, and audience rose for the Pledge of Allegiance
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except
Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to
excuse Councilnmmbers Bates from tonight's meeting. Mayor Grafos explained that Councilmember
Bates has been ill and in the hospital and is recovering, and would like to participate via phone in next
week's Council meeting/workshop, and that as provided in the Council's Governance Manual, requests to
use telephone conference participation shall be approved by the Council by motion. It was moved by
Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve Councilmember Bates' request to
participate by telephone in next week's Council meeting/workshop.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS ANI) PRESENTATIONS: n/a
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he attended the morning meeting for the City's visioning process for our
comprehensive plan; said it was well attended with lots of public input.
Councilmember Wick: reported that he has been invited to join the Safe Energy Leadership Alliance,
which is a coalition of local state and tribal leaders from across the Pacific Northwest, Montana and
Canada who are working to raise awareness of the safety risks of oil and coal trains and their economic,
cultural, environmental and health impacts; and said through that process, he will continue totry to
advance our Bridging the Valley concept and the safety issues for our side of the state, and said the next
meeting will be in Portland; reported that the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council)
upcoming grants will be more geared toward air quality, and that because we have a lot of sidewalks and
bike and trails; it will be difficult to compete against air quality, and that he would like to recommend use
of 50% of those funds for bike/pedestrian uses, and Council appeared to nod in agreement.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 02-10-2015 Page 1 of 4
Approved by Council: 02-24-2015
Councilmember Hafner: spoke about the medical marijuana tax and revenues and said cities should
continue putting pressure on the legislators that cities receive a portion of those revenues; as the Chair of
the Health District Board, reported that there have been twelve confirmed influenza related deaths in our
county out of the ninety-two reported throughout the state,and said the Board works hard to keep people
informed; and mentioned yesterday's City Council and County Commissioners joint meeting.
Councilmember Pace: said that the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting included a request from
members of the Greater Valley Support Network to examine bus stops and routes; said he went to the
Spokane Valley Tech school to help judge student projects and met with his four interns who are acting as
legislative aids; attended yesterday's City/County meeting; went to the Chamber of Commerce
Government Action meeting; and attended both sessions of the Comprehensive Plan Community
Visioning forums.
Councilmember Higgins: reported that he attended last Thursday's Spokane Regional Clean Air meeting
where the major problem was a leak in the roof and no money to pay for it, but they had a coloring and
game book, which he said is not the usual biased propaganda for an agency of that type; and that he went
to Olympia yesterday and extended thanks to Senator Padden for sponsoring our lien authority bill.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Grafos said he also attended both comprehensive plan community
visioning meetings; attended the City's finance committee meeting; went to the Chamber's annual Gala
event at Mirabeau; attended the awards banquet for Fire District 8; and also participated in yesterday's
joint meeting with the County where elected officials talked about economic development, and that we
would like to see extended sewer lines in our industrial park, and he mentioned the controversial sports
field house project, and that the City of Spokane wants that facility downtown, and said we don't
necessarily agree.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment.
Michele Yarborough: said she lives at the bottom of a steep hill on 8th and Carnahan; that the person who
bought the field across the street from her has been a problem; that her driveway is 12' from the stop sign
and with a 6' wooden fence, you can't see traffic; said she asked her neighborhood not to park in such a
manner as to block her driveway, but that continues to be a problem; said she called the police who said it
is a public street and there is nothing they can do about it; she said it is a very dangerous corner and
people have come down and run into their fence about seven titnes and she would like some kind of a
barrier to keep her and her property safe; and that she was told she cannot put rocks or barriers outside her
fence.
Chuck Simpson: said he lives in the Broadway Argonne area; spoke about a duplex that burnt down about
two years ago; and that the area is a big problem; to the north and back property line there is a mess with
building materials, and it is a health hazard, and he asked if there is any way to get that area cleaned up;
and he gave some photos to the Clerk to share with Council.
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: 1 move to approve the Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of claim vouchers on Feb 10, 20I5 Request for Council Action Form, Totaling:82,213,740.66.
b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending January 31, 2015: $427,002.09
c. Approval of January 27, 2015 Council Formal Meeting Minutes
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent
Agenda.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 0240-2015 Page 2 of 4
Approved by Council: 02-24-2015
NEW .BUSINESS:
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-002 Adopting Moratorium Findings of Fact — Erik Lamb
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to advance Ordinance 15-002 adopting findings of fact for Ordinance 14-021 and the
establishment of cr moratorium on unlicensed marjuana uses, to a second reading. After Deputy City
Attorney Lamb gave an overview of the ordinance, Mayor Grafos invited public comment. No comments
were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-003 for Plat Time Extension—John Hohman/Micki Harnois
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to advance Ordinance 15-003, changing the regulations regarding preliminary plat time
extensions, to a second reading. After Director Hohman gave an overview of the ordinance, Mayor
Grafos invited public comment. Chuck Simpson: said due to the economy, he thinks it should be extended
about as long as it can, that the initial three-year extension is ok, but would favor four or five years. There
were no other continents. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
4. Motion Consideration: Street Sweeping Contract — Eric Guth
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the 2015 Street Sweeping Services to
AAA Sweeping, LLC for an initial contract amount not to exceed $490,200 and authorize the City
Manager to finalize and execute a contract for the services. Director Guth gave a brief overview of the
contract being proposed as noted in his February 10, 2015 Request for Council Action. Mayor Grafos
invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Motion carried
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
5. Old Mission Avenue Street Vacation (STV 2014-0001) — Karen Kendall
Via her PowerPoint presentation, Planner Kendall explained the proposed street vacation request of 3,688
square feet and showed the property on the aerial map. Ms. Kendall noted that the Planning Commission
recommends approval with conditions, all as noted on her PowerPoint slides; and said that staff feels
compensation is not justified, with Mr. Jackson adding although that is staffs recommendation, and that
the decision is within Council's discretion. There were no objections from Council to move this forward
to a first reading.
6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos There were no proposed changes to the Advance Agenda.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Mr. Jackson noted next week's workshop draft agenda which he placed at the Council dais, and asked if
Council has any comments, to please let him know by tomorrow. Mr. Jackson then asked Mr. Driskell to
give a brief update on his visit to Olympia yesterday. Concerning SB 5694, Mr. Driskell said he and
Councilmember Higgins testified at a hearing before the governing operations committee, and then with
eight individual Legislators, and said Lobbyist Briahna Taylor kept them busy; he said he feels the
discussions were productive and putting a cap in the bill along with including language that such lien has
to be based on health or safety risks were very persuasive arguments; said the bill must be out of
committee by February 20. Mr. Driskell said they also spoke to individual legislators about our concerns
with the marijuana legislation, and he feels they were successful and the legislators will be working on
some of the issues identified and said he hopes to see some progress in the near future, adding that several
bills are moving between the House and Senate.
Mr. Jackson noted that they have been very involved in the legislative session so far, and that they have
scheduledseveral appointments for next week. Mr. Jackson asked, and Council confirmed their desire on
whether or not to support the following proposed bills: (1) SB 5628 regarding stormwater flood control
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 02-10-2015 Page 3 of 4
Approved by Council: 02-24-2015
and water supply infrastructure fees: does not support; (2) SB 5866 regarding counties imposing sales tax
up to .3%: does not support; and (3) HB 1133 to allow counties to impose a utility tax up to 6% and if a
city doesn't have one, the County could charge it — like solid waste.: does not support. Mr. Jackson noted
that Council will continue to get periodic updates on the bills as the issues evolve.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 6:45 p.ni.
A
ristine Bainbridge, City CIerk
D - .. Grafos, Mayor
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 02-10-20I5 Page 4 of 4
Approved by Council: 02-24-2015
MINUTES
SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
City Council Chambers
11707 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, Washington
February 17, 2015
Attendance:
Councilmembers
Staff
8:30 a.m.
Dean Grafos, Mayor
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Bill Bates, Councilmember —via phone
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Rod Higgins, Councilmember
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Ben Wick, Councilmember
Others in attendance:
Mike Huffman, Valley News Herald
Matt Lyons, Spokane Valley Police Dept.
Tom Towey
Mike Jackson,City Manager
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
John Hohman, Community Development Dir.
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all
Councilmembers were present, with Councilmember Bates participating via conference phone.
Overview: Discussion Topics — Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson explained that today's meeting is one of two annual workshops; that it is.a time for
casual conversation and to get some direction from Council. [Items were discussed in the order shown
below.]
1. Information Items: Work Plan, Legislative Agenda, 2015 Business plan [under separate cover]
Mr. Jackson mentioned the Workplan under Tab #1, which includes budget goals for Council and major
projects for all departments; said that this documentis the department's timeline to keep things on track
throughout the year; and said he uses it as a reference for how we are doing. Concerning the Business
Plan, Mr. Jackson said that each year at this time departments submit their performance measures and
workload indicators as we work to finalize this plan, even though we always consider it a draft as the
material contained within the Plan gets refined over time. Mr. Jackson said if Council has any questions
about who does what or about the organizational structure, that information can be found .in the Business
Plan, adding that it builds a good history of how we're handling the workload. He said thatin the next
week or so, staff will start to build the new business plan for 2016; that we lead the budget with this
business plan, so before we do the budget, each department considers the resources needed and anything
they propose will be included in the business plan. Mr. Jackson said it has been a good process, that we
use a lot of the same language year after year rather than try to do a complete re -write each time. Mr.
Jackson also noted the Legislative Agenda, which can be found under Tab #1 immediately after the
Workplan, and which can be referenced when we telephone Lobbyist Briahna Taylor at 11:00 a.m. today.
Mr. Jackson said we will work our way through the agenda and have plenty of time at the end for
brainstorming; and that Council can stay with an item as long as desiredas there are some items which
will likely generate more discussion than others.
2. Economic Development Update (incentives, etc.) — John Hellman Erik Lamb
Mr. Jackson said that this is an opportunity to discuss incentives, and noted a recent interesting article
concerning the State of Washington considering holding back some of the tax breaks they had previously
given Boeing, if the company reduces its overall Washington state workforce. In reality, Mr. Jackson said,
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 1 of 12
Approved by Council: 03-10-2015
these types of issues can end up being a "double-edged sword" as whenever an incentive or tax break is
given, someone needs to pay those taxes, or you do without the service. Mr. Jackson said coming up soon
on an agenda, staff will bring an incentive "toolbox" to Council for adoption consideration.
Director Hohman explained that the PowerPoint slides included in the packet, are to give Council an
overview of some of staffs different work items, and to get a feel for how the program is maturing. He
mentioned that part-time employee Gloria Mantz is now working with Economic Development
Coordinator Mike Basinger. As noted on the- slides, Mr. Hohman explained the Washington Department
of Commerce's Five. Levels of Economic Development,followed by the steps for the Comprehensive Plan
Update. Mr. Hohman said we want a very detailed, vibrant chapter of the comp plan that will give an
overview and policies of where we are going, and then devise a strategic plan; said he hopes to get into a
detailed plan that supports investments, encourages envisioned development, and attracts visitors,
customers, and businesses. Mr. Hohman also noted that information technology will continue to be
updated to ensure interoperability with thepermit system of SmartGov, enable a system that works across
the Internet, and provide interactive maps; he said there are additional internal aspects that we looking at
as staff works to develop a tool to help customers as they come in the door, and have it available on the
web for easy public access_
Concerning retail business, Mr. Hohman explained that our City has a tremendous retail source, and that
staff is working to identify some of the gaps; he said GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) is also focused on high-
tech; said we want to be more active in facilitating retail to fill any identified gaps and support property
owners, brokers, and retailers, all of which will increase our retail tax base. Mr. Jackson stated that we
realize GSI doesn't work with retail, and our City economic development will focus on retail; that we
realize manufacturing brings retail, we also realize people want to locate in a community with a wide
variety of retail services and restaurants, and said this is a step forward, and that over the next year we
will see the City develop more of a plan. Mayor Grafos agreed with the importance of retail and in
identifying gaps, and Deputy Mayor Woodard commented that we might want to look at what Missoula is
doing and track their retail; he said they don't do a lot of manufacturing but their retail is diverse. A
question came up about personnel, and Mr. Jackson said we are soliciting for an Economic Development
Specialist, which once hired, would give us 2.5 people dedicated to economic development. There was
some brief discussion about personnel, and Mr: Hohman said that we would not use only those 2.5
people, but others with various areas of expertise when needed. Deputy City Manager. Calhoun
commented that the 2.5 personnel has been included in the 2015 budget with no net increase of employees
as the change was accomplished through re -organization. Keeping in mind the importance of and need
for retail, Councilmember Wick said we do not want to lose the focus on manufacturing. Mr. Hohman
explained that we want to collaborate with our partners such as GSI, Mycroft, Visit Spokane, the
Chamber of Commerce and others to recruit manufacturing and promote our City; said staff is also
working on certified sites to move to the next level for a national person or entity to do the certification,
Mr. Hohman said that staff is reviewing the different aspects of the comp plan, including criteria, zoning,
permitting, SEPA, utilities, traffic, and other areas to see if there is anything we can do for specific areas,
such as the property to the west of Mansfield, or the Mirabeau area; that staff is working to identify traffic
concerns so projects can come in with relative ease: A previously noted, Mr. Hohman said we don't rely
solely on internal staff as we have anon-call contract with EcoNorthwest and are working with them on
an economic analysis of different projects; he said they did an analysis for us on the Appleway Trail, and
they are working on the industrial area as well, in areas such as between Flora and Barker; said if we are
going to invest, we want to make sure we get a return on our investment, and consultants such as
EcoNorthwest help with their careful and analytical research, and they get the data to make sure we are on
the right track.
The subject of funding mechanisms came up including loans,. grants such as from CDBG (Community
Development Block Grants), or the DOC (Department of Commerce), private participation, or various
combinations, all in an effort to spur economic development and/or development of public infrastructure
which aids in stimulating job growth and development. Mr. Jackson noted that some of these issues
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 2 of 12
Approved by Council:: 03-10-2015
would include terms where the developer makes payments, adding that it would take an extraordinary
project for the City to make the investment, and that generally we are looking at tools to help the
developer obtain financing. Mr. Hohman said that in several of these cases, the City would be the
applicant so it would be a type of public/private cooperation.
Continuing through the PowerPoint slides, Mr. Hohman said that streamlining the permitting process
continues to be part of their big focus in their efforts to provide excellent customer service; and he
mentioned that Jenny Nickerson had received over sixty complimentary letters, e-mails and phone calls.
After Mr. Hohman discussed staffs continued work with code text amendments, and working on an
online -tool to help restaurants, Councilmember Pace asked if staff is or could research ways to lower the
inspection costs with the health permit business, and said one option would be for the city to pay into that.
Mr. Hohman explained that the Health Department is involved from a regulatory point, that he is not
familiar with that process, but can do some research. Mr. Hohman also said that they continue to
integrate GIS with our existing permitting software, that it works well but is not graphical, and they
would like to be able toshow the customer more graphically, all the different information about the
properties; he mentioned they continue working with the marketing consultant, that they have had some
good commercials Last year, and mentioned the billboard advertisements, which he said appear to be
working as we have heard from people in Moses Lake and elsewhere about our marketing efforts. After
Mr. Hohman noted the items in the "Incentive Toolbox," the discussion moved to the "Economic
Development Incentives" memo behind tab 2. Mr. Jackson invited Council's feedback on the toolbox
idea,and encouraged Council to let him know if there is something more they would like added to that
toolbox.
A question came up concerning financial assistance to developers,. and Deputy City Attorney Lamb
explained that we are limited by our State Constitution from just giving money to developers for them to
construct a building or bring business here, which in turn led to discussionsabout incentives in general;
that we are limited as we have no local B&O (Business and Occupation) tax, no impact fees, and the only
utility tax we have is on telephones. Mr. Hohman said staff will be coining to Council in the future with a
more in-depth look at some of the developer driven incentives/expenditures listed in the memo; thatthe
goal is as we identify particular areas in the strategic plan on which to focus, like retail, we will work to
determine what tools we can use to assist businesses locating here, and said the idea is to have a quick and
easy reference material. Mr. Hohman stated that we want a flexible development code, and as we work
through that code, we want to make sure it works for customers and staff, and to simplify things as much
as possible, and he gave the example of the recent ordinance amendment concerning extensions to file
plats, as well as eliminating some of the criteria .for a plat extension. On the top of page 2 concerning the
Direct City Incentives, Mr. Lamb explained that the City is not spending money as a budget line .item, but
that those items could represent a loss of City revenues; he mentioned the last bulleted item concerning
multi -family tax exemptions, and said for example, this could be an eight-year exemption, which means
the City would lose those revenues for future years. Mayor Grafos said this might be something to merge
into the comp plan as we look at areas north of Trent where there is apartment activity. Deputy Mayor
Woodard said he would like to encourage revitalization along Sprague and Appleway; that with these
incentives, we don't lose current taxes and haven't lost anything, but more that we would not yet have
started to realize those revenues. Mr. Jackson added that it would also depend on the investment the City
would have to make as well; and said that developers are looking for that quick permitting process and
turn -around time; and Mr. Lamb concurred that an expedited process is important as developers realize
that time is money.
Further discussion included focusing development on a specific area, like Trent; the pros and cons of a
TIF (tax increment financing); that the idea would be to entice a developer; mention from Mr. Calhoun
that our current property tax levy each year while static for the last .several years, still includes new
construction so we would not want to change that; talk of the use of general obligation or revenue bonds
to finance infrastructure or other public capital projects, noting that there must be an existing revenue
source to repay those bonds or seek voter approval for an increased tax levy. The Hotel -Motel Lodging
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 3 of 12
Approved by Council: 03-10-2015
Tax was also discussed, including the maximum additional amount of 13% the City could levy; and
Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like to have further discussion and more information at a facture
study session. The "Local Admissions Tax" was discussed as well, including questions about what could
or could not be included, with. Councilmember Pace asking for example, if that could be applied to
fairgrounds and not. movies. Mr. Lamb explained that this would be more of a class and not a specific
business or location. It was agreed that should be included in a future discussion as well. A question
arose concerning the TPA (Tourism .Promotion Area) and if there are any areas not at that $2.00
rate/charge, and that too will be included in future discussions.
Discussion continued concerning the information in the remainder of the memo, including the various
aspects of forming Local Improvement Districts (LID); the idea of including a trail into an LID was
brought up and Mr. Lamb said that would need further research. [At approximately 10:00 a.m.,
Councilmember Bates excused himself from the meeting until after lunch.] Mayor Grafos suggested
having a test LID; to send out a letter and see what it would cost to have for example, sidewalks in a
specific area. Mr. Guth said some of the cost would depend on the design, and whether it would it be a
separate sidewalk, or curb and gutter, and/or storm sewer facilities and sidewalk; and said it would be
difficult to prioritize some of those areas. Deputy Mayor Woodard said we would use City funds for this
test, and he liked the idea of picking an area to examine for a test. Mr. Jackson said staff will bring this
back with an area to develop into a test area.
The discussion turned to a "Main Street Tax credit." Councilmember Hafner said the question to consider,
research and answer, is why do people want to come to Spokane Valley, and what can Council do to
move some of those concepts forward. Mr. Lamb explained that this is an idea to provide funding to form
a main street area andestablish a revitalization program where developers could receive a tax benefit; said
it would have to be approved by the Department of Archeology; they could only contribute $250,000 a
year, and within each area the amount is limited to $100;000 with a state-wide total limit of $1.5 million;
he said there are currently thirty-four entities fighting for those funds; said there is pending legislation that
would double all those programs. Councilmember Hafner said this could help in establishing our identity
especially once we get our new city hall. Mr. Lamb said staff has identified some areas and will come
back to a future meeting with specifics. Mr. Jackson said Council could also pass a resolution to provide
for tax-exempt bonds as was done with the MacKay Manufacturing projects years ago. Councilmember
Pace said he would like to see an Apple or Microsoft campus here and that it would be interesting to see if
anyone has done any studies on what it would take to attract those businesses. Mr. Hohman said staff
could work to incorporate that idea into an economic analysis as part of the comp plan review.
Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 10:15 a.m., and reconvened the .meeting at 10:26 a.m.
3. Law and Justice Council — Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell explained the history and composition of the Law and Justice Council (LJC),
which he said is required by state statute, although the County didn't have one for abouttwenty-four
years. He explained that the County examined the entire law-related system to see what areas might need
assistance, and they came up with a blueprint reform in 2013,. which identified that the Law and Justice
Council needed to be reformed, which the County did in 2014, as evidenced by the County's resolution
14-0392, which establishes the Council and Administrative Committee, including the composition,
purpose, terms, meeting rules and regulations, officers, mission statement, and powers and duties. As
noted in the chart included in the Council packet, it appears the membership of the LJC is evenly split
with ten members who are electeds, and ten who are non-electeds. Mr. Driskell noted that he is on the list,
and that Mr. Jackson is the alternate; and Police Chief VanLeuven is also a member. Mr. Driskell said the
committee meets monthly and he included that committee's February 11 agenda to show the types of
issues addressed during the meetings. Because we represent other municipalities, Mr. Driskell said that he
and Mr. Jackson determined they needed a way to report to all the other municipalities, so a copy of the
report they generated last week is also included in today's materials.
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 4 of 12
Approved by Council: 03-10-2015
Councilmember Pace asked if the purpose and mission hinted toward a move to a region -wide
metropolitan police; said he believes police departments should be separate from County Sheriff's
Departments, and feels this smacks of a hidden agenda. Mr. Jackson said he had not heard of an agenda
issue for a unified police department, but would like to be clear about this Council's feelings in case the
topic was to surface. Chief VanLeuven said he feels that mission and purpose ismerely to address
duplication of services; said they work with the Spokane Police Department When it comes to shared
technology as it makes for more efficient cominunications; likewise they work collaboratively with the
Spokane Police Department in maintaining records; and they also have a joint forensics unit; all to make
law enforcement more efficient and effective, and said that he has not sensed an issue of having a
metropolitan police department.
Councilmember Hafner said as a member of the 9-1-1 Board, he has not heard any conversation about a
territorial resource; however, in looking at the County's resolution, he noted the fourth "whereas" clause
does not .mention our City. Mr. Jackson reminded everyone that we contract with Spokane County for
these services so we are included; that this was designed this way on purpose to be formed by Spokane
County and the City of .Spokane as the major service providers in the region. Deputy Mayor Woodard
said three to five years ago, he knows the sheriffs office was trying to negotiate with the City of Spokane
to combine the two pollee forces, but that he hasn't heard anything more on that since; said it is a concern
and that we want to make sure we keep our identity. Chief VanLeuven said the Sheriffs Office intent is
to continue to contract with Spokane Valley for the. best law enforcement services possible. Mr. Driskell
said we might see or hear comments from some who want a consolidation, but that only represents one
view; and from the LJC standpoint, there are "no sacred cows" as they have to look at all the options to
determine the best process for what they do. Councilmember Pace said he has noobjections at examining
all options, but this is a matter of identity; and that we contract with the County, are affected by it and
should have a seat at the table; he said our Police Chief should represent our police department, and
Liberty Lake's Chief and Millwood's Chief should be there as well representing their departments; that
Mr. Driskell should be a member as our municipal attorney, and that we should have one elected official
as well, appointed by. our Mayor; said it seems the County has some control over us that seems
inappropriate as a municipality of about 93,000; said he discussed this topic with Commissioner Mielke
who insistedthat the State determined the makeup of the committee, but also heard it was. the County's
determination. Mayor Grafos said he disagreed as we do have a big seat at the table; that we have a
contract with Spokane County; that the system is not broken; he feels we have a great situation and he is
not in favor of changing that in any way; and with Mr. Driskell and Mr. Jackson on that council, said
they will keep us informed; adding that the Sheriff has always been the law enforcement for the valley
and that the intent is it will remain that way. Councilmember Hafner asked if this council is advisory and
Mr. Driskell replied it is.
Mr. Jackson noted the time; said we will be calling Lobbyist Briahna Taylor at 11:00 a.m., and he
suggested moving to the New City Hall topic for about ten minutes.
10. New City Hall—John Hohman
Mr. Driskell said that the property closure was two weeks ago yesterday. Director Hohman explained that
an RFQ (request for qualifications) for an architectural firm was submitted, and that four firms responded;
that he brought together a panel of staff to evaluate the firms, and three were selected to be interviewed,
which occurred last Wednesday; said staff is in the process of evaluating the information to determine
which firm would be most qualified; and said that staff is very aware of the importance of this choice as
we are in the process of creating a legacy; he said everyone feels very fortunate to be working on this as it
is an opportunity to work together for a first city hall; said the construction schedule and budget appear
feasible; said Council might see an overall master plan with the city hall a piece of that, and other pieces
as well which.might be compatible and occur over the years, like a library and Balfour Park; as Well as
potential street improvements to Dartmouth Road;; said they are working with the Magnussons to see if
they need any assistance regarding What we can do for the re -development of that site; said he feels this is
a big issue when the parkingstructure comes down, and that staff is working on a permit for that as well.
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 5 of 12
Approved by Council: 03-10-2015
In response to Councilmember Pace's question about Council and public input, Mr. Hohman affirmed
those will be sought. Councilmember Pace said he feels it is important that this city hall be a monument
to the area and the city's history, as well as cultural traditions and to recognize the previous townships,
and perhaps have a place to display art.
Councilmember Hafher asked about the misinformation concerning moving the Sheriffs Office training
center. Mr. Jackson explained that the training center is moving to the former Mountain View Middle
School; said that when we designated a portion of the building to be demolished, it went up to but did not
include the training center; however, the County's lease is month-to-month and the building owner is
looking for a longer commitment, so the County found a temporary home, and long term they are possibly
looking at the West Plains area, with a possible joint training center with Fairchild Air Force Base. Mr.
Jackson said we did not directly ask for that portion to be demolished and didn't even consider or know
about the displacement of the training center until he spoke with the Sheriffs Office, which understands
we had no intent to displace them. Even with the training center further away, Chief VanLeuven said he
feels people would continue to use Spokane Valley hotels and restaurants, and said that the Spokane
Valley Traffic School will also be held at the new location.
11. Miscellaneous Item: Existing City Hall Renovations — John Hohman
Director Hohman said the renovated area is ready and the movers will be here this weekend; said once
finance relocates, there will be some minor demolition to finance's former area and then we hope to move
the permit center in about six weeks, depending on how quickly thecontractor can work.
5. Legislative Update — Mike Jackson; Briahna Taylor
At 11:00 a.m.,a telephone call was placed to Lobbyists Briahna Taylor and Alex Soldano. Mr. Soldano
gave an update on the Appleway Trail fund request and said they hope to receivean official notification
within the next few weeks and in the meantime, is distributing more information. Ms. Taylor said the
project is important, it appears to be gaining momentum, and Mr. Soldano added that the legislators
indicated they would be willing to work with this if they knew that the Fourth District legislators were
willing to make a commitment to the project.. Ms. Taylor said for the local state shared revenues, it
appears the Liquor and streamlined sales tax mitigation are at greatest risk of'being cut from previous
discussions; said the McCleary decision is "still out there" and pressure continues not to raise taxes,
which she said generally means more cuts; she also mentioned the possibility of having some tax
loopholes closed; said she wants to make sure our city does not have revenues cut; mentioned some
working legislation that would remove the cap placed by a previous statute for the amount of revenue
cities get for their 2011 dollar amounts as an attempt to restore growth to the liquor profits; said prior to
2011, cities shared 50% in liquor profits and now that is down to about 35%; said there is no hearing set
on the bill and she encouraged sending messages not to make those shared revenue reductions.
Ms. Taylor and Mr. Soldano also discussed streamlined sales tax mitigation and that it would be targeted
for cuts in the operating budget, said a draft letter was sent to Mr. Jackson last week about asking local
legislators to talk to their budget leaderships not to cut the sales tax. Regarding our code enforcement
recuperation efforts, Ms. Taylor said she met with Senators Roach and Padden and it became clear they
wouldoppose anything with cities having a first lien, but said the cap would lessen their opposition, but
not relieve it; said the cap was proposed to be reduced to $2,000. It was noted that although this topic
was more positive than the last time, Community banks still testified against the bill and the hope is to
restore the cap to $5,000. Mr. Driskell said the average cost of an abatement is $4,750, so $5,000 makes
more sense than $2,000. Mr. Jackson said this is a good time to ask Council about the cap; that a $2,000
cap is better than no legislation and that work will still progress to raise it to $5,000; and he asked
Council's opinion about the $2,000 cap. Deputy Mayor Woodard said ifs a good start and we would still
have the right to have a junior lien for the difference. Mr. Jackson asked Mr. Driskell if a bill were to
pass with a $2,000 cap, but an abatement amounted to $7,000, could we include a request for payment
for $7,000, and would we be limited to apply far just the lien authority, but still include the other $5,000
in the property tax notice sent by the Assessor's Office. Mr. Driskell said he did not know, but it would
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 6 of 12
Approved by Council: 03-10-2015
likely require an agreement with the Assessor's Office Ms. Taylor said she would have to examine the
specific language; but the former processwould still be in place; we would have a lower priority lien for
the remaining $5,000 and could eventually recover those costs, but not as a first lien. Ms. Taylor said she
will examine the languageand clarify if necessary.
Concerning marijuana legislation, Ms. Taylor said several bills were introduced with lots of talk about
reconciliation of medical and recreation Marijuana; she noted our City has a preference to eliminate the
medical marijuana and have the regulations the same for all marijuana use; but she noted that none of the
bills proposed removing medical marijuana, and the proposal gaining the most traction would create
similar regulations for medical and retail establishments, and would remove the cap on the number of
retail establishments, regardless of use; it would eliminate community gardens and allow people to grow
marijuana in their own home if they are patient or to do so on behalf of a medical patient if the patient
were a juvenile. Ms. Taylor said she has arranged a meeting with some of the legislators to explore
whether vaping lounges could be regulated under the existing authority, or have them separate. Regarding
the juvenile or under age access to marijuana, as well as the appearance of being under the influence of
marijuana, she said there are several bills introduced and said she should know more Friday after the
deadline; she also noted there were several bills introduced concerning various formulas for marijuana
revenue sharing, including whether a jurisdiction should receive local revenues if they chose to ban
marijuana,and said most feel if marijuana is banned, that municipality should not receive revenue; said
others feel if a city chooses to ban marijuana, a vote of the people should be held to affirm that ban; said
these issues will continue to evolve and she urged legislators to aid in any effort to reconcile.
Ms. Taylor said she shared withlegislators the story about the vaping lounge. Mr. Jackson added that the
Board needs to implement rules that would meet our needs as there is no law requiringidentification
checks prior to entering a vaping lounge. Mr. Lamb added that possession is illegal for anyone under 21
years old. Mr. Jackson said the issue also includes indoor smoking. Mr. Lamb said he notified the Health
District about the smoking issue but so far has not heard from them. Ms. Taylor said she should have a
good idea by this Friday of what bills will or won't advance.
Concerning the long-range agenda item of Barker Road, Ms. Taylor said that a bi-partisan group released
the transportation package last week, which included an 11.7¢ gas tax increase; that $8 billion will be
regulated to projects, with a direct distribution of $350 million to cities and counties over sixteen years
based on capital; said she sent out a full report to Council when the revenue report was released; that she
discussed with this Senator Padden who is not planning to vote for it; said this will next be heard in the
senate transportation committee Wednesday afternoon; that there are still several "sticking points" in the
bill. Ms. Taylor said she has been advocating for Barker Road funding, but that project is not included in
the transportation package, although the Spokane freeway is as it is felt that would be of benefit to the
greater Spokane region; she noted we have chosen not to take a position on the gas tax revenue package,
so she is simply monitoring the legislation. Councilmember Wick asked if there was anything that could
be included to cover the grade separation on Barker. Ms. Taylor replied that we might be able to use
multiple grant programs to add up to the full amount. Councilmember Wick also asked about the
North/South corridor actually being allocated more funds than were requested, and Ms. Taylor explained
that since the project was moved to a later start date, they higher difference accounts for inflation, with
the project starting in 2018 instead of 2016. She also noted the exact project schedule has not yet been
released. Ms. Taylor said she continues to be very directed on our City's priorities, and she Looks forward
to having Council and staff in Olympia next week.
The meeting recessed for lunch at 1 [:50 a.m., and :reconvened at 12:23 p.m. Mayor Grafos acknowledged
Councilmember Batesvia conference phone.
4. Law Enforcement Cost Breakdown —Morgan Koudelka
Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that Council expressed an interest in getting more
details about our law enforcement costs, as all together, those cost represent about two-thirds of out total
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 7 of 12
Approved by Council: 03-10-2015
budget. Mr. Koudelka went over the figures shown on the accompanying information, and
Councilmember Pace asked for a similar breakdown for the patrol piece. Mr. Koudelka explained that
today's information is to give an overview of all the costs and to let him know if there are items Council
would like to see in greater detail. Councilmember Pace noted that he would like more information on
patrol; and he asked if our officers are paid the same at the City of Spokane officers. Mr: Koudelka
replied they do not. Councilmember Pace said that doesn't seem fair that the City of Spokane officers get
more pay and said there should be equal pay for equal work; and he would like Mr. Jackson to examine
that issue. Mr. Jackson explained that there are two separate systems, with two completely different
unions and difference pay scales. Councilmember Pace said he would like to approach this from a fairness
perspective, as there is no excuse to be unfair. Mr. Jackson said that we rely on the County as a
contractor, and it is up to the County to negotiate those rates; that if Mr. Pace is suggesting that the
elected officials look at salaries of Spokane, that would be appropriate, but then added, but "who is to say
which is correct and whether other salaries are escalating;" he said there are many comparisons of all
costs. Mr. Koudelka continued going through his data, and said staff continuesto work with the County
to have line items costs by unit. A question arose about the Police Precinct, and Mr. Koudelka stated that
we own the building, and via a separate interlocal agreement, lease it and charge the County for a portion
of those costs.
Indirect costs were discussed, with Mr. Koudelka explaining that staff tracksthe trend; that some have
changed, but over time they tend to even out; said this has tended to be a little more frustrating as we
don't have much control over indirect costs, butwe continue to explore ways to patrol those costs so we
can better predict the overall costs. Mr. Koudelka said he could show some history of indirect costs and
Mayor Grafos said he would be interested in seeing those figures over the last couple of years.
Concerning equal pay for all officers, Councilmember Hafiher likened that to different school districts
paying different wages; that they are not all the same as they are accomplished by union contracts, and it
depends on the union negotiations. Councilmember Pace said he understands that, but still thinks this is
something that needs to be fixed, as "fair is fair." Other discussion included law enforcement costs
including purchase and use of data cards; JAG grant funds; one tune cost impacts such as arbitration; and
the drug task force.
6. Railroad Quiet Zones — Mark Calhoun
Deputy City Manager Calhoun noted that included in the council materials, is a summary report
concerning a previous quiet zone study; and that at that time Council considered the $83,000 cost for
David Evans to do a study,. and Council decided not to move forward. Mr. Calhoun pointed out the
number of crossings, including two in Millwood, that it might not be possible to have a quiet zone with
Burlington Northern around the Park and Vista area as the railroads are required to blow their horns and
whistles as they enter the yard. The idea of wayside horns was also includedin the information, and Mr.
Calhoun said if Council wants, staff could get some assistance from a consultant to help with deterring
cost; that Public Works did some research in 2011 and came up with an estimate of between $65,000 and
$185,000 for each area; said that wayside horns would cost from $30,000 to $100,000; adding that there
are no funds budgeted in 2015 for any of these expenses; and if Council would like to move forward,. we
can discuss how to fund the studies and projects during the 2016 budget development.
Councilmember Hafner suggested that Council get all the information needed as these are expensive
studies and projects; said Council has numerous projects; that he is not questioning the importance of the
safety factor, but rather that we don't want to eliminate some of the projects already determined
necessary. Deputy Mayor Woodard added that having a quiet zone doesn't ensure the railroad won't blow
their horns; and that unless the grades are separated, there is no way to assure the horns don't get blown.
Councilmember Wicknoted that the railroads will not fund these projects, and if we want to do it, we
would have to come up with funding. Mayor Grafos suggested this is somewhat of a "dead-end street"
even if we did authorize the funds. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested waiting to see what happens from
local and federal government; that we don'twant to forget about it entirely, but suggests monitoring what
we can. Mayor Grafos concurred.
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 8 of 12
Approved by Council: 03-10-2015
7. Civic Facility Capital Projects Fund — Mike Jackson/Mark
City Manager Jackson explained that during the Finance Committee meeting, the money for city hall and
other projects was discussed; said a railroad quiet study amount is included, but we might want to remove
or include as. a lower priority, adding that it is not currently funded. Mr. Calhoun said most of these
figures have been discussed previously, and he explained some of the pending/potential projects as noted
in the worksheet; and said these figures will be updated when the 2014 books are closed. Discussion
included mention of the city hall line item; bond cost issues; that there could be unforeseen projects that
would change the figures; that we are doing everything possible to keep us within budget, and that
Council should have further .figures prior to the June budget workshop. Mayor Grafos said he feels the
priorities are correct and the list should remain as it is, Mr. Jackson said that we would not typically move
that money ahead until 2016, at which time we will know whether or not we have the cashneeded for a
quiet zone project.
8. Public Works Projects.— Eric Guth
Public Works Director Guth briefed Council on the three projects as noted in the workshop materials; said
staff has spent several months negotiating with the property owner on the Mansfield Avenue connections
for right-of-way purchase, and said he is hopeful the area will be signed by the end of this month; and
after the final right-of-way negotiation, the project moves before the TIB (Transportation Improvement
Board) for approval to move forward.
9. Historic Buildings and Buildings Codes — Doug Powell and Luis Garcia
Director Hohman explained that this is a follow-up discussion of several weeks ago when Ms. Gloria
Maltz talked about us becoming a Certified Local Government, and some ensuing questions as how the
historic preservation ordinance works regarding existing building codes; he said Messrs. Powell and
Garcia are here to give an overview of the different codes and how they relate to historic preservation.
Mr. Powell went over the information contained in the packet materials in order to provide a better
explanation of how codes apply to historic buildings when those buildings need repair, alternations., or
reconstruction; followed by an explanation from Mr. Garcia concerning the hierarchy of the International
Family of Codes, and what addresses existing buildings, and specifically historic buildings; noting that
whatever is done, it cannot lessen the fire safety regulations or precautions, adding that it is the building
Official Who is the safety professional. Mr. Powell explained that some regulations are left to the
discretion of the building official and the situation to deterrriine if there is a life safety item, such as
smoke detectors. Mr. Garcia added that there could be no waiving of design requirements, and nothing
could be done to compromise the level of safety to the historic structures. Heexplained that the applicant
appeal process is for those who might feel the specific letter of the code was applied inappropriately,
which appeal would be handled by the Hearing Examiner as per our Municipal Code; he noted that the
Hearing Examiner also does not have. the authority to waive any code requirements.
In response to a question about what one might expect if for example, rafters were removed and the
owner wanted to go back and replace them; Mr. Powell said the rafters would have to be builtto the
current codes. Couneilmember Pace suggested it would be nice to have some flexibility to be able to roll
back the code as it was when the original rafters were built: Mr. Powell stated that under the IEBC
(International Existing Building Code), there are some permitted controlled departures from full
compliance with the technical codes, but any departure must not compromise the minimum standards for
fire prevention and life safety features; said for example grand stairways would no longer comply with
today's code, so some things could be changed provided there is no hazard increase.
Mr. Hohman said that the intent of an historic preservation program would be to preserve those structures
that had some significance and try to protect those as much as possible; sometimes those property owners
can get a tax reduction under the program, but the program is built more for protection than trying to keep
those structures the way they are, which is why any modification would have to go through the
Commission; and he noted that further research will be needed in order todetermine the criteria that
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 9 of 12
Approved by Council: 03-10-2015
would be used by the commission; and said if a building were to move to a different location, it would no
longer be historic because it would be on a new foundation, and again, said more research would be
needed for these issues. Councilmember Pace suggested a new foundation shouldn't make a difference
regarding the building's historic value, but Mr. Hohman explained that in the original home, there were no
living spaces below, and with a new place with living spaces below, there must be ingress and egress; and
said there would likely be several resolutions to examine for each scenario. Deputy Mayor Woodard
suggested that historic preservation is not relevant to where the structure might be, but rather to what it
looks like; and suggested it should not make any difference where a building sits. Deputy Mayor
Woodard also stated that the only person to determine if a property stays on an historic preservation
roster, should be the property owner. jAt 1:52 p.m., Councilmember Bates excused himself from the
remainder of the meeting, and thanked Council for the opportunity to phone into the meeting.]
Councilmember Hafner askedhow many historic buildings, structures or properties are in Spokane
Valley, and staff indicated that .would need further research. Councilmember Hafner suggested a
thorough study of this issue before coming to any conclusion. Mayor Grafos suggested staff start working
on an ordinance to include that the property owner would have the ultimate decision on whether to keep
the building on the historic register if the owner wants to take advantage of the tax credit. Councilmember
Pace said he prefers the local historic society administer this program and that our City not work with
Spokane City.
11. Miscellaneous Items
Marijuana: Vaping, underage consumption and consolidation of medical and recreational marijuana
were issues that we would like addressed by legislators, said Mr. Jackson; but added that it does not look
like we will get the kind of system our Council proposes; said growing will be difficult to enforce with all
the medical dispensaries, as there are no regulations covering that; said we are not doing enforcement at
this point. Mr. Lamb further explained that the legislative move appears to be toward allowing
endorsement through the medical shops; said one of the bills eliminated collective gardens but gives them
about a year or so to shut down or get a state license for a medical retail shop; said there remains some
unregulated access points and gaps in the system; .cooperatives will be allowed with four patients but that
the patients and the cooperatives must be registered. As noted in his conversations last Monday with
legislators, Councilmember Higgins reported that it appeared vaping lounges could be addressed through
the medical system, but that too appears to have changed. Mr. Jackson said that even if the state lifts the
ban on the number of retail, this Council might want to control how many to allow within the community,
and said that perhaps that could be the next debate. Mr. Lamb added that it would take a two-thirds vote
to amend the original initiative, and now just like any other amendment, that is two years after the initial
vote, a majority vote would be needed to modify any Language. Mr. Jackson stated that he feels our
approach is logical in not imposing a ban. Chief VanLeuven said he is not aware of any police
departments that are tracking marijuana crimes, but Spokane Valley Police .Department does, and said
there is a definite increase in marijuana related clunes, including driving under the influence; and stressed
the need for a law addressing MIP (minor in possession) by consumption.
Oil and Coal Trains: Mr. Jackson mentioned yesterday's derailment in West Virginia; said staff sent a
letter to the Department of Ecology (DOE) about their transport study; said they responded and said they
had included the City of Spokane, but Mr. Jackson said he explained to them once again, that they did not
include anything the City of Spokane Valley; he said the DOE indicated they would take our comments
under consideration.
Gambling Tax: Mr. Calhoun briefly discussed the downward trend from gambling tax revenues; said
Council twice heard during Council comments about the Back Pearl's owner's feelings that our gambling
taxes were high; the information in the Council packet shows the gambling tax rates as permitted by. the
State, and what those rates are for the City of Spokane and the City of Spokane Valley, as well as what
any reductions might mean in terms of reduced revenues. Mr. Jackson noted that he also plans to visit
with the owner of the Black Pearl.
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 10 of 12
Approved by Council: 03-10-20I5
12. Council Brainstorming — Open Discussion
Open discussion included the following comments, ideas, and suggestions:
Sports Facilities in Spokane Valley:
The idea of having something in our city (sports plex) as opposed to downtown; what kind of facility
would bring us visitors: discuss the idea starting from scratch; what kind of facility are we lacking; cost to
operate, return on investments; nothing budgeted this year; likely cannot use lodging funds for such an
endeavor; Mr. Lamb said it would have to be part of tourism, promotion and marketing site; might be able
to do a general study; and that it would need further research.
Councilmember Wick said the LTAC (Lodging Tax Advisory Committee) hasn't had a chance yet to
meet; that the application process was not re -opened; submitted the idea of setting some funds aside from
the allocations instead of funding the fully budgeted amount. Deputy Mayor Woodard said this is just a
brainstorming session, not necessarily an opportunity to generate something that should be done within
the near future; said we need to know what kind of facilities are needed by schools, including intermural
type of adult sports, would like to have an opportunity to get public input about additional sport facilities
needed; mentioned acquisition of property central to our City that could be used as a sport complex; said
sports is a lodging tax item if handled correctly;. that the school districts need some input and this could be
part of the private/public partnership; perhaps more of a long-term vision.
Councilmember Pace said he would like to see the entire topic, from schools to property acquisition,
discussed further as a main topic; Mayor Grafos suggested including it as an element of economic
development. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would prefer to see discussion sooner than later; that we
don't want to necessarily own the grounds for playing fields, but might be willing to help acquire and/or
maintain. Mayor Grafos suggested waiting to see what the LTAC says about the issue, and
Councilmember Wick agreed this might be able to be accomplished under the name of tourism; said he
hopes to start at the LTAC then have it evolve. Deputy Mayor Woodard said we need basic information
and a Performa of what is needed for our City; that we need to come up with our own plan as Eric
Sawyer's plan might not be what best fits our City. Councilmember Hafner suggested a need to indicate to
this community that we don't want the sports complex downtown, so if it comes to a vote, they will vote
no. Councilmember Higgins said it was his understanding through speaking with Lee Cameron, that Eric
Sawyer was telling others that our Council was 100% in favor of having a sports complex downtown,
which is of course, not the case. There was some mention of an upcoming ballot measure and Mr. Lamb
reminded everyone of the procedure as outlined in the State Statutes and this City's Governance Manual;
and said that process (how to address ballot measures) might be a topic for a future meeting.
Consider a study session to discuss renaming our City:
Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested this might be a topic for a future study session, especially since we
will be building a new city hall.
Hot Topics Newsletter:
Councilmember Pace said he feels it would be a good investment to do a complete citywide mailing every
time the Hot Topics Newsletter is published. Mr. Jackson said that would be a good issue to discuss
during the 2016 budget discussions; that direct mailing is very effective, but it is a matter of available
fimds. Councilmember Pace also suggested the idea of mailing to all businesses as well, and/or having the
newsletter as an insert in the Spokesman Review and/or the Current, and in all the free newsstands.
Rail and. Transportation Concerns:
Concerning the trains moving throughout the City, Councilmember Higgins said we need to be more
focused with an idea to take action; like the overpass. project. Councilrnember Pace said he would like to
pass a resolution stating we are pro-business and pro -commerce, and we want to protect citizens, and that
we do not want to be a "bottleneck" for the trains and or trucks.
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 11 of 12
Approved by Council: 03-10-2015
Regarding funding the Barker overpass, Mr. Guth explained that the environmental assessment is
complete and the project is about 30% designed, which was done in 2005 or 2006; said that might need to
be updated; freight movement and future freight movement was viewed as a high priority. Mayor Grafos
said he feels Pines Road should be put in that same position; mentioned the comp plan and grant, and said
he would like to see what economic development tool we might be able to use as that under/overpass is
important.
Mr. Guth agreed and said they view all aspects of Bridging the Valley as priorities; with the North/South
Corridor project, it seems Logical to break these projects up and take them one at a time: Barker first, with
Pines a very close second; then Sullivan; said staff has been trying to talk to the rail subcommittees, the
Department of Ecology, and SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council); mentioned that
"Bridging the Valley" title is widely recognized, but we're trying to determine how the funding
mechanism would work. Mayor Grafos suggested we could start by setting aside some funds.
Art and Economic Development:
Councilmember Pace said an assumption is that art is good for economic and community development,
and that he would like to consider adding the arts as a funding group to our outside agency funding
process; said he is not suggesting an increase in the total amount of money; that criteria and guidelines
would need to be drafted; and he would be interested in hearing a report about what other cities do with
their Parks and Recreation Art programs, including the placement of art.
Lodging Tax and Tourism:
Councilmember Wick asked about the maximum 13% tax and Mr. Jackson replied that issue can be
researched and brought back for further discussion, including when those taxes expire or renew.
Public Facilities District (PFD):
Councilmember Wick asked about refinancing our bond and the PFD, and if we could tie all that together
as a means to approach them about appointing our own person to their board. Mr. Calhoun said that he,
Mr. Stone and Mr. Jackson met with Kevin Twohig about a variety of projects and that issue should be
followed up as well. The idea of transferring parkland on the other side of the River was mentioned and
Mr. Jackson said that too will need further research; said we could work with the State if we have an idea,
but that it would take funding to manage that land or even enhance it; and said that perhaps we would not
have to have ownership in order to work with the state parks; said the state parks has minimal resources.
Mr. Jackson said a question to consider is whether the public land is accessible; said it is not very well
advertised and we could discuss the promotion of the area with the state parks as well. Conceming
acquiring the land, Mr. Jackson said we have not yet identified any future parkland acquisition, and Mr.
Stone said that during the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update process, there wasn't much
discussion about that area and it did not come up with the public.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
ATT S
ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015
Approved by Council: 03-10-2015
Dean Grafos, Mayor
Page 12 of 12
BEFORE THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD
EASTERN WASHINGTON REGION
STATE OF WASHINGTON
CPM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
v. )
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, a
Washington municipal corporation,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15-1-0001
RESPONDENT'S INDEX
Respondent City of Spokane Valley submits the attached index of all documents
considered by the City in connection with City of Spokane Valley Ordinance Nos. 15-005
and 15-009, the latter of which is the subject of this petition.
DATED thisR Amy of July, 2015.
RESPONDENT'S INDEX - 1
KENNETH W. HARPER
WSBA #25578
807 North 39th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902
Attorneys for Respondent
City of Spokane Valley
MENKE JACKSON E3EYER, LLP
807 North 39th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902
Telephone(509)575-0313
Fax (509)575-0351
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I
served, in the manner indicated below, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document as
follows:
Clerk of the Board
Growth Management Hearings Board
Eastern Washington Region
P.O. Box 40953
Olympia, WA 98504-0953
[x] By United States Mail (original plus 3 copies)
[ ] By Legal messenger
[ ] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express MaillUnited Parcel Service
[x] By Email: eastern@eluho.wa.gov (without exhibits)
Ms. Stacy A. Bjordahl
Mr. Taudd A. Hume
Attorneys at Law
Parsons/Bumett/Bjordahl/Hume LLP
505 West Riverside Avenue, #500
Spokane WA 99201
[x] By United States Mail (on CD)
[ ] By Legal messenger
[ ] By Facsimile
[ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail/United Parcel Service
[x] By Email: sbjordahl@pblaw.biz; thume@pblaw.biz
DATED THIS c27 1 day of July, 2015, at Yakima, Washington.
• ,11-ite,4 e?
JANET L. ROSE
RESPONDENT'S INDEX - 2
MENKE JACKSON BEYER, LLP
807 North 39th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902
Telephone (509)575-0313
Fax (509)575-0351
Et
tfl
N
w
w
kr)
N
N
icf
-
kr)
r,
N
N
w
v,
0N
N
O
V
to
0
U
kr)
0
1D
v
N
In
-�
0
N
4NN
1
.O
w
March 24, 2015
March 24, 2015
February 24, 2015
February 25, 2015
March 16, 2015
April 14, 2015
Y
March 24, 2015
March 24, 2015
tn
r.
N
o
0
a
Amended Agenda: Added Emergency Item
Ordinance 15-005
Request for Council Action Explaining
Proposed Emergency Ordinance
Draft Ordinance 15-005: Adopting
Moratorium
Approved February 24, 2015, Council
Meeting Minutes
Notice of Ordinance Passed for Ordinance 15,
005
Affidavit of Publication of Notice of
Ordinance Passed for Ordinance 15-005
Audio/video Recording of Council Meeting
(accessible at
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlay
er.php?view_i.d=3 &clip_id=323.)
Amended Agenda: Public Hearing Mining
Moratorium
Request for Council Action for the Public
Hearing
Signed Copy of Ordinance 15-005
Media Release
1Public Hearing Notice
Approved March 24, 2015, Council Meeting
Minutes
Audio/video Recording of Council Meeting
(accessible at
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPla
er.php?view_id=3&clip id=333)
Public Hearing Sign -in Sheet
Memorandum re Mining Moratorium (with
Commissioners attachments)
0
Mayor and
Councilmembers
8
0
4,
Chris Bainbridge,
City Clerk
Administrative
Exhibit No.
04
PO 0
.�
N
M
d'
kn
\0
N
oo
CT
O
,.ti
..-.
N
r+
M
.--
*4-
.--.
kr)
r+
-D
.,
Index for City of Spokane Valley Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009
March 26, 2015
April 14, 2015 1
tin
.--i.�
N
N
Q
April 14, 2015
April 28, 2015
April 28, 2015
N
N
d'
March 24, 2015
in
I-1
O
o
N
May 1, 2015
May 1, 2015
in
-�
0
N
N
February 24, 2015
April 28, 2015
Memorandum re Mining Moratorium (with
Bjordahl attachments)
Agenda: First Reading Ordinance 15-009
Request for Council Action re Ordinance 15-
009
Audio/video Recording of Council Meeting
(accessible at
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlay
er:phli?uiew_id=3&clip_ d=336)
Approved April 14, 2015, Council Meeting
Minutes
Agenda: Second Reading Ordinance 15-009
Request for Council Action re Ordinance 15-
009
,Public Hearing Sign -in Sheet
Spokane Valley Mining Pits Map
Audio/video Recording of Council Meeting
(accessible at
http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlay'
er.php?view id=3&clip id=338)
'Notice of Ordinance Passed for Ordinance 15.
1009
Affidavit of Publication of Notice of
Ordinance Passed for Ordinance 15-009
Approved April 28, 2015, Council Meeting
Minutes
'Copy of Ordinance 15-005
Copy of Ordinance 15-009
Mayor and
Councilmembers
Chris Bainbridge,
City Clerk
h-
.-
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
•-•N
M
8. Copies as requested from
Mitch Reister: Planning Commission
Minutes and attachments
terminating that agreement? Mr. Chapman stated that it is a one year lease, according to RCW 59.20.
It could be a month-to-month tenancy provided both parties, the homeowner and park owner, agree .
If I decide to buy it and move it in six months, something like that, it has to be both sides. If the new
owner is going to develop it other than a mobile home park, he has to give the one year notice of
closure which is under 59.20. The other thing that we are trying to do under as AMHO on a state
wide basis, in the six years I've been involved in AMHO, helping the communities set up home
owner associations within the community. Register with the Secretary of State as a nonprofit, and
should the park owner sell to a nonprofit, and it's built into the law, he doesn't have to pay the 1.78%
excise tax on the sale of the property to a nonprofit. So it could be sold to a housing authority, the
homeowner association, they would purchase it and run it as a co-op development. We understand
nationally there are over 1,000 of them in existence right now. Not a one of them has ever defaulted
on their loan. So there is pride of ownership there. We are trying to develop that idea as we go along,
as we get into a community where there are issues with management. We are trying to appease
everyone, it isn't easy but we attempt to get the answers and get the right answers. As far as your pre
`76/'78 move ability, I'll work on that and get back to you. Commissioner Anderson asked for
clarification on the requirement of a one year lease under RCW 59.20, is that a minimum or
maximum lease. Mr. Chapman replied that it is a minimum lease, renewable year to year
automatically. There are some twenty-five year leases out there; there are some thirty-five year leases
that we've heard of. I'm not certain but I think Mission Meadows off of Barker Road, some of those
might be twenty or twenty-five year leases. That's a little different set up, but they still come under
RCW 59.20.
CAR -2015-0018: The applicant is CPM Development Corporation. There are two components, one a
text proposal which is to add a mineral resource land chapter, and a map proposal which would be to
create a mineral resource land use designation and designate sites as mineral resource land. There are
five locations highlighted for consideration. Ms. Barlow pointed out that the City recently established
a mining moratorium. Mr. Driskell added that in addition to adopting a mining moratorium that the
City has adopted a work plan to look at this issue in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan
Update. Commissioner Stoy asked for clarification on the five highlighted sites, seeing only four on
the map. Ms. Barlow pointed out that two of the sites are close in proximity.
John Pederson, 1026 W. Broadway Avenue: Mr. Peterson stated he was with the Spokane County
Department of Building and Planning, speaking on behalf of the Board of Spokane County
Commissioners, who had authorized him to do so. He would submit a letter to the Clerk of the Board
concluding his statements. As you know you are considering comments on CAR -2015-0018 tonight
as part of your City's Comprehensive Plan Update. The purpose of this letter is to encourage the
commission to consider other areas designated as mineral resource lands, consistent with the Growth
Management Act. As Mr. Driskell and Ms. Barlow referenced we are well aware of the City of
Spokane Valley's moratorium that was adopted on February 24th and we've provided oral and written
comments to the City Council at that time and those comments are also attached with this letter to the
Planning Commission Members. In the letter we point on the need that on or before September 1,
1991 each city planning under the act shall designate mineral resource lands that are not already
characterized by urban growth that have long term significance for the extraction of minerals. In the
(RCW)36.70A.050 provides guidelines to classify ag lands, forest lands, mineral lands, and critical
areas and requires consultation with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and other
stakeholders. (RCW)36.70A.060 requires cities to adopt development regulations to assure
conservation of ag, forest and mineral lands under RCW. And as you know and has probably been
briefed by staff, your current Comprehensive Plan and municipal code does not identify or designate
resources land or mineral lands as mandated and consistent with the Growth Management Act or
adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands. We bring that to you attention as
information to consider in your review of your Comprehensive Plan, your development regulations
and also the site specific CAR -2015-18. The County has reviewed CAR -2015-18 and after review
06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12
fully support the applicant's request that the City of Spokane Valley adopt a new Comprehensive Plan
chapter and associated goals and policies to designate mineral resource lands of long term
commercial significance. In addition, we respectfully request that additional properties owned by
Spokane County be designated as mineral resource lands. Those properties are illustrated on the
enclosed maps and are identified as the Flora Road Pit, and we provide the parcel number for that site
and also the Eden Pit Site. We also provide you with the parcel number of that site. Both of these
properties meet the criteria under the Growth Management Act for designation as mineral lands of
long term commercial significance. Prior to creation of the City of Spokane Valley, those parcels
were designated by the previous Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and official zoning maps as
mineral lands. In summary, we reiterate our previous comments regarding the moratorium, adopting
Ordinance 2015-0009 and urge you to designate the above referenced properties consistent with the
Growth Management Act as part of your Comprehensive Plan Update process and also adopt a
mineral lands chapter of your zoning code to provide the appropriate development regulations
pertaining to mineral lands. I will submit this letter to the Clerk of the Board and you will have
copies. That is all I have for you unless you have any questions. Commissioner Graham asked in the
letter dated March 24, 2015 to the Spokane Valley City Council the final sentence reads: "Finally it
will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley
Road area ". Can you further explain why the mineral resource land, where the conflict is there? Mr.
Pederson stated, we have a need to utilize those pit sites for minerals resources and I believe the City
of Spokane Valley was desirous of us to work with the City to extend some sewer lines on that
property; and without having that mineral land designation, it would be very difficult for the County
to work with the Valley in providing those kind of sewer services that we have some initial
discussions with the City of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Anderson asked about both pits in the
discussion of Flora Road and Eden, are either operating as active mining pits currently? Mr.
Pederson stated that he would let Deborah Firkins from the Spokane County Engineers Office address
the pits. She is also here, and she can address that. He believed the Flora Pit certainly has some of
that ongoing activity, and the Eden Pit, were just some initial processes, I believe applying for permits
and going through the SEPA process with the City of Spokane Valley, Deborah has more information
on that than I do. Commission Anderson asked if Spokane County owned both of those. Mr. Peterson
responded that yes they do. Commissioner Anderson asked if the County owned the mining rights or
the mineral rights. Mr. Pederson said Deborah could clarify that as well. He stated that he was here
speaking on behalf of the situation designating them appropriately as mineral lands and having the
appropriate regulations to allow for the mining activities. Commissioner Scott asked where exactly
was this Eden Pit. She could see it was on Tshirley but what was it north/south. Mr. Peterson he said
he had a parcel number, he was sure staff could identify it for her. Ms. Firkins stepped up and gave
Mr. Pederson a larger map. Mr. Pederson said it was an extension of Eden which is east of the
extension of Tshirley, north of Euclid, west of Barker, and south of Trent and east of Flora.
Commissioner Scott asked if it was within the City limits. Mr. Peterson responded that yes they were
both located within the City of Spokane Valley or they wouldn't be here.
Deborah Firkins, 1026 W. Broadway Ave.: Ms. Firkins stated she was with the Spokane County
Department of Engineering and Roads. The Spokane County Roads Department asks that per
Washington State Growth Management Act that the City designate natural resource lands that are not
already characterized by urban growth. Spokane County currently owns two parcels that were zoned
while under the County's jurisdiction as mineral lands. The first parcel is Floral Pit, parcel number
45121.9015. Spokane County acquired this property on August 12, 1965 and has operated it as a pit
with a district shop and a dog pound. We have continually mined this site for the last fifty years.
When the City's mining moratorium came into effect we were in the process of setting terms for the
sale of this property to Central Pre -Mix for their operations. The lack of safeguards for mineral
resources is very detrimental to us. If the County retains ownership of the Flora Pit, we will continue
to mine it without taking out an average of 25,000 cubic yards a year. The second parcel is Eden Pit,
06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12
located approximately 1600 feet north of the intersection of Eden Street and Euclid Avenue, parcel
number 55065.0190. This property was zoned for mining since 1980. The County has been
preparing this site for mining activity for a number of years. We have completed an environmental
assessment which included a cultural resource survey for the site. We also completed a SEPA review
for mining for 39 of 44 acres the site has. A determination of non -significance was issued on
December 2012. We currently have an application for a mining permit under review by the
Department of Natural Resources which includes an SM -6 surface mining permit application signed
by the City of Spokane Valley on August 2012. This site we estimate mining for the next 65 years
and removing around 25,000 cubic yards per year. Spokane County is in favor of CAR -2015-0018
and asks that both the Floral Pit parcel 45121.9015 and Eden Pit parcel 55065.0190 be added to the
mineral resource lands that are designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your
consideration. Are there any questions.
Jana McDonald, 1121 S. Harmony Court: Ms. McDonald stated that she is a licensed professional
engineer in the State of Washington and the Corporate Environmental Engineer for the parent
companies of Central Pre -Mix and Inland Asphalt. I've been with the company for over 22 years. I'm
here to speak in favor of CAR -18 which is a proposal to add resource land protection policies to the
Growth Management Act, Comprehensive Plan. I ask that the Planning Commission recommend this
amendment request move forward to the Comp Plan Update. I also hope to provide you with some
information and education about the mining industry. The Central Pre -Mix sites we are requesting
the mineral overlay for, are fully permitted and functional since before the City was a city. These sites
were permitted through Spokane County, designated and protected as a resource of long term
commercial significance under the committee that reviewed and ultimately designated, under the
County's Growth Management Act over 15 years ago. I sat on the initial technical committee that
reviewed and ultimately designated these as mineral resources. These sites are still mineral resources
and need to be protected as required by Growth Management Act. Aggregates are literally the
foundation and connection to economic viability. We all use the equivalent of ten tons of aggregate
per year in some form, in our houses, our roads, our work places, our schools, our water and sewer
systems. Their many uses are fundamentally necessary for today's society as we know it. Secondly,
the City has described the mining process to have permanent irreversible effects on the property,
which in most cases that is not true. Mining is an interim use of the property and often prepares the
site for future development. While all sites are not reclaimed to an income generating status, all sites
are required by state law to have a reclamation plan and be reclaimed. Example of reclaimed sites in
the Spokane and Coeur d' Alene area have been put to residential housing, commercial or mixed use
developments include the River Run Facility over on Fort George Wright, with the Real Life Church
by the Community College, that site was mined for over 40 years and is now an active housing
development. Windermere Development, up north was old gravel site and is now a successful
commercial retail facility. Additionally the River Stone Development in Coeur d' Alene is an old
gravel site that is now a condo and retail establishment, as was Ramsey Park by the Krock Center in
Coeur d' Alene which houses baseball and softball fields. Lastly as Growth Management mandates
protection of resources, the City should also be looking at setting criteria and look at other applicable
mine sites and protecting them. It is important to remember that resources cannot be relocated and
must exhaust and be mined where they are located. Because of their uniqueness, the City can't pick
and choose where mining occurs, the resources drive the designation process. I urge you to approve
and protect these resources, not only designate the four sites identified in our CAR request but also
approve the text amendment and support designating other appropriate properties including the
resources the County has mentioned; specifically parcel number 55065.0190 which Central Pre -Mix
actually holds the mineral rights to. We've owned the mineral reserves long before the property was
in the City. The original intent was always to mine the property as a mineral resource. Commissioner
Anderson asked how does an overlay provide more protection to your existing sites. Ms. McDonald
stated that right now they are not protected in any way, shape or form. They are zoned heavy
06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12
industrial. There is no mining zone. Commissioner Anderson stated that you have the mineral rights.
Ms. McDonald stated we own the mineral rights but under Growth Management they are supposed to
be protected with some sort of designation. There is none of that happening right now.
Commissioner Anderson said that still doesn't answer the question; even with mineral rights we
could prevent you from operating your facilities. (Mr. Pederson approached Ms. McDonald and they
conferred.) Ms. McDonald stated under the designation or overlay you guys would be able to set
criteria as to what would be allowed or as Mr. Peterson pointed out their mineral designations allow
mining to penetrate the aquifer. So you can set criteria and standards for that with an overlay.
Commissioner Stoy asked for clarification on reining penetrating the aquifer. Ms. McDonald stated
new sites within the County rules cannot penetrate the aquifer. Commissioner Stoy pointed out that
most of these sites are right over the aquifer. These are real close to the river as it is. The way that
our aquifer runs these are generally right over the existing aquifer belt anyway. How are you
proposing this overlay, how is that going to protect the aquifer from any further damage that may
have already been done? Ms. McDonald stated that those controls have already been determined by
previous approvals. We are fully permitted through the department of Natural Resources, Department
of Ecology. There are other agencies that regulate water quality and the mining activities.
Commissioner Wood asked where in the Comprehensive Plan those are quoted so he can look it up.
Ms. McDonald stated that the RCWs were quoted in Mr. Peterson's letter. He referenced the RCWs
that require the Growth Management Act to designate materials. Is that what you are asking for?
(yes) It is in the RCW quoted in Mr. Pederson's letter. Commissioner Anderson mentioned he didn't
get you there; then he asked if they expected the proposed policies to be challenged in the long term.
Ms. McDonald stated that she would hope that the agencies or companies that have the interest
actually work with the City to be able to help develop those policies to move forward. Commission
Anderson asked about the odds of these policies being the gospel in the final rendition, do you expect
that to be unchanged? Ms. McDonald stated she had no expectation, I mean, that is what we
proposed. I would propose to be able to work with the City or a committee to further develop those
and be involved in the process. Commissioner Scott asked for clarification if a zone would be as
effective for protecting the mineral rights and resources on those policies. Make it a mining zone or a
mineral resource zone as opposed to an overlay which when reading their goals and policies seem to
put a lot of buffering and restrictions on the adjacent properties that are not zoned mineral resource
but are within this overlay. It seems like you are putting off a lot of things that would cause conflict
off on to adjoining property owners. Ms. Barlow stated that remains to be seen as to what is the most
effective way to deal with this. Right now the question before you is should the City be looking at this
further in our analysis? We know that we have issues because our regulations do not adequately
address it. The only way we address it right now is in our matrix, and in our industrial zone we
identify that in the heavy industrial areas mining is allowed. Once we get beyond that, we defer to the
Department of Natural Resources to handle all the details. That is not enough to protect our interest
because we have more of a vested interest than that. We know we need to be more involved; is it an
overlay zone or is it a special zone, we don't know. We are not sure the best way to handle it. They
have proposed policies; they proposed an overlay zone and include several different aspects for text
considerations, Comprehensive Plan policies. In the past we've worked with CPM on several
different issues and I'm sure after the analysis is complete we will continue to work through this.
This is an issue for the City and we know that we need to work through this. How is it going to look
in the end, I'm not sure if it's going to be an overlay or a zone. That remains to be seen. We know
that it warrants further analysis. Commissioner Scott said then we don't have much choice than to
move it forward. Ms. Barlow stated that the Council is definitely interested in what the
Commission's thoughts are on the issue but the Council has already identified this is an area of
concern and a direction they need to go. Commissioner Graham asked Ms. McDonald, that during
your statement that one of the City's main concerns is that it is permanently irreversible. Mining is
an interim use and all sites are required to have a reclamation plan in place. Who bears that cost of
the reclamation plan? Ms. McDonald stated that the company does and we are required to hold a
06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12
bond to cover reclamation cost if we were to default on the permit. Commissioner Stoy asks how long
permits are good for. Ms. McDonald stated either till they are revoked for some reason or the site is
depleted and reclaimed. The DNR does do annual inspections and does request bi-annual inspections
and requests updates as necessary. Commissioner Graham asked one of the concerns could be that a
permit could be revoked at will if there is no protection in place, is that some of what is driving this
proposal. Ms. McDonald replied no, the DNR acts independently of the City.
Stacy Bjordhal 505 W. Riverside: Ms. Bjordhal stated she was present on behalf of Central Pre -Mix
and CPM Development Corporation. I wanted to offer some general comments that are somewhat
responsive to the questions that have been raised and some of it might reiterate what has already been
stated this evening. Point number one is that the Growth Management Act does mandate that cities
and counties designate and protect mineral resource lands, so it is a nonnegotiable item. The City has
honestly and openly stated they have not done that yet. These sites were previously all designated
when it was pre -incorporation of the Valley. So they have been in existence, I believe in particular I
believe Ms. Firkins mentioned since 1965, been around for a period of time. The policies and the
designation criteria submitted as part of the application that was actually pulled from Spokane
County's Comprehensive plan so it mirrors that very closely if not identical to that. Certainly they
went through an exhaustive process with the technical committee to develop that criteria. It's been
vetted. It's gone though a hearing process and has been deemed GMA compliant. So, it's a good
place to start in terms of the policies. These mineral resources are unique in the sense that they are
intended to be designated but protected from incompatible development encroaching upon them.
Because of their unique nature and the inability for these resources to be relocated. They are located
where they are. The idea is to identify those resources, exhaust them until they are depleted, then go
and mine new areas. That's just the economics of the resource itself. I wanted to add those
comments, if you have any additional questions I am happy to answer them, but you have been
briefed very well and asked a lot of really great questions so it is clear you are on board and
understand the issue which is before you. Commissioner Stoy asked other than these locations that
have been indicated on the overlay map that we have, is Central Pre -Mix looking for any new
additional sites? Ms. Bjordhal replied no. Just to clarify Jana McDonald had indicated another site in
her presentation.
CAR -2015-0025: The applicant is Naomi Eisentrager. They are seeking to establish a manufactured
home park overlay; create a land use designation for manufactured home parks for the
Comprehensive Plan.; and create either an overly or a manufactured home zone. Commissioner
Anderson asked if it was called map overlay that property would stay forever as a manufactured home
park and could not be converted. Mr. Palaniuk explained the process of an overlay, the underlying
zone then the overlay regulations would also apply over the zone. Commissioner Anderson asked
about current locations of mobile home parks, many are not located in just multifamily zones. The
overlay would supersede all those zones. Mr. Palaniuk state that the overlay would apply no matter
what zone was underneath. Commissioner Scott asked if the mobile home park owners were notified
of this CAR. Mr. Palaniuk replied no.
Randy Chapman, 8900 S. Mullen Hill Rd: Mr. Chapman requested that the Commissioners go to
the website www.wamaho.org to see the Tumwater Ordinance and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
decision that came down a couple of years ago. A lot of what you'll be dealing with and deliberating
on will be in that decision. It is very comprehensive and answers a lot of your questions. The City of
Tumwater was sued by the park owners association because they did not like some of what the City
of Tumwater had done. They had designated certain of their mobile home communities in a either a
zoning or overlay and they threw out a couple of them because they were a small community of six or
eight units. They were in commercial development. In the long run the City of Tumwater prevailed.
There are other ordinances in Snohomish County, city of Marysville, and other west side of the state
cities. Earlier I spoke of the one-year notice of closure and with the zoning in place a developer
06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12
5411 acc4 &rqo�
SPOK A fl� E C O U N T Y
OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TODD MIELICE,1ST ll151'RIC1' • SHELLY O'QUINN, 2ND DISTRICT • AL FRENCH, 3RD DISrRICr
May 14, 2015
Planning Commissioner Kevin Anderson
Planning Commissioner Heather Graham
Planning Commissioner Tim Kelley
Planning Commissioner Mike Phillips
Planning Commissioner Susan Scott
Planning Commissioner Joe Stoy
Planning Commissioner Sam Wood
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 101
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
RECEIVED
JUN 0 8 2015
SPOKANE VALLEY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RE: City of Spokane Valley Citizen Initiated Amendment Request Review,
Application No: CAR -2015-0018
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission will be considering public testimony on CAR -2015-
0018 on May 14, 2015, as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update.
The purpose of this correspondence is to encourage the Commission to consider other areas to be
designated as Mineral Resource lands consistent with the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.170.
As you are aware of and by way of background, the City of Spokane Valley adopted a moratorium
(Ordinance #15-009) on February 24, 2015, precluding new mining activities. At the March 24, 2015,
public hearing on the moratorium, the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners submitted the
attached comments. The attached comments explained that entities planning under the Growth
Management Act had certain obligations when updating or revising their Comprehensive Plans and/or
development regulations including designation of mineral resource lands.
Specifically, RCW 36.70A.170(1)(c) states:
(1) On or before September 1, 1991, each county, and each city, shall designate where
appropriate:
(c) Mineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that
have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals; and
RCW 36.70A.050 provides guidelines to classify agricultural, forest, mineral lands, and critical areas and
requires consultation with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and other stakeholders.
1116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509) 477-2265
Spokane Valley Planning Commissioners
May 14, 2015
Page 2
RCW 36.70A.060 requires cities to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of agriculture,
forest, and mineral lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170 and:
RCW 36.70A.060(1)(a)
... Such regulations shall assure that the use of lands adjacent to agricultural, forest, or
mineral resource lands shall not interfere with the continued use, in the accustomed
manner and in accordance with best management practices, of these designated lands for
the production of food, agricultural products, or timber, or for the extraction of minerals.
The current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code does not identify or
designated resource lands or mineral lands as mandated under the Growth Management Act or adopted
development regulations applicable to resource lands including mineral lands.
We bring the above factors to your attention as information to consider in periodic update of your
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and in consideration of CAR -2015-18.
We have reviewed CAR -2015-18 and after such review fully support the applicant's request that the City
of Spokane Valley adopt a new Comprehensive Plan chapter and associated goals and policies to
designated mineral resource lands of long-term commercial significance; a corresponding map
amendment designating mineral resource lands; as well as a new section of Spokane Valley Municipal
Code (SVMC) that includes specific regulations for mining activities.
In addition, we respectfully request that additional properties owned by Spokane County be designated as
mineral resource lands. These properties are illustrated on the enclosed maps and are identified as the
Flora Road Pit (Pit #5412) located on Assessor's Parcel #45121.9015 and the Eden Pit (Pit #55-06)
located on Assessor's Parcel #55065-0190. Both of these properties meet the criteria under the Growth
Management Act for designation as resource lands of long-term commercial significance and prior to
creation of the City of Spokane Valley were designated by the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and
official zoning map as Mineral lands.
In summary, we reiterate our previous comments on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-009
and urge you to designate the above -referenced Spokane County properties as mineral lands of long term
commercial significance as part of your periodic review and update of your Comprehensive Plan.
Very truly yours,
Enclosures
ItitE11110
1 O'QU ' , Vice Chair AL F NCH, mmissioner
SPOKANE
COUNTY
11 OP COI 'P 11' Cal 1.1t/S'SlO:\7.;Rv
TODD Vua.K1i, 1sruhretc'r•Slimly c(.)uINN.2nDutautter•_ALFiu r.c:lI.3ttuDu�nucr
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 councilmembers(a)spokanevallev.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.63220 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:
e 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 1 16 WEST BR( )ADWAY AV► 1a[ir • SPOKANE. W,slliN ; ro 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 Iands; and (d) critical areas.
The department shall consult with the department 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
55Di51%9C66FLF
x:51'
ui
Eden Pit No. 55-06
582.9
0
291.45 582.9 Feet
0
This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise
reliable.
Flora Pit Aerial
523.5
0
261.77 523.5 Feet
0
This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and Is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise
reliable.
Au
04:
•Id,":1W
"ititl0t, :0 00 7 1,,
•
i ;,,,‘:,'", r',"''''''''':: ' ,,,,, ,„„, .; 1.1,,. ', ,, • , ,, , ,
I„ , '"" 'k• , ,,,,, „ ,. 4 , , ..,
'"t''" 0' ,,kiu''' ,,11, 1, , ,1',, . ,,,,lk,,, ',',, ,, ,..0, ,,:" ,, k";:,',.''"(k,, "),:„,,,,.,, ,,,, 0 'p'"„::•,0 ' '',. 1., k••,k, '41
ik :;kp01'• 0 '"',,,.., 1,
''',',,(,‘‘„11"111" II, ,i,:'''''''' ' ''' 'I , ' ,.1•01',..:0 t,,,
0,,t,11,:k, ' '''!'lkl'''',',1''',1"kr',',.!, ,),,!: '''' '11' '!'!"1' ' ,,t ! ‘'" !,' • 4,, ,I, '"' "
41
):011''',01f1:':':*!'!"„,,,,,,,•111,'..,.',','',":1
,,,,,,n1 r!,
,!, 11'1
11
„. luf „
,„,11, )
,,,,0 li
•,,,, , •,,,,,,Iii
,,,,‘,..i1,:,•,•*:„,„,,,k,,,,, u 1,,,'),;%,',"r,'::ik'''','"`r:' k : ,•,''',11, :ig.,?r,"1('''Iti'''''' "h ''':: ' '1,v ,,,,4 1 ., .0 10, ''''.”' L'''''t'''',•'''':',k}',,,,''',',,'1,
'II 4 J
,, •" u, , 'kb.
' ,:•01•XO.!,.,'"'":,..::::•,,,,,3 '°';':' '''''' ''"' '''••;,r)f):1:,,,' k, ' ,, , ,1 ,,,, , ', ' ',' ,, 0, 0 ,,4''''1 li N 1 :J 1,, 11" ,, , 0,4! 1p,.
' „, ' I!!! •," ," ' ''''Ilkly' 6 ' "1' ' " t " '1!' '
r
''''' ' ' 1 11 '2, '''' ••• '' .. „ , , ,
14
,k1
• k
!(: !
9. Copies as requested from
Mitch Reister: Council meeting
Minutes and attachments
k
4
S
41
110 000",,
70.0.. 0,40107'.10t
kkk
00 I(9
11'0040.0!
" 000
• •••,„„ ,
,,,,,,, ,,,„4„: •' • h."
1.07. .
" 104,110:k, 4•": .1 . w. ,
—
, ..„ " t. • .01.: 0 ,,,44 4
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 fmal 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 7
Approved by Council: 04-14-2015
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.
Juna 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 continents and Mayor Grafos closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m.
2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any
member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered
separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of vouchers listed on Mar 24, 2015 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $2,078,406.67
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 03-24-2015 Page 3 of 7
Approved by Council: 04-14-2015
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
SIGN -IN SHEET
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS
YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE
Please sign in if you wish to make public comments.
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
TOPIC OF CONCERN
YOU WILL SPEAK
ABOUT
YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE
-5 v/lc_\ L �c\i e L\ CA's
,
�c� .l . IC �:r-1�k'vc
�A .
l--ri rt�� n� 4 3i S 1�•'1'l6tci < < )
/ 2
Ay.) �'} (a -E.
li_ /N/
Y �,S16 i
I /t,e..
tc, (1 15i-IIi G
37,2/)<--i-///4-2,,_/1,1-7liced
j a�
L c.. C._AMI;,:);,0 1-J
i.. 42 c,ih-/<; 1 yr`X
`irr'l L(A-x\F, ()ALL --G7
1 ,.cu..
'`a.i
, i
�ccu�,�, Lou -7,--�
�
-i
.,v,c , c._.—
•
(',v!" t t�
.),1/).: "mo -�ll% e
d (1/Lt
i,---1',
Ck%;Le-i (t Abc-(1.4LNL
(
(CA /26 \67)-(_(_' 0 2--
, - ,'UL -.00 ,_;
Cd /PP ,off,"'✓
SA -C .6:Z/i\- 1,61-2,----
Coi-,i) kitv, c.,--i-t,(..)\
\ ,
Please note that once information is entered on this form, it beconnes a public record subject to public disclosure.
SUBJECT: Mining Moratorium
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 24, 2015
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
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
I
0(7111 .-eC,CC JG2 f--\
y /o KC( !<
�CCG'� �'i
'1 tJ a re''��
L.1 C,r. � -C.
iipaof(
r
Ci/
tt Wxi
I \L 1 ��•1L';(c.
Jp J V :t�\)�,
&•L
,lam
c, ip: l (c.r1.'
im c—e
,71
c.__.‘ --k --\-e...c--
'-'p 0 k -c,,, ci Q_ \} i 1
Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure.
SOkaneuey
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).
OUNTY
TODD :\ ifPI.KI:,1ti! DIS IRI(:r'SIIIiI.I.IO'`)UINN, 2ND DIS DUCT • \l FluN(:II.3RD DIS IRI( .1
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 councilmembersna spokanevallev.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 36.70A390.
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 1 16 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 department 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
Vice Chair AL F' "yin ', 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 TYPOS 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
1
Landfill
CU
Landfill, inert waste disposal facility
CU
Public utility transmission facility (EPF)
L
Querying, 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 tises 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 ROW, 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 Mineral Lands
Zoning Code 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 recyding/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 Mineral Lands
Zoning Code 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 Minim 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/rehabiiitation 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 Mineral Lands
Zoning Code 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 Vallev-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 Mineral Lands
Zoning Code 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
Zoning Code
Page 620 -6
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
Zoning Code
Page 620 -6
Mineral Lands
Chapter 14.620
2014 PdnUng
I 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 andfor 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
S1jkSS4"
„000*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
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/HUMS.,
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 Cityof 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 \V. Riverside Ave. Suite 500, Spokane WA 99201 • T (509) 252_5066 • F (509) 252-5067 • ww,-.phlaw.b'z
•
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 Bth 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-, acceptanc , • :, • :: • . . . . . of any
permit applications or licenses by or for new mining andieF 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/HWy E, LLP
Stacy A. Bj
Encl.
EXHIBIT "A"
Urban Growth Area Update
Land Quantity Analysis for
The City of gaokane Valley
September 2010
Qty of a:sokane Valley
RESIDENTIAL LAND QUANTITYANALYSIS
The aty of Spokane Valley is responsible for developing its own Land Quantity Analysis (WA)
report to determine the amount of land available within existing urban areas to support
residential and non-residential growth. The Steering Committee of Bected Officials will use this
quantitative information to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
County -wide Planning Polides direct jurisdic#ionsto utilize the LQA methodology developed by
the Washington Sate Department of Community Trade and Economic Development and from
the guidebook, "Issues in Designating Urban Growth Area'. The Steering Committee of
Bected Offidals 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 aty of S)okane Valley's application of the adopted methodology:
Step 1
Identify land that can accommodate future growth.
In determining residential land quantity, these lands fall under three categories
Preliminary and final plats
Platted lotsthat 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 island that contains existing residential development but is large enough to
be further subdivided based on the current zoning dassification. Partially used residential land
indudes properties that can be subdivided into five (5) or more lots, consistent with the current
zoning classification.
Step 2
Subtract all parcels that your community definesas not developable due to physical
limitation.
In most cases throughout Spokane Valley, land can be developed with mitigating measures
While recognizing that 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
2
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.
Fish 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.
aep3
attract Iandsthat 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. A 20% reduction is taken from residential land initially
identified as vacant or partially -used for these purposes.
In the second instance, the qookane County Assessor's property class codes and exemptions are
used to identify Iandsthat 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 illustrates the
Assessor property use codes and exemptions that 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— Iighway
46 Trans— Parking
47 Communication
48 Utilities
49 Trans — Other
67 rvice — Governmental
68 Service — Educational
71 Cultural Activity
72 Public Assembly
73 Amusement
74 fbcreational
75 Fbsort- Gimping
nate Levy Exempt
Public Schools Exempt
76 Park
77 Churches
79 Other Cultural
Cemetery Exempt
DoR Institutional Bempt
Government Property Bempt
Operating Property Exempt
City of Spokane Valley
Step 4
attract all parcels which your community determines are not suitable for development for
social and economic reasons.
Deduction for parcelswith low improvement value
Parcels appraised at lessthan $500 land value per Assessor's code are removed from the
available land supply.
Deduction for parcels with high improvement value
angle family residential parcels that have an improvement value greater than 3 timesthe lot
area are considered unlikely to redevelop and are excluded 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 expertsdetermined 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 (Scapabilitiesenabling effective
monitoring. Additionally, an amendment to the Countywide Ranning Policies in 2008
eskablished a strategy for monitoring population growth and mandating land quantity and
population capacity studies when certain growth triggers are met. This strategy is intended to
ensure that adequate land supply will be monitored and maintained throughout the planning
horizon.
Step 7
Determine total capacity.
Assumptions
Ibsidential 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
Oty of Spokane Valley
Mixed use, commerdal 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.
Fbpulation 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 %view
Afinal step in the analysis induded 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 Capadty
Table 7 illustrates the 2010 population capacity for the aty of 414okane Valley using the
adopted land quantity methodology and assumptions as described in this report.
City of gaokane Valley
5
Vacant and
Partially Used
Land
Net
Developable
Acres
1,448.72
Potential New
Dwelling Units
7,763.84
Population
Cepadty
17,337.49
City of Spokane Valley
3,485.43
Assessor Errors
-46.42
-16.71
-109.69
-239.33
Adjusted Total
3,439.01
1,432.01
7,654.15
17,098.16
City of gaokane Valley
5
COM M BRCaAL LAND QUANTITYANALYSIS
On March 15, 1996, the Growth Management 3eering 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 qookane Valley's official population allocation
adopted by the Board of County (bmmissioners (eocq and dividing it by the current
population determined by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). The growth factor is
then calculated by the Qty of Spokane Valley's commercial acres currently in use. Table 8
illustrates the Assessor property use codes used to identify commercial acres in use.
Table 8 —Assessor Oammerdal Property Use (ides
Code
Description
Hotels and Motels
16
17
Lodging and daycare
46
Automobile parking
52
Building materials, lumber yard, nursery, florist, and farm equipment
53
Slopping 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
F ;staurants, fast food, and taverns
59
Miscellaneous retail trade
61
Fnandal institutions
62
Personal services
63
Business services
64
%pair 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 Oty of Spokane Valley determined that there was adequate
commercial property for the next twenty years of commercial growth (see formula below).
Population Allocation +Current
Population / Current Population = Growth Factor
90,210.001 1.21
108,956:00
Growth Factor
1.21
Cbmmerdal Acres
X in Use
1,133.56
Land Utilization
Commercial Acres of Demand X Factor
1,369.11
1.00
Adj. Commercial Acres of Commercial Acres
Demand - in Use
1,369.11
Vacant Cbmmerdai Acres of
Demand
235.56
= Cbmmerdal Acres of Demand
1,369.11
Adjusted Commercial Acres
= of Demand
1,369.11
Total Vacant Commercial
= Acres of Demand
1,133.56 235.56
Total Commercial Acres of
X Market Factor= Demand
1.25.1 294.45
Total Cbmmeraal Acres of Cbmmerdal Acres
Demand + in Use
294.45
Total Cbmm. Acres of Demand
1,428.00
Total Commercial Acres of
= Demand
1,133.56 1,428.00
Cbmmerdal Acres Additional Qamm. Acreage
Zoned = needed
2638.53 1 -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. This forecast 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 categoriesconsidered as industrial include construction,
manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, and utilities. In the year
2000, there were 49,344 people employed in these industrial categories. ince the land
quantity analysis focuses on urban growth area needs, rural industriessudh as agriculture,
aty of Spokane Valley
forestry, and mining are not included. 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 S aokane ()aunty. 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 VGA 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 asfollows:
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 4)okane County in 2000. The study provided a
detailed analysis of industrial lands in the unincorporated areas of the ()aunty. 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 uninocrporated UGAs.
City of qaokane Valley
In order to evaluate the industrial Iandswithin the City, staff used an industrial land study
developed in 2000 by a committee composed of representativesfrom 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 c ographical Information SJstems (GS 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 "tierd'. Tier one lands were determined to have all
the attributes to be immediately available for development. Tier two and three landswere
classified as being usable within a 20 year timeframe. Tier 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 Qty 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 Qty of Spokane Valley. The majority of the
remaining industrial property was classified 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 Qty of Spokane Valley.
Table 9: Industrial Land Analysis
Industrial Analysis Acres
Tier 1 838.9046
Tier 1 (P/CSP) 250.4862
Tier 4 2349.5993
Tier 4 (P/4P) 2.6502
Tier 5 54.5821
Tier 5 (P/Q-F) 22.9966
Totals 3,519.22
Based on the analysis, the needed industrial land for the 2031 planning horizon is 158 acres,
Qurrently, the Qty has839 acres of tier one industrial land. Essentially, the Qty hasfour times
the industrial land needed in tier one industrial properties alone. In condusion, the Qty
Spokane Valley has an adequate supply of industrial land for the next 20 years
PREVIOUS BJONOM ICSIUDIES& ANALYSIS
The Qty of Spokane Valley, as part of the planning process for the Sprague-Appleway
Fbvitalization Ran, conducted economic analyses providing a basis for recommendations in the
Ran. The most recent study performed by Gbbs Banning Croup, 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 soenarios:1) Micro Trade Area, 2) R-imary Trade Area, and 3)
100 Mile Trade Area. These trade areas are discussed in more detail below.
Mia -o Trade Area
This model established the minimal possible trade area for the proposed town center site. The
Spokane Valley Mall and downtown 5bokane were exduded 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 oaffee. Overall, the Mia -o 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.
R'imary Trade Area
The Primary Trade Area induded most of the Spokane Valley region where most of the study
area's (paokane Valley Town (inter) potential shoppers reside. The Spokane Valley Mall and
surrounding retail were induded in this model; downtown Spokane was excluded 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 Spokane, Gbbs' opinion was that it is likely that the total
qaokane 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 4.)okane 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 Spokane FLzgion.
Oty of 43okane Valley
Oty of gaokane Valley
EXHIBIT "B"
Moratorium Impact
Modifications to Reclamation plan to
inicude removing the common boundary
between CPM and County property to
maximoihethe resources in both mining
permits induding but not limited to mining
the flora Pit Road and the existing house
property
See Sullhran Road Details Above
k
$
E
!
m
t
k
|
CPM just purchased the property in
December. DNR Pbn is under review and
may require modifications in which the Crty
would need to sign off
■
!
2!
A
!
&
i
}}/
/ �/
-.!
t
k!7
zein
ƒ
}
E
!.
-0/
7
ra �
ga. 4
%k
11
#
!.-
etQ
A
n
?
7
2
!
trent uses con ng
in• • a
Asphalt Production
Concrete Production
Shop Fadtitits
Recydng
!
E
/�it
«I!)
f
'
.
!
k
�-
2i
£I■
%„
gl r K§§
2q, HRH „
V;;�IVVV**4
§§®;§@§§2
:-m-, q”.,R„gig
1H Uo,§§
,Rmmmmmmm
P, UU@§§§§AK
22A A
§B§B§MMMMpm
mmm■;,Rmmm.m■
A
($
a
$
;
t
a
#
£
°
k
£
!/
2
1
@&
Itk
#\!
S
r ”
2
a
!
2
1-7
•
r
•
ett,..tiltiretk
ElDean
•
• • • . •
y.776% r
7-..••
f ". .11
"ki.' •
VI.e.Tr• •
le;1".
frrrP'!
vt,te,24.1.'"/: ;.... •
• •
c
0,0I-
Ofe • .1". 7
a 1
?IMMO&It •.'
1!;
3
: )7, •
rr
• • al •
;-ar. ras
- • r,g4sIV
11
Erti
rz.J: • "
f ,
le" ;T: e"y: A
• _
•••:::•L
-,....„-e...)
-t,;,),.
-,
.1 I kl't ji
-
,-7'.'...
''' 1.Z... -..c. •-,....-'42._.‘____.7.,_. ,,,..„..,
.. -,,..1.,
11?
•••
Je
7•.(r
r -
4.4*;.1.-• •
;75,, ; :• me.,,j;,;,7 •
,1 • — It I - • . —, • i
4 a .
a. .
'
- 7
....%
:iL
".' 4.--""."-'':'4.t.—----'—..----I—i....'"
1.7.7.34t7:0= • :- . . . , " i'..4:0:4;
...74.. .........„ r-4.7.—......1
s... •,,,c.,... N ',':,i'•.,:.,..,
..=A•...
t ..,:-., „,. :,... '7,, ‘,,,,,C24....,rif.:1•.:Alr Ftlrek
,.. ',... ,
in
tgV
i......":
•ir1; ..1.... —,„/Ap. •
1,1
77.7""
. . ,
•
at.?, •
11.05 J OffaNC.P.
PARK
•
y'f; 35::11.14. `ti jy
mo i;< 1
ryy� .
:S^1[1•12
.iii
._....r�7.,�'-•r:vr„ra�`..�;yG;'~i-z...:wasz... 12121115t.. r - .. ....... •�w-, �.-�..•-..rc-�<�mn
10. Draft Minutes of
July 28, 2015 Council meeting
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, July 28, 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
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem
City Staff.
Mike Jackson City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Chelsie Taylor, Interim Finance Director
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Manuel Denning of Fountain Ministries gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, staff and audience rose for the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS:
Special Recognition of Eagle Scout Austin Dill — Mike Stone
Parks and Recreation Director Stone introduced Eagle Scout Austin Dill, who will be a senior this fall at
University High School. Mr. Stone said that Austin has been working to get a basketball court for Browns
Park; said he was passionate about the game and about the need for more public outdoor courts, and through
his perseverance and work with Hoopfest and the City, and by sticking to his goals, this became a reality and
tonight we celebrate the results of his qualities and his work; said the basketball court is a wonderful
community asset and we join others in thanking him for his efforts. After a round of applause, Mr. Dill said
he just recently achieved Eagle Scout with Troop 420; said he had been wishing for an outdoor basketball
court since he was in middle school and as a member of the Boy Scouts, thought this would be a good Eagle
Scout project; said the idea was a little overwhelming and he realized it was a big project, but also realized it
would be a huge benefit for the community; said it took about two years to get approval and complete the
project, and that it is encouraging seeing the kids playing on the court, and he thanked the City and Mr. Stone
for supporting his efforts to make this happen. Councilmembers thanked Mr. Dill for his efforts.
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the Chamber's business connections lunch at CenterPlace
where he heard about storytelling; that he and Councilmember Pace got together with staff and discussed
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) goals.
Councilmember Gothmann: said he attended a neighborhood barbeque in his neighborhood in Ponderosa;
met with Councilmember Pace and others on the governance manual proposed changes; attended the
Chamber's storytelling business connections lunch; and last Saturday and Sunday participated in the
Cycle Celebration, which is part of Valleyfest; said there were about 300 in attendance including people
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 1 of 7
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
from the western side of our state, as well as others from other states; and that there were about thirty
volunteers working in various capacities.
Councilmember Higgins: said he also attended the Chamber's business connections event; went to the
City employee appreciation luncheon, and thanked Councilmember Wick for his contribution of
outstanding homemade ice cream.
Councilmember Pace: said that he and Councilmember Wick and others meet to discuss the LTAC goals
and policies; and he and Councilmember Gothmann and others met to discuss proposed changes to the
governance manual; and that he also enjoyed the employee appreciation luncheon put on by the senior
staff.
Councilmember Hafner: mentioned he is this year's Health District Chair and said he has been attending
many Health District meetings, some concerning the fee schedule, especially for small activities, and
which has been a contentious issue as some people feel the fees are very expensive; and they are working
to come up with a solution; said he heard a legislative report regarding what's happening with the Health
District requests to the state concerning e -cigarettes, which he said are very harmful yet the Health
District has very little authority in that regard, and that he hopes there will be more regulations in the next
few years; said he attended a strategic health planning group meeting with about twenty-seven action
items, that every five or six years they go through the plans and programs to see what is or is not
effective; said there is a most important issue of a whooping cough epidemic in our state as there were
834 cases during 2015, compared with 143 the year before, and said most cases are occurring in the
western part of the state; said the Health District is recommending vaccinations, especially for young
children and babies; said he attended the SCOPE picnic at Deer Park; went to another Board of Health
Executive meeting and a Board of Health Board meeting; went to the Chamber's business connection
meeting; had a special meeting with Visit Spokane where the big concern is how to endorse some
agencies relative to what they might want to do; that this is a contentious issue and the meeting mostly
included downtown Spokane people; said he attended our City's employee appreciation lunch, and he
thanked senior staff for that event.
Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he attended many Chamber of Commerce meetings, and he reminded
everyone of the Big 5 project of the chamber.
MAYOR'S REPORT There was no Mayor's report.
PROCLAMATION: n/a
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comments.
1. Lynn Plaggemeier: (a) mentioned photos he took the other day showing the east side of Value Village,
said there are lots of violations such as parked semi -trucks, and said this mess needs to get cleaned up; (b)
the other photo was of the "derelict store" of Albertson's with windows boarded up with plywood at an
intersection that gets a lot of traffic, said it doesn't reflect well on the city and something needs to be
done; (c) concerning Avista putting in a new gas line on Sprague, said Council needs to come up with a
resolution if a company makes those patches, they should not be issued another permit until the mess is
cleaned up, and said if we stall long enough they won't have to do it; (d) mentioned the proliferation of
real estate signs down Sprague and said it looks like the entire Sprague Avenue is for sale.
2. Rocky Sampson: said he is with Checker Cab; he's originally from New York; his great-grandfather
started Checker Cab in 1901; mentioned problems with "Uber" and "Lift" and that they don't have
liability insurance; many nights they raise their rates in excess of ten to twenty times higher than their
normal rates; they don't have a UBI number, and he asked that those companies not be allowed to operate
in our city limits; said Spokane had similar problems and agreed those companies are not running Iegally.
3. James Johnson: spoke about our Spokane Valley Vision Statement, said it is a stroke of brilliance and
he quoted the statement; said every once in a while we start to err on the side of business and the voice of
one is heard louder than the voice of the neighborhood, and when that happens we don't have public
involvement.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 2 of 7
Approved by Council:
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Mining Moratorium — Erik Lamb
Mayor Grafos opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained the
background of this ordinance as well as the previous moratorium ordinance, all as noted in his July 28,
2015 Request for Council Action; concerning the previous moratorium, said it was determined we did not
do all we could to provide all we could or that we normally do in hearings as we didn't publish a notice of
the hearing in the City's official newspapers; said there were comments at that other hearing, but to ensure
we heard from as much of the public as possible, we are offering this hearing tonight; said that this
ordinance repeals the other ordinances dealing with the mining moratorium, that this hearing is being held
within the sixty-day required time period; and that we feel we have now met those public notice
requirements having published notice of this hearing three separate times; said we are in the midst of our
comprehensive plan update process and part of that includes a comprehensive review of existing land
inventory and existing and desired land uses. Mr. Lamb spoke of the open mining pits and said once a
mine is opened, the impacts of the mine on land are usually irreversible. Mr. Lamb also explained that
state statute requires our City to designate where appropriate, resource lands that are not already
characterized by urban growth and that we are further required to adopt development regulations to assure
conservation of mineral resource lands; said we need to update our code and that there is potential for new
mining that might be inconsistent while we go through this process, so we feel the moratorium is
appropriate at this time. Mr. Lamb noted that Ordinance 15-013 declares an emergency and was therefore
effective upon its adoption; said we have established a work plan; and set the effective duration from the
effective date of June 30, to February 23, 2106, which he said is the same duration set under the original
moratorium, so we did not extend the moratorium; and again said that this hearing is simply to allow
additional public testimony. Mr. Lamb said that after research, staff determined that this is categorically
exempt from the SEPA process; and after tonight's hearing, we will proceed to adopt findings of fact as
required by law. Mr. Lamb again stressed that this moratorium will not affect any current lawful mining
operations and that we have not received any applications for any change or modification of any permit.
Mr. Lamb said that up to this point, we have received two written comments, one from Spokane County
Commissioners (dated July 27, 2015) and one from the County Engineer requesting to make part of the
record the testimony given by Deborah Firkins and John Pederson at the Planning Commissioner meeting
on June 8 and the March 24, 2015 meeting of the Spokane Valley Council along with letters submitted by
the County at both meetings. Mr. Lamb explained that the County Engineer's letter was received just prior
to the close of business today, so we have not had an opportunity to pull those minutes, but if Council
would like, said he can provide those materials at the first reading of the ordinance adopting the Findings
of Fact. Mayor Grafos invited public comments.
Mary Senter: read her prepared written comments (copy of which was handed to the City Clerk) about her
family supporting themselves for more than three generations with occupations in mining, lumber and
natural gas; said we need to understand the importance the sand and gravel pits have in our city; we need
the products created by the sand and gravel; and we need to support the businesses and projects that
benefit from the sand and gravel and the Council should not support a mining moratorium.
Lance Senter: read his prepared written comments (copy of which was handed to the City Clerk) about his
opposition to the moratorium; said he has a bachelor's and master of science degree in geology; is an
exploration economic geologist and discovered the world's largest deposit of molybdenum; said his
occupation is the first job that puts everyone to work in the United States; said he retired four years ago
because he can't put people to work because of environmentalists and over -regulations by governments;
and said now "you have brought the same liberal, left-wing thinking ideology I have fought against for
over 40 years, to my city with this mining moratorium" and that although we advertise that Spokane
Valley is business friendly, he said that isn't true except when the business suits Council's personal liking;
said he is in favor of the existing pits and in favor of future new sand and gravel pits in our City.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 3 of 7
Approved by Council:
Mitch Reister: said he is the Spokane County Engineer who submitted the written comments late today,
and that he wanted to personally appear and ask Council to consider the comments and the importance of
the Eden Pit, which replaces the Flora Pit. Councilmember Gothmann asked about the Eden Pit and other
related information, and Mr. Jackson said staff will provide those past documents to Councilmember
Gothmann.
Jana McDonald: she submitted a letter detailing her concerns, as were heard previously; and submitted a
flash drive to the Clerk of previous submittals; and she urged repeal of the moratorium.
Stacy Bjordahl: said she is speaking on behalf of Central Pre -Mix (CPM) Corporation, and for the sake of
time, submitted her letter for the record, as well as copies of previous comments and documents, to
reiterate their position and all the arguments heard before; said she appreciates the opportunity to be heard
tonight and that this is very validating as there is no support for a moratorium and Council should look to
repeal it; said there has been a lot of media coverage and we have done as much as we possibly could to
reach out to the community to take its temperature regarding a moratorium, and the City got a very cold
reception; that the only people here are from the County and CPM, who are the life and blood of mining
of Spokane Valley, and she asked Council to repeal the moratorium as it is not justified or supported.
There were no other comments and Mayor Grafos closed the public hearing at 6:51 p.m.
2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any
member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered
separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of vouchers on July 28, 2015 Request for Council Action Form Totaling $2,765,684.91
b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending July 15, 2015: $338,960.96
c. Approval of July 7, 2015 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes
d. Approval of July 14, 2015 Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent
Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-014 Fatbeam Franchise — Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by "Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded to approve Ordinance 15-014 granting a telecommunications franchise to Fatbeam. City
Attorney Driskell said that this is what was previously owned by EMAN, and their franchise expired, and
Fatbeam will use these facilities to primarily provide telecommunications fiber to educational facilities.
Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
4. Motion Consideration: Stormwater Call for Projects — Eric Guth
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize the City Manager to apply for the
following fiscal year 2016 Ecology grants: 1. Stormwater Pre -Construction Grants (a) Appleway
Improvements Farr to University; and, (b) Chester Creek Diversions Bowdish to University; 2. Grants of
Regional or Statewide Significance: Effectiveness Study Development Phases two; and 3. Stormwater
Capacity Grant to help City update Stormwater Program Plan. Public Works Director Guth briefly
explained the call for projects, and said there have been no changes since the administrative report two
weeks ago. 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 comments; no comments were offered.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 4 of 7
Approved by Council:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
5. Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency — Julie Oliver, Agency Executive Director
Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Executive Director Julie Oliver shared information about the Clean
Air Agency as noted in her accompanying PowerPoint presentation, including how they are funded and
local assessments, which she explained have not changed since 1999, but which are anticipated to change
in calendar year 2017. Council thanked Ms. Oliver for her presentation and information.
6. Regional Wayfmding Concept Plan — Eric Guth
Public Works Director Guth explained that to highlight this program, we have the consultant here who
has a presentation to describe the project; that this is a collaborative effort among various governments
and the Downtown Partnership, Visit Spokane, WSDOT (Washington State Department of
Transportation), SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council), and the west plains Chamber of
Commerce, so it is a region -wide effort to look at gateways and wayfindings in order to attract visitors to
some of the activity centers we'd like them to visit; is it a plan to create a comprehensive conceptual plan
which lays out design guidelines and preliminary site locations where the signs might be installed; said it
was initiated by Visit Spokane and the Downtown Partnership; that it was sponsored by Spokane County
in 2012 when they applied for a STP (Surface Transportation Program) grant and received $242,000; said
for us, members of our public works and community economic development staff are participating with
this group, which is all funded through this grant; at this time, Mr. Guth explained, there is no funding for
construction, but tonight's purpose is to lay out some concepts and get Council's reaction; said he seeks
consensus from Council on whether or not they like the plan; again explaining that it is a planning
document for guidelines to help with regional wayfinding. Mr. Guth introduced Mr. Glen Swantak with
Merje Consulting Company, a Pennsylvania firm that is the lead consultant on this project.
Mr. Mark Richard, President of Spokane Downtown Partnership said the purpose of this regional gateway
and wayfinding approach is to create some symmetry among principals and to give people a sense that
"they have arrived" in the Spokane area; mentioned the Randall Report (Randall Travel Marketing
Report) which calls for wayfinding as a means to get people off I-90 and into our region; said the
Downtown Partnership approved doing this when he was on the Board of County Commissioners; and
said tonight they are looking for general consensus to move forward. Mr. Richard said that Mr. Swantak
is with Merje Consultants, contracted in 2014 to lead us through this process. Mr. Swantak said that his
company has been doing a tour of all city councils to keep everyone informed; he went over parts of the
project timelines starting in June 2013 through August 2015; discussed some of the Spokane County
Wayfinding and Gateway Program aspects, explained some of the benefits of the program and said that
this is a "tool" in a toolbox of devices to reach and entice visitors to our area; showed some examples and
types of signs and where they might be placed; discussed some of the more common funding sources, the
phasing plan, schematic design, and then showed the some of the gateway signs of the various
government entities in the area, such as Spokane County, Spokane Valley, Airway Heights, Cheney, and
Deer Park. Councilmember Pace remarked that he likes our City logo and compared with the others, likes
it even more and asked if we participate in this plan, would the plan affect our existing sign ordinance or
ability to change or remove signs. Mr. Swantak said the signs would be in the public right-of-way and act
as guidance signs for traffic, and that typically it would not affect our sign ordinance for nor involve
private businesses, although we could include something in our code about these signs if desired.
Councilmember Pace said that there appears to be a lot of emphasis on identifying the County, and said
that usually people don't care what county they are in, but are more concerned with the state or city. Mr.
Swantak explained that the philosophy is to have a regional program, and since this area is promoted
regionally, the County would be the formal boundary of the project. Mr. Richard explained that the
County is part of the plan but not the focal point; that the thought was it is important for people to know
when, for example, they are leaving Idaho and entering Spokane County; said there is some Welcome to
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 5 of 7
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Spokane County signage on Route 395 but it is very bland and nondescript; and said this plan is about
identity and creating a sense of place.
Deputy Mayor Woodard said that he has been a member of Council for about three years and the idea
three years ago was to find a way to direct traffic off the freeway; said he thinks this plan is way over
what was originally planned; that the initial idea was how to get people off the freeway with some
wayfinding signs; said he knows about the Randall report, but this plan is much deeper and more blown
up than what had been talked about three years ago; said he is not against the plan, but is not sure he is
ready for this either. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned biking signs along with auto signs, and to
include how far away a certain city is; said the trail is not designated in Spokane either and he would like
signs on trails, and to include such things as how long the trail is for example. Councilmember Wick
asked if the existing signs would be replaced by new signs, and said he didn't see anything in the
materials about identifying freeway signs. Mr. Swantak explained that we are not permitted to program
signs along freeways or highways as that falls under the authority of Washington State Department of
Transportation, although we can have signs on the off -ramps into the cities. Councilmember Wick
mentioned the lack of directional signs on Broadway for the Fair and Expo Center. Mr. Swantak said he
would look into that tomorrow as they would be doing an all -site location for Spokane Valley.
Councilmember Wick also asked about added amenities such as the volleyball courts at Browns Park, and
the Sullivan Bridge river take-out spot. Mr. Swantak said they submitted a list for review and are open to
any additions. Councilmember Wick suggested re -looking at the tier classification as the Fair had about
400,000 people in attendance but it wasn't classified as a tier one and perhaps should have been.
Councilmember Hafner said he feels the primary goal is to let people know what we have and how to get
there.
Mr. Richard explained that by going from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one can see how easily the
information adds up to over one hundred pages; said they have been working with staff on areas they feel
should be included on the map, and would not preclude adding such things as Browns Park, but it is just a
matter of adding that to the plan and using consistent signage; said there are other areas such as Felts
Field that people traveling down I-90 don't even know exist; and said the goal is to have the template and
be able to capture as many sites as possible. Mayor Grafos said he is uncertain if he favors this; that it
started out with the idea of looking at freeway exists, but appears this has become a huge program; said
the extent of the program is overwhelming; that Council needs to look at cost and to see if this is a
priority for us now. Deputy Mayor Woodard added that he appreciates the work that went into this plan,
but that they have seen no updates nor heard anything about this for about three years; said he realizes
people need more signage but he also feels there is a tremendous cost associated with this; and said we
want to be able to work in the City's logo. Mr. Richard said he understands about transitions, and that
over time he has come to appreciate the value of the wayfinding system as a layer of gateways; that he
realizes Council has not had time to thoroughly review the material, and he is hopeful Council will take
some time to think about it; and again said this is a tool and each jurisdiction will decide what parts to
use; he also mentioned that the County sign's design is to capture the movement of the river; and he asked
Council to review the materials, and said they will provide follow-up as needed.
7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos
Councilmember Higgins said there have been national events surrounding the topic of "sanctuary cities"
and controversy about the City of Spokane; and that it seems advisable to emphasize our independence
and suggested bringing a resolution to Council to declare that our City is not a sanctuary city. There were
no objections from Councilmembers.
INFORMATION ONLY:
The (8) Department Reports; and (9) Washington State Auditor's Engagement Letter were for information
only and were not reported or discussed.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 6 of 7
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager Comments: Concerning railroad quiet zones, Mr. Jackson said he has a concept which will
take some time with staff, but he would like to build a page off of our website to include all the
information from past discussions about the railroad, including quiet zones, reports, studies, etc., thereby
making it accessible to all so when citizens ask Council about this topic, they can point the citizen to the
webpage; said we had previously reached a point on investment and determined not to move that further
forward; said he would plug in the investment component of the railroad study in his future discussion
with Council about capital programs/projects; said it will take some time to build and pull in all the
information and make it easy to understand; he also mentioned that Council could consider himself and a
Councilmember or two as part of an ad hoc committee and actually go talk with railroad representatives;
set some goals and work through them; said it will take a long time to work through these but without
goals, nothing happens; said it will be difficult to advance this and difficult to get some results. Mayor
Grafos agreed that information is very important, but said the bottom line is at some point Council needs
to decide if we have a serious safety problem and make something happen, whether an over or under pass
or something else; said we can't wait for the railroad to make a decision for our citizens; that we need to
talk about the capital program and get it started and once we start, maybe we would get help from the
feds. Councilmembers nodded in agreement. Councilmember Gothmann said he spoke with a conductor
and said they blow the horn/whistle on the BNSF for a variety of reasons, mostly every time the train
starts, or when a signalman gets on or off the train, not just at intersections.
Deputy Mayor Woodard announced that due to National Night Out Against Crime, there will be no
Council meeting next Tuesday, and he encouraged the public to attend a National Night Out function.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 07-28-2015 Page 7 of 7
Approved by Council:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 11, 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: Resolution 15-007 Amending Governance Manual
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At the August 12, 2014 Council meeting, it was suggested
that the Governance Manual Committee meet to consider adding language about the process to follow
prior to consideration of any change in a tax rate. Those comments prompted a meeting of the
Governance Manual committee to review the manual. The Governance Manual Committee, consisting of
Councilmembers Bill Bates and Ed Pace, City Manager Mike Jackson, City Attorney Cary Driskell, and
City Clerk Bainbridge met to discuss several areas in the manual for possible revision, and minor editorial
or clarification changes. Councilmember Pro Tem Bill Gothmann was appointed to fill in for
Councilmember Bates on this committee.
BACKGROUND: The committee met July 23, 2015 and in addition to the proposed changes in redline
format, discussed the following:
Page 18: Table of Parliamentary Procedure at a glance. During the approval of Resolution 12-002,
Council direction at that time was to base the vote on a simple majority on all actions listed in the table
except where 2/3rd (or majority plus one) is required by state statute. Roberts Rules of Order Newly
Revised states that a 2/3 vote is required on the motions to "close debate" and to "suspend the rules."
Councilmember Pro Tem Gothmann said he would like to hear Council discussion on whether to keep
this as written in the manual now, or to change it to require a 2/3rd vote as stated in Roberts Rules of
Order.
Page 27: Under the process to appoint a temporary Councilmember, last sentence of C2: "If the time
period of the selected pro tempore individual is set to expire prior to the selected timeframe for filling a
Council vacancy, Council may, by majority vote of the whole Council (including the pro tempore
Councilmember), move to permit the pro tempore individual to remain in that capacity until such Council
vacancy has been filled." Councilmember Pace asked that this also be discussed with the possibility of
removing the sentence. Counter -argument would be to leave it in as it is an option, as filling a temporary
Council position that becomes vacant could take months, thus leaving a gap in the membership.
Page 25: Nomination and Vote Process for Filling a Vacancy: - changes to: Councilmembers may not
make more than one nomination unless the nominee declines the nomination. Also, except where there is
only one nominee, vote shall be by written ballot.
Page 27-28: Nomination and vote process for Filling the Temporary Position: same verbiage as filling a
vacancy: Councilmembers may not make more than one nomination unless the nominee declines the
nomination, and that except where there is only one nominee, vote shall be by written ballot.
Page 13: New section: Tax Rate Changes: The last time Council discussed the Governance Manual,
Councilmembers were split on whether to leave this section in or remove it from the Governance Manual.
OPTIONS Move to approve Resolution 15-007 amending the Governance Manual as proposed, with or
without further amendments; or postpone to a future meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve Resolution 15-007 Amending the
Governance Manual as proposed.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a
STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: City Clerk Chris Bainbridge
ATTACHMENTS Resolution #15007, Governance Manual Redline Version
A question came up previously about the election procedure for filling vacancies:
Vacated Terms RCW 42.12.070 Filling nonpartisan vacancies
" A vacancy on an elected nonpartisan governing body of a special purpose district where property
ownership is not a qualification to vote, a town, or a city other than a first-class city or a charter
code city, shall be filled as follows unless the provisions of law relating to the special district, town,
or city provide otherwise:
(1) Where one position is vacant, the remaining members of the governing body shall appoint a
qualified person to fill the vacant position.
(2) Where two or more positions are vacant and two or more members of the governing body
remain in office, the remaining members of the governing body shall appoint a qualified person to
fill one of the vacant positions, the remaining members of the governing body and the newly
appointed person shall appoint another qualified person to fill another vacant position, and so on
until each of the vacant positions is filled with each of the new appointees participating in each
appointment that is made after his or her appointment.
(3) If less than two members of a governing body remain in office, the county legislative authority
of the county in which all or the largest geographic portion of the city, town, or special district is
located shall appoint a qualified person or persons to the governing body until the governing body
has two members.
(4) If a governing body fails to appoint a qualified person to fill a vacancy within ninety days of
the occurrence of the vacancy, the authority of the governing body to fill the vacancy shall cease and
the county legislative authority of the county in which all or the largest geographic portion of the
city, town, or special district is located shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy.
(5) If the county legislative authority of the county fails to appoint a qualified person within one
hundred eighty days of the occurrence of the vacancy, the county legislative authority or the
remaining members of the governing body of the city, town, or special district may petition the
governor to appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy. The governor may appoint a qualified
person to fill the vacancy after being petitioned if at the time the governor fills the vacancy the
county legislative authority has not appointed a qualified person to fill the vacancy.
(6) As provided in chapter 29A.24 RCW, each person who is appointed shall serve until a
qualified person is elected at the next election at which a member of the governing body normally
would be elected. The person elected shall take office immediately and serve the remainder of the
unexpired term."
For example: Councilmember #1 term runs Jan 1, 2008 — Dec 31, 2011.
Councilmember #1 resigns effective January 21, 2011.
Joe Citizen goes through the process and is appointed April 1, 2011 to fill interim position.
November 2011 election, Joe Citizen runs and wins the election to complete the vacated term ending
December 31, 2011, AND his own term of January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2015.
Joe Citizen is sworn in twice- immediately upon certification of the election to complete the unexpired
term of Councilmember #1, and again January 1, 2012 for his own four-year term.
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 15-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, REPEALING AND REPLACING CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
RESOLUTION 14-003 WITH ATTACHED `GOVERNANCE MANUAL' COMPRISING THE
CITY COUNCIL'S COMPREHENSIVE COLLECTION OF MEETING RULES AND
PROCEDURES, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, written rules of procedure regarding how the City Council conducts its policy-
making business for the City best assure an atmosphere conducive to efficiency, uniformity and
consistency; and
WHEREAS, the rules and procedures adopted by the Council by which they conduct the policy-
making business of the City need to be amended from time to time to reflect changes in the law and
practice of the Council.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washington, as follows:
Section 1: On February 25, 2014, Council adopted Resolution 14-003 repealing and replacing the
previously adopted City of Spokane Valley Resolution 13-005 with Attached Governance Manual.
Section 2. The Council hereby repeals Resolution 14-003 with Attached Governance Manual, and
replaces it with "City of Spokane Valley Governance Manual," which contains Appendices to that
Manual, including but not limited to, the formerly adopted "General Policy Resolution of Core Beliefs,"
as well as "Councilmembers' Statement of Ethics," all of which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective upon adoption.
Adopted this day of August, 2015.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Dean Grafos, Mayor
Spokane
,•OValleyR
Governance Manual
Adopted by Resolution 15-007
A Comprehensive Collection of
Rules and Procedures
Adopted
Resolution 03-028 adopted 5-13-2003, replaced by
Resolution 04-013 adopted 5-25-2004, replaced by
Resolution 05-021 adopted 9-13-2005, replaced by
Resolution 06-022 adopted 11-14-2006, replaced by
Resolution 07-020, adopted 12-11-2007, replaced by
Resolution 09-012, adopted 09-08-2009, replaced by
Resolution 10-020, adopted 12-28-2010, replaced by
Resolution 12-002, adopted 04-10-2012, replaced by
Resolution 13-005, adopted 04-23-2013, replaced by
Resolution 14-003, adopted 02-25-2014, replaced by
Resolution 15-007, adopted 08-11-2015
Page 1 of 57
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: Council Meetings 4
A. General 5
1. Time and Location 5
2. Open to the Public 5
3. Presiding Officer 5
B. Types of Meetings 6
1. Regular Meetings 6
a. Formal Format 6
b. Study Session Format 9
c. Executive Sessions 10
2. Special Meeting 11
3. Pre -Agenda Meeting 12
C. Meeting Rules and Procedures 13
1. Council Rules of Order 13
2. Quorum 13
3. Attendance, Excused Absences 13
4. Respect and Decorum 13
5. Seating Arrangement 13
6. Dissents and Protests 13
7. Councilmember Meeting Participation by Telephone/Video Conference 13
8. Internet Use 14
9. Adjournment Due to Emergency or Disruption 14
10. Permission Required to Address the Council 15
11. Approaching the Dais 15
12. Out of Order Requests 15
13. Photographs, etc. Requiring Artificial Illumination Prior Permission Required 15
14. Voting 15
15. Motions and Discussion 16
Table of Parliamentary Procedure at a Glance 17
16. Ordinances 18
17. Resolutions 18
19. Reconsideration 18
19. Council Materials/packets 19
20. Three Touch Principle 20
CHAPTER 2: Legislative Processes and Procedures 21
A. Election of Council Officers 22
1 B. Filling Council Vacancies or Extended Absences
C. Legislative Agendas . 25
D. Council Travel Provisions 25
E. Ballot Measures 26
CHAPTER 3: Council Contacts 27
A. Citizen Contacts and Interactions 28
1. Mayor/Council Correspondence 28
2. Citizen Concerns, Complaints and Suggestions to Council 28
3 Administrative Complaints to Individual Councilmembers 28
4. Social Media 28
5. Donations 28
B. Staff Contacts and Interactions 29
1. Role of the City Manager 29
2. City staff Attendance at Meetings 29
3. City Clerk - Minutes 29
Page 2 of 57
4 Administrative Interference by Councilmembers 29
5. Informal Communications Encouraged 30
CHAPTER 4: Hearings 31
A. General Public Hearings 32
1. Purpose 32
2. Legislative Hearings 32
B. Quasi -Judicial 33
1. Purpose 33
2. Specific Statutory Provisions 33
3. Actions/Procedures for a Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing 33
4. Appearance of Fairness Doctrine 35
CHAPTER 5: Committees, Boards, Commissions 37
A. Regional 38
1. Committees 38
2. Council Relations with Boards, Commissions, Advisory Bodies 38
B. In-house 38
1. Standing Committees 38
a Planning Commission 38
b. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 39
c. Finance Committee 39
C. Private Committees, Boards, Commissions 41
CHAPTER 6: Disclaimer 42
A. Purpose 42
B. Use 42
C. Reliance 42
Appendices:
A. Definitions 43
B. Frequently Used Acronyms 44
C. Chart of Council Comments/reports 47
D. Policy Resolution of Core Beliefs 48
E Statement of Ethics 50
F. Index 51
Endnotes 53
Page 3 of 57
CHAPTER 1
Council Meetings
Page 4 of 57
A. General
1. Council Meetin2s - Time and Location
Unless otherwise specified in a meeting notice, regular meetings of the City Council shall be held at
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers on Tuesdays beginning at 6:00 p.m.
2. Council Meetin2s - Open to the Public
All meetings of the City Council and of committees thereof shall be open to the public, except as
provided for in RCW 42.30.110' (Executive Sessions), or RCW 42.30.140" (Open Public Meetings Act).
Councilmembers shallwi1l notify appropriate staff of Councilmember's plans to attend any of the various
outside public meetings hosted by other organizations or agencies, or City meetings hosted by various
City Departments, so that notice may be published concerning such attendance in order not to risk any
real or perceived violation of the Open Public Meetings Act.
3. Presiding Officer
The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council and be recognized as the head of the City for all
ceremonial purposes. The Mayor shall have no regular administrative or executive duties unless
specifically set forth herein. In case of the Mayor's absence or temporary disability, the Deputy Mayor
shall act as Mayor during the continuance of the absence. In case of the absence or temporary inability of
the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, an acting Mayor Pro Tempore selected by majority vote of the remaining
members of the Council, shall act as Mayor during the continuance of the absences [RCW 35A.13.0351
The Mayor, Deputy Mayor (in the Mayor's absence) or Mayor Pro Tem are referred to as "Presiding
Officer" from time to time in these Rules of Procedure.
Page 5 of 57
B. Types of Meetings
1. Regular Meeting
Any Council meeting that meets in the Spokane Valley City Council Chambers on Tuesday at 6:00 p.m.
shall be deemed a "regular meeting."
a. Formal Format
1. Normally held 2nd and 4th Tuesdays. The City Clerk, under the direction of the City Manager
in consultation with the Mayor, shall arrange a list of proposed matters according to the order of business
and prepare an agenda for the Council. On or before close of business on a Friday preceding a Tuesday
Council meeting, or at the close of business at least 24 hours preceding a special Council meeting, a copy
of the agenda and supporting materials shall be prepared for Councilmembers, the City Manager,
appropriate staff, and the media who have filed a notification request. Agendas may be amended as
required, and expeditiously distributed to Council and appropriate staff.
2. Requests for presentations from outside entities or individuals for presentations will only be
permitted if they are to be scheduled on any Council agenda imply that the presentation is theconsidered
the official business of the City_, and Such requests should be submitted to the City Clerk at least lOten
days prior to the appropriate Council meeting. The City Clerk willshall consult with the City Manager and
the Mayor for a determination of whether the matter is an administrative issue, and whether it should be
placed on an upcoming Council agenda. Playing of videost-mss, DVD's, PowerPoints, or other electronic
presentations shall be pre-screened and pre -approved by the City Manager or designee who shall
determine the appropriateness of the material. In the event the presenter has no PowerPoint or other
material to submit prior to the meeting, the presenter shall be requested to provide a brief written
summary of the topic and items to be discussed. All written materials, including the written summary,
must be submitted to the City Clerk at least ten days prior to the appropriate Council meeting.
3. Forms of Address. The Mayor shall be addressed as "Mayor (surname)," or "Your Honor."
The Deputy Mayor shall be addressed as "Deputy Mayor (surname)." Members of the Council shall be
addressed as "Councilmember (surname)" unless waived by the Presiding Officer.
4. Order of Business. The business of all regular formal meetings of the Council shall be
transacted as follows, provided, however, that the Presiding Officer may, during a Council meeting,
rearrange items on the agenda to conduct Council business more expeditiously, without the necessity of a
formal action or motion. However, adding or removing items from the agenda once a meeting has been
called to order requires Council to make a motion and vote on approving the "amended agenda."
a. Call to Order by the Presiding Officer.
b. Invocation.
c. Pledge of Allegiance.
d. Roll Call. (See Chapter 1, C3 [page 13] for procedure to excuse an absence)
e. Approval of Agenda. In case of an emergency or an extremely time -sensitive issue which
neither the administration nor the entire Council was aware of prior to the distribution of the
agenda and accompanying materials, a new item may be introduced by the Presiding Officer, with
concurrence of at least three Councilmembers, or by the City Manager and suggested as an
amended agenda item for the present meeting. If a new item(s) is added, Council willshall then
consider a motion to approve the amended agenda. ("Three -Touch Principle" should be followed
whenever possible.)
f. Introduction of Special Guests and Presentations.
g. Councilmember Reports. Council or government -related activities (e.g. synopsis of committee,
commission, task force or other board meetings). These verbal reports are intended to be brief,
cityCity work-related reports of significance in keeping the Council informed of pertinent policy
issues or events stemming from their representation of the City on a regional board, committee,
task force or commission, whether as a formal member or as a liaison. Extended reports shall be
Page 6 of 57
placed as future agenda items for presentation or submitted in writing as an informational memo.
(See Appendix C for chart concerning Council comments and reports)
h. Mayor's Report.
i. Proclamation.
j.. Public Comments.
1. An opportunity for public comments on subjects not on the agenda for action (as well
as comments connected with action items) are limited to three minutes each unless modified by
the Presiding Officer. Although the City Council desires to allow the opportunity for public
comment, the business of the City must proceed in an orderly, timely manner. At any time the
Presiding Officer, in the Presiding Officer's sole discretion, may set such reasonable limits as are
necessary to prevent disruption or undue delay of other necessary business.
a. Subjects Not on the Current Agenda. Although it is not necessary for members
of the public to sign in to speak, t4he Presiding Officer may invoke a sign -in procedure
for speakers. Any member of the public may request time to address the Council.
Speakers shall state their name and city of residence, and the subject of their comments,
and spell their last name for the record. The Presiding Officer may allow the verbal
comments subject to such time limitations as the Presiding Officer deems necessary.
Following such verbal comments, the Presiding Officer may place the matter on a future
agenda, or refer the matter to administration for investigation and/or report.
b. Subjects on the Current Agenda. Any member of the public who wishes to
verbally address the Council on an action item on the current agenda, shall proceed to the
podium at the time when comments from the public are invited during the agenda item
discussion. The Council may hear such comments before or after initial Council
discussion. The Presiding Officer may also invoke a sign -in procedure. If necessary the
Presiding Officer in consultation with the City Manager and/or City Attorney shall rule
on the appropriateness of verbal public comments as the agenda item is reached. The
Presiding Officer may change the order of speakers so that comment is heard in the most
logical groupings.
c. Comments shall only be made from the podium microphone, first giving
name, city of residence and subject. No comments shall be made from any other location,
and anyone making "out of order" comments shall be subject to removal from the
meeting. The public shall be reminded that this is not an opportunity for dialogue or
questions and answers, but public comment. When appropriate, staff willshall research
issues and report back to those making the comment as well as to Council. Verbal public
comments are opportunities for speakers to briefly address Council, and those speaking
are to address members of Council and not the audience. In order to prevent disruption of
the Council meeting, members of the public are asked to refrain from distributing
materials to the audience, since Council meetings are not a public forum to address the
audience. Since this is an opportunity for verbal public comment, in the interest of time
and keeping in mind all documents submitted during Council meetings become the
property of the City, graphs, charts, posterboards, PowerPoint presentations, or other
display materials are not permittedwill not be allowed, although written comments and
written materials including photographs and petitions may be submitted to Council via
the City Clerk.
d. There will be no dDemonstrations, applause or other audience participation
before, during or at the conclusion of anyone's public commentspresentation is
prohibited. Any disruptive behavior, as determined by the Presiding Officer, shall be
cause for removal from the meeting room.
e. Any ruling by the Presiding Officer relative to the subsections 1 and 2 above
may be overruled by a vote of a majority of Councilmembers present.
f. Council shall not permit public comments if they relate to any matter upon
which a quasi-judicial hearing has been required, scheduled, or held. (See Chapter 4 for
procedure for taking public comment on legislative matters.) Unless solicited and
scheduled, comments shall not be permitted relative to any future or possible/probable
Page 7 of 57
future ballot issue. (See Chapter 2, EF Ballot Measures for further direction concerning
ballot measures.)
2. Written Public Comments. Citizens have the option of submitting written views,
opinions, comments, data and arguments to Council on any topic and at any time, not just prior to
or during public Council meetings. Unless the Mayor asks the Clerk to read written comments, or
the citizen reads their own prepared written comments, such comments wi1lshall not be read
aloud during regular or special Council meetings although they wi1lshall be included as part of
the public record on the topic and if appropriate, may be publicly acknowledged. Any written
comments submitted to Council via the City Clerk willshall be distributed to Council by placing
copies at each Councilmember's workstation or City desk; or in the case of e-mailed or other
electronic comments, wi41shall be forwarded to Council via e-mail. If individual Councilmembers
receive written (including electronic) public comments or materials for the purpose of
reading/sharing those materials during Council meetings, those materials should be submitted to
the City Clerk prior to the Council meeting so the Clerk can make copies for later distribution to
members of Council. (See #6 above and Chapter 2, Ballot Measures; see also Public Hearings
section regarding public comments.)
Councilmembers willshall avoid accessing any electronic message during Council
meetings. Accessing such communication could be construed as receiving public comment
without the benefit of having the citizen in person to address their concerns. (See also C8 Internet
Use)
lam. Public Hearings. (See Chapter 4 for procedural details)
lk. Consent Agenda.
1. Items which may be placed on the Consent Agenda are those which: (1) have
been previously discussed by the Council; (2) based on the information delivered to
members of the Council by administration can be reviewed by a Councilmember without
further explanation; (3) are so routine, technical or nonsubstantive in nature that passage
without discussion is likely; or (4) otherwise deemed in the best interest of the City.
2. The proper Council motion on the Consent Agenda is: "I move approval of
the Consent Agenda." This motion hasve the effect of moving to approve all items
on the Consent Agenda. Since approval of any item on the Consent Agenda implies
unanimous consent, any member of the Council shall have the right to remove any item
from the Consent Agenda. Therefore, Pprior to the vote on the motion to approve the
Consent Agenda, the Presiding Officer shall inquire if any Councilmember wishes an
item to be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda. If any matter is withdrawn, the Presiding
Officer shall place the item at an appropriate place on the agenda for the current or a
future meeting, or the matter may be including addresseding the issue immediately after
passage of the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
m1. Unfinished Business [includes matters that were pending when a previous meeting adjourned,
or matters specifically postponed to the present meeting]
nor. New Business. [Action items are designated as New Business]
ou. Public Comments. [Same as L i" above] (Three-minute time limit each)
per. Administrative Reports. Reports or tracking of an administrative issue or topic.
pp- Information Only Items. These items arewill generally not be discussed or reported.
r. City Manager Comments.
sr. Executive Session (as required). (See Chapter 1, section Blc below)
tt. Adjournment. No Council meeting should be permitted to continue beyond approximately
9:00 p.m. without approval of a majority of the Councilmembers present. A new time limit shall
be established before taking a Council vote to extend the meeting.
When a motion is made to adjourn into Executive Session for a specified period of time, no
additional motion is needed to extend the meeting beyond 9:00 p.m. since that is implied as
part of the motion to adjourn into Executive Session.
Page 8 of 57
In the event that a meeting has not been closed or continued by Council as herein specified,
the items not acted on shall be deferred to the next regular formal Council meeting, unless the
Council by a majority vote of members present determines otherwise.
b. Study Session Format
1. Normally held 1st, 3rd and 5th Tuesdays. The purpose of the study session format is to allow
Councilmembers to be made aware of impending business and allow informal discussion of issues that
might be acted on at a future meeting. Action items should normally not be included on a study session
agenda, although there may be times when due to deadlines or other pertinent issues, action items must be
included. Study sessions shall be in a less formal setting than regular formal meetings. Council may be
seated other than at the dais, but shall not discourage public observation. Unless there are designated
action items which permit public comment, there willshall be no public comment at study sessions
although the Council may request staff or other participation in the same manner as a regular formal
Council meeting. The City Clerk, under the direction of the City Manager, shall arrange a Council study
session agenda for the meeting. For each item, the agenda shall contain the discussion subject, the
discussion leader, the activity and the discussion goal. A copy of the agenda and accompanying
background materials shall be prepared for Councilmembers, the City Manager, appropriate staff and the
press, on or before 4:30 p.m., one day before the meeting. Councilmembers have the option of accessing
their Council packet via the City's website. Unless notified otherwise, the City Clerk willshall prepare a
hard copy agenda packet for individual Councilmembers. During a Council meeting, the Presiding Officer
may rearrange items on the agenda to conduct Council business more expeditiously without the necessity
of a formal action or motion. However, adding or removing items from the agenda once a meeting has
been called to order requires Council to make a motion and vote on approving the "amended agenda."
a. Voting.
1. Action Items on the Agenda. Although action items may occasionally be
included on a study session agenda, it is the practice of Council to keep those instances to
a minimum. Because a study session is a recognized meeting according to the "Open
Public Meetings Act," it is permissible for Council to take final action during these
meetings.
2. Non -action Items on the Agenda. Because study sessions are usually
understood by the public and media as referring to meetings at which Council will only
considers and discusses items and does not take final action or vote, it could be
misleading to the public as to the purpose of the meeting if a motion is made
unexpectedly. As it is Council's practice to invite public comment after most motions, it
would be inappropriate to make a "surprise" motion unless there is a rare special
circumstance. Voting or making a motion when neither is included on an agenda does not
violate state law, but for consistency sake and to avoid any surprises to the public and
media, the practice is discouraged.
2. Discussion Leader's Role. During the Council study session, the discussion leader should
introduce the subject and give background information, identify the discussion goal, act as facilitator to
keep the discussion focused toward the goal, and alert the Presiding Officer when it is appropriate, to
schedule the topic for a motion or official direction of the Council.
3. The role of the Presiding Officer is to facilitate Councilmembers engaged in free flowing
discussion without the necessity of each Councilmember being recognized by the Presiding Officer. The
Presiding Officer retains the option of assuming the function of the discussion leader at any time in order
to maintain decorum and ensure all Councilmembers have the opportunity to be heard, and to keep the
discussion properly focused.
4. Requests for presentations from outside entities or individuals for presentations will only be
permitted if they are : .. .. . - .. - . • ' considered the
official business of the City_, and Ssuch requests should be submitted to the City Clerk at least 10 days
prior to the appropriate Council meeting. The City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and the
Page 9 of 57
Mayor for a determination of whether the matter is an administrative issue, and whether it should be
placed on an upcoming Council agenda. Playing of videos mss, DVD's, PowerPoints, or other electronic
presentations shall be pre-screened and pre -approved by the City Manager, or designee who shall
determine the appropriateness of the material. In the event the presenter has no PowerPoint or other
material to submit prior to the meeting, the presenter shall be requested to provide a brief written
summary of the topic and items to be discussed. All written materials, including the written summary,
shall be submitted to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the appropriate Council meeting.
5. Council Comments. The purpose of this agenda item is to allow Councilmembers an
opportunity to report on an activity or key issue which either just arose, needs immediate or imminent
action, or to simply report on something in connection with their role as a Councilmember that transpired
since the last Council meeting. It is also an opportunity for Councilmembers to bring up topics for
clarification, or to address other upcoming concerns. (See Appendix C for chart concerning Council
comments and reports.) Pre -scheduled materials Council wishes to share as part of the Council packet,
may also be included on study session agendas under "Council Comments." [See also page 19]
6. City Manager Comments. The purpose of this agenda item is to allow the City Manager the
opportunity to brief Council on an activity or issue which either just arose, needs immediate or imminent
action, or to simply inform Council of items that transpired since the last Council meeting.
7. Forms of Address. Councilmembers and staff have the option of addressing each other on a
first name basis during the study session format meetings.
8. Roll Call. The City Clerk shall conduct a roll call of Councilmembers. (See Chapter 1, C3 for
procedure to excuse an absence.)
c. Executive Sessions
1. If Council holds an executive session, it shall be held pursuant toin accordance with the Open
Public Meetings Act, RCW Chapter 42.30. Council may hold an executive session during a regular or
special meeting. Before convening in executive session, the Presiding Officer shall ask for a motion from
Council to: publicly announce the purpose for adjourning into executive session; the approximate length
of time for the executive session; and the likelihood of Council taking action at the close of the executive
session and return to open session.
a. At the close of the executive session and upon Council's return to chambers, the Presiding
Officer will declares Council out of executive session, and wi-I1-asks for the appropriate motion
(i.e. an action motion or a motion to adjourn).
b. To protect the best interests of the City, Councilmembers shall keep confidential all verbal and
written information provided during executive sessions. Confidentiality also includes information
provided to Councilmembers outside of executive sessions when the information is considered
exempt from disclosure under the Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers (RCW 42.52'") and/or
the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56v).
2. RCW 42.30.110 explains the purpose for holding an executive session, some of which include:
a. RCW 42.30.110(1)(b). To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real
estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would
cause a likelihood of increased price (pending land acquisition);
b. RCW 42.30.110(1)(g). To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public
employment or to review the performance of a public employee. However, subject to
RCW 42.30.140(4) (labor negotiations), discussion by a governing body of salaries,
wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally applied within the agency
shall occur in a meeting open to the public, and when a governing body elects to take
final action hiring, setting the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or
discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a meeting open to
Page 10 of 57
the public; [note that stating that an executive session is to discuss a "personnel matter" is
not sufficient because only certain types of personnel matters are appropriate for
discussion in an executive session.] (review qualifications of a public employee)
c. RCW 42.30.110(1)(h). To evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to
elective office. However, any interview of such candidate and final action appointing a
candidate to elective office shall be in a meeting open to the public (review qualifications
of an elected official)
d. RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters
relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel_representing the
agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a
member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public
knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial
consequence to the agency. For purposes of this subsection (1)(i), "potential/pending
litigation" means matters protected by Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.6 or RCW
5.60.060(2)(a) concerning:
(i) Litigation that has been specifically threatened to which the agency, the
governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to
become, a party;
(ii) Litigation that the agency reasonably believes may be commenced by or
against the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official
capacity; or
(iii) Litigation or legal risks of a proposed action or current practice that the
agency has identified when public discussion of the litigation or legal risks is
likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.
3. Council may adjourn into executive session even if it is not listed on the meeting agenda.
There is a requirement in RCW 35A.12.160" that the public be made aware of the preliminary agendas of
meetings in advance of the meeting, but that does not mean that an item that arises after the agenda has
been posted cannot be discussed at the meeting, even in executive session. Since final action on the matter
would not be taken at the executive session, it would not violate any provision in state law to hold an
executive session at a regular Council meeting even if the executive session was not listed on the agenda.
[per MRSC Index -General Government -Executive sessions.] Although amending the agenda is not
required in order to adjourn into executive session, it is a good practice for the Mayor to announce at the
beginning of the meeting, that Council will be adjourning into an executive session at the end of the
regular meeting.
4. Attendance at Executive Sessions. The City Attorney or Deputy City Attorney shall ill be
present at executive sessions and is required to attend executive sessions which address litigation or
potential litigation. The question of who may attend an executive session other than the Council is
determined by the City Manager.
2. Special Meetings
Meetings set at days, times, and places other than Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. in the Spokane Valley City
Council Chambers shall be deemed "special meetings," such as joint meetings with other jurisdictions or
entities (Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commissioners), and Council workshops or retreats.
A special meeting may be called by the Mayor or any three members of the Council. (RCW
35A.13.170'35A.12.110') Written notice of the special meeting shall be prepared by the City Clerk.
The notice shall contain information about the meeting, including date, time, place, and business to be
transacted and shall be posted on the City's website and displayed at the main entrance of the meeting
location (RCW 42.30.080'x). The notice shall be delivered to each member of Council at least 24 hours
before the time specified for the proposed meeting (RCW 35A.12.110x).
Page 11 of 57
The notices provided in this section may be dispensed within the circumstances provided by RCW
42.30.080', that is: (a) As to any member who, at or prior to the time the meeting convenes, files with
the City Clerk a written waiver of notice, (b) As to any member who was actually present at the meeting
at the time it convenes, and (c) In the event a special meeting is called to deal with an emergency
involving injury or damage to persons or property or the likelihood of such injury or damage, when time
requirements of such notice would make notice impractical and increase the likelihood of such injury or
damage; or as otherwise provided by law.
Agendas shall be drafted in a form submitted by the City Clerk, approved by the City Manager, and
distributed in a manner similar to agendas for formal and study session meetings. The processes and rules
for agenda content apply to regular formal, study session format, as well as special meetings.
Agenda Items: Voting:
1. Action Items on the Agenda. Action items may be included on an agenda for a special
meeting, and could even be the reason the special meeting is called. It is the practice of Council to allow
time for the public to comment on action items and the "public comment" should be so noted on the
agenda. As with other types of meetings, Council adheres to the Open Public Meetings Act, therefore it
would be permissible for Council to take final action during these meetings. Once the Special Meeting
Agenda has been published and distributed, the agenda may be amended provided the amended agenda is
distributed to Councilmembers and to the media, and posted on the City's website and at the meeting
doorway, at least 24 hours in advance of the special meeting. Final disposition shall only be taken on
those noted action items, and shall not be taken on any other matter at that special meeting (RCW
42.30.080(3)X"lAction items could be added during the meeting and the agenda amended accordingly, but
would not give the public, staff, and press adequate time to realize public comment would be permitted.
2. Non -action Items on the Agenda. Special meetings arc generally more in the form of a
workshop -e retreat, or with other jurisdictions, shall only include non -action items and as noted above,
no final disposition shall be taken during these meetings. , and are usually understood by the public and
media as times when no action will be taken. Therefore, it could be misleading to the public as to tho
purpose of the meeting if a motion is made unexpectedly. As it is Council's practice to invite public
comment after most motions, it would be inappropriate to make a "surprise" motion unless there is a rare
special circumstance. Voting or making a motion when neither is included on an agenda does not violate
state law, but for consistency sake and to avoid any surprises to the public and media, the practice is
discouraged.
3. Pre -Agenda Meetings:
The City Manager, City Clerk, Mayor and Deputy Mayor generally meet at a fixed weekly time to review
go over the Council agenda of the upcoming meeting, which gives all involved an opportunity to ask
questions and gather any additional materials or research needed for the impending meeting. This meeting
also serves as an opportune time to discuss the Advance Agenda, which is a planning document to aid in
scheduling items on future Council agendas.
4. Placing Items on an Agenda:
a. Routine Council Business: Through the normal course of business, Council may move items
forward to a future agenda by consensus.
b. New Item Council Business: At the appropriate time during a Council meeting (such as
Council Comments, or Advance Agenda), Councilmembers may request to have items placed on a future
agenda. Each request shall be treated separately. The City Manager is most familiar with staff's workload
and shall determine when the item can be prepared and brought forward to Council. The following
process shall be used to propose an item on a future Council meeting:
i. A Councilmember proposes an item and gives brief explanatory background of
the issue and its importance to the City;
ii. Councilmembers may ask clarifying questions but should not engage in debate;
Page 12 of 57
iii. The item shall be considered at the next meeting of the Agenda Committee
taking into account legal or other appropriate scheduling issues as determined by
the City Attorney or City Manager,
a. The Committee may place the item on a future agenda or as a pending item;
or
b. The Committee may determine not to place the item on a future agenda or as
a pending item and shall notify the proposing Councilmember who has the
option of bringing the issue up again during the advance agenda portion of a
meeting for further discussion. At that time, a consensus of three or more
Councilmembers shall move the item forward to a future agenda or as a
pending item, taking into account legal or other appropriate scheduling issues
as determined by the City Attorney or City Manager.
c. Staff: except for routine items such as those found on most Consent Agendas, requests
for items to come before Council shall be routed through the City Manager or come directly from
the City Manager as part of the normal course of business.
5. Tax Rate Changes
The Council believes strongly in fiscal restraint, and that increasing or decreasing the tax burden on its
property owners and citizens is one of the most important actions a Council can take. In addition to
complying with all applicable statutory requirements, changing tax rates should only be done as follows:
a. As requested by the City Council, the City Manager, in consultation with the Finance Director,
shall notify the City Clerk of a proposed tax increase or decrease.
b. Within 14 days following such notification, the City Clerk shall publish a notice once each
week for two consecutive weeks in the official newspaper of the City, stating that a tax increase or
decrease will be proposed, that a copy of the proposed ordinance shall be furnished to any citizen of the
City who requests it from the City Clerk's office, and that the City Council shall conduct a public hearing
prior to an ordinance first reading on such proposed tax increase or decrease.
c. The notice shall designate the date, time and place of the public hearing, and that any citizen
may appear and provide verbal or written comment for or against the proposed tax increase or decrease.—
d. The proposal then proceeds as a normal Council agenda item.
C. Meeting Rules and Procedures
1. Council Rules of Order
The City Clerk shall serve as the official parliamentarian for all Council meetings, and wi1lshall keep a
copy of the most current "Robert's Rules of Order" (RONR) in Council Chambers during Council
meetings.
2. Quorum
At all regular and special meetings of the Council, a majority of the Councilmembers who hold office
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A lesser number may adjourn from time to time,
provided that written notice of said adjournment is posted on the exterior Council Chamber doors
pursuant toper RCW 42.30.090X'. Council meetings adjourned under the previous provision shall be
considered regular meetings for all purposes. (RCW 35A.13.170X'35A.12.120X")
3. Attendance, Excused Absences
RCW 35A.12.060X' provides that a Councilmember shall forfeit his/her office by failing to attend three
consecutive regular meetings of the Council without being excused by the Council. Members of the
Council may be so excused by complying with this section. The member shall contact the Mayor, City
Clerk, or City Manager prior to the meeting and state the reason for his/her inability to attend the meeting.
Following roll call, the Presiding Officer shall inform the Council of the member's absence, and inquire if
there is a motion to excuse the member. This motion shall be nondebatable. Upon passage of such motion
Page 13 of 57
by a majority of members present, the absent member shall be considered excused and the City Clerk
willshall make an appropriate notation in the minutes.
4. Respect and Decorum
It is the duty of the Mayor and each Councilmember to maintain dignity and respect for their offices, City
staff and the public. While the Council is in session, Councilmembers shall preserve order and decorum
and a Councilmember shall neither by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings of the
Council, nor disrupt or disparage any Councilmember while speaking. Councilmembers and the public
shall comply with the directives of the Presiding Officer. Any person making disruptive, disparaging or
impertinent remarks or unreasonably disturbing the business of the Council, either while addressing the
Council or attending its proceedings, shall be asked to cease such disruption, or may be asked to leave, or
be removed from the meeting. At any time during any Council meeting, any Councilmember may object
to personal affront or other inappropriate comments, by calling for a "point of order." After the
Councilmember is recognized by the Presiding Officer and the Councilmember explains their point
concerning respect and decorum, or lack thereof, the Presiding Officer shall rule on the remark and may
ask the person making the disturbance to cease or leave the room. Continued disruptions may result in a
recess or adjournment as set forth in #94 below.
5. Seating Arrangement
Councilmembers shall occupy the respective seats in the Council Chamber assigned to them by the
Mayor.
6. Dissents and Protests
Any Councilmember shall have the right to express dissent from or protest verbally or in writing, against
any motion, ordinance or resolution of the Council and have the reason therefore entered or retained in the
minutes.
7. Councilmember Meeting Participation by Telephone/Video Conference
Telephone/video conference participation by Councilmembers may be allowed provided that a quorum of
Councilmembers willshall be physically present for the Council meeting in question, and provided
technical availability and compatibility of electronic equipment enables the conferencing
Councilmember(s) to hear the proceedings, be heard by those present, and participate in Council
discussion. More than one Councilmember may request participation via telephone for the same meeting,
provided that those Councilmembers would be able to be reached at the same phone number, as the
Council Chamber's current system can only accommodate the use of one telephone number per meeting.
a. Requests to use telephone/video conference participation shall be approved by the Council by
motion. Such participating Councilmember(s) shallould be present and counted. So as not to
disrupt the Council meeting, adequate notice shallmust be given to allow appropriate setup in
time for the beginning of the meeting.
b. Telephone/video conference participation for voting purposes shall be allowed for public
hearings or any quasi-judicial proceedings, and the requesting Councilmember(s) shall declare
that (s)he has reviewed the associated material (if any) provided for those hearings and/or
proceedings prior to the time the vote will be taken by Council.
8. Internet Use
Use of the City's network systems implies Council is aware of and understands that the system is
provided to assist in the performance of their roles as Councilmembers, and as such, Councilmembers are
obligated to use, conserve and protect electronic information and information technology resources and to
preserve and enhance the integrity of those resources which belong to the citizens of Spokane Valley.
a. As noted on page 8, Councilmembers willshall avoid accessing any electronic message during
Council meetings. Accessing such communication could be construed as receiving public comment
without the benefit of having the citizen in person to address their concerns. Likewise, Councilmembers
willshall avoid doing any browsing of the Internet of non -City business during Council meetings in order
that Council's full attention can be given to the topic at hand.
Page 14 of 57
b. Information technology resources are provided for the purpose of conducting official City
business. The use of any of the City's information technology resources for campaign or political use,
unless such use has been determined not a violation of RCW 42.17A.555X"" by the City Attorney,
Washington State Attorney General, or Washington Public Disclosure Commission, or as otherwise
authorized by law, is absolutely prohibited.
c. Confidential material shall not be sent via e-mail.
d. All letters, memoranda, and interactive computer communication (e-mail) involving
Councilmembers, the subject of which relates to the conduct of government or the performance of any
governmental function, with specific exceptions stated in the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) are public
records. Copies of such letters, memoranda and interactive computer communication shall not be
provided to the public or news media without filing of a public recorddisclosure request with the City
Clerk.
e. E-mail communications that are intended to be distributed among all Councilmembers, whether
concurrently or serially, shall be considered in light of the Open Public Meetings Act. If the intended
purpose of an e-mail is to have a discussion that should be held at an open meeting, the electronic
discussion should not occur, and Council discussion should wait until everyone has had ample
opportunity to view the message before including such topic(s) on an upcoming agenda.
9. Adjournment Due to Emergency or Disruption
In the event of an emergency such as a fire or other natural or catastrophic disaster, threatened violence,
or inability to regain or retain good order, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith declare a recess, adjourn,
or continue the meeting, and the City Council as well as everyone in the room shall immediately leave the
meeting room. The Presiding Officer may reconvene the meeting when it has been determined by the
appropriate safety officials that it is safe to do so.
10. Permission Required to Address the Council
Persons other than Councilmembers and staff shall be permitted to address the Council upon recognition
and/or introduction by the Presiding Officer or City Manager.
11. Approaching the Dais
Once a Council meeting has been called to order, stepping between the speaker's podium and the dais is
prohibitedwill not be allowed, and stepping behind any part of the dais, including those parts occupied by
staff is also prohibitednot permitted. This includes, but is not limited to, video recording, still
photography, tape recording, and distributing written handouts. Council reserves the right to invite
anyone forward to the podium to be addressed by Council.
12. Out of Order Requests
Occasionally a member of the public may wish to speak on an agenda item but cannot remain until the
item is reached on the agenda. During "Open Comments From the Public," such person may request
permission to speak by explaining the circumstances. The Presiding Officer in his/her sole discretion shall
rule on allowing or disallowing the out of order request.
13. Photographs, Motion Pictures or Videos—T-ape Requiring Artificial Illumination — Prior
Permission Required
No overhead projection, photographs, motion pictures, or videos tapca that require the use of floodlights,
or similar artificial illumination shall be used by the public at City Council meetings without the prior
consent of the Presiding Officer or the City Manager.
14. Voting
The votes during all meetings of the Council shall be transacted as follows:
a. The Presiding Officer shall first call for a vote from those in favor of the motion, followed by a
call for those opposed to the motion, and afterwards shall state whether the motion passed or
failed. Unless otherwise provided by statute, ordinance, or resolution, all votes shall be taken by
voice. At the request of any Councilmember or the City Clerk, a roll call vote shall be taken by
Page 15 of 57
the City Clerk. The City Clerk may also request a roll call vote. The order of the roll call vote
shall be determined by the City Clerk.
b. In case of a tie vote on any proposal, the motion shall be considered lost.
c. Every member who was present when the question was calledput, shall give his/her vote. If
any Councilmember refuses to vote "aye" or "nay," their vote shall be counted as a "nay" vote
unless the Councilmember has abstained or recused themself due to actual or perceived
appearance of a conflict of interest, which shall be so stated prior to the vote at hand.
d. The passage of any ordinance, grant, or revocation of franchise or license, and any resolution
for the payment of money, any approval of warrants, and any resolution for the removal of the
City Manager shall require the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the whole membership of
the Council'''. Except as provided in "e" below, all other motions or resolutions shall require an
affirmative vote of at least a majority of the quorum present.
e. Majority Plus One: The passage of any public emergency ordinance (an ordinance that takes
effect immediately), expenditures for any calamity, violence of nature, riot, insurrection, or war
(except for the statutory powers of the Mayor in accordance with RCW 35A.13.030; and
provisions for a lesser emergency, such as a budget amendment (RCW 35A.33.090X'x), shall
require the affirmative vote of at least a majority plus one of the whole membership of the
Council. (RCW 35A.13.190°). The passage of any motion or resolution not subject to the
provisions of Washington law, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, or a Resolution as amended
requiring a "super majority" for approval, shall require the affirmative vote of at least a majority
of the membership of the Council who are present and eligible to vote.
15. Motions and Discussion
a. Order of Procedure:
1. Member of Council makes a motion by stating: "I move .. ."
The motion is seconded.
Staff makes their presentation.
Mayor asks Council if there are any questions for staff.
Once all questions have been addressed, the staff member steps away from the podium
to allow for the public comment opportunity.
2. The Mayor invites public comments. Public comments should be limited to one comment per
person per topic and limited to three minutes. The Mayor reminds the public this is time for
comments and not discussion; and if the public has questions, those questions wi1lshall be
addressed by staff at another time outside the meeting.
3. The Mayor opens the floor to Council for discussion.
The maker of the motion normally begins the discussion.
The discussion must have bearing on whether the pending motion should be adopted
(RONR §43); and can be prefaced by a few words of explanation, but must not become a speech
(RONR §4). All Council remarks should be addressed through the Mayor.
4. When discussion has ended, the Mayor re -states the motion or asks the Clerk to re -state the
motion. Once the motion is re -stated, the Mayor calls for the vote, which is normally taken by
voice. The Mayor or the Clerk then states whether the motion passed or failed.
b. In General:
1. Except in rare circumstances, Council motions shall be in the form of an affirmative motion.
Affirmative motions are preferred to prevent "approval by default" of a failed negative motion.
2. Agenda items scheduled for Council action shall require a motion by a Councilmember before
discussion unless by majority vote the Council suspends the requirement by majority vote. If a
motion Upou failures of either a prior motion or rule suspension, the agenda item shall be
considered concluded. However, said itempassed over and could be reconsidered if done during
the same meeting, or through Council majority vote could be brought back at a later meeting to
Page 16 of 57
"rescind an action," or to "amend something previously adoptedreintroduced until the next regular
meeting." (Mayoral appointments excepted. See Committees for further discussion.)
3. Councilmembers should direct questions to the City Manager or the designated presenter.
4. Main motions are made when no other motion is pending (see chart below). They are
debatable and subject to amendment. Since seconding a motion means "let's discuss it," if there is
no second but discussion ensues, the matter of having a second to proceed is moot and the motion
can proceed. However, if there is no second and no discussion, the motion does not progress.
Note that the motion does not "die for a lack of a second" but it merely does not progress.
5. The maker of a motion can withdraw their motion without the consent of the seconder, and if
the mover modifies the motion, the seconder mayeaii withdraw the second. The person making
the motion is entitled to speak first to the motion. A maker of the motion maycan vote against the
motion but cannot speak against their own motion.
6. No one should be permitted to speak twice to the same issue until everyone else wishing to
speak has spoken. All remarks shallmust be directed to the Presiding Officer and shallmust be
courteous in language and deportment (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, Article VII,
Section 43, Decorum in Debate), keeping in mind it is not the Councilmember, but the measure
that is the subject of debate.
7. When an amended motion is on the floor, the vote is taken on whether to adopt the amendment.
If adopted, the next vote is on the fully amended motion.
8. Motions should be reserved for items marked on the agenda for action, so as to avoid any
surprises for Council, staff and the public.
Page 17 of 57
Parliamentary Procedure at a Glance
Roberts
Rules of
Order
IF YOU
WANT TO
YOU SAY
INTERRUPT
?
NEED
2ND?
Can be
Debated
?
Can be
Amended?
VOTE
11
Postpone
indefinitely (the
purpose is to
prevent action
or kill an issue.)
I move to postpone .
... (an affirmative
vote can be
reconsidered; a
negative vote
cannot.) indefinitely
No
Yes
Yes
No
Majority
12
Modify wording
of motion
I move to amend the
motion by .. .
No
Yes
Yes
Yes**
Majority
14
Postpone to a
certain time
Ex: I move to
postpone the motion
to the next Council
meeting.
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Majority
16
Close debate
I move the previous
question, or I call for
the question ***
No
Yes
No
No
Majority*
17
To Table a
motion
I move to lay on the
table, the motion to
No
Yes
No
No
Majority
19
Complain about
noise, room
temperatures,
etc.
Point of Privilege
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Chair
decision
20
Take break
I move to recess for .
No
Yes
No
Yes
Majority
21
Adjourn
meeting
I move to adjourn
No
Yes
No
No
Majority
23
Object to
procedure or
personal affront
Point of Order
Yes
No
No
No
Chair
decision
25
Suspend rules
I move to suspend
the rules and ...
No
Yes
No
No
Majority*
34
Take matter
from table
I move to take from
the table the motion
to ...
No
Yes
No
No
Majority
35
Reconsider
something
already
disposed of
I move we reconsider
action on .. .
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Majority
It should be noted that the purpose of tabling a motion is not to simply postpone an issue or a vote. If the intended purpose is to
postpone, then the motion to postpone should be used. If more information is needed or desired in order to make the most informed
vote possible, then an option would be for the maker of the motion to simply withdraw the motion. The consent of the seconder is
not needed to withdraw a motion. While a motion is still on the table, no other motion on the same subject is in order. The motion
to table enables the assembly to lay the pending question aside temporarily when something else of immediate urgency has
arisen. The motion to "Lay on the Table" is out of order if the evident intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure.
(Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 1061 Edition) *(Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states 2/3 vote required. Council
direction is to base vote on majority except on matters where 2/3 (or majority plus one) is required by state statute.
** If the main motion to amend can be amended.
***Call for the Question: if it is felt that debate on a motion on the floor has continued longer
than warranted, a member of Council may "call the question." The "call for the question" is a motion to
end debate and vote immediately. If this "call for the question" motion is passed by a majority vote, then
the vote must be taken on the original debated motion on the floor.
Page 18 of 57
16. Ordinances
Except for unusual circumstances or emergencies, ordinances and resolutions wi1lshall customarily be
prepared, introduced and proceed in accordance with the "Three Touch Principle." Prior to final passage
of all ordinances or resolutions, such documents shall be designated as drafts.
a. A Councilmember may, in open session, request of the Presiding Officer that the Council
consider enacting an ordinance for a specific purpose. The Presiding Officer then may assign the
proposed ordinance to the administration, a committee, or the Council for consideration. The
committee or administration shall report its findings to the Council. The City Manager may
propose the drafting of ordinances (RCW 35A.13 °'). Citizens, Boards and Commissions may
also propose consideration of ordinances and resolutions.
b. Sponsorship. When a Councilmember wishes to assume sponsorship of an ordinance or
resolution, once on the agenda, he or she should so announce, make the initial motion and provide
an introduction of the measure.
c. Ordinances shall normally have two separate readings at separate Council meetings. Unless
waived by the City Council at each reading, the title of an ordinance shall be read by the City
Clerk prior to its passage. However, if a Councilmember requests that the entire ordinance or
certain sections be read, such request shall be granted. Printed copies shall be available upon
request to any person attending a Council meeting.
d. The provision requiring two separate readings of an ordinance may be waived at any meeting
of the Council by a majority vote of all members present. (This would require a successful motion
to suspend the rules and pass the ordinance on a first reading.)
e. If a motion to pass an ordinance to a second reading fails, the ordinance shall be considered
lost, unless a subsequent motion directs its revision and resubmission to first reading.
f. Any ordinance repealing any portion of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall also repeal
the respective portions of the underlying ordinance(s). Ordinances repealing earlier ordinances
shall not apply to acts, incidents, transactions or decisions occurring before such repeal.
17. Resolutions
A resolution may be approved on the same day it is introduced. While it is not necessary to have the title
of a resolution read aloud, Council may invoke the two reading procedures described above to facilitate
public understanding and/or comment on the resolution. If Council invokes the two reading procedures, a
Councilmember may request that the entire resolution or certain sections be read, and such request shall
be granted and the City Clerk shall read as requested. Printed copies shall be made available upon request
to any person attending a Council meeting.
18. Reconsideration
The purpose of reconsidering a vote is to permit change or correction of an erroneous action, or to take
into account added information or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of the vote. Any
action of the Council, including final action on applications for legislative changes in land use status, shall
be subject to a motion to reconsider except:
1. any action previously reconsidered;
2. motions to adjourn or motions to suspend the rules;
3. an affirmative vote to lay an item on, or take an item from, the table;
4. a previously passed motion to suspend the rules; or
5. a vote electing to office one who is present and does not decline.
Such motion for reconsideration:
1. shallmust be reconsidered during the same Council meeting;
2. shallmust be called up when no business is pending (no action is pending);
3. if action is pending, the Mayor asks the Clerk to note that the motion to reconsider has been
made and shallis to be taken up when a member calls the motion to reconsider the vote when
no other business (action ) is pending;
4. shalhaiii4 be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side on the original motion,
This means a reconsideration can be moved only by one who voted aye if the motion involved was
adopted, or no if the motion was lost. It is permissible for a Councilmember who cannot make such a
Page 19 of 57
motion, but believes there are valid reasons for one, to try to persuade someone who voted on the
prevailing side, to make such a motion.
5. a member who makes this motion should state that he or she voted on the prevailing side;
6. needs a second, and can be seconded by any member;
7. is debatable if the type of motion it reconsiders is debatable; and
8. is not amendable and requires a majority vote to adopt.
Step 1: A member of Council who voted on the prevailing side makes the motion, such as "I move to
reconsider the vote on the resolution relating to holidays. I voted for [or against] the resolution." This
motion needs a second, which can be seconded by any Councilmember.
Step 2: If the motion for reconsideration is adopted, the original motion is then placed before Council as if
that motion had not been voted on previously; and Council again takes that motion under discussion,
followed by a new vote.
Any motion for reconsideration of a matter which was the subject of a required public hearing or which is
a quasi-judicial matter, may not be discussed or acted upon unless and until the parties or their attorneys
and the persons testifying have been given at least five days advance notice of such discussion and/or
action.
19. Council Materials
a. Council Material
Councilmembers and staff should read the agenda material and ask clarifying questions of the
City Manager or other appropriate staff prior to the Council meeting when possible. Council
recognizes there are times when Councilmembers may wish to bring additional documentation to
a meeting on a specific subject, whether that subject is on the agenda or not, in order to share with
Council and staff. When possible, the materials should be distributed to Councilmembers and
staff prior to the Council meeting, or if distributed during a meeting, Councilmembers should
indicate the materials are for future reading, since except in an emergency, Councilmembers
would normally not take time at the dais to read material just received. Pre -scheduled materials
Council wishes to share as part of the Council packet could also be included on study session
agendas under "Council Comments." [Scc also page 10]
b. Council Packets
Councilmembers shall personally pick up their agenda packets from their individual inboxes
provided at each Councilmember's desk, unless otherwise arranged by the Councilmember or
further directed by Council. Councilmembers have the option of accessing their Council packet
via the City's website. Unless notified otherwise, the City Clerk shallwi1l prepare a hard copy
agenda packet for individual Councilmembers.
c. Packet Materials
Request for Council Action form (RCA): This is a cover sheet used by staff to introduce an
agenda item. It includes the agenda item title, citing of governing legislation associated with the
topic, previous Council action taken, and background on the topic. Options for Council
consideration are also included, as well as a staff recommended action or motion. The options and
recommended action or motion should be viewed as aids to Council in making a motion or taking
action, but should not be thought of as obligatory, as Council always has the option of making a
motion different from what is included on the form. Generally, by the time an item is ready for a
motion, Council has already read, heard, and/or discussed the item at least three times (as an
informational item, an administrative report, and lastly as an action item), and the wording of a
motion would not normally be controversial, although it is important to state the motion as a
motion, such as "I move to" or "I move that" or other similar language.
Page 20 of 57
20. "Three Touch Principle"
Decision makers and citizens at all levels of the City should have adequate time to thoroughly consider
the issues prior to final decisions. It is the intent of the Council that the Council and administration shall
abide by the "Three Touch Principle" whenever possible. These procedural guidelines are designed to
avoid "surprises" to the City Council, citizens and administrative personnel.
Any request or proposal for adopting or changing public policy, ordinances, resolutions or City Council
directives which require a decision of the City Council or administration, should "touch" the decision
makers three separate times. This includes verbal or written reports, "information only" agenda items, or
any combination thereof. To facilitate the Council's strategic use of legislative time at its meeting, staff
may satisfy the first touch by issuing an informational memorandum, unless the subject matter is complex
in nature. Quasi-judicial matters and any subject discussed in executive sessions are excluded from
application of the "Three Touch Principle."
It is recognized that unexpected circumstances may arise wherein observance of the "Three Touch
Principle" is impractical. However, when unusual circumstances arise which justify a "first discussion"
decision, the persons requesting the expedited decision should also explain the timing circumstances.
This principle excludes staff reports and other general communications not requiring a Council decision.
Page 21 of 57
CHAPTER 2
Legislative Process
Page 22 of 57
A. Election of Officers
Procedures for electing officers are as follows:
1. Biennially, at the first meeting of the new Council, the members thereof shall choose a
Presiding Officer from their number who shall have the title of Mayor. In addition to the powers
conferred upon him/her as Mayor, he/she shall continue to have all the rights, privileges and immunities
of a member of the Council. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of Mayor, the members of the
Council at their next regular meeting shall select a Mayor from their number for the unexpired term.
Following the election of the Mayor, election of a Deputy Mayor shall be conducted in the same manner.
The term of the Deputy Mayor shall run concurrently with that of the Mayor. (RCW 35A.13.030°")
2. The election for Mayor shall be conducted by the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall call for
nominations. Each member of the City Council shall be permitted to nominate one person, and a
nomination shall not require a second. A nominee who wishes to decline the nomination shall so state at
that time. Nominations are then closed. The election for Deputy Mayor shall be conducted by the Mayor,
and nominations shall be made in the manner previously described for the election of the Mayor.
3. Except when there is only one nominee, election shall be by written ballot. Each ballot shall
contain the name of the Councilmember who cast it. Selection of Mayor and of Deputy Mayor shall each
be determined by majority vote of Councilmembers present. The City Clerk shall publicly announce the
results of the election. Thereafter, the City Clerk shall record the individual Councilmember's votes in the
minutes of the meeting.
4. If the first round of votes results in no majority vote of Councilmembers present, the voting
process shall be repeated no more than two more times. During subsequent votes, Councilmembers do not
have to vote the same as they did in the previous vote. If after three attempts, Council is unable to agree
on a Mayor by majority vote of Councilmembers present, the office of Mayor shall be temporarily filled
by an Acting Mayor, which shall be the Councilmember who just previously served as Mayor if that
person is still a member of Council, or if the previous Mayor is no longer a Councilmember, then by the
Deputy Mayor, or if such person prefers not to serve as Mayor or if that person is no longer a member of
Council, the Councilmember with the next highest seniority. The Acting Mayor shall continue in office
and exercise such authority as is described in RCW 35A.13'1' until the members of the Council agree on
a Mayor, which shall be determined at the next scheduled Council meeting, at which time the role of
Acting Mayor shall cease and terminate.
5. At the next scheduled Council meeting voting for Mayor shall proceed in the same manner as
the initial first round of voting from the previous Council meeting, but Councilmembers willshall only
vote on the Councilmembers who received the highest number of votes. If after three voting attempts,
there is still no majority vote of Councilmembers present, the vote shall be determined by whichever
Councilmember has the most votes at the third voting attempt. If at that time, there is a two-way tie of
Councilmembers receiving the most votes, the tie shallwill be broken based on the flip of a coin. The City
Manager shall flip the coin. If there are more than two Councilmembers tying with the most votes, that tie
shallwi11 be determined by another means of chance to narrow the Councilmembers down to two, at
which time the outcome willshall be determined by written ballot.
B. Filling Permanent Council Vacancies or Temporary Extended Excused
Absences
L FILLING A VACANCY
If a vacancy occurs on the City Council, the Council shallwi11 follow the procedures outlined in RCW
35A.13.020°' and Council's adopted procedure in compliance with RCW 35A.13.020",as well as RCW
42.12.070' which is included below. The timeline will vary depending on when the process begins.
Pursuant to RCW 35A.13.020, City Council has within 90 days from e€the vacancy to appoint a qualified
person to the vacant position. If this timeframe is not met, the City's authority in this matter would cease
and the Spokane County Board of Commissioners would appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy.
Public comment shall414 not be taken during this entire process.
Page 23 of 57
PROCEDURE FOR FILLING A COUNCIL VACANCY
A. Timeline/Procedure:
1. Publication
The City Clerk willshall publish the vacancy announcement inviting citizens of the City who are
interested and qualified to sit as a Councilmember, to apply on an application form provided by the
City. Qualifications to sit as a Councilmember are set forth in RCW 35A.13.020, which refers to
RCW 35A.12.030: (1) must be a registered voter of the city at the time of filing his or her declaration
of candidacy; (2) has been a resident of the city for a period of at least one year next preceding his or
her election. Additional qualifications include never having been convicted of a felony, and that
Councilmembers shall not hold any other office or employment within the Spokane Valley City
government [RCW 35A.12.030]. In order to avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest, no
member of Council's immediate family may be currently employed by the City of Spokane Valley
since employment is considered a contractual matter, and a councilmember would have a prohibited
interest in a contract between a family member who is an employee of the city, and the city. (See
Appendix A Definitions for description of immediate family.) If possible, the vacancy announcement
willshall be published for three consecutive weeks.
2. Deadline for the City Clerk to receive applications shall be no later than 4:00 p.m.
3. Special Meeting, Executive Session, set for . [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)]
5:00 p.m. Council willshall meet and adjourn to executive session to review and discuss all of
the applications. After the review and discussion, Council willshall return to Council Chambers
and the Special Meeting wi4lshall be adjourned.
Regular Meeting, same evening as above Special Meeting. [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)]
6:00 p.m. Council willshall meet in open session and part of this agenda willshall include
selection of applicants to interview. Selection willshall be by nomination and second. A vote
willshall be taken and candidates receiving three or more votes willshall be interviewed.
Immediately after this Council meeting or as soon as practicable, the Clerk willshall send a list
of potential questions to all those to be interviewed.
4. Tuesday, . [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)]
The interviews wi4lshall be conducted during an open Council meeting. Each interview willshall be a
maximum of 30 minutes.
5. Special Meeting, Executive Session set for [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)]
5:00 p.m. Council willshall meet and adjourn to executive session (closed session) to discuss
applicants. After the discussion, the Special Meeting willshall be adjourned as usual.
Regular Meeting, same evening as above Special Meeting [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)]
6:00 p.m. Council willshall meet in open session and the last action item of that agenda will
include a vote to fill the vacancy. Upon selection of the new Councilmember, that person
shallwi11 be sworn in by the City Clerk, and take their seat at the dais.
B. Interview Questions/Process:
1. During the interview, each Councilmember may ask each candidate up to three questions. Follow-
up questions are to be counted as one of the three questions.
2. Candidates willshall be interviewed in alphabetical order of last name.
Questions for Candidates: Candidates should be prepared to answer any of the following questions, even
though every question might not be asked of each candidate, and Council has the option of asking
questions not included in this list of potential questions. Council has the option of asking follow-up
Page 24 of 57
questions up to a total of three questions per candidate. Follow-up questions are included as part of and
not in addition to, the three maximum questions.
Potential Council Applicant Interview Questions
1. What is a Councilmember's primary responsibility to the citizens of Spokane Valley?
2. What are the most important issues our City faces today?
3. Please explain your view of the most difficult aspect of being a Councilmember.
4. What do you think is the biggest challenge facing the City Council?
5. What are the three highest priorities the City needs to address and how do you propose to address
these issues?
6. As a Councilmember, one of the most challenging issues we face is balancing the City budget.
Keeping in mind that the majority of our revenue is from sales tax and property tax, how would
you propose to strike a balance between revenues and expenses; and at what point, if at all, would
you support additional revenues to maintain service levels?
7. Discuss your ideas on pavement preservation including solutions for long-term sustainability of
our roads.
8. How can we determine what the citizens want for the future of Spokane Valley?
9. What do you envision the City of Spokane Valley will be like ten and twenty years from now?
10. All total, Councilmembers serve on approximately 20 different boards, committees, councils and
task forces. Does your life style allow you to serve on outside committees and share these
responsibilities? It could mean up to 10 hours per month in addition to your Council duties.
11. Do you plan to run and/or actively campaign for the November election for what will be a four-
year term?
12. Have you attended City Council meetings in the past?
13. What did you discover from attending Council meetings?
14. Why do you want to be on the City Council?
15. Please explain your familiarity with and understanding of our City's form of government,
including the difference between Council and staff responsibilities.
16. What do you hope to accomplish as a Councilmember and what do you offer the City?
17. If the majority of the Council took a position that you were against, how would you handle your
response to the public and/or media?
18. As a Councilmember, what new or different perspective would you bring to the City Council?
19. Are you aware and knowledgeable about the Open Public Meeting Act?
20. Are you aware and knowledgeable about the Public RecordDisclosure Act?
C. Nomination and Voting Process:
1. NOMINATION PROCESS.
Councilmembers may nominate an applicant to fill the vacancy. A second is required. If no second is
received, that applicant shall not be considered further unless no applicant receives a second, in which
case all applicants who were nominated may be considered again. Councilmembers may not make
more than one nomination unless the nominee declines the nomination. Once the nominations are
given, the Mayor shallh41 close the nominations and Council hllshall proceed to vote.
2. VOTING PROCESS. RCW 42.12.070 states that where one position is vacant, the remaining
members of the governing body shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacant position. By
adoption of this policy, Council has chosen the following process for making such appointment:
a. Except when there is only one nominee, a4 vote for an applicant shall be by voice or raised
handwritten ballot. Each ballot shall contain the name of the Councilmember who cast it.
b. The vacancy maycan only be filled when a majority of the remaining City Council (whether
present or not) preent affirmatively votes for the applicant, i.e. if five City Councilmembers are
present, this would require at least fourth City voting for an applicant. If
subsequent rounds of voting are needed, each round of voting follows the same process. The Mayor
may ask for Council discussion between voting rounds.
Round One Vote:
Page 25 of 57
The City Clerk shall publicly announce the results of the election. The applicant receiving the
majority of votes shallwi41 be the new Councilmember.
If no applicant receives a majority of votes from the City Council, then the three applicants
receiving the most affirmative votes would be considered in a second round.
Round Two Vote:
Round Two proceeds the same as Round One. If one of the three applicants still fails to receive a
majority of affirmative votes, then the two applicants of the three who received the most
affirmative votes would then be considered in a third round; or if there are only two applicants
and they receive tie votes, a third round shallwill be taken. Councilmembers may, of course,
change their vote between rounds.
Round Three Vote:
Round Three proceeds the same as Rounds One and Two. If after this round, the vote of the two
applicants results in a tie, then the City Manager, with concurrence of Council shall flip a coin to
determine who shall fill the vacancy, with the applicant whose last name is closest to the letter A
being assigned "heads" and the other person assigned "tails." In the rare circumstance where both
applicants' last name begins with the same letter of the alphabet have the same last name, the
applicant whose entire last name is closest to the letter A shallwi41 be assigned "heads" and the
other person assigned "tails."In the equally rare circumstance where both applicants have the
same last name, the applicant whose first name is closest to the letter A shall be assigned "heads"
and the other person assigned "tails."
D. Seating of New City Councilmember:
1. Once an applicant either has received a majority of votes or wins the coin flip, if the appointed
applicant is at the meeting, the City Clerk shall administer the oath of office, and the new
Councilmember willshall be officially seated as a City Councilmember. If the appointed applicant is
not at the meeting, such action is not official until the applicant takes the oath of office
II. TEMPORARY COUNCILMEMBER
A. Publications/Applications: Process for Selection of a Temporary Councilmember
Any member of Council may request that the Council discuss the extended excused absence of a
Councilmember. This could either be an impromptu discussion, or one scheduled for an upcoming
Council meeting. Once the issue has been discussed, a motion may be made to begin the process of
temporarily filling the Council position. Council should also consider the length of the term for the
temporary Councilmember, particularly if the absent Councilmember's term is set to expire in ninety days
or less since the impending election would render this process moot. Public comment shall not be taken
during this entire selection process. If such motion is approved:
1. Publication: The City Clerk shall publish the vacancy announcement inviting citizens of the City
who are interested and qualified to sit as a Temporary Councilmember (maximum of one year), to
apply on an application form provided by the City. Qualifications to sit as a Councilmember are set
forth in RCW 35A.13.020, which refers to RCW 35A.12.030, and as noted below. If possible, the
vacancy announcement shall be published for two or three consecutive weeks.
2. Deadline for the City Clerk to receive applications shall be no later than 4:00 p.m.
3. Once applications are received and the due date has passed, the City Clerk shall send each
Councilmember copies of all the applications for Council's review.
4. Council has the option of holding an Executive Session to discuss applicants (RCW
42.30.110(1)(h)).
B. Qualifications:
1. a. registered voter of the City at the time of selection
b. by the time of selection, continuously resided within the City limits of Spokane Valley for at
least one year
c. never been convicted of a felony
Page 26 of 57
d. no member of the selected individual's immediate family may be currently employed by the
City of Spokane Valley
e. selection shall not create a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest
f. Councilmembers shall not hold any other office or employment within the Spokane Valley City
government [RCW 35A.12.030].
C. Considerations and Process:
1. This term shall be for a maximum of one year and shall terminate upon the return of the absent
Councilmember or the permanent vacation of the position, whichever occurs first.
2. If the disability or absence of the Councilmember becomes permanent (through resignation or other
reason), Council shall follow the procedures set forth in RCW 35A.13.020 and Council's adopted
procedure for handling Council vacancies. The pro tempore individual may apply for the Council
position if it is permanently vacated, if so desired. If the time period of the selected pro tempore
individual is set to expire prior to the selected timeframe for filling a Council vacancy, Council may,
by majority vote of the whole Council (including the pro tempore Councilmember), move to permit
the pro tempore individual to remain in that capacity until such Council vacancy has been filled.
3. Nomination Options for Conducting Interviews.
a. After holding an executive session to review applications, during a subsequent open session, any
Councilmember may
1. nominate an applicant to be interviewed.
2. the nomination must be seconded
3. Councilmembers may make more than one nomination, but only one at a time
3. the Mayor shall ask if there are further nominations
4. if no further nominations, the Mayor shall close the nominations
5. votes shall be taken on each applicant in the order of nomination.
6. votes shall be by raised hand
7. applicants receiving three or more votes shall be interviewed
8. once all voting has taken place, the City Clerk shall summarize which applicants shall be
interviewed based on the voting outcome
9. as soon as possible after the Council meeting, the City Clerk shall
a. notify each applicant to inform them if they will or will not be interviewed
b. notify those to be interviewed, of the date and time for their interview
c. send each person to be interviewed, the list of possible interview questions
or
b. Instead of the above nomination process, after holding an executive session to review applications,
Council may choose to interview all applicants.
1. the length of the interview shall be determined based upon the number of applicants
2. interviews shall be done in last -name alphabetical order
3. the City Clerk shall notify all applicants of the date, time and procedure for their interview
4. to keep the process as fair as possible, on the date of the interview applicants not yet
interviewed, shall be asked to wait in a waiting area outside the Council Chambers.
4. Nomination and voting Process for Filling the Position
a. Council again has the option of holding an Executive Session to discuss applicants [RCW
42.30.110(1)(h)] .
b. Voting Process: shall be done in open session
1. Any Councilmember may move to nominate an applicant to fill the position. A second
is required. If no second is received, the applicant shall not be considered further.
2. Additional nominations shall continue in the same manner. Councilmembers may not
make more than one nomination.
3. The Mayor shall ask if there are any further nominations. If there are no further
nominations, the Mayor shall close the nominations.
Page 27 of 57
4. Any vote for approval shall be by written ballot. Each ballot shall contain the name of
the Councilmember who cast it.
5. The position shall only be filled if a majority of the remaining (six, assuming there is
one council position to consider) City Council affirmatively votes for the applicant. If
there are only five members present at the time the vote is taken, this would require at
least four out of those five Councilmembers voting for an applicant. [RCW 35A.13.035.
Note: By statute, this process differs from filling a permanent position where a coin -flip
option is included.]
6. After nominations are closed, each Councilmember shall submit a written ballot with
the one name of their choice for the Temporary CouncilmemberVotcs shall be taken on
the applicants in the order of nomination.
7. If the first round of voting does not result in one applicant receiving a majority of
votes, or in the case of a tied majority vote, then the three applicants receiving the most
affirmative votes would be considered in a second round. Each Councilmember shall
submit a written ballot with the one name of their choice for the Temporary
Councilmember. The City Clerk shall publicly announce the results of the election.
Thereafter, the City Clerk shall record the individual Councilmember's vote(s) in the
minutes of the meeting.
OR
7. If the vote to approve the first nominated individual fails, voting shall continue on the
remaining nominated individuals until a majority of affirmative votes is received. The
first applicant to receive a majority of affirmative votes shall be the new Councilmember.
8. If no one applicant receives a majority vote, Council has the option to make a motion
for reconsideration for any of the motions just failed; or request that the process start
again from the beginning with City staff re -advertising for the position, and the selection
shall be scheduled for a future Council meeting; or decide not to fill the position.
9. Once either the first vote or a subsequent vote results in a majority, if the applicant is at
the meeting, the City Clerk shall immediately administer the oath of office and the
temporary Councilmember shall be officially seated at the Council dais. If the approved
applicant is not at the meeting, such action is not official until the applicant takes the oath
of office.
D. Interview Question Process:
1. During the interview, each Councilmember may ask each candidate up to three questions. Follow-up
questions shall be counted as one of the three questions.
2. Candidates shall be interviewed in alphabetical order of last name.
Questions for Candidates: Candidates should be prepared to answer any of the following questions, even
though every question might not be asked of each candidate. Council has the option of asking questions
not included in this list of potential questions
Potential Council Applicant Interview Questions
1. What is a Councilmember's primary responsibility to the citizens of Spokane Valley?
2. What are the most important issues our City faces today?
3. Please explain your view of the most difficult aspect of being a Councilmember.
4. What do you think is the biggest challenge facing the City Council?
5. What are the three highest priorities the City needs to address and how do you propose to address
these issues?
6. As a Councilmember, one of the most challenging issues we face is balancing the City budget.
Keeping in mind that the majority of our revenue is from sales tax and property tax, how would
you propose to strike a balance between revenues and expenses; and at what point, if at all, would
you support additional revenues to maintain service levels?
Page 28 of 57
7. Discuss your ideas on pavement preservation including solutions for long-term sustainability of
our roads.
8. How can we determine what the citizens want for the future of Spokane Valley?
9. What do you envision the City of Spokane Valley will be like ten and twenty years from now?
10. Have you attended Spokane Valley City Council meetings, or other Council meetings in the past?
11. What did you discover from attending Council meetings?
12. Why do you want to be on the City Council?
13. Please explain your familiarity with and understanding of our City's form of government,
including the difference between Council and staff responsibilities.
14. What do you hope to accomplish as a Councilmember and what do you offer the City?
15. If the majority of the Council took a position that you were against, how would you handle your
response to the public and/or media?
16. As a Councilmember, what new or different perspective would you bring to the City Council?
17. Are you aware and knowledgeable about the Open Public Meeting Act?
18. Are you aware and knowledgeable about the Public Records Act?
C. Legislative Agenda
Councilmembers work each year (or sometimes every two years) to draft a "legislative agenda" to address
Council ideas, suggestions and specific legislative programs in terms of upcoming or pending legislative
activity in Olympia that would or could have an effect on our City. Additionally, Councilmembers have
the option of creating a similar legislative agenda to address concerns on a national level, which can be
addressed during Council's participation in the annual National League of Cities Conferences held in
Washington, D.C.
D. Council Travel Provisions
Council is allocated a budget to handle certain City business-related travel expenses. The total allocation
of travel funding budgeted for the legislative branch for the fiscal year willshall be apportioned one-
seventh (1/7) to each Councilmember. These monies may be used to defray expenses for transportation,
lodging, meals and incidental expenses incurred in the conduct of City business. Periodic updated
statements of expenditures willshall be provided to each Councilmember by the Finance Department.
Should a Councilmember exhaust their apportionment of funds, that person willshall be responsible for
payment of any travel and related expenses, or they may request a voluntary allocation from another
Councilmember who has a balance in their travel apportionment. To be reimbursed for expenses incurred
as part of City business, Councilmembers should timely submit detailed receipts with their reimbursement
form. Scc the City Policy No. 300.110 for a list of unauthorized travel expenses.
During the last six months of a Councilmember's current term of office, incurring City business-related
travel expenditures requires the prior authorization of the Finance Committee, except when such travel
fulfills the obligations of the Councilmember's service on statewide or regional boards, commissions or
task forces.
E. Ballot Measures:
1. State Law
RCW 42.17A 555. State law has enacted statutory prohibitions (with limited exceptions) against the use
of public facilities to support or oppose ballot propositions:
"No elective official nor any employee of his or her office nor any person appointed to or
employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities
of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign
for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot
proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of
stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency
during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and
clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency. However, this does not apply to the
following activities:
Page 29 of 57
(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body
or by an elected board, council, or commission of a special purpose district including,
but not limited to, fire districts, public hospital districts, library districts, park
districts, port districts, public utility districts, school districts, sewer districts, and
water districts, to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion,
proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition
so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the
ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body, members of the board,
council, or commission of the special purpose district, or members of the public are
afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view.
(2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot
proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry;
(3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or
agency. " [emphasis added]
2. City's Implementation of RCW 42.17A.555
In the City's implementation of RCW 42.17A.555, the City Council shall not, during any part of any
Council meeting, consider requests from outside agencies for Council to support or oppose ballot
measures; nor shallwill Council permit any public comment on any proposed or pending ballot issue,
whether or not such comments seek endorsement or are just to inform Council of upcoming or proposed
ballot issues; nor shall Councilmembers disseminate ballot -related information.
3. Providing Informative Materials to Council
The requestor has the option of mailing materials to individual Councilmembers via the United States
Postal Office. Because even the use of e-mail for ballot purposes could be construed as use of public
facilities and could be interpreted as being in violation of RCW 42.17A.555, materials should be sent via
regular mail through the United States Postal Office. Information shall be objective only and not
soliciting a pro or con position.
4. Public Comment.
Council has chosen not to support or oppose ballot issues as those are left to the will of the people voting.
The use of any of the City's facilities including the use of the Council chambers and/or broadcast system
would likely be construed as being in violation of RCW 42.17A.555 and therefore, general public
comment on ballot issues, or proposed ballot issues shallwill not be permitted.
Page 30 of 57
CHAPTER 3
Council Contacts
Page 31 of 57
A. Citizen Contact/Interactions Outside of a Council Meeting
1. Mayor/Council Correspondence
Councilmembers acknowledge that in the Council/Manager form of government, the Mayor is recognized
1 by community members as a point of contact. To facilitate full communications, staff willshall work with
the Mayor to circulate to Councilmembers, copies of emails and written correspondence directed to the
1 Mayor regarding City business. This provision willshall not apply to invitations for mayoral comments at
various functions, nor requests for appointments or other incidental contact between citizens and the
office of the Mayor.
1
2. Concerns, Complaints and Suggestions to Council
When citizen concerns, complaints or suggestions are brought to any, some, or all Councilmembers, the
Mayor shall, in consultation with the City Manager, first determine whether the issue is legislative or
administrative in nature and then:
a. If legislative, and a concern or complaint is about the language or intent of legislative acts or
suggestions for changes to such acts, and if such complaint suggests a change to an ordinance or
resolution of the City, the Mayor and City Manager may refer the matter to a future Council
agenda for Council's recommendation in forwarding the matter to a committee, administration, or
to the Council for study and recommendation.
b. If administrative, and a concern or complaint regards administrative staff performance,
execution of legislative policy or administrative policy within the authority of the City Manager,
the Mayor should then refer the complaint directly to the City Manager for review, if said
complaint has not been so reviewed. The City Council may direct that the City Manager brief the
Council when the City Manager's response is made.
3. Administrative Complaints Made Directly to Individual Councilmembers
When administrative policy or administrative performance complaints are made directly to individual
Councilmembers, the Councilmember shall then refer the matter directly to the City Manager for review
and/or action. The individual Councilmember may request to be informed of the action or response made
to the complaint. However, the City Manager shall not be required to divulge information he/she deems
confidential, in conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies or practices.
Although citizens' direct access to elected officials is to be encouraged to help develop public policy, City
Councilmembers should not develop a "personal intervention" pattern in minor calls for service or
administrative appeals which may actually delay a timely customer service response. The best policy is to
get the citizen into direct contact with customer service unless an unsatisfactory result has occurred in the
past. In that case, refer to the paragraph above.
4. Social Media
Councilmembers shall not use social media as a mechanism for conducting official City business,
although it is permissible to use social media to informally communicate with the public. Examples of
what may not be communicated through the use of social media include making policy decisions, official
public noticing, and discussing items of legal or fiscal significance that have not been released to the
public. As with telephone and e-mails, communication between and among Councilmembers via social
media could constitute a "meeting" under the Open Public Meetings Act, and for this reason,
Councilmembers are strongly discouraged from "friending" other Councilmembers.
5. Donations
On occasion, Councilmembers could be contacted by citizens or businesses regarding donations. The
City has administrative procedures to receive donations, and Councilmembers should direct the donor to
Page 32 of 57
1
1
contact the appropriate City staff. Councilmembers shall not accept nor physically receive any
donation. Councilmembers shall always be cognizant of their ethical responsibilities when discussing
donations with citizens, including but not limited to a responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest, the
prohibition on creating a special privilege or exemption for themselves or others, and from disclosing
confidential information of the City. Councilmembers should avoid circumstances which are likely to
give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest or of providing or procuring a special privilege or
exemption.
B. Staff Contacts and Interactions
1. Role of the City Manager
The City Manager is the chief administrative officer of the City of Spokane Valley. The City Manager is
directly accountable to the City Council for the execution of the City Council's policy directives, and for
the administration and management of all City departments. The powers and duties of the City Manager
are defined by Washington law RCW 35A.13.080. Such duties may be expanded by Ordinance or
Resolution. Balanced with the City Manager's accountability to the City Council for policy
implementation is the need for the Council to allow the City Manager to perform legally defined duties
and responsibilities without interference by the City Council in the day-to-day management decisions of
the City Manager.
2. City Staff Attendance at Meetings
The City Manager or his/her designee shall attend all meetings of the City Council, unless excused by the
Presiding Officer or Council. The City Manager shall be responsible to the Council for the proper
administration of all affairs of the City. The City Manager shall recommend for adoption by the Council
such measures as he/she may deem necessary or expedient; prepare and submit to the Council such
reports as may be required by the body or as the City Manager deems advisable to submit; keep the
Council fully advised as to the business of the City; and shall take part in the Council's discussion on all
matters concerning the welfare of the City. (RCW 35A.13.080)
It is Council's intent that the City Manager schedule adequate administrative support during Council
meetings for the business at hand, keeping in mind that the City Manager must also protect the productive
capability of department heads and of all staff. Required attendance at meetings by City staff shall be at
the pleasure of the City Manager.
3. City Clerk - Minutes
The City Clerk, or in the Clerk's absence the Deputy City Clerk shall keep minutes as required by law,
and shall perform such other duties in the meeting as may be required by the Council, Presiding Officer,
or City Manager. In the absence of the City Clerk and the Deputy City Clerk, the City Clerk shall appoint
a replacement to act as Clerk during the Council meeting. The Clerk shall keep minutes which identifies
the general discussion of the issue and complete detail of the official action or agreement reached, if any.
As a rule and when possible and practical, regular meetings, or those Council meetings held at 6 p.m. on
Tuesdays, (which includes formal format and study session format) shall be video -recorded. Special
meetings willshall not normally be video -recorded. Executive Sessions shall not be video or audio
recorded.
Original, signed and approved minutes shall be kept on file in the City Clerk's office and archived
according to State Record Retention Schedules. Copies of the approved minutes shall also be posted on
the City's website as soon as practical after such minutes are approved and signed. Whenever possible,
video recordings of Council meetings shall be posted on the City's website.
Page 33 of 57
4. Administrative Interference by Councilmembers
Neither the Council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any
person to, or his/her removal from, any office by the City Manager or any of his/her subordinates. Except
for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative branch solely
through the City Manager and neither the Council nor any committee or member thereof shall give any
directives, tasks, or orders to any subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately; provided,
however, that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the Council, while in open session, from fully
and freely discussing with the City Manager anything pertaining to appointments and removals of City
officers and employees and City affairs. (RCW 35A.13.120.)
5. Informal Communications Encouraged
The above RCW requirement is not to be construed as to prevent informal communications with City staff
that do not involve orders, direction, or are meant to influence actions or administrative policy. Members
of the Council are encouraged to interact informally and casually with City staff for the purpose of
gathering information, obtaining explanations of policies and programs or providing incidental
information to staff relevant to their assignment. Such informal contacts can serve to promote better
understanding of specific City functions and problems. However, Councilmembers must be careful in
such interaction to avoid giving direction or advice to members of City staff. While maintaining open
lines of communication, City staff responding to information requests from Councilmembers willshall
inform their supervisor of such contact and provide the supervisor with the same information shared with
the Councilmember.
Page 34 of 57
1
CHAPTER 4
HEARINGS
Page 35 of 57
1
1
1
1
A. General Public Hearings
1. Purpose
Legislative public hearings are hearings held to obtain public input on legislative decisions on matters of
policy. Legislative public hearings are required by state law when a city or county addresses matters such
as comprehensive land use plans, or the annual budget. They are generally less formal than quasi-judicial
public hearings. They do not involve the legal rights of specific, private parties in a contested setting, but
rather affect a wider range of citizens or perhaps the entire jurisdiction. The wisdom of legislative
decisions reached as a result of such hearings is not second-guessed by the courts; if challenged, they are
reviewed only to determine if they are constitutional or violate state law. For example, a court will not
review whether the basic budgetary decisions made by a city were correctly made.
2. Legislative Public Hearings
a. State statutes do not specify how public hearings should be conducted. Because legislative hearings are
generally informal, the main concern is to provide an opportunity for all attending members of the public
to speak if they so desire. Time limits should be placed on individual comments if many people are
intending to speak, and the public should be advised that comments must relate to the matter at hand. The
"ground rules" for the conduct of the hearing may be stated by the Presiding Officer at the beginning of
the hearing:
1. All public comments shall be made from the speaker's podium, shall be directed to the Mayor
and Council, and any individual making comments shall first give their name and city of
residence. This is required because an official recorded transcript of the public hearing is being
made.
2. No comments shall be made from any other location, and anyone making "out of order"
comments shall be subject to removal from the meeting.
3. Unless otherwise determined by the Presiding Officer, all comments by the public shall be
limited to three minutes per speaker.
4. There willshall be no demonstrations, applause or other audience participation, before, during
or at the conclusion of anyone's presentation. Such expressions are disruptive and take time away
from the speakers.
5. Unless read and/or handed in by the individual speaker during the public hearing, previously
received written public comments willshall be read by the City Clerk at the pleasure of the
Mayor. In the interest of time, the Mayor may limit the reading of such comments, to the Clerk
reading whom the letter or written material is from, and if easily discernible, whether that person
is for or against the issue at hand. All written comments become an official part of the record.
6. These rules are intended to promote an orderly system of holding a public hearing, to give
persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure that individuals are not embarrassed by
exercising their right of free speech.
b. The Presiding officer declares the public hearing on (topic) open, notes the time for such
opening, and asks staff to make their presentation.
c. After staff presentations, the Presiding Officer calls for public comments.
d. The Presiding Officer asks if any members of Council have questions of any of the speakers or staff. If
any Councilmember has questions, the appropriate individual willshall be recalled to the podium.
e. The Presiding Officer declares the public hearing closed and notes the time for such closing.
Page 36 of 57
B. Quasi -Judicial Hearings
1. Purpose
Quasi-judicial public hearings involve the legal rights of specific parties, and the decisions made as a
result of such hearings must be based upon and supported by the "record" developed at the hearing.
Quasi-judicial hearings are subject to stricter procedural requirements than legislative hearings. Most
quasi-judicial hearings held by local government bodies involve land use matters, including site specific
rezones, preliminary plats, variances, and conditional uses. (MRSC Public Hearings When and How to
Hold Them by Bob Meinig, MRSC Legal Consultant August 1998)
2. Specific Statutory Provisions
a. Candidates for the City Council may express their opinions about pending or proposed quasi-judicial
actions while campaigning, per RCW 42.36.040, except that sitting Councilmembers shall not express
their opinions on any such matter which is or may come before the Council.
b. Ex parte communications should be avoided whenever possible. During the pendency of any
quasi-judicial proceeding, no Councilmember may engage in ex parte communications with proponents
or opponents about a proposal involved in the pending proceeding unless the Councilmember: (1) places
on the record the substance of such verbal or written communications; and (2) provides that a public
announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties' rights to rebut the substance of the
communication shall be made at each hearing where action is taken or considered on the subject. This
does not prohibit correspondence between a citizen and his or her elected official if the correspondence is
made a part of the record, when it pertains to the subject matter of a quasi-judicial proceeding. (RCW
42.36.060)
c. Public Disclosure File. The City Clerk shall maintain a public disclosure file, which shall be available
for inspection by the public. As to elected officials, the file shall contain copies of all disclosure forms
filed with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.
d. Procedure On Application. Any person making application for any action leading to a quasi-judicial
hearing before the Planning Commission and/or City Council shall be provided with a document
containing the following information: (1) the names and address of all members of the City Council, and
the Planning Commission, (2) a statement that public disclosure information is available for public
inspection regarding all such Councilmembers, and (3) a statement that if the applicant intends to raise
any appearance of fairness issue, the applicant should do so at least two weeks prior to any public hearing,
if the grounds for such issue are then known and in all cases, no later than before the opening of the
public hearing. The applicant shall sign a receipt for such document.
3. Actions/Procedures for a Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing
See the following excerpt from the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Appendix C for City Council Appeal
Hearing Procedures:
Appendix C
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL HEARING PROCEDURES
A. The Council shall not consider any new facts or evidence outside the verbatim transcript and
certified record submitted by the Hearing Examiner, except for:
1. Grounds for disqualification of the Hearing Examiner, when such grounds were unknown by the
appellant at the time the record was created; or
2. Matters that were improperly excluded from the record after being offered by a party to the
hearing before the Hearing Examiner; or
3. Matters that were outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner
The Council shall allow the record to be supplemented if the offering party demonstrates grounds
for supplementation as set forth in subsections (A)(1), (2) or (3) of this appendix.
Page 37 of 57
1
a. Any party requesting that the record be supplemented shall submit such request, along with the
specific evidence to be offered to the Council, within 14 calendar days of the date the appeal
hearing was scheduled.
b. The Council may require or permit the correction of ministerial errors or inadvertent omissions
in the preparation of the record.
c. The Council will allow the submittal of memoranda by the appellant, or a party of record in
opposition to the appeal, subject to the following requirements:
i. The appellant may file a memorandum in support of the appeal. The memorandum
must be filed no later than 12:00 noon on the third Friday preceding the date set by the
Council for consideration of the appeal.
ii. Any party of record in opposition to the appeal may submit a reply memorandum in
opposition to the appeal. Any reply memorandum must be filed no later than 12:00 noon on
the second Friday preceding the date set for consideration of the appeal.
iii. All memoranda shall be limited to stating why the record or applicable laws or
regulations do or do not support the decision, and shall not contain any new facts or evidence,
or discuss matters outside the record, except as permitted above.
iv. The offering party shall promptly submit a copy of the memorandum or request to
supplement the record to the City Attorney, and to opposing parties as practicable.
B. The Council will allow oral argument by the appellant, or a party of record in opposition to the
appeal, subject to the following requirements:
1. It is expected that all parties can reasonably be aligned as either in support of the appeal or
opposed to the appeal. Accordingly, all parties who desire to make oral argument shall communicate with
other parties aligned on the same side of the appeal and attempt to reach agreement in selecting a
representative, or otherwise arrange for the allocation of time allowed under these rules to those in
support of or those opposed to the appeal.
2. Oral argument shall be presented first by the appellant, followed by those parties of record in
opposition to the appeal, and then rebuttal and surrebuttal.
3. Oral argument shall be limited to stating why the record or applicable laws or regulations do not
support the decision, and shall not contain any new facts or evidence unless allowed by subsection A of
this appendix.
4. Oral argument shall be limited to 20 minutes total for the appellant, and 20 minutes total for
those parties in opposition to the appeal, regardless of how many parties make up each side.
5. The respective times allowed for oral argument above include the combined time used by a side
for opening argument, rebuttal and surrebuttal. The time taken to respond to questions from the Council
is not included in the time allowed for argument.
C. The Council may affirm or reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision, or remand it for further
proceedings. The Hearing Examiner's decision will be presumed to be correct and supported by the
record and law. A tie vote on any motion shall have the effect of affirming the Hearing Examiner's
decision.
D. The Council may reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision, or remand it for further proceedings, if
the appellant has carried the burden of establishing that one or more of the following standards are met:
1. The Hearing Examiner engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process,
unless the error was harmless;
2. The decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due
to construction of law by a local jurisdiction with expertise;
3. The decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the entire
record;
4. The decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts;
5. The decision is outside the authority of the Hearing Examiner
E. The Council may also remand the decision to the Hearing Examiner if the appellant offers newly
discovered evidence that would reasonably have affected the decision had it been admitted in the
proceedings before the Hearing Examiner "Newly discovered evidence" is evidence that with reasonable
Page 38 of 57
1
diligence could not have been discovered and produced at the time the proceedings before the Hearing
Examiner were conducted.
F. The Council shall adopt written findings and conclusion in support of its decision. If the Council
concludes that a finding of fact by the Hearing Examiner, upon which the decision is based, is not
supported by substantial evidence, the Council may modify the finding or substitute its own finding,
citing substantial evidence in the record that supports the modified or substitute finding. In the event of a
tie vote on the proposed findings of fact, that vote shall be considered a final action, the findings shall
reflect the same, and the decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be affirmed.
G. The Council's decision shall include a notice stating that the decision can be appealed within 21
calendar days from the date the decision was issued, by filing a land use petition with the Superior Court
as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW and meeting the other provisions of such chapter, and that the
decision shall act as official notice under RCW 43.21C.075.
H. The notice included in the Council's decision shall also state that affected property owners may
request the Spokane County Assessor for a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
any program of revaluation, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130.
I. The City Clerk shall, within five business days from the date of the Council's decision on the appeal,
mail a copy of the Council's decision to the appellant, the applicant (if different than the appellant), any
other party who testified or submitted a memorandum at the closed record appeal hearing before the
Council, any person who requested notice of the decision, and any person who submitted substantive
comments on the application. The City Clerk shall also provide notice of the decision to the County
Assessor.
J. Where the Hearing Examiner's decision recommends approval of the proposal and no appeal has
been filed within the time period set forth above, the City Manager or designee shall modify the official
zoning map of the City according to the Hearing Examiner's decision. The modification of the zoning
map completes the Hearing Examiner's decision and shall be considered the final legislative action of the
City Council. Such final action, for zoning purposes, is considered an official control of the City by
exercise of its zoning and planning authority pursuant to Washington law. (Ord. 08-022, 2008).
4. Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
a. "The test of whether the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine has been violated is ... as follows: Would a
disinterested person, having been apprised of the totality of a board member's personal interest in a matter
being acted upon, be reasonably justified in thinking that partiality may exist? If answered in the
affirmative, such deliberations, and any course of conduct reached thereon, should be voided." Swift vs.
Island County, 87 Wn.2d 348 (1976); Smith vs. Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715 (1969).
b. Types of Hearings to Which the Doctrine Applies. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine shall apply
only to those actions of the Council which are quasi-judicial in nature. Quasi-judicial actions are defined
as actions of the City Council which determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties in a
hearing or other contested proceeding. Quasi-judicial actions do not include the legislative actions
adopting, amending, or revising comprehensive, community, or neighborhood plans or other land use
planning documents or the adoption of area -wide zoning ordinances or the adoption of a zoning
amendment that is of area -wide (versus site-specific) significance (RCW 42.36.010). Street vacations are
typically legislative actions, unless clearly tied to, and integrated into, a site-specific development
proposal which is quasi-judicial in nature.
c. Obligations of Councilmembers - Procedure.
1 Immediate self -disclosure of interests that may appear to constitute a conflict of interest is hereby
encouraged. Councilmembers should recognize that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not
require establishment of a conflict of interest, but whether there is an appearance of conflict of interest
to the average person. This may involve the Councilmember or a Councilmember's business associate,
or a member of the Councilmember's immediate family. It could involve ex parte (outside the hearing)
Page 39 of 57
1
1
communications, ownership of property in the vicinity, business dealings with the proponents or
opponents before or after the hearing, business dealings of the Councilmember's employer with the
proponents or opponents, announced predisposition, and the like. Prior to any quasi-judicial hearing,
each Councilmember should give consideration to whether a potential violation of the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine exists. If the answer is in the affirmative, no matter how remote, the Councilmember
should disclose such facts to the City Manager who will seek the opinion of the City Attorney as to
whether a potential violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine exists. The City Manager shall
communicate such opinion to the Councilmember and to the Presiding Officer.
2. Anyone seeking to disqualify a Councilmember from participating in a decision on the basis of a
violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine must raise the challenge as soon as the basis for
disqualification is made known, or reasonably should have been made known, prior to the issuance of
the decision. Upon failure to do so, the doctrine may not be relied upon to invalidate the decision
consistent with state law. The party seeking to disqualify the Councilmember shall state with
specificity the basis for disqualification; for example: demonstrated bias or prejudice for or against a
party to the proceedings, a monetary interest in outcome of the proceedings, prejudgment of the issue
prior to hearing the facts on the record, or ex parte contact. Should such challenge be made prior to the
hearing, the City Manager shall direct the City Attorney to interview the Councilmember and render
an opinion as to the likelihood that an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation would be sustained
in Superior Court. Should such challenge be made in the course of a quasi-judicial hearing, the
Councilmember shall either recuse him/herself or the Presiding Officer shall call a recess to permit the
City Attorney to make such interview and render such opinion.
3. The Presiding Officer shall have authority to request a Councilmember to excuse him/herself on the
basis of an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation. Further, if two or more Councilmembers
believe that an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation exists, such individuals may move to
request a Councilmember to excuse him/herself on the basis of an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
violation. In arriving at this decision, the Presiding Officer or other Councilmembers shall give due
regard to the opinion of the City Attorney.
d. When Council conducts a hearing to which the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies, the Presiding
Officer (or in the case of a potential violation by that individual, the Mayor Pro Tem) willshall ask if any
Councilmember knows of any reason which would require such member to excuse themselves pursuant to
the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. The form of the announcement is as follows:
All Councilmembers should now give consideration as to whether they have:
1. A demonstrated bias or prejudice for or against any party to the proceedings;
2. A direct or indirect monetary interest in the outcome of the proceedings;
3. A prejudgment of the issue prior to hearing the facts on the record; or
4. Had ex parte contact with any individual, excluding administrative staff, with regard to an issue
prior to the hearing. If any Councilmember should answer in the affirmative, then the
Councilmembers should state the reason for his/her answer at this time, so that the Chair may inquire
of administration as to whether a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine exists.
Page 40 of 57
1
CHAPTER 5
COMMITTEES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS
Page 41 of 57
1
A. Regional Committees, Boards, etc.
1. Committees
Spokane Valley Councilmembers and/or residents who seek representation on any standing committee,
board, or commission required by state law, shall be appointed by the Mayor with confirmation by the
Council.
a. Appointment Process: Any committee, board, commission, task force, etc., requiring Mayoral
appointment of committee members, shall also require confirmation by the Council, which shall be by
majority vote of those present at the time the confirmation vote takes place. By majority vote, Council can
reject the appointment. If Council fails to confirm the recommended appointment, the Mayor could either
make another recommendation, or the appointment may be postponed to a later date, giving City staff
opportunity to further advertise for committee openings.
2. Council Relations with Boards, Commissions and Council Citizen Advisory Bodies
Councilmembers are encouraged to share with all Council members, copies of minutes from any statutory
boards, commissions, or committees on which they serve and participate. Communications from such
boards, commissions and bodies to the City Council which seek action or feedback, should be
acknowledged by the Council, preferably by a letter from the Mayor. Any member of the Council may
also bring such communication to the Presiding Officer's attention under the agenda item "Committee,
Board and Liaison Reports." If any member of the Council requests that any such communication be
officially answered by the Council, the Presiding Officer may place the matter on an agenda under New
Business, Information, Council Comments (study session format), or other appropriate place, for a
specific Council meeting, or take other appropriate action.
Councilmember(s) may be designated by the City Council to take the lead on particular significant issues
and to provide appropriate feedback of information to Council, in order to gain corporate approval and
coordination of corporate efforts. No Councilmember may speak for the Council unless Council has
designated that person as the lead on that particular issue.
B. In -House Committees, Boards, etc.
1. Standing committees or commissions required by law shall be appointed by the Mayor for a time
certain not to exceed the term provided by law or the term of office of the appointing Mayor and
confirmed by Council. Following are established in-house committees:
a. Planning Commission -- 7 members.
"SVMC 18.10.010 Establishment and purpose.
There is created the City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission (hereafter referred to as the
"Planning Commission"). The purpose of the Planning Commission is to study and make
recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for future planned growth through continued
review of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, development regulations, shoreline
management, environmental protection, public facilities, capital improvements and other matters
as directed by the City Council. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
18.10.020 Membership.
A. Qualifications. The membership of the Planning Commission shall consist of individuals
who have an interest in planning, land use, transportation, capital infrastructure and building and
landscape design as evidenced by training, experience or interest in the City.
B. Appointment. Members of the Planning Commission shall be nominated by the Mayor and
confirmed by a majority vote of at least four members of the City Council. Planning
commissioners shall be selected without respect to political affiliations and shall serve without
Page 42 of 57
compensation. The Mayor, when considering appointments, shall attempt to select residents who
represent various interests and locations within the City.
C. Number of Members/Terms. The Planning Commission shall consist of seven members. All
members shall reside within the City. Terms shall be for a three-year period, and shall expire on
the 31st day of December.
D. Removal. Members of the planning commission may be removed by the mayor, with the
concurrence of the eittCity councilCouncil, for neglect of duty, conflict of interest, malfeasance
in office, or other just cause, or for unexcused absence from three consecutive regular meetings.
Failure to qualify as to residency shall constitute a forfeiture of office. The decision of the
cityCity councilCouncil regarding membership on the planning commission shall be final and
without appeal.
E. Vacancies. Vacancies that occur other than through the expiration of terms shall be filled for
the unexpired term in the same manner as for appointments.
F. Conflicts of Interest. Members of the planning commission shall fully comply with Chapter
42.23 RCW, Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers; Chapter 42.36 RCW, Appearance of
Fairness; and such other rules and regulations as may be adopted from time to time by the
cityCity councilCouncil regulating the conduct of any person holding appointive office within the
City. No elected official or City employee may be a member of the planning commission. (Ord.
07-015 § 4, 2007).
b. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee -- 5 members.
"SVMC 3.20.040 Lodging tax advisory committee.
The City Council shall establish a lodging tax advisory committee consisting of five members.
Two members of the committee shall be representatives of businesses required to collect the tax,
and at least two members shall be persons involved in activities authorized to be funded by this
chapter. The City shall solicit recommendations from organizations representing businesses that
collect the tax and organizations that are authorized to receive funds under this chapter. The
committee shall be comprised equally of members who represent businesses required to collect
the tax and members who are involved in funded activities. One member of the committee shall
be from the City Council. Annually, the membership of the committee shall be reviewed. The
Mayor shall nominate persons and the Councilmember for the lodging tax advisory committee
with Council confirmation of the nominees. Nominations shall state the term of committee
membership. Appointments shall be for one- and two-year terms. (Ord. 27 § 4, 2003)."
c. Finance Committee-- 3 members.
"SVMC 2.50.120(a) and (b) Establishing travel policies and procedures.
a. The responsibility and authority for developing, adopting, modifying and monitoring
the travel policies and procedures for reimbursement of expenses incurred while on official
business of the City of Spokane Valley is delegated to the City Council Finance Committee. It is
recognized by the City Council that public officials and employees will periodically be required
to travel and incur related expenses on behalf of the City. The purpose of the travel policies and
procedures is to provide criteria for payment and/or reimbursement of valid expenses. The
Council directs that the Finance Committee consider the following in the development of travel
policies and procedures: (A). Reimbursement for transportation costs when using personal
automobiles including rates to be established on a mileage or other reasonable basis and for
airfare or other mode of travel; (B). Reimbursement for hotel/motel accommodations;
(C). Reimbursement for meals either at actual cost including a per meal maximum amount or a
per diem allocation; (D). Reimbursement for incidental expenses such as parking, taxis, buses,
rental cars, etc.; and (E). Such other matters that are reasonably related to travel.
Page 43 of 57
1
1
1
b. The finance department, under the supervision of the Finance Committee, is directed
to develop a fully itemized travel expense form which shall be used to administer the City travel
policy and account for expenditures and reimbursement of officials or employees. Claims for
reimbursement must be accompanied by receipts showing the amount paid and items/services
received unless otherwise provided in the policies and procedures. All claims for reimbursement
shall be duly certified by the individual submitting such claim on a form approved by the Finance
Director in compliance with state regulations and guidelines established by the State Auditor. For
administrative staff, the City Manager or designee shall approve expenses and reimbursement.
The City Council shall approve, through budget allocation, travel expenses and reimbursement
for Council members. The Council reserves the right to review the travel policies and procedures
of the City including modifying and amending the same from time to time. (Ord. 29 § 1, 2003)."
The Finance Committee shall have no regularly prescribed duties or meetings except the
bills/payroll and warrant procedures required by state law, unless specifically charged by the City
Council. The City Manager may also request meetings to discuss matters of financial interest with
the Finance Committee.
SVMC 3.35.010(D) Contract Authority
The Finance Committee of the City Council is authorized to approve change orders on
short notice that are in excess of the amounts authorized in subsection C of this section, in
circumstances where such a change order is necessary to avoid a substantial risk of harm to the
City. In such an event, the eityCity M Tanager shall provide appropriate information to the City
Council at its next regular meeting setting forth the factual basis for the action. (Ord. 07-004 §2,
2007; Ord. 03-072§ 2, 2003.).
2. When required by law, committee meetings should be open to the public, including the media, unless
discussing matters which would qualify for an executive session if discussed within the whole Council.
All Council committee meetings shall be for the purpose of considering legislative policy matters, rather
than administrative matters unless requested by the City Manager. Legislative policy considerations
should be brought to the Council unless referred to a committee for pre -study.
3. The Mayor may appoint such other ad hoc advisory committees or liaisons from the Council or
community for the purpose of advising the Council in legislative policy matters. All ad hoc committees
shall be defined by a clear task and a method of "sunsetting" the committee at the conclusion of the
assigned task. As with all committee vacancies, ads announcing a vacancy or soliciting membership or
participation in a task force or other committee willshall be placed on the City's website, and in the City's
official newspaper.
4. Council Liaison. Appointments shall be by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council for a time certain
not to exceed the term of the appointing Mayor. Individual members of the Council may be assigned as
liaisons whose duties involve keeping current with a group or activity by either attendance when the
group or activity takes place, or communication with appropriate leaders so the liaison Councilmember
can keep Council informed. Liaisons may, at times, advocate Council actions on behalf of their assigned
group or activity. Extreme care must be taken to avoid an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation, or
conflict of interest possibilities with agencies or circumstances where such possibilities may exist (i.e.:
Planning Commission quasi-judicial). Liaison functions and duties may be further defined and/or directed
by the Presiding Officer with concurrence of Council.
5. Task Force. The City Council may create, and confirm the Mayor's recommendation to appoint
members to small task force groups. A task force is a temporary group formed and "tasked" by legislative
authority to study a specific subject for a specified period of time.
Page 44 of 57
6. After consultation with the City Manager, any other Council committees, citizen task forces or similar
organized groups shall have rules or operating procedures thereof established by Council directive with
special attention to RCW 35A.13.120. Such committees shall be commissioned for a time certain, not to
exceed two years or the term of the appointing Mayor, whichever is less and be provided with a clear task
description. Appointment shall be by the Mayor. Council may waive confirmation in the instrument
creating said committee or group. Such committees shall be subject to review whenever a new Council is
seated following elections, so as to determine whether the committee and its functions continue to be
appropriate and necessary. Members of any committee, board or commission which have been appointed
or confirmed by the Council, may be removed without cause by a majority vote of the Council. No
advisory board, commission, committee or task force shall take any final action outside of an open public
meeting unless permitted to do so per state statutes, and when permitted by state statutes, no final action
shall be taken without the foreknowledge and approval of majority vote of the Council.
C. Private Committees, Boards, Commissions
The Council recognizes there are various other private boards and committees, such as Spokane
Neighborhood Action Partners (SNAP), which appointments are made by their own board. These boards
and committees which do not require an appointment by our Mayor, with confirmation by our Council,
are nonetheless important aspects of our community and we recognize the time commitment any
Councilmember may extend as a member of any of these committees and/or boards. As well, Council
appreciates hearing a periodic report or update on activities and issues surrounding those boards and
committees.
Page 45 of 57
CHAPTER 6
Disclaimer
DISCLAIMER
A. Purpose
These City Council Rules of Procedure are designed to provide guidance for the City Council.
They are not to be considered restrictions or expansions of City Council authority. These rules
have been prepared from review of many statutes, ordinances, court cases and other sources but
they are not intended to be an amendment or substitute for those statutes, ordinances, court
decisions or other authority.
B. Use
No action taken by a Councilmember or by the Council which is not in compliance with these
rules, but which is otherwise lawful, shall invalidate such Councilmember's or Council action or
be deemed a violation of oath of office, misfeasance or malfeasance. No authority other than the
City Council may enforce these rules or rely on these rules. Failure of the City Council to follow
any of these rules shall be considered a Council decision to waive such rule. No notice of such
waiver need be given.
C. Reliance
Public Use or Reliance Not Intended. Because these rules are designed to assist the City Council
and not to provide substantive rules affecting constituents, it is expressly stated that these rules
do not constitute land use regulations, official controls, "appearance of fairness rules," public
hearing rules, or other substantive rules binding upon or to be used by or relied upon by members
of the public. These rules do not amend statutory or other regulatory (such as ordinance)
requirements.
Page 46 of 57
Appendix A: Definitions
Action: All transactions of a governing body's business, including receipt of public testimony,
deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, and evaluations, as well as "final" action. [RCW
42.30.010, 42.30.020(3)].
Codified: The process of forming a legal code (i.e., a codex or book of laws) by collecting and including
the laws of a jurisdiction or municipality.
Consensus: A collective judgment or belief; solidarity of opinion: "The consensus of the group was that
they should meet twice a month. General agreement or harmony. [Random House Webster 's College
Dictionary, April 2001] [Wikipedia: explains it as a group decision making process; not necessarily the
agreement. In other words, the question to the group is: "Is this something you can live with?" or, Does
anyone object?] It is not unanimity, but more a process for deciding what is best overall. Members of the
group reach a decision to which they consent because they know it is the best one overall. It differs from
voting which is a procedure for tallying preferences. Sometimes knowing there will be an up -down vote
at the end often polarizes the discussion. It does not require each member of the group to justify their
feelings. [Taken from: Consensus Is Not Unanimity: Making Decisions Cooperatively, by Randy
Schutt. 71 Similar to a type of verbal "show of hands" on who feels particularly strong on this?"
Sometimes thought of as preliminary approval without taking final "action." A show of hands is not an
action that has any legal effect. ["Voting and Taking Action in Closed Sessions" by Frayda Bulestein.]
Ex -parte: from a one-sided or partisan point of view; on the application of one party alone. An ex -parte
judicial proceeding is conducted for the benefit of only one party. Ex -parte may also describe contact with
a person represented by an attorney, outside the presence of the attorney.
Immediate Family: includes the spouse or domestic partner, dependent children, and other dependent
relatives, if living in the household. For the purposes of the definition of "intermediary" in this section,
"immediate family" means an individual's spouse or domestic partner, and child, stepchild, grandchild.
parent, stepparent, grandparent, brother, half brother, sister, or half sister of the individual and the spouse
or the domestic partner of any such person and a child, stepchild, grandchild, parent, stepparent,
grandparent, brother, half brother, sister, or half sister of the individual's spouse or domestic partner and
the spouse or the domestic partner of any such person (RCW 42.17A.005(24)).
Motion: An enacted motion is a form of action taken by the Council to direct that a specific action be
taken on behalf of the municipality. A motion, once approved and entered into the record, is the
equivalent of a resolution in those instances where a resolution is not required by law, and where such
motion is not in conflict with existing state or federal statutes, City ordinances or resolutions.
Ordinance: An enacted ordinance is a law passed [enacted] by a municipal organization legislatively
prescribing specific rules of organization or conduct relating to the corporate affairs of the municipality
and those citizens and businesses therein. Council action shall be taken by ordinance when required by
law, or where prescribed conduct may be enforced by penalty. Special ordinances such as adopting the
budget, vacating a street, amending the Comprehensive Plan and/or Map, and placing a matter on an
election ballot, including general obligation bonds, are not codified into the City's municipal code.
Resolution: An enacted resolution is an administrative act which is a formal statement of policy
concerning matters of special or temporary character. Council action shall be taken by resolution when
required by law and in those instances where an expression of policy more formal than a motion is
desired.
Regular Meeting: Any Council meeting that meets in the Spokane Valley City Council Chambers on
Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. shall be deemed a "regular meeting."
Page 47 of 57
1
Social Media: A term used to define the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction and
content creation. Through social media, individuals or collaborations of individuals create on-line web
content, organize content, edit or comment on content, combine content, and share content. Social media
uses many technologies and forms including syndicated web feeds, weblogs (blogs), wiki, photo -sharing,
video -sharing, podcasts, and social networking. (From MRSC, and Social Media and Web 2.0 in
Government, WebContent.gov)
Page 48 of 57
Appendix B: Frequently Used Acronyms
AACE - American Association of Code Enforcement
ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT - Average Daily Traffic
ATF - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
AWC - Association of Washington Cities
BOCC - Board of County Commissioners
CAFR - Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CDBG - Community Development Block Grant
CIP - Capital Improvement Plan
CM - City Manager
CM/AQ - Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program
CTED - Community, Trade, & Economic Development (now Department of Commerce)
CTR - Commute Trip Reduction (legislation)
CUP - Conditional Use Permit
DEIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DEM - Department of Emergency Management
DNR - Department of Natural Resources
DNS - Declaration of Non -Significance
DOE - Department of Ecology; Department of Energy
DOT - Department of Transportation
E911 - Enhanced 911
EA - Environment Assessment
EDC - Economic Development Council
EEO/AA - Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action
EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EOE - Equal Opportunity Employer
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
ERU - Equivalent Residential Unit (for measuring water -sewer capacity and demand)
ESU - Equivalent Service Unit (for measuring stormwater utility fees)
F & WS - Federal Fish & Wildlife Service
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
FCC - Federal Communications Commission
Page 49 of 57
FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FICA - Federal Insurance Contribution Act
FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FLSA - Fair Labor Standards Act
FMLA - Family Medical Leave Act
FY - Fiscal Year
GAAP - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
GASB - Governmental Accounting Standards Board
GIS - Geographic Information System
GMA - Growth Management Act
GPM - Gallons Per Minute
HOV - High -Occupancy Vehicle
HR - Human Resources
HUD - Housing & Urban Development (Depaitinent of)
ICMA - International City/County Management Association
L & I - Labor & Industries (Department of)
LID - Local Improvement District
MGD - Million Gallons per Day
MOA - Memorandum of Agreement
MOU - Memorandum of Understanding
MPO - Metropolitan Planning Organization
MRSC - Municipal Research Services Center
NEPA - National Environment Policy Act
NIMBY - Not In My Backyard
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PE - Preliminary Engineering; Professional Engineer
PERC - Public Employment Relations Commission
PMS - Pavement Management System
PPE - Personal Protective Equipment
PPM - Parts Per Million; Policy & Procedure Manual
PUD - Public Utility District
PW - Public Works
QA - Quality Assurance
RCW - Revised Code of Washington
Page 50 of 57
1
REET - Real Estate Excise Tax
RONR Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised
ROW - Right of Way
SAO - State Auditor's Office
SBA - Small Business Administration
SEPA - State Environmental Policy Act
SMA - Shorelines Management Act
SWAC - Solid Waste Advisory Committee
TIB - Transportation Improvement Board
TIP - Transportation Improvement Program
TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load
UBC - Uniform Building Code
UFC - Uniform Fire Code
UGA - Urban Growth Area
WAC - Washington Administrative Code
WACO - Washington Association of County Officials
WCIA - Washington Cities Insurance Authority
WCMA - Washington City/County Management Association
WSDOT - Washington State Depaitinent of Transportation
WSP - Washington State Patrol
WUTC - Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission
WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant
Page 51 of 57
APPENDIX C: Council Report/Council Comments
Formal Council Meetings
Council Reports/ Committee Updates
Study Sessions
General Council Comments
Concerning Council's Participation on
General Comments Not necessarily
Regional Committees and Boards:
connected with any committee or board:
• Budget updates or proposed cuts
• Upcoming events
• Upcoming or recent events
• Items that occurred after last
• Newly appointed or assigned
week's meeting that you
CEO's
want/need to share before the next
• Vision, mission, goals &
Council meeting
objectives discussed, adopted or
• General questions or comments to
changes
City Manager
• Long range financial plans
Page 52 of 57
1
APPENDIX D: RESOLUTION 07-019
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 07-019
AMENDED GENERAL POLICY RESOLUTION OF CORE BELIEFS
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AMENDING RESOLUTION 03-027,
ESTABLISHING A GENERAL POLICY RESOLUTION EMANATING FROM THE CORE BELIEFS
OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY AND SETTING FORTH DUTIES OF BOTH
ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS OF THE CITY TO HELP GUIDE LEGISLATIVE AND
EXECUTIVE DECISIONS TOWARD EFFECTIVE, RESPONSIVE, AND OPEN GOVERNMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, as the elective legislative body, is charged
with promulgating Ordinances and Resolutions which become the law of the city; and
WHEREAS, such Ordinances and Resolutions must provide enforceable provisions subordinate to, and
in harmony with, all other applicable federal and state statutes and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide a clear set of general policy guidelines for the conduct
of city government;
Section 1. Modifying Resolution 03-027 as set forth below by adding new section 7. The remainder
of the resolution 03-027 is unchanged:
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley does hereby affirm and resolve
that the following core beliefs shall serve as guidelines for the conduct of affairs by all branches of
Spokane Valley City Government.
Section 1. We believe that Spokane Valley should be a visionary city encouraging its citizens and
their government to look to the future beyond the present generation and to bring such
ideas to public discussion and to enhance a sense of community identity.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
We believe that elected body decision-making is the only lawful and effective way to
conduct the public's legislative business and that careful observance of a clear set of
Governance Coordination rules of procedure can best enhance public participation and
decision making.
We believe in the City Council as policy leaders of the City. One or more City
Councilmembers are encouraged to take the lead, where practical, in sponsoring
Ordinances or Resolutions excepting quasi-judicial or other public hearings and the
statutory duties of the City Manager as set forth in RCW 35A.13.020.
We believe in hearing the public view. We affirm that members of the public should be
encouraged to speak and be heard through reasonable rules of procedure when the public
business is being considered, thus giving elected officials the broadest perspectives from
which to make decisions.
Page 53 of 57
Section 5.
Section 6.
Section 7.
We believe that the City of Spokane Valley's governance should be known as "user
friendly," and that governance practices and general operations should consider how
citizens will be served in the most responsive, effective and courteous manner.
We believe that the economic and commercial job base of the community should be
preserved and encouraged to grow as an alternative to increasing property taxes. We
believe it imperative to have an expanded and diverse economic base,
We believe that Councilmembers set the tone for civic discussion and should set an
example by:
(a) Setting high standards of decorum and civility.
(b) Encouraging open and productive conversation amongst themselves and with the
community about legislative matters.
(c) Demonstrating respect for divergent points of view expressed by citizens, fellow
Councilmembers and the staff.
(d) Honoring each other and the public by debating issues within City Hall and the
Community without casting aspersions on members of Council, the staff, or the public.
(e) Accepting the principle of majority rule and working to advance the success of
"corporate" decisions.
Section 8. We solicit the City Manager's support in conducting the affairs of the city with due
regard for:
(a) Promoting mutual respect between the Citizens, City staff and the City Council by creating the
organizational teamwork necessary for effective, responsive and open government.
(b) Providing the City Council and public reasonable advance notice when issues are to be brought
forward for discussion.
(c) Establishing and maintaining a formal city-wide customer service program with emphasis on
timely response, a user-friendly atmosphere, and an attitude of facilitation and accommodation
within the bounds of responsibility, integrity, and financial capability of the city, including
organizational and job description documents while pursuing "best practices" in customer service.
(d) Seeking creative ways to contain or impede the rising cost of governmental services, including
examination of private sector alternatives in lieu of governmentally provided services.
(e) Providing a data base of future projects and dreams for the new City of Spokane Valley so that
good ideas from its citizens and leaders are not lost and the status of projects can be readily
determined.
Approved by the City Council this 11th day of December, 2007.
ATTEST: /s/ DIANA WILHITE
/s/ CHRISTINE BAINBRIDGE
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
/S/ MICHAEL F. CONNELLY
Office of the City Attorney
Page 54 of 57
APPENDIX E: STATEMENT OF ETHICS
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCILMEMBERS' STATEMENT OF ETHICS
By adoption of the Resolution which adopts this Governance Manual, the Spokane Valley City
Councilmembers hereby agree to be bound by the following rules of ethics:
DECLARATION OF PURPOSE:
• Provide guidelines and set high ethical standards for Councilmembers to perform their duties in an open,
honest, and unbiased manner.
• Establish procedures for prevention and/or elimination of possible conflicts of interest.
• Improve and strengthen the public's perception and trust in their local government.
DEFINITIONS:
Compensation: Anything of economic value regardless of amount, however designated, which is paid,
loaned, advanced, granted, transferred, or gifted, or to be paid, loaned, advanced, granted, transferred or
gifted for or in consideration of personal services to any person or that person's immediate family as that
term is defined in RCW 42.17A.005(24).
Contract: Includes any contract or agreement, sale, lease, purchase, or any combination of the foregoing. A
contracting party is any person, partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, whether for profit or
otherwise, or other business entity which is a party to a contract with a municipality.
PROHIBITED CONDUCT:
(a) Acceptance of Gifts: No Councilmember, based solely on their position with the City of Spokane
Valley, shall receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit, directly or indirectly, anything of economic value
regardless of the amount, as a gift, gratuity, or favor from any person or entity outside the City organization.
Campaign donations made and reported in conformance with Washington law are exempt from this
provision.
(b) Interest in Contracts, Exceptions: No Councilmember shall be beneficially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract where the City of Spokane Valley is named as a party to the contract; and no
Councilmember shall accept, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with
such contract. This prohibition shall not apply to the exceptions specified in RCW 42.23.030 which are
incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
(c) Incompatible Service; Confidential Information: No Councilmember shall engage in or accept private
employment or render services for any person, or engage in any business or professional activity when such
is incompatible with the faithful discharge of his/her official duties as a Councilmember. No Councilmember
shall disclose confidential information acquired by reason of such official position, nor shall such
information be used for the Councilmember's personal gain or benefit.
PERSONAL OR PRIVATE INTERESTS, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE:
Any Councilmember who has a financial or other private or personal interest in any ordinance, resolution,
contract, proceeding, or other action pending before the City Council or any of its committees, shall promptly
disclose such interest at the first public meeting when such matter is being considered by the City Council,
and a summary of the nature of such interest shall be incorporated into the official minutes of the City
Council proceedings. Any Councilmember who feels disqualified by reason of such interest in any matter
before the City Council, shall make a public statement and disclose the reasons why that Councilmember
feels disqualified, and state that they are recusing themselves from the issue, and with permission of the
Presiding Officer, will leave the Council Chambers until such time as the issue at hand has been disposed of
in the regular course of business.
Page 55 of 57
Endnotes:
RCW 42.30.110 — Open Public Meeting Act, Executive Sessions
RCW 42.30.140- Open Public Meeting Act,
RCW 35A.13.035- Optional Municipal Code (35A) — Council-manager plan of government
RCW 42.52 — Ethics in Public Service
" RCW 42.56 — Public Records Act
' RCW 35A.12.160 Optional Municipal Code (35A) — Council manager plan of government; public notice of
hearings and meeting agendas
"" RCW 35A.13.170 — Optional Municipal Code (35A) — Council manager plan of government; council meetings —
quorum, rules - voting
"" RCW 35A.12.110 — Council meetings, shall meet regularly, at least once a month.
'X RCW 42.30.080 — Open Public Meetings Act, Special Meetings, procedures for calling Special Meetings
X RCW 35A.12.110 — ibid.
' RCW 42.30.080 - Open Public Meetings Act, Special Meetings, procedures for calling Special Meetings
' RCW 42.30.080(3) — Open Public Meetings Act, Special Meetings, procedures for calling Special Meetings
RCW 42.30.090 — Open Public Meetings Act, Adjournments
X' RCW 35A.13.170 - Optional Municipal Code (35A) — Council manager plan of government; council meetings —
quorum, rules - voting
35A.12.120 — Council meetings, shall meet regularly, at least once a month
' RCW 35A.12.060 — A council position shall become vacant if the councilmember fails to attend three consecutive
regular meetings of the council without being excused by the council.
RCW 42.17A.555 — Use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns — Prohibition — Exceptions
RCW 35A.12.120 — Council — Quorum — Rules — Voting
"'" RCW 35A.33.090 — Emergency Expenditures — Other emergencies — Hearing.
RCW 35A.13.190 — Ordinances, emergencies, may be effective upon adoption if passed by a majority plus one of
the whole membership of the council and have the ordinance designated as a public emergency; but such ordinance
may not levy taxes, grant, renew or extend a franchise, or authorize the borrowing of money.
RCW 35A.13 - Council-manager plan of government.
'°"ii RCW 35A.13.030 - Mayor — election — chair to be mayor — duties: Biennially at the first meeting of the new
council members shall choose a chair from among their number; the chair shall have the title of mayor and preside at
meetings..
RCW 35A.13 — Council-manager plan of government.
Page 56 of 57
"" RCW 35A.13.020 — Mayor — election, chair to be mayor, duties
x"" RCW 35A.13.020 — ibid.
1 '°"" RCW 42.12.070 — Filling nonpartisan vacancies
Page 57 of 57
Meeting Date:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
August 11, 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: Motion Consideration: Bid Award —
Sprague/Long Sidewalk Improvements- #0206
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: September 24, 2013 an admin report RCA went to
Council which explained potential Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects and
recommended Sprague/Long Sidewalk Improvements to be designed and built. On October 8,
2013 a motion was carried to prepare a grant application for the Sprague/Long Sidewalk
Improvements project.
BACKGROUND:
The Sprague/Long sidewalk improvements project will construct sidewalk to fill in the gaps
along Sprague Avenue and Long Road near Greenacres Elementary. The project also includes
clearing and grubbing, road widening and storm drainage improvements.
This project is funded with a community block grant for $261,794 and with $103,443 from Fund
303 for city match funds. A storm drainage schedule has been added to the project that will be
funded out of the Fund 402. Public Works staff designed the project. Bids were advertised on
July 27th and were opened on Friday, August 7, 2015. A copy of the Bid Tabulation will be
provided after the bid opening.
OPTIONS: Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder or take other
appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Sprague/Long Sidewalk
Improvements, Project #0206 to in the amount of
and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The project budget is $365,227. The community block grant
covers $261,794 and the City's local share is $103,433, of which will be paid by the Fund 303. A
budget adjustment will be completed following the bid opening adding 402 funds to the project.
See the attached bid tab for this amount.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer
Eric Guth, PE - Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulations to be provided at the Council meeting
Sidewalk Location Exhibit
OA
•
Sprague Ave
ISprraguelLong Sidewalk
"improvements Project
Greenacres
emen#ary School
marl
SPRAGUE / LONG
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
DRAWN BY:
RPB
DATE:
7/30/2015
RCA EXHIBIT
CHECKED BY:
EKA
DATE:
7/30/2015
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 11, 2015
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information X admin. report
Department Director Approval:
❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Estimated 2016 revenues and expenditures.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law.
X
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No formal Council action has been taken on the 2016
Budget. A proposed budget is currently under review by the City Manager who will present his
Preliminary 2016 Budget to the Council on September 8, 2015.
BACKGROUND: This marks the second occasion where the Council will discuss the 2016
Budget. The first occurred during the June 16, 2015, Council Workshop where the Council
reviewed 2016 Budget worksheets prepared by Staff. By the time the Council is scheduled to
adopt the 2016 Budget on October 27, 2015, you will have had an opportunity to discuss it on
seven separate occasions, including two public hearings to gather input from citizens:
June 16 Council Budget Retreat
August 11 Admin report: Estimated 2016 revenues and expenditures
•
•
•
August 25
September 8
September 22
October 13
October 27
Public hearing #1 on 2016 revenues and expenditures
City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2016 Budget
Public hearing #2 on 2016 Budget
First reading on ordinance adopting the 2016 Budget
Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2016 Budget
State law requires that the City hold a public hearing on revenue sources for the upcoming
year's budget in order to consider input from the public. This hearing is scheduled to take place
on August 25th. The presentation this evening is an administrative report leading up to the
public hearing. Until City Council adoption all figures currently included in the 2016 Budget
worksheets are preliminary and subject to change by the City Manager.
2016 Budget Overview:
• The 2016 Budget currently includes appropriations of $69,230,223 including $17,426,542 in
capital expenditures, comprised in -part of:
o $11,767,791 in Fund #303 Street Capital Projects.
o $228,000 in Fund #309 Park Capital Projects.
o $294,200 in Fund #310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects.
o $2,156,051 in pavement preservation including $940,200 financed by the General Fund.
o $2,505,000 in Stormwater Management Fund #402 and APA Fund #403 projects.
o $330,000 in Fund #501 Equipment Rental and Replacement for the acquisition of one
small SUV for the Community and Economic Development Department, one car and one
small truck for the Parks and Recreation Department, one truck split half-time between
the Street Fund and the Stormwater Management Fund, and one tandem snow plow.
1
• To partially offset the $17,426,542 in capital costs we anticipate $10,350,763 in grant
revenues which results in 59.4% of capital expenditures being covered with State and
Federal money.
• Budgets will be adopted across 23 separate funds.
• The full time equivalent employee (FTE) count will be 87.4 employees compared to 87.25 in
the prior year as a result of one part-time position being increased from 0.5 to 0.65.
Pertaining Specifically to the General Fund:
• The 2016 recurring revenue estimate of $39,438,428 is $996,228 or 2.59% greater than the
2015 budget of $38,442,200.
• The 2016 recurring expenditure proposal of $39,301,799 is $962,917 or 2.51% greater than
the 2015 appropriation of $38,338,882.
• Excluding the addition of some supplemental requests discussed at the June 16 Budget
Workshop, recurring expenditures for nonpayroll related expenditure classifications have
been held to 1°/0 with few exceptions.
• Recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $136,629 or .35% of
recurring revenues.
• Nonrecurring expenditures total $263,281 and include:
o $108,000 for Information Technology expenditures including:
■ $20,000 for Barracuda backup server for CenterPlace
■ $36,000 to replace a Cisco 4510 switch that is 10 -years old
■ $34,000 for Storage Area Network (SAN) at CenterPlace
■ $5,000 for a Network Attached Storage (NAS) Box
■ $13,000 for the Laserfishe Eden extension
o $15,000 to upgrade the dial-up modems and point of sale system at the 3 swimming
pools
o $140,281 for the Police Department CAD / RMS
• The total of 2016 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by
$126,652 - and this is entirely a result of the one-time/nonrecurring expenditures.
• The projected General Fund fund balance at the end of 2016 is currently $21,202,022 or
53.95% of recurring revenues.
2
Other Funds:
2016 Budget appropriations (expenditures) in the other funds total $29,665,143 as follows:
Fund
Number
Fund
Name
2016
Appropriation
101 Street Fund 4,382,900
103 Paths and Trails Fund 0
104 Hotel / Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities Fund 0
105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 590,000
106 Solid Waste Fund 178,500
107 PEG Fund 12,500
120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve Fund 0
121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve Fund 0
122 Winter Weather Reserve Fund 500,000
123 Civic Facilities Replacement Fund 559,786
204 Debt Service Fund 547,100
301 REET 1 Capital Projects Fund 671,189
302 REET 2 Capital Projects Fund 1,371,502
303 Street Capital Projects Fund 11,767,791
309 Parks Capital Projects Fund 228,000
310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 294,200
311 Pavement Preservation Fund 2,156,051
312 Capital Reserve Fund 1,510,509
402 Stormwater Management Fund 2,240,115
403 Aquifer Protection Area Fund 2,000,000
501 Equipment Rental and Replacement Fund 330,000
502 Risk Management Fund 325,000
29,665,143
Primary sources of revenues in these other funds include:
• Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the State and remitted to the Street
Fund is anticipated to be $2,004,900.
• Telephone Tax revenues remitted to the City that supports Street Fund operations and
maintenance are anticipated to be $2,340,000.
• Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large part used to match grant financed
street projects are anticipated to total $1,600,000.
• Hotel / Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the promotion of visitors and tourism are
anticipated to be $907,500 ($550,000 in Fund #105 and $357,500 in Fund #104).
• Stormwater Management Fees that are estimated at $1,870,000.
• Aquifer Protection Area Fees are estimated at $500,000.
3
OPTIONS: State law requires a public hearing on 2016 estimated revenues and expenditures.
A hearing is scheduled for August 25, 2015.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is requested at this time.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Given that the budget will not be adopted by the Council until
October 27, 2015, it is possible the figures may be modified as we refine estimates of revenues
and expenditures.
STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Interim Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS:
• Power Point presentation.
• Assorted 2016 Budget information:
o Pages 1-14 Budget summary information with detail by fund.
o Page 15 General Fund budget change from June 16 to August 11.
o Page 16 General Fund revenue and expenditure line -item changes.
o Page 17-19 General Fund department changes from 2015 to 2016.
o Page 20 Full-time equivalent employees (FTEs).
4
City of Spokane Valley
2016 Budget Discussion
Administrative Report on
2016 Revenues and Expenditures
August 11, 2015
2016 Budget Summary
All Funds
Total appropriations across all City Funds of $69.2 million
including:
$39.6 million in the General Fund which is comprised of $39.3
million recurring and $263,300 nonrecurring.
$29.7 million spread across 22 additional funds.
$17.4 million in capital expenditures.
FTE count will be 87.4 employees in 2016.
2
General Fund
REVENUES:
Total recurring 2016 revenues of $39,438,428 as
compared to $38,442,200 in 2015 for an increase of
$996,228 or 2.59%.
All revenue estimates are based upon a combination of
historical collections and future projections with some
increasing and others decreasing.
2 largest sources are Sales Tax and Property Tax which
are collectively estimated to account for $32,113,500 or
81.4% of 2016 General Fund revenues.
General Fund
General sales tax collections are estimated at
$18,210,500, an increase of $582,100 or 3.3% over the
2015 Budget.
Property Tax levy is not proposed to include the 1%
increase authorized by State law.
2016 Levy is estimated at $11,479,200
Levy assumes we start with the 2015 levy of $11,279,152 +
estimated new construction of $200,000.
General Fund
EXPENDITURES:
2016 recurring expenditure proposal of $39,301,799 as
compared to $38,338,882 in 2015 for an increase of
$962,917 or 2.51%.
Recurring revenues currently exceed recurring
expenditures by $136,629 or .35% of recurring revenues.
General Fund
Nonrecurring expenditures total $263,281 and include:
$108,000 of IT related capital replacements
$15,000 to upgrade the dial-up modems and point of sale
system at the pools
$140,281 for Police Department CAD / RMS
General Fund
The total of 2016 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures
exceeds total revenues by $126,652.
Projected fund balance at the end of 2016 is currently
$21,202,022 or 53.95% of recurring expenditures.
Other Funds
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue that is collected by the
State and remitted to the Street Fund is anticipated to be
$2,004,900.
Telephone Taxes that are remitted to the City and support
Street Fund operations and maintenance are anticipated
to be $2,340,000.
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues that are in large
part used to match grant financed street projects are
anticipated to total $1,600,000.
Other Funds
Hotel/Motel Tax revenues that are dedicated to the
promotion of visitors and tourism are anticipated to be
$907,500.
Stormwater Management Fees of $1,870,000.
Aquifer Protection Area fees of $500,000.
Future Council Budget Discussions
Aug. 25 — Public Hearing #1 on revenues and
expenditures
Sept. 8 — City Manager presentation of Preliminary 2016
Budget
Sept. 22 — Public hearing #2 on 2016 Budget
Oct. 13 — First reading of ordinance adopting 2016
Budget.
Oct. 27 — Second reading of ordinance adopting 2016
Budget.
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
#001 - GENERAL FUND
RECURRING ACTIVITY
2016
Proposed
Budget
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
Revenues
Property Tax 11,277,100 0 11,277,100 11,479,200 202,100 1.79%
Sales Tax 17,628,400 0 17,628,400 18,210,500 582,100 3.30%
Sales Tax - Public Safety 820,100 0 820,100 867,400 47,300 5.77%
Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 1,468,700 0 1,468,700 1,556,400 87,700 5.97%
Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 535,100 0 535,100 333,700 (201,400) (37.64%)
Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,238,000 (92,000) 1,146,000 1,154,000 8,000 0.70%
State Shared Revenues 1,768,900 0 1,768,900 2,024,528 255,628 14.45%
Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety 1,507,100 0 1,507,100 1,443,500 (63,600) (4.22%)
Community Development 1,325,100 0 1,325,100 1,491,500 166,400 12.56%
Recreation Program Revenues 563,500 0 563,500 595,200 31,700 5.63%
Miscellaneous Department Revenue 95,900 0 95,900 95,900 0 0.00%
Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 131,200 0 131,200 103,500 (27,700) (21.11%)
Transfers in - #101 (street admin) 39,700 0 39,700 39,700 0 0.00%
Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax -CP advertising) 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00%
Transfers in - #402 (storm admin) 13,400 0 13,400 13,400 0 0.00%
Total Recurring Revenues 38,442,200 (92,000) 38,350,200 39,438,428 1,088,228 2.84%
Expenditures
City Council 513,114 0 513,114 506,869 (6,245) (1.22%)
City Manager 688,363 0 688,363 717,303 28,940 4.20%
Legal 461,839 0 461,839 479,951 18,112 3.92%
Public Safety 24,153,492 0 24,153,492 24,703,749 550,257 2.28%
Deputy City Manager 691,303 0 691,303 712,602 21,299 3.08%
Finance / IT 1,203,879 0 1,203,879 1,253,080 49,201 4.09%
Human Resources 243,317 0 243,317 255,694 12,377 5.09%
Public Works 921,914 0 921,914 966,870 44,956 4.88%
Community & Economic Dvlpmnt - Admin 261,094 0 261,094 272,107 11,013 4.22%
Community & Economic Dvlpmnt - Econ Dev 298,276 0 298,276 345,157 46,881 15.72%
Community & Economic Dvlpmnt - Dev Svc 1,424,944 0 1,424,944 1,486,637 61,693 4.33%
Community & Economic Dvlpmnt - Building 1,380,902 0 1,380,902 1,344,165 (36,737) (2.66%)
Parks & Rec - Administration 286,947 0 286,947 281,871 (5,076) (1.77%)
Parks & Rec - Maintenance 844,642 0 844,642 838,343 (6,299) (0.75%)
Parks & Rec - Recreation 226,174 0 226,174 228,197 2,023 0.89%
Parks & Rec - Aquatics 496,200 0 496,200 461,200 (35,000) (7.05%)
Parks & Rec - Senior Center 91,985 0 91,985 95,781 3,796 4.13%
Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 824,997 0 824,997 882,223 57,226 6.94%
Pavement Preservation 920,000 0 920,000 943,800 23,800 2.59%
General Government 1,741,200 (31,000) 1,710,200 1,732,000 21,800 1.27%
Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00%
Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 0 0 0 125,000 125,000 #DIV/0!
Transfers out - #310 (bond pmt>$434.6lease pmt) 67,600 0 67,600 72,500 4,900 7.25%
Transfers out - #310 (city hall o&m costs) 271,700 0 271,700 271,700 0 0.00%
Total Recurring Expenditures 38,338,882 (31,000) 38,307,882 39,301,799 993,917 2.59%
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures 103,318 (61,000) 42,318 136,629
Page 1 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
#001 - GENERAL FUND - continued
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
n/a
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
0
0 0
2016
Proposed
Budget
0
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
0 #DIV/0!
Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Expenditures
Transfers out - #107 (PEG Fund) 0 267,300 267,300 0 (267,300) (100.00%)
Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 100,000 0 100,000 0 (100,000) (100.00%)
General Government - IT capital replacements 145,000 (25,000) 120,000 108,000 (12,000) (10.00%)
City Manager (2 scanners) 3,000 0 3,000 0 (3,000) (100.00%)
Public Safety (const offices for unit supervisors) 25,000 0 25,000 0 (25,000) (100.00%)
Community & Econ Dev (comp plan update) 395,000 0 395,000 0 (395,000) (100.00%)
Parks & Rec (upgrade dial-up modem at pools) 10,000 0 10,000 15,000 5,000 50.00%
Parks & Rec (replace CP lounge area carpet) 8,000 0 8,000 0 (8,000) (100.00%)
Parks & Rec (CenterPlace 10yranniversary) 7,400 0 7,400 0 (7,400) (100.00%)
Police Department - CAD / RMS 949,000 (639,300) 309,700 140,281 (169,419) (54.70%)
Public Safety (precinct gate motor replace) 0 4,300 4,300 0 (4,300) (100.00%)
Parks & Rec (CenterPlace roof repairs) 0 9,000 9,000 0 (9,000) (100.00%)
Law Enforcement Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Transfers out - #312 ('12 fund bal > 50%) 0 1,783,512 1,783,512 0 (1,783,512) (100.00%)
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,642,400 1,399,812 3,042,212 263,281 (2,778,931) (91.35%)
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures
Beginning unrestricted fund balance
Ending unrestricted fund balance
Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures
(1,642,400) (1,399,812) (3,042,212) (263,281)
(1,539,082) (1,460,812) (2,999,894)
24, 328, 568 24, 328, 568
22,789,486 21,328,674
59.44%
Page 2 of 20
55.68%
(126,652)
21,328,674
21,202,022
53.95%
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
#101 - STREET FUND
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Utility Tax
Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax
Investment Interest
Miscellaneous
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
2016
Proposed
Budget
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
2,565,100 0 2,565,100 2,340,000 (225,100) (8.78%)
1,859,900 0 1,859,900 2,004,900 145,000 7.80%
3,000 0 3,000 3,000 0 0.00%
10,000 0 10,000 10,000 0 0.00%
Total Recurring Revenues 4,438,000 0 4,438,000 4,357,900 (80,100) (1.80%)
Expenditures
Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 677,297 0 677,297 734,604 57,307 8.46%
Supplies 111,500 0 111,500 111,500 0 0.00%
Services & Charges 2,122,808 0 2,122,808 2,132,754 9,946 0.47%
Snow Operations 520,000 0 520,000 430,000 (90,000) (17.31%)
Intergovernmental Payments 748,000 0 748,000 771,000 23,000 3.07%
Vehicle rentals - #501 (non -plow vehicle rental) 12,077 0 12,077 31,000 18,923 156.69%
Vehicle rentals - #501 (plow replace.) 0 0 0 40,000 40,000 #DIV/0!
Transfers out - #001 39,700 0 39,700 39,700 0 0.00%
Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 206,618 0 206,618 67,342 (139,276) (67.41%)
Total Recurring Expenditures 4,438,000 0 4,438,000 4,357,900 (80,100) (1.80%)
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures 0 0 0 0
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Grants 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Expenditures
Pavement marking grinder 8,000 0 8,000 0 (8,000) (100.00%)
Capital 45,000 0 45,000 0 (45,000) (100.00%)
Maintenance facility storage unit 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 #DIV/0!
Signal detection equipment upgrades 0 0 0 20,000 20,000 #DIV/0!
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 53,000 0 53,000 25,000 (28,000) (52.83%)
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures (53,000) 0 (53,000) (25,000)
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures (53,000) 0 (53,000) (25,000)
Beginning fund balance 1,705,244 1,705,244 1,652,244
Ending fund balance 1,652,244 1,652,244 1,627,244
Page 3 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued
#103 - PATHS & TRAILS FUND
Revenues
Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax
Investment Interest
Total revenues
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
2016
Proposed
Budget
7,800 0 7,800 8,500
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
700 8.97%
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
7,800 0 7,800 8,500 700 8.97%
Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Transfers out - #309 (Appleway Trail - Univ to Pine 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
0
0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
7,800
29,828
37,628
7,800 8,500
29,828 37,628
37,628 46,128
#104 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX - TOURISM FACILITIES FUND
Revenues
Hotel/Motel Tax 0 178,700 178,700 357,500 178,800 100.06%
Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total revenues
Expenditures
Capital Outlay
Total expenditures
0 178,700 178,700 357,500 178,800 100.06%
0
0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
0
0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 178,700 357,500
Beginning fund balance 0 0 178,700
Ending fund balance 0 178,700 536,200
#105 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX FUND
Revenues
Hotel/Motel Tax 510,000 40,000 550,000 550,000 0 0.00%
Investment Interest 300 0 300 300 0 0.00%
Total revenues
510,300 40,000
550,300 550,300
0 0.00%
Expenditures
Transfers out - #001 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0.00%
Tourism Promotion 570,000 (68,000) 502,000 560,000 58,000 11.55%
Transfers out - #309 (volleyball court award) 0 68,000 68,000 0 (68,000) (100.00%)
Total expenditures 600,000 0 600,000 590,000 (10,000) (1.67%)
Revenues over (under) expenditures (89,700) (49,700) (39,700)
Beginning fund balance 209,948 209,948 160,248
Ending fund balance 120,248 160,248 120,548
Page 4 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued
#106 - SOLID WASTE FUND
Revenues
Sunshine administrative fee
Road maintenance fee
Grant Proceeds
Investment Interest
Total revenues
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
2016
Proposed
Budget
125,000 0 125,000 125,000
0 0 0 0
0 53,500 53,500 53,500
0 0 0 0
125,000 53,500
178,500 178,500
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
0 0.00%
0 #DIV/0!
0 0.00%
0 #DIV/0!
0 0.00%
Expenditures
Education/Contract Admin/General Fund reimb 125,000 53,500 178,500 178,500 0 0.00%
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
125,000 53,500
178,500 178,500
0
7,340
7,340
0 0
7,340 7,340
7,340 7,340
0 0.00%
#107 - PEG FUND
Revenues
Comcast PEG contribution 0 92,000 92,000 90,000 (2,000) (2.17%)
Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Transfers in - #001 0 267,300 267,300 0 (267,300) (100.00%)
Total revenues 0 359,300 359,300 90,000 (269,300) (74.95%)
Expenditures
Capital Outlay 0 68,400 68,400 12,500 (55,900) (81.73%)
Total expenditures 0 68,400 68,400 12,500 (55,900) (81.73%)
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 290,900 77,500
Beginning fund balance 0 0 290,900
Ending fund balance 0 290,900 368,400
Page 5 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued
2016
Proposed
Budget
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
#120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total revenues
Expenditures
Operations
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
0
0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
0
0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
0
0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
0
300,000
300,000
0 0
300,000 300,000
300,000 300,000
#121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest 8,200 0 8,200 6,500 (1,700) (20.73%)
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total revenues 8,200 0 8,200 6,500 (1,700) (20.73%)
Expenditures
Operations 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Revenues over (under) expenditures 8,200 8,200 6,500
Beginning fund balance 5,453,199 5,453,199 5,461,399
Ending fund balance 5,461,399 5,461,399 5,467,899
#122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest
Miscellaneous
800 0 800 600 (200) (25.00%)
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Subtotal revenues 800 0 800 600 (200) (25.00%)
Expenditures
Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00%
Total expenditures 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures (499,200) (499,200) (499,400)
Beginning fund balance 504,020 504,020 504,020
Ending fund balance 4,820 4,820 4,620
#123 - CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest
Miscellaneous
1,300 0 1,300 700 (600) (46.15%)
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total revenues 1,300 0 1,300 700 (600) (46.15%)
Expenditures
Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation)
Total expenditures
616,284 0 616,284 559,786 (56,498) (9.17%)
616,284 0 616,284 559,786 (56,498) (9.17%)
Revenues over (under) expenditures (614,984) (614,984) (559,086)
Beginning fund balance 1,174,070 1,174,070 559,086
Ending fund balance 559,086 559,086 0
Page 6 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
#204 - LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND
Revenues
Spokane Public Facilities District
Transfers in - #301
Transfers in - #302
Total revenues
Expenditures
Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace
Debt Service Payments - Roads
Total expenditures
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
2016
Proposed
Budget
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
373,800 0 373,800 380,300 6,500 1.74%
82,150 0 82,150 83,400 1,250 1.52%
82,150 0 82,150 83,400 1,250 1.52%
538,100 0 538,100 547,100 9,000 1.67%
373,800 0 373,800 380,300 6,500 1.74%
164,300 0 164,300 166,800 2,500 1.52%
538,100 0 538,100 547,100 9,000 1.67%
0
4,049
4,049
Page 7 of 20
0 0
4,049 4,049
4,049 4,049
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
#301 - REET 1 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
REET 1 - Taxes
Investment Interest
Total revenues
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
2016
Proposed
Budget
625,000 175,000 800,000 800,000
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
0 0.00%
1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00%
626,000 175,000 801,000 801,000 0 0.00%
Expenditures
Transfersout-#204 82,150 0 82,150 83,400 1,250 1.52%
Transfers out - #303 221,980 347,433 569,413 222,503 (346,910) (60.92%)
Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 251,049 0 251,049 365,286 114,237 45.50%
Total expenditures 555,179 347,433 902,612 671,189 (231,423) (25.64%)
Revenues over (under) expenditures 70,821 (101,612) 129,811
Beginning fund balance 1,426,957 1,426,957 1,325,345
Ending fund balance 1,497,778 1,325,345 1,455,156
#302 - REET 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
REET 2 - Taxes 625,000 175,000 800,000 800,000 0 0.00%
Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00%
Total revenues
626,000 175,000 801,000 801,000 0 0.00%
Expenditures
Transfersout-#204 82,150 0 82,150 83,400 1,250 1.52%
Transfers out - #303 365,290 47,981 413,271 922,816 509,545 123.30%
Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 251,049 0 251,049 365,286 114,237 45.50%
Total expenditures 698,489 47,981 746,470 1,371,502 625,032 83.73%
Revenues over (under) expenditures (72,489) 54,530 (570,502)
Beginning fund balance 1,325,144 1,325,144 1,379,674
Ending fund balance 1,252,655 1,379,674 809,172
Page 8 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued
2016
Proposed
Budget
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
#303 - STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Grant Proceeds 8,714,114 1,607,229 10,321,343 8,797,263 (1,524,080) (14.77%)
Developer 94,860 269,518 364,378 314,700 (49,678) (13.63%)
Transfers in - #301 221,980 347,433 569,413 222,503 (346,910) (60.92%)
Transfers in - #302 365,290 47,981 413,271 922,816 509,545 123.30%
Transfers in - #312 - Sullivan Rd W Bridge 2,120,000 (1,620,000) 500,000 1,010,509 510,509 102.10%
Transfers in - #312 - Pines Underpass Pinecroft 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 #DIV/0!
Total revenues 11,516,244 652,161 12,168,405 11,767,791 (400,614) (3.29%)
Expenditures
060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 602,196 612,633 1,214,829 0 (1,214,829) (100.00%)
123 Mission Ave. - Flora to Barker 355,376 (102,806) 252,570 332,566 79,996 31.67%
141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC (PE & RW) 35,052 (25,052) 10,000 1,981,060 1,971,060 19710.60%
142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan PCC int,(PE/RW) 0 120,494 120,494 0 (120,494) (100.00%)
149 Sidewalk Infill 0 93,190 93,190 5,000 (88,190) (94.63%)
155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 7,201,779 645,152 7,846,931 5,237,650 (2,609,281) (33.25%)
156 Mansfield Ave. Connection 570,480 602,236 1,172,716 5,000 (1,167,716) (99.57%)
159 University Rd / 1-90 Overpass Study 0 40,852 40,852 0 (40,852) (100.00%)
166 Pines Rd (SR27) & Grace Ave. Intersect Safety 556,137 (455,027) 101,110 491,331 390,221 385.94%
167 Citywide Safety Improvements (bike/ped) 320,560 (59,984) 260,576 228,127 (32,449) (12.45%)
177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 0 55,556 55,556 0 (55,556) (100.00%)
191 Vista Rd BNSF Xing Safety Improvements 0 300 300 0 (300) (100.00%)
196 8th Avenue - McKinnon to Fancher 0 400 400 0 (400) (100.00%)
201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 301,357 (245,301) 56,056 271,357 215,301 384.08%
205 Sprage/Barker Intersection Improvement 0 51,428 51,428 0 (51,428) (100.00%)
206 CDBG Sidewalk Project 246,231 111,483 357,714 5,000 (352,714) (98.60%)
207 Indiana & Evergreen Transit Access Improve. 70,014 14,986 85,000 0 (85,000) (100.00%)
211 Trent Lighting Replacement 151,576 (55,041) 96,535 0 (96,535) (100.00%)
220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell St Preservation 0 18,473 18,473 0 (18,473) (100.00%)
221 McDonald Rd Diet (16th to Mission) 0 56,800 56,800 559,200 502,400 884.51%
222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates 0 4,500 4,500 40,500 36,000 800.00%
223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF & Trent 0 10,000 10,000 500,000 490,000 4900.00%
224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation Project 0 162,375 162,375 0 (162,375) (100.00%)
xxx N. Sullivan Corridor ITS Project (PE start 2017) 105,486 (105,486) 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
xxx Seth Woodward Elem Sidewalk Improvement 0 0 0 361,000 361,000 #DIV/0!
xxx Maribeau Pkwy & Pines (SR -27) Traffic Signal 0 0 0 350,000 350,000 #DIV/0!
xxx Bowdish Sidewalk - 8th to 12th 0 0 0 400,000 400,000 #DIV/0!
Contingency 1,000,000 (900,000) 100,000 1,000,000 900,000 900.00%
Total expenditures 11,516,244 652,161 12,168,405 11,767,791 (400,614) (3.29%)
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 72,930 72,930 72,930
Ending fund balance 72,930 72,930 72,930
Note: Work performed for pavement preservation projects out of the Street Capital Projects Fund is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that the
were bid with the pavement preservation work.
Page 9 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued
#309 - PARK CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Transfers in - #001
Transfers in - #105
Transfers in - #312
Investment Interest
Contributions
Total revenues
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
2016
Proposed
Budget
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
100,000 0 100,000 125,000 25,000 25.00%
0 68,000 68,000 0 (68,000) (100.00%)
0 540,600 540,600 0 (540,600) (100.00%)
500 0 500 500 0 0.00%
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
100,500
608,600 709,100
125,500 (583,600) (82.30%)
Expenditures
203 5 Sand volleyball courts at Browns Park 176,200 68,000 244,200 0 (244,200) (100.00%)
Pocket dog park 75,000 0 75,000 0 (75,000) (100.00%)
Mission Trailhead landscaping 25,000 11,000 36,000 0 (36,000) (100.00%)
217 Edgecliff picnic shelter 106,450 1,800 108,250 0 (108,250) (100.00%)
Shade structure at Discovery Playground 38,000 0 38,000 0 (38,000) (100.00%)
City entry sign 70,000 (70,000) 0 70,000 70,000 #DIV/0!
Park signs (3) 0 0 0 20,500 20,500 #DIV/0!
176 Appleway Trail (Univ. - Pines) 0 540,600 540,600 0 (540,600) (100.00%)
Browns Park Splash Pad 0 0 0 82,500 82,500 #DIV/0!
Pocket dog park - phase 2 0 0 0 55,000 55,000 #DIV/0!
Total expenditures 490,650 551,400 1,042,050 228,000 (814,050) (78.12%)
Revenues over (under) expenditures (390,150) (332,950) (102,500)
Beginning fund balance 451,720 451,720 118,770
Ending fund balance 61,570 118,770 16,270
#310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Revenues
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Sale of land 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Investment Interest 1,200 0 1,200 1,200 0 0.00%
Transfers in - #001 0 #DIV/0!
Future C.H. bond pmt > $424.6k lease pmt 67,600 0 67,600 72,500 4,900 7.25%
Future C.H. o&m costs 271,700 0 271,700 271,700 0 0.00%
Transfers in - #312 0 5,208,338 5,208,338 0 (5,208,338) (100.00%)
Total revenues 340,500 5,208,338 5,548,838 345,400 (5,203,438) (93.78%)
Expenditures
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Capital Outlay- City Hall 0 1,842,700 1,842,700 294,200 (1,548,500) (84.03%)
Total expenditures 0 1,842,700 1,842,700 294,200 (1,548,500) (84.03%)
Revenues over (under) expenditures
Beginning fund balance
Ending fund balance
340,500
1,919,550
2,260,050
3,706,138
1,919,550
51,200
5,625,688
5,625,688 5,676,888
Note: The fund balance in #310 includes $839,281.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District
does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale
price of $839,285.10.
Page 10 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued
#311 - PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
Revenues
Transfers in - #101
Transfers in - #123
Transfers in - #301
Transfers in - #302
Transfers in - #001
Grants
Investment Interest
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
2016
Proposed
Budget
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
206,618 0 206,618 67,342 (139,276) (67.41%)
616,284 0 616,284 559,786 (56,498) (9.17%)
251,049 0 251,049 365,286 114,237 45.50%
251,049 0 251,049 365,286 114,237 45.50%
920,000 0 920,000 943,800 23,800 2.59%
971,032 0 971,032 0 (971,032) (100.00%)
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total revenues 3,216,032 0 3,216,032 2,301,500 (914,532) (28.44%)
Expenditures
Pavement preservation 2,565,050 0 2,565,050 2,106,051 (458,999) (17.89%)
Pre -project GeoTech 50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 0.00%
Total expenditures 2,615,050 0 2,615,050 2,156,051 (458,999) (17.55%)
Revenues over (under) expenditures 600,982 600,982 145,449
Beginning fund balance 1,922,013 1,922,013 2,522,995
Ending fund balance 2,522,995 2,522,995 2,668,444
#312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND
Revenues
Transfers in - #001 0 1,783,512 1,783,512 0 (1,783,512) (100.00%)
Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total revenues
0 1,783,512 1,783,512 0 (1,783,512) (100.00%)
Expenditures
Transfers out #303 (Sullivan Rd WBridge) 2,120,000 (1,620,000) 500,000 1,010,509 510,509 102.10%
Transfers out #303 (Pines Rd Underpass) 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 #DIV/0!
Transfers out #309 (Appleway Trail - Univ -Pines) 0 540,600 540,600 0 (540,600) (100.00%)
Transfers out #310 (City Hall) 0 5,208,338 5,208,338 0 (5,208,338) (100.00%)
Total expenditures 2,120,000 4,128,938 6,248,938 1,510,509 (4,738,429) (75.83%)
Revenues over (under) expenditures (2,120,000) (4,465,426) (1,510,509)
Beginning fund balance 8,581,715 8,581,715 4,116,289
Ending fund balance 6,461,715 4,116,289 2,605,780
Page 11 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
#402 - STORMWATER FUND
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Stormwater Management Fees
Investment Interest
Miscellaneous
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
2016
Proposed
Budget
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
1,880,000 0 1,880,000 1,870,000 (10,000) (0.53%)
1,500 0 1,500 1,500 0 0.00%
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total Recurring Revenues 1,881,500 0 1,881,500 1,871,500 (10,000) (0.53%)
Expenditures
Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 488,101 0 488,101 514,132 26,031 5.33%
Supplies 15,900 0 15,900 15,900 0 0.00%
Services & Charges 1,078,301 0 1,078,301 1,113,683 35,382 3.28%
Intergovernmental Payments 42,000 0 42,000 67,000 25,000 59.52%
Vehicle rentals -#501 4,167 0 4,167 11,000 6,833 163.98%
Transfers out - #001 13,400 0 13,400 13,400 0 0.00%
Total Recurring Expenditures 1,641,869 0 1,641,869 1,735,115 93,246 5.68%
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures 239,631 0 239,631 136,385
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Grant Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Expenditures
Capital - various projects 600,000 0 600,000 500,000 (100,000) (16.67%)
VMS Trailer 16,000 0 16,000 0 (16,000) (100.00%)
Maintenance facility storage unit 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 #DIV/0!
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 616,000 0 616,000 505,000 (111,000) (18.02%)
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures (616,000) 0 (616,000) (505,000)
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures (376,369) 0 (376,369) (368,615)
Beginning working capital 1,933,564 1,933,564 1,557,195
Ending working capital 1,557,195 1,557,195 1,188,580
Page 12 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
ENTERPRISE FUNDS - continued
#403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA
Revenues
Spokane County 500,000
Grant DOE - Broadway SD Retrofit 1,260,000
Grant DOE - Sprague Park to University LID 0
Total revenues
2016
Proposed
Budget
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
0 500,000 500,000 0 0.00%
0 1,260,000 0 (1,260,000) (100.00%)
0 0 1,500,000 1,500,000 #DIV/0!
1,760,000 0 1,760,000 2,000,000 240,000 13.64%
Expenditures
197 Broadway Storm Drain Retrofit 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 0 (1,200,000) (100.00%)
198 Sprague Park to University LID 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 #DIV/0!
192 SE Yardley Retrofits 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Outfall Diversion (design only) 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total expenditures 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 2,000,000 800,000 66.67%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 560,000 560,000 0
Beginning working capital 1,773 1,773 561,773
Ending working capital 561,773 561,773 561,773
Page 13 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
#501 - ER&R FUND
Revenues
Vehicle rentals- #001
Vehicle rentals - #101
Vehicle rentals - #101 (plow replace.)
Vehicle rentals - #402
Investment Interest
Total revenues
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
2015
As
Adopted
Amendment
As
Amended
2016
Proposed
Budget
8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
19,300 0 19,300 23,500 4,200 21.76%
12,077 0 12,077 31,000 18,923 156.69%
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
4,167 0 4,167 6,833 2,666 63.98%
1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0.00%
36,544 0 36,544 62,333 25,789 70.57%
Expenditures
Computer replacement lease 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Software/Hardware replacement 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Vehicle Replacement 30,000 0 30,000 105,000 75,000 250.00%
Snow Plow Replacement 0 0 0 225,000 225,000 #DIV/0!
Total expenditures 30,000 0 30,000 330,000 300,000 1000.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 6,544 6,544 (267,667)
Beginning working capital 1,235,794 1,235,794 1,242,338
Ending working capital 1,242,338 1,242,338 974,671
#502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
Revenues
Investment Interest
Transfers in - #001
0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00%
Total revenues 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00%
Expenditures
Auto & Property Insurance 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00%
Unemployment Claims 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total expenditures 325,000 0 325,000 325,000 0 0.00%
Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0
Beginning fund balance 168,209 168,209 168,209
Ending fund balance 168,209 168,209 168,209
TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS
Total of Revenues for all Funds
Total of Expenditures for all Funds
Total grant revenues (included in total
revenues)
Total Capital expenditures (included in
total expenditures)
64, 500, 020 9,142,111 73, 642,131 65, 937, 052
68,660,147 9,061,325 77,721,472 69,230,223
10,945,146 1,660,729 12,605,875 10,350,763
16,665,944 3,089,661 19,755,605 17,426,542
Page 14 of 20
1 52.57% 1
1 53.13% 1
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 0811\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
General Fund
'RECURRING ACTIVITY 1
Revenues
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Sales Tax -Criminal Justice
Sales Tax - Public Safety
Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax
Franchise Fees/Business Registration
State Shared Revenues
Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety
Community Development
Recreation Program Revenues
Miscellaneous Department Revenue
Miscellaneous & Investment Interest
Transfer -in -#101 (street admin)
Transfer -in -#105 (h/m tax -CP advertising)
Transfer -in -#402 (storm admin)
2015
Budget
2016
as of
6/16/2015
Change
as
revised
1 8/11/2015
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
1
11,277,100 11,479,200 0 11,479,200 202,100 1.79%
17,628,400 18,098,000 112,500 18,210,500 582,100 3.30%
1,468,700 1,564,700 (8,300) 1,556,400 87,700 5.97%
820,100 872,500 (5,100) 867,400 47,300 5.77%
535,100 333,700 0 333,700 (201,400) (37.64%)
1,238,000 1,244,000 (90,000) 1,154,000 (84,000) (6.79%)
1,768,900 1,778,600 245,928 2,024,528 255,628 14.45%
1,507,100 1,443,500 0 1,443,500 (63,600) (4.22%)
1,325,100 1,491,500 0 1,491,500 166,400 12.56%
563,500 595,200 0 595,200 31,700 5.63%
95,900 95,900 0 95,900 0 0.00%
131,200 103,500 0 103,500 (27,700) (21.11%)
39,700 39,700 0 39,700 0 0.00%
30,000 30,000 0 30,000 0 0.00%
13,400 13,400 0 13,400 0 0.00%
Total Recurring Revenues 38,442,200
39,183,400 255,028 39,438,428
996,228 2.59%
Expenditures
City Council 513,114 507,869 (1,000) 506,869 (6,245) (1.22%)
City Manager 688,363 717,303 0 717,303 28,940 4.20%
Legal 461,839 479,951 0 479,951 18,112 3.92%
Public Safety 24,153,492 24,703,749 0 24,703,749 550,257 2.28%
Deputy City Manager 691,303 713,602 (1,000) 712,602 21,299 3.08%
Finance / IT 1,203,879 1,253,880 (800) 1,253,080 49,201 4.09%
Human Resources 243,317 255,694 0 255,694 12,377 5.09%
Public Works 921,914 966,870 0 966,870 44,956 4.88%
Community & Econ Dev -Admin. 261,094 274,107 (2,000) 272,107 11,013 4.22%
Community & Econ Dev - Econ Dev 298,276 345,157 0 345,157 46,881 15.72% _
Community & Econ Dev - Develop. Svc. 1,424,944 1,486,637 0 1,486,637 61,693 4.33% Net
Community & Econ Dev - Building 1,380,902 1,345,665 (1,500) 1,344,165 (36,737) (2.66%) _ difference
Parks & Rec -Administration 286,947 281,871 0 281,871 (5,076) (1.77%) ($3,500)
Parks & Rec - Maintenance 844,642 838,343 0 838,343 (6,299) (0.75%)
Parks & Rec - Recreation 226,174 228,197 0 228,197 2,023 0.89%
Parks & Rec -Aquatics 496,200 461,200 0 461,200 (35,000) (7.05%)
Parks & Rec - Senior Center 91,985 95,781 0 95,781 3,796 4.13%
Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 824,997 882,223 0 882,223 57,226 6.94%
Pavement Preservation 920,000 940,200 3,600 943,800 23,800 2.59%
General Government 1,741,200 1,732,000 0 1,732,000 (9,200) (0.53%)
Transfers out -#502 (insurance premium) 325,000 325,000 0 325,000 0 0.00%
Transfers out -#309 (park capital projects) 0 100,000 25,000 125,000 125,000 #DIV/0!
Transfers out #310 (Bond pmt > $434.6K lease pmt 67,600 72,500 0 72,500 4,900 7.25%
Transfers out#310 (City Hall O&M costs) 271,700 271,700 0 271,700 0 0.00%
Total Recurring Expenditures 38,338,882 39,279,499 22,300 39,301,799 962,917 2.51%
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures 103,318 (96,099) 232,728 136,629
'NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
n/a
0
0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Expenditures
Transfers out -#309 (park capital projects) 100,000 0 0 0 (100,000) (100.00%)
General Government - IT capital replacements 145,000 120,500 (12,500) 108,000 (37,000) (25.52%)
City Manager (2 scanners) 3,000 0 0 0 (3,000) (100.00%)
Public Safety (const offices for unit supervisors) 25,000 0 0 0 (25,000) (100.00%)
Community & Econ Dev (comp plan update) 395,000 0 0 0 (395,000) (100.00%)
Parks & Rec (upgrade dial-up modem at pools) 10,000 0 15,000 15,000 5,000 50.00%
Parks & Rec (replace CP lounge area carpet) 8,000 0 0 0 (8,000) (100.00%)
Parks & Rec (CenterPlace loyr anniversary) 7,400 0 0 0 (7,400) (100.00%)
Police Department - CAD/RMS 949,000 140,281 0 140,281 (808,719) (85.22%)
Transfers out -#312 ('12 fundbal>50%) 1,783,512 0 0 0 (1,783,512) (100.00%)
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 3,425,912 260,781 2,500 263,281 (3,162,631) (92.32%)
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over(Under) Total Expenditures
Beginning unrestricted fund balance
Ending unrestricted fund balance
(3,425,912) (260,781) (263,281)
(3,322,594) (356,880)
24,328,568 41,005,974
21,005,974 ----'20,649,094
Ending fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures =
(126,652)
21,005,974
20,879,322
Recurring Expenditures
Public Safety
All other departments
24,153,492 24,703,749 550,257 2.28% 62.89%
14,185,390 14,575,750
38.338.882
390,360 2.75% 37.11%
39.279.499 940,617
2.45/ 100.00/
Page 15 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
General Fund #001
2016 Budget Worksheets - Expenditure Changes from June 16 to August 11, 2015
Account
Number
Description
Revenues
001.000.000.313.11.00
001.000.000.313.71.00
001.000.000.313.73.00
001.000.000.321.91.03
001.000.000.336.06.21
001.000.000.336.06.26
001.000.000.336.06.94
001.000.000.336.06.95
1Expenditures
Sales Tax
Sales Tax - Criminal Justice
Sales Tax - Public Safety
Comcast PEG Contribution
MVET Criminal Justice - Population
Criminal Justice Special Programs
Liquor Board Excise Tax
Liquor Board Profits
8/11/2015
Line -Item
Line -Item
Budget @
Increase
Budget @
6/16/2016
(Decrease)
8/11/2015
18, 098, 000 112,500 18, 210, 500
1,564,700 (8,300) 1,556,400
872,500 (5,100) 867,400
90,000 (90,000) 0
23,000 3,135 26,135
81,900 8,640 90,540
175,800 237,696 413,496
807,200 (3,543) 803,657
255,028
City Council
001.011.000.511.60.48.02 Copier Maintenance R 3,500 (1,000) 2,500
Deputy City Manager
001.018.013.513.10.48.02 Copier Maintenance R 3,000 (1,000) 2,000
Finance
001.018.014.514.23.48.02 Copier Maintenance R 3,800 (800) 3,000
Community & Economic Development
001.058.050.558.60.48.02 Copier Maintenance R 4,000 (2,000) 2,000
001.058.057.558.50.48.02 Copier Maintenance R 7,500 (1,500) 6,000
Parks & Rec - CenterPlace
001.076.099.576.10.31.01 Nonrecur Supplies (pool dial-up modem) N
(3,500)
0 15,000 15,000
General Government
001.090.000.597.31.00.10 Pavement Preservation R 940,200 3,600 943,800
001.090.000.597.30.00.90 Transfer out - #309 (Park Capital) R 100,000 25,000 125,000
001.090.000.594.11.64.02 PEG COSV Broadcast - Software/Hardw N 12,500 (12,500) 0
16,100
Total changes in General Fund expenditures 24,800
R = recurring 22,300
N = nonrecurring 2,500
24,800
Page 16 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
General Fund - Recurring Department Changes from 2015 to 2016
8/11/2015
City Council
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits
Supplies
Services & Charges
Total
2015
Budget
214,379
4,550
294,185
2016
Budget
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
Increase Decrease)
$ 11
220,634 6,255 2.92%
4,550 0 0.00%
281,685 (12,500) (4.25%)
513,114 506,869 (6,245) (1.22%)
City Manager
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 623,173
Supplies 3,350
Services & Charges 61,840
Total
688,363
651,463 28,290 4.54%
3,350 0 0.00%
62,490 650 1.05%
717,303 28,940 4.20%
Legal
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 379,917 397,206 17,289 4.55%
Supplies 2,540 2,010 (530) (20.87%)
Services & Charges 79,382 80,735 1,353 1.70%
Total 461,839 479,951 18,112 3.92%
Public Safety
Non -Departmental (Fines & Forfeits) 733,500 649,500 (84,000) (11.45%)
Wages/Payroll Taxes/Benefits 3,800 6,500 2,700 71.05%
Supplies 28,000 27,500 (500) (1.79%)
Other Services and Charges 492,650 394,750 (97,900) (19.87%)
Intergovernmental Services 22,895,542 23,625,499 729,957 3.19%
Total 24,153,492 24,703,749 550,257 2.28%
Deputy City Manager
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 627,479 660,102 32,623 5.20%
Supplies 2,500 2,500 0 0.00%
Services & Charges 61,324 50,000 (11,324) (18.47%)
Total 691,303 712,602 21,299 3.08%
Finance/IT
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,172,483 1,222,580 50,097 4.27%
Supplies 6,000 6,000 0 0.00%
Services & Charges 25,396 24,500 (896) (3.53%)
Total 1,203,879 1,253,080 49,201 4.09%
Human Resuorces
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 218,109 230,698 12,589 5.77%
Supplies 700 700 0 0.00%
Services & Charges 24,508 24,296 (212) (0.87%)
Total 243,317 255,694 12,377 5.09%
Public Works
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 834,363 876,364 42,001 5.03%
Supplies 19,000 18,000 (1,000) (5.26%)
Services & Charges 68,551 72,506 3,955 5.77%
Total 921,914 966,870 44,956 4.88%
Community & Econ. Dev. - Administration
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 237,394 250,407 13,013 5.48%
Supplies 3,100 3,100 0 0.00%
Services & Charges 20,600 18,600 (2,000) (9.71%)
Total 261,094 272,107
11,013
4.22%
(Continued to next page)
With few exceptions increases in nonpayroll costs from 2015 to 2016 have been held at or below 1%.
Page 17 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
General Fund - Recurring Department Changes from 2015 to 2016
8/11/2015
(Continued from previous page)
2015
Budget
Community & Econ. Dev. - Economic Development
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits
Supplies
Services & Charges
Total
274,776
1,000
22,500
298,276
2016
Budget
317,257
1,100
26,800
345,157
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
Increase Decrease)
42,481
100
4,300
15.46%
10.00%
19.11%
46,881 15.72%
Community & Econ. Dev. - Development Services
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,122,644 1,173,837 51,193 4.56%
Supplies 21,050 21,050 0 0.00%
Services & Charges 281,250 291,750 10,500 3.73%
Total 1,424,944 1,486,637 61,693 4.33%
Community & Econ. Dev. - Building
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 1,288,902 1,256,565 (32,337) (2.51%)
Supplies 28,200 28,200 0 0.00%
Services & Charges 63,800 59,400 (4,400) (6.90%)
Total 1,380,902 1,344,165 (36,737) (2.66%)
Parks & Rec- Admin
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 228,697 246,821 18,124 7.92%
Supplies 8,450 5,900 (2,550) (30.18%)
Services & Charges 49,800 29,150 (20,650) (41.47%)
Total 286,947 281,871 (5,076) (1.77%)
Parks & Rec- Maintenance
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Supplies 20,000 5,500 (14,500) (72.50%)
Services & Charges 824,642 832,843 8,201 0.99%
Total 844,642 838,343 (6,299) (0.75%)
Parks & Rec- Recreation
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 153,924 161,397 7,473 4.85%
Supplies 7,750 7,600 (150) (1.94%)
Services & Charges 64,500 59,200 (5,300) (8.22%)
Total 226,174 228,197 2,023 0.89%
Parks & Rec- Aquatics
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Supplies 7,200 14,000 6,800 94.44%
Services & Charges 489,000 447,200 (41,800) (8.55%)
Total 496,200 461,200 (35,000) (7.05%)
Parks & Rec- Senior Center
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 84,285 88,481 4,196 4.98%
Supplies 2,500 1,600 (900) (36.00%)
Services & Charges 5,200 5,700 500 9.62%
Total 91,985 95,781 3,796 4.13%
Parks & Rec- CenterPlace
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 435,609 475,925
Supplies 66,963 76,024
Services & Charges 322,425 330,274
Total 824,997 882,223
40,316
9,061
7,849
9.26%
13.53%
2.43%
57,226
6.94%
(Continued to next page)
Page 18 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
2016 Budget
General Fund - Recurring Department Changes from 2015 to 2016
8/11/2015
(Continued from previous page)
Pavement Preservation
Council Designation
Total
2015
Budget
2016
Budget
Difference Between
2015 and 2016
Increase Decrease)
920,000 943,800 23,800 2.59%
920,000 943,800 23,800 2.59%
General Government
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
Supplies 70,650 87,600 16,950 23.99%
Services & Charges 1,292,550 1,299,900 7,350 0.57%
Intergovernmental Services 300,500 301,500 1,000 0.33%
Capital outlays 77,500 43,000 (34,500) (44.52%)
Total 1,741,200 1,732,000 (9,200) (0.53%)
Transfers out - #502 325,000 325,000 0 0.00%
Transfers out - #309 0 125,000 125,000 #DIV/0!
Transfer out - #310
Bond pmt > $434,600 lease pmt 67,600 72,500 4,900 7.25%
Estimated City Hall O&M costs 271,700 271,700 0 0.00%
339,300 344,200 4,900 1.44%
Total recurring expenditures
Summary by Category
38,338,882 39,301,799
962,917 2.51%
Wages, Payroll Taxes & Benefits 7,899,934 8,236,237 336,303 4.26%
Supplies 303,503 316,284 12,781 4.21%
Services & Charges 4,544,103 4,391,779 (152,324) (3.35%)
Pavement Preservation 920,000 943,800 23,800 2.59%
Transfers out - #502 325,000 325,000 0 0.00%
Transfers out - #309 0 125,000 125,000 #DIV/0!
Transfers out - #310 339,300 344,200 4,900 1.44%
Non -Departmental (fines & forfeits) 733,500 649,500 (84,000) (11.45%)
Intergovernmental Svc (public safety) 22,895,542 23,625,499 729,957 3.19%
Intergovernmental Svc 300,500 301,500 1,000 0.33%
Capital outlay 77,500 43,000 (34,500) (44.52%)
38,338,882
39,301,799 962,917 2.51%
Page 19 of 20
H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 11\budget summary as of 2015 08 11.xlsx
#001 - General Fund
City Manager / City Clerk
Legal
Deputy City Manager
Finance
Human Resources
Public Works
CED - Administration
CED - Economic Development
CED - Development Services
CED - Engineering
CED - Planning
CED - Building
Parks & Rec - Admin
Parks & Rec - Recreation
Parks & Rec - Senior Cntr
Parks & Rec - CenterPlace
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA
Full Time Equivalent Employees
2010
2011
Adopted
2012 12013
2014
2015
Proposed
2016
Difference from
2015 to 2016
+ (-)
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0.000
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.000
8 7 7 6 6 6 6 0.000
12 11 11 10.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 0.000
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.000
7.5 7.5 7 7 7.375 7.375 7.375 0.000
3 3 3 2 2 2 2 0.000
0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.65 0.150 (1)
0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0.000
8 6 6 8 7 0 0 0.000
9 8.5 8.5 8 8 0 0 0.000
14.75 12.75 12.75 11.5 12.5 14 14 0.000
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.000
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.000
7 5 5 5 5 5 5 0.000
Total General Fund 83.25 74.75 74.25 72.25 73.625 73.625 73.775 0.150
#101 - Street Fund 5 5 4.5 5 5 5.725 5.725 0.000
#303 - Street Capital Project Fund 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.000
#402 - Storm Water Fund 4 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 0.000
Total FTEs 95.75 87.25 86.75 85.25 86.625 87.25 87.400 0.150
(1) Reflects increase of time by the part-time employee in Economic Development
from 0.5 to 0.65.
Page 20 of 20
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 11, 2015
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information X admin. report
Department Director Approval:
❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Council Goals and Priorities for Use of Lodging Tax Revenues.
X
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Imposition of tax, set-up of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC)
and determination of qualified expenditures is governed by RCW 67.28, as amended by Engrossed
Substitute House Bill 1253 in 2013; and SVMC 3.20.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: An administrative report was delivered to Council on this
topic on July 14, 2015.
BACKGROUND: On July 14, 2015 an administrative report was delivered to Council that
addressed the process leading to the annual award of lodging tax proceeds to applying
organizations. Topics in the report included a discussion on the tax itself as well as the roles of the
LTAC and City Council. At the conclusion of the discussion Council asked that staff provide more
information relative to the types and amounts of lodging taxes collected in Spokane Valley, and also
that staff meet with Councilmembers Wick and Pace to refine the City Council's goals and priorities
with the intent of ultimately delivering these to the LTAC in order to inform that body of what Council
will consider when it ultimately makes the 2016 awards.
Sources of Lodging Related Revenue Collected in Spokane Valley
City of Spokane Valley
In 2003, the City imposed an initial 2% lodging tax on all charges for furnishing lodging at hotels
and motels pursuant to RCW 67.28.180. This tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5% state sales
tax, so that the total tax a patron pays in retail sales tax and the hotel/motel tax combined is equal
to the retail sales tax in the jurisdiction — which for Spokane Valley is 8.7%. We currently estimate
the initial 2.0% lodging tax will generate approximately $550,000 in 2016. The initial lodging tax
may be used for any tourism promotion purpose allowed pursuant to RCW 67.28, including
marketing and operations of special events, festivals, and tourism facilities, and capital
expenditures for tourism facilities owned by a municipality.
On April 14, 2014, the City imposed an additional 1.3% lodging tax pursuant to RCW 67.28.181.
This tax is in addition to the existing 8.7% sales tax imposed in Spokane Valley, and when
combined with a 2.0% lodging tax imposed by the Spokane Public Facilities District causes the total
lodging tax rate in Spokane Valley to equal 12.0%. This additional lodging tax went into effect July
1, 2015. We currently estimate the 1.3% lodging tax will generate approximately $357,500 in 2016.
The additional lodging tax is, pursuant to SVMC 3.20.020(B), limited to use for capital expenditures
for large sporting venues or venues for tourism -related facilities.
Spokane Public Facilities District (PFD)
The Spokane PFD received voter approval to impose a 2% lodging tax in 1990 and in April 2012
District voters reauthorized and extended this tax for an additional 10 years to September 1, 2043.
The proceeds of this tax are pledged to debt service on outstanding PFD bonds. We anticipate this
2.0% lodging tax will generate approximately $550,000 in 2016.
1
Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area (TPA)
In March 2004, Spokane County, the City of Spokane, and the City of Spokane Valley entered into
the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Establishment of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion
Area (TPA Interlocal). The TPA Interlocal authorized Spokane County to establish the Spokane
County Tourism Promotion Area encompassing the unincorporated area of Spokane County and
the incorporated areas within the boundaries of Spokane and our City. The areas within this
location are divided into five different zones with special assessments of $2.00 per room, per day
for all zones except for Zone D, which has a $0.50 assessment and Zone E, which has no
assessment. The zones are as follows:
• Zone A: Lodging businesses within the downtown core of the City of Spokane.
• Zone B: The remaining lodging businesses within the City of Spokane and all lodging
businesses within the City of Spokane Valley.
• Zone C: Lodging businesses within the unincorporated area of Spokane County.
• Zone D: Lodging businesses with room revenue less than $500,000, regardless of location.
• Zone E: Lodging businesses other than hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast facilities. Such
businesses include trailer camps and RV parks, college dormitories, guest ranches and summer
camps.
In the years 2012 through 2014 the TPA generated an average of approximately $2.4 million per
year with collections from Spokane Valley hoteliers averaging approximately $476,000 per year,
which represents 19.8% of total collections annually.
Approval of how the TPA proceeds are expended is granted by the Spokane County Board of
County Commissioners based upon a recommendation from the Spokane Hotel and Motel
Commission (SHMC). For the years 2013 through 2015, the recommended and approved
allocations, after special events grants and a reserve holdback, were 78% to Visit Spokane and
22% to the Spokane Sports Commission. Per my conversations with Visit Spokane staff,
distributions over this time frame are as follow:
2013
Special Event Grant Recipients:
Spokane Lilac Festival 5,000
Spokane Poetry Slam 6,000
Felt's Field of Wings 5,000
First Night Spokane 2,500
Spokane Hoopfest 15,000
Inland NW Craft Brewers 12,998
Subtotal 46,498
Visit Spokane 1,871,319 estimated Spokane Valley share at 19.8% = 370,520
Spokane Sports Commission 527,803 estimated Spokane Valley share at 19.8% = 104,500
2,445,620 475,020
2
2014
Special Event Grant Recipients:
INBA Destination Spokane
The Inlander
The Inlander
First Night Spokane
The Cork District
Subtotal 39,500
8,500
7,500
10,000
2,500
11,000
Visit Spokane
1,898,206 estimated Spokane Valley share at 19.8% = 375,840
Spokane Sports Commission 535,391 estimated Spokane Valley share at 19.8% = 106,010
2,473,097 481,850
2015
Special Event Grant Recipients:
NW Taste Culinary Destination Ex 10,000
Vision Marketing 5,000
Cache Advance, Inc. 7,440
City of Spokane Parks & Rec 25,000
Subtotal
Visit Spokane
Spokane Sports Commission
*year to date distributions
47,440
966,040 estimated Spokane Valley share at 19.8% = 191,280
272,473 estimated Spokane Valley share at 19.8% = 53,950
1,285,953 245,230
Council Goals and Priorities for Use of the Initial 2% Lodciinci Tax
In August 2013 Council for the first time adopted goals and priorities for how it would distribute
lodging tax revenues and that it encouraged the LTAC to consider when making award
recommendations. Based upon subsequent discussion between Council and staff in 2014 and
2015, these have evolved as proposed below:
1. Council will focus on using lodging taxes to create distinct and identifiable increases in Spokane
Valley tourism. As part of this goal, Council will use lodging taxes for the purposes allowed in
State law, which include:
a) Tourism marketing;
b) The marketing and operations of special events and festivals;
c) The operation and capital expenditures of tourism related facilities owned or operated by a
municipality or public facility district; and
d) The operations (but not capital expenditures) of tourism related facilities owned or operated
by non-profit organizations.
2. Council recognizes that lodging nights are an important measure of a successful event or
marketing program but will also take into consideration the economic impact of all major
components of our tourism -based economy including shopping, dining and overnight visits.
3. Council will consider the utilization of funds for capital expenditures to develop tourism
destination facilities or venues within the City of Spokane Valley (recognizing that this option is
limited to facilities owned by a municipality or public facility district).
4. Programs, projects or events should have the goal of becoming operationally self-sustaining in
the future.
5. Council desires that 20% of total grant monies awarded be directed towards funding new and
innovative projects, activities or events that will distinguish Spokane Valley as a tourism
destination.
3
6. Council will take into consideration revenues derived from lodging sources within Spokane
Valley received by applicants from other municipal entities and agencies such as the Spokane
County Tourism Promotion Authority and Spokane Public Facilities District.
2015 Timeline Leading to 2016 Awards of the Initial 2.0% Lodging Tax
The calendar we plan to follow in 2015 for 2016 lodging tax awards is as follows:
Wed 9/2/2015 City runs notice in newspaper, places on web site, and sends letters to
2015 award recipients and others agencies that may have expressed
interest.
Fri 10/2/2015 Grant proposals are due to City by 4pm (no late submittals will be
accepted).
Fri 10/9/2015 Applications sent to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for review.
Wed. 10/14/2015 8:30 am Applicant presentations to Committee.
Tues 11/10/2015 Formal Council Meeting
Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to City Council
Tues 12/8/2015 Formal Council Meeting
City Council Motion Consideration: Award Lodging Tax for 2016
RCW 67.28.1817 requires that the City wait for a period of at least 45 days after the LTAC
meeting before action can be taken by the City Council.
12/8/2015 Council Action
10/14/2015 LTAC meeting
55 days
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
Staff seeks Council consensus on goals and priorities as proposed or further modified.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: In 2016 the 2% portion of the lodging tax is currently anticipated
to generate approximately $550,000.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun
ATTACHMENTS:
• Tourism Promotion Authority RCA prepared by Erik Lamb for the June 30, 2015 City Council
meeting.
4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 30, 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: Tourism Promotion Area
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.101; Interlocal Cooperation Act Agreement for
Establishment of Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area (originally executed March 9, 2004).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Amendments to Interlocal Agreement in 2008 and
2009. Administrative Report on August 19, 2014.
BACKGROUND: Generally. In 2003, the Washington State Legislature enacted RCW
35.101, authorizing the creation of tourism promotion areas to assist in funding tourism
promotion at the local level. Under RCW 35.101, cities and counties are authorized to establish
a tourism promotion area within their respective jurisdictions and impose a special assessment
on lodging businesses with 40 or more units, to fund tourism promotion. Cities and counties
may create a multi -jurisdictional tourism promotion area by interlocal agreement.
The maximum charge allowed is $2.00 per night per unit. Charges may differ by classification
(i.e., number of rooms, room revenue, or location within the area) and there may be up to six
different classifications within a tourism promotion area. The revenue from a tourism promotion
area shall be used for "tourism promotion," which includes:
activities and expenditures designed to increase tourism and convention
business, including but not limited to advertising, publicizing, or otherwise
distributing information for the purpose of attracting and welcoming tourists, and
operating tourism destination marketing organizations.
Tourism promotion areas may only be created by petition of lodging business operators. The
petition shall describe the proposed area, the proposed uses and projects for the assessments,
the estimated rate for the charge, with breakdowns by classification, and shall be signed by the
lodging business operators in the proposed area who would pay 60% or more of the proposed
charges.
After a petition is submitted meeting statutory requirements, the approving legislative body
conducts a public hearing and creates the tourism promotion area by ordinance. The ordinance
shall specify the description of the boundaries of the area, the initial rate charges broken down
by classification, and the uses to which the charges shall be put.
After creation of the tourism promotion area and imposition of the charges, the Washington
Department of Revenue administers the funds and deposits the collected charges in a local
tourism promotion account. The local legislative authority imposing the charge has sole
discretion as to how the revenue may be used. The local legislative authority may create an
advisory board or commission to make recommendations on the uses of such funds. The local
legislative authority may contract with tourism destination marketing organizations to administer
the operation of the area.
The Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. In March 2004, Spokane County, the City of
Spokane, and the City of Spokane Valley entered into the Interlocal Cooperation Act Agreement
for Establishment of the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area. It was subsequently
amended on May 29, 2008, and August 27, 2009 (as amended, the "TPA Interlocal"). The TPA
Interlocal authorizes Spokane County to establish the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Area
(the "TPA") encompassing the unincorporated area of Spokane County and the incorporated
areas within the boundaries of Spokane and our City. Note that the Cities of Liberty Lake,
Millwood, and other local cities are not included within the TPA. The areas within this location
are divided into five different zones with special assessments of $2.00 per room, per day for all
zones except for Zone D, which has a $0.50 assessment and Zone E, which has no
assessment. The zones are as follows:
Zone A: Lodging businesses within the downtown core of the City of Spokane.
Zone B: The remaining lodging businesses within the City of Spokane and all lodging
businesses within the City of Spokane Valley.
Zone C: Lodging businesses within the unincorporated area of Spokane County.
Zone D: Lodging businesses with room revenue less than $500,000, regardless of
location.
Zone E: Lodging businesses other than hotels, motels, and bed and breakfast facilities.
Such businesses include trailer camps and RV parks, college dormitories, guest ranches
and summer camps.
As part of the establishment of the TPA, Spokane County created the Spokane Hotel and Motel
Commission (the "Hotel/Motel Commission") to advise the Board of County Commissioners on
the expenditure of the TPA revenues. The Hotel/Motel Commission consists of 11 members
who shall be operators of lodging businesses. Spokane County selects two members and one
non-voting ex officio member, Spokane selects four members and one non-voting ex officio
member, and the City of Spokane Valley selects two members and one non-voting ex officio
member. The TPA is also managed by contract by the Spokane Regional Convention & Visitors
Bureau ("Visit Spokane"). The manager administers the activities and programs and prepares
the annual budget for the TPA, which is approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
TPA Revenues. Under the TPA Interlocal, revenue from the special assessments is allocated
by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County based on recommendations made
by the Hotel/Motel Commission. Revenues from assessments collected within the TPA may be
used for
(1) funding activities designed to increase tourism promotion and convention business
within Spokane County;
(2) marketing of convention and business that benefit local tourism and the lodging
business within Spokane County;
(3) marketing of Spokane County to the travel industry to benefit local tourism and the
lodging businesses within the TPA; and
(4) marketing of Spokane County to recruit major sporting events in order to promote
local tourism and to benefit lodging businesses within the TPA.
Revenues received for the years 2010 through 2014 are detailed below:
SPOKANE COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA
Spokane
Zone A
Zone B
Zone D
Spokane County
Zone C
Zone D
Spokane Valley
Zone B
Zone D
Grand Total
Prior to 10/1/2009
Beginning 10/1/2009
ALL ZONES
2010 2011
2012 2013
1,095,426.00 1,114,700.00 1,163,554.00 1,206,076.00
335,732.00 362,142.00 599,980.00 603,984.00
6,308.00 2,750.50 1,437.00 654.50
1,437,466.00 1,479,592.50 1,764,971.00 1,810,714.50
364,246.00
1,116.50
365,362.50
493, 270.00
7,077.00
500, 347.00
361,754.00
0.00
361,754.00
473,168.00
1,166.50
474,334.50
130,376.00
0.00
130,376.00
509, 864.00
882.00
510,746.00
139,026.00
0.00
139,026.00
460,814.00
921.00
461,735.00
2014
1,190,072.00
615,474.00
898.50
1,806,444.50
157, 372.00
0.00
157, 372.00
455,878.00
1,158.50
457,036.50
2,303,175.50 2,315,681.00 2,406,093.00 2,411,475.50 $2,420,853.00
Fee Per Room Night of Stay
Zones A, B, C
$1.25
$2.00
Zone D
$0.50
$0.50
Zone B = Cities of Spokane Valley and Spokane that are not located in downtown
Spokane. Lodging revenues during the preceding calendar > $500,000.
Zone D = Anywhere in the Spokane County TPA with revenues < $500,000.
TPA Fund Uses. The TPA, through the management of Visit Spokane, uses TPA revenues for
a variety of purposes, with the majority of distributed revenues to Visit Spokane and the
remainder to the Spokane Sports Commission. Visit Spokane meets regularly to discuss
regional destination packages, on-going promotions, and social media content to promote
tourism. This promotion includes the City of Spokane Valley. Such promotion and services
have included assistance with the redesign of our City's mobile application and promotion on
Visit Spokane's website, advertisements for Valleyfest and Cycle Celebration, maps highlighting
the Sullivan Road retail corridor and Auto Row, and advertisement in the "Spokane Regional
Visitors Guide" and seasonal e -magazines, amongst others.
Modification to TPA. Originally, the TPA Interlocal provided for a termination date of 2008 with
the option of three-year extensions by resolution of each of the governing bodies. However, in
2008, the TPA Interlocal was amended so that it is perpetual. The TPA may be modified the
Spokane Board of County Commissioners after conducting a public hearing. If the request for
modification is made by the lodging businesses that pay 40% or more of the assessments levied
within the entire TPA and the Board of County Commissioners does not conduct the public
hearing and make a determination on the requested modification, the City may withdraw from
the TPA Interlocal with three months' notice.
Other TPAs. At least one local jurisdiction has formed its own TPA. Liberty Lake formed its
tourism promotion area in 2004. In 2011, Liberty Lake entered into an agreement with Visit
Spokane to manage the Liberty Lake tourism promotion area, much like is done through the
Spokane County TPA and TPA Interlocal. As part of the management, Visit Spokane prepares
the budget for Liberty Lake approval and then receives and expends the revenues from the
Liberty Lake tourism promotion area.
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No direct financial impact to City revenues or expenditures.
STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
To:
From:
Re:
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of August 5, 2015; 8:30 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
August 18, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. LID (Local Improvement District) — Erik Lamb
2. Council Budget Goals, Capital Reserves Fund 312 — Mike Jackson
3. Marijuana Regulations — Erik Lamb
4. Advance Agenda
5. Info Only: (a) Bus Shelter Pads; (b) Citywide Safety Project #0181
6. Executive Session: Pending/potential litigation
[due Mon, Aug 10]
(20 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 75 minutes]
Au&ust 25, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Aug 17]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2016 Budget Revenues, including Property Taxes — Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes, motion to set Sept 22 Budget Hearing) (5 minutes)
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-015 Adopting Mining Findings — Erik Lamb
4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Citywide Safety Project #0181 — Steve Worley
5. Mayoral Appointment: Lodging Tax Member — Mayor Grafos
6. Admin Report: Spokane County Library District Update — Sheree West and Diane Brown
7. Admin Report: Legislative Update — Briahna Taylor, Alex Soldano
8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
9. Info Only: Dept. Monthly Reports
(15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 100 minutes]
September 1, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Aug 24]
1. Outside Agency Presentations (Economic Development, & Social Service; 5 minutes each) (-90 minutes)
2. LED Lights — Eric Guth (15 minutes)
3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 110 minutes]
September 8, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Admin Report: City Manager Presentation of 2016 Preliminary Budget
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
September 15, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Historic Preservation — Gloria Mantz
2. Advance Agenda
September 22, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2016 Budget — Chelsie Taylor
2. First Reading Property Tax Ordinance — Chelsie Taylor
3. Motion Consideration: Outside Agency Grant Allocations — Chelsie T
4. Admin Report: 2015 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor
5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
6. Info Only: Dept. Monthly Reports
September 29, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
[due Mon, Aug 31]
(5 minutes)
— Mike Jackson (30 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 40 minutes]
[due Mon, Sept 7]
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Sept 14]
(20 minutes)
(15 minutes)
Ta (20 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 80 minutes]
[due Mon, Sept 21
Draft Advance Agenda 8/6/2015 2:51:45 PM Page 1 of 3
October 6, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Sept 28]
1. Advance Agenda
October 13, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2015 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor
2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
3. Second Reading Property Tax Ordinance — Chelsie Taylor
4. First Reading Ordinance Adopting 2016 Budget — Chelsie Taylor
5. First Reading Ordinance Amending 2015 Budget — Chelsie Taylor
6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
October 20, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
October 27, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Second Reading Ordinance Adopting 2016 Budget — Chelsie Taylor
3. Second Reading Ordinance Amending 2015 Budget — Chelsie Taylor
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
5. Info Only: Dept. Monthly Reports
November 3, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Fee Resolution for 2016 — Chelsie Taylor
2. Advance Agenda
[due Mon, Oct 511
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 55 minutes]
[due Mon, Oct 12]
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Oct 19]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 30 minutes]
November 10, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Admin Report: Lodging Tax Advisory Cmte (LTAC) Recommended Allocations
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
November 17, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
November 24, 2015 — no meeting (Thanksgiving week)
December 1, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
December 8, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Proposed Fee Resolution for 2106 — Chelsie Taylor
3. Motion Consideration: LTAC Allocations —Mark Calhoun
4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda
December 15 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
December 22, 2015 — no meeting
December 29, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
January 5, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Council Officer Elections for Mayor and Deputy Mayor — Chris Bainbridge
[due Mon, Oct 26]
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Nov 2]
(5 minutes)
— Mark Calhoun (25 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Nov 9]
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Nov 23]
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Nov 30]
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[due Mon, Dec 7]
[due Mon, Dec 21]
[due Mon, Dec 28]
(15 minutes)
Draft Advance Agenda 8/6/2015 2:51:45 PM Page 2 of 3
*time for public or Council comments not included
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Appointments (either Dec 29 or Jan 12) — 3 Planning Commission
Appointments (either Dec 29 of Jan 12) - 2 LTAC (Lodging Tax)
Appts: Various Committees (Dec 29 or Jan 12)
Avista Electrical Franchise (2"d read Ord 15-011)
Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement
False Alarm Program
Hauling Uncovered Loads
Public Safety Quarterly Costs
Sidewalks and Development
SRTMC Interlocal Agreement (prior to end of year)
Sullivan Park, nearby property for sale
Traffic Detection Equipment (loops vs cameras)
Used Oil Signage Ordinance
Draft Advance Agenda 8/6/2015 2:51:45 PM Page 3 of 3