The URL can be used to link to this page

2015, 08-25 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, August 25, 2015 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole, Living Hope Community Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION: 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. PUBLIC HEARING: 2016 Budget Revenues, including Property Taxes — Chelsie Taylor 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 Aug. 25, 2015 Request for Council Action Form Totaling $3,012,718.90 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending August 15, 2015: $333,998.16 c. Approval of August 11, 2015 Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval of August 17, 2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes e. Motion to Set 2016 Budget Hearing for September 22, 2015 NEW BUSINESS 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-015 Adopting Mining Findings of Fact — Erik Lamb [public comment] 4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Citywide Safety Project #0167 - Steve Worley [public comment] 5. Mayoral Appointment: Lodging Tax Committee Member — Mayor Grafos [public comment] Council Agenda 08-25-15 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 6. Legislative Update — Briahna Taylor and Alex Soldano 7. Proposed Tourism Study — John Hohman 8. Port Districts — John Hohman 9. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 10. Department Reports CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 21'1 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 lst 3rd and 5t'—' 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 08-25-15 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action August 25, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business 0 public hearing ❑ information ['admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - 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 third occasion where the Council will discuss the 2016 Budget and by the time the Council is scheduled to adopt the 2016 Budget on October 27, 2015, Council 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 Public hearing #1 on 2016 revenues and expenditures • September 8 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2016 Budget • September 22 Public hearing #2 on 2016 Budget • October 13 First reading on ordinance adopting the 2016 Budget • October 27 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. An administrative report was presented to Council on this topic on August 11th and the public hearing is set for this evening. 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 $69,248,623 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 $943,800 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 $39,320,199 is $981,317 or 2.56% greater than the 2015 appropriation of $38,338,882. • Excluding the addition of some supplemental requests discussed at the June 16th Budget Workshop, increases in recurring expenditures for nonpayroll related expenditure classifications have been held to 1% with few exceptions. • Recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $118,229 or .30% 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 Laserfiche 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 (pending agreement with Spokane County) • The total of 2016 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $145,052 - 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 $21,179,022 or 53.86% 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 Noteworthy here is that we are proposing to add two additional funds. These are: • Fund #104 Hotel/Motel Tax — Tourism Facilities Fund, which will be used to separately account for the 1.3% hotel motel tax that was effective as of July 1, 2015, and • Fund #107 PEG Fund, which will be used to separately account for PEG contributions and related expenditures. 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. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: As the purpose of the public hearing is to gather input from the public in regard to the 2016 Budget, 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 17 to August 25. 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 Public Hearing #1 2016 Estimated Revenues and Expenditures August 25, 2015 8/20/2015 1 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 $263,281 nonrecurring. $29.7 million spread across 22 additional funds. $17.4 million in capital expenditures. FTE count will be 87.4 employees in 2016. 8/20/2015 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. 8/20/2015 3 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. 8/20/2015 4 General Fund EXPENDITURES: 2016 recurring expenditure proposal of $39,320,199 as compared to $38,338,882 in 2015 for an increase of $981,317 or 2.56%. Recurring revenues currently exceed recurring expenditures by $118,229 or .30% of recurring revenues. 8/20/2015 5 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 CAD / RMS (pending agreement with Spokane County) 8/20/2015 6 General Fund The total of 2016 recurring and nonrecurring expenditures exceeds total revenues by $145,052. Projected fund balance at the end of 2016 is currently $21,179,022 or 53.86% of recurring expenditures. 8/20/2015 7 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. 8/20/2015 8 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. Grant Revenues of $10,350,763: Fund #106 — Solid Waste Fund - $53,500 Fund #303 — Street Capital Projects - $8,797,263 Fund #403 — Aquifer Protection Area - $1,500,000 8/20/2015 9 Future Council Budget Discussions 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. 8/20/2015 10 H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget 2015 As Adopted Amendment As Amended #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY 2016 Proposed Budget 8/25/2015 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 0 691,303 731,002 39,699 5.74% 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 39,320,199 1,012,317 2.64% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 103,318 (61,000) 42,318 118,229 Page 1 of 20 H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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%) Public Safety (radar recorder) 0 4,600 4,600 0 (4,600) (100.00%) Parks & Rec (CenterPlace roof repairs) 0 9,000 9,000 0 (9,000) (100.00%) 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 1,404,412 3,046,812 263,281 (2,783,531) (91.36%) 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) (1,404,412) (3,046,812) (263,281) (1,539,082) (1,465,412) (3,004,494) 24, 328, 568 24, 328, 568 22,789,486 21,324,074 59.44% Page 2 of 20 55.66% (145,052) 21,324,074 21,179,022 53.86% H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 Difference Between 2015 and 2016 125,000 0 125,000 125,000 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 26,800 26,800 53,500 26,700 99.63% 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 125,000 26,800 151,800 178,500 26,700 17.59% Expenditures Education/Contract Admin 125,000 (13,625) 111,375 138,075 26,700 23.97% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Transfers out - #001 0 40,425 40,425 40,425 0 0.00% Total expenditures 125,000 26,800 151,800 178,500 26,700 17.59% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 7,340 7,340 7,340 Ending fund balance 7,340 7,340 7,340 #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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget 2015 As Adopted Amendment As Amended SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued 2016 Proposed Budget 8/25/2015 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget 2015 As Adopted Amendment As Amended CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued 2016 Proposed Budget 8/25/2015 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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 5,221,088 5,221,088 0 (5,221,088) (100.00%) Total revenues 340,500 5,221,088 5,561,588 345,400 (5,216,188) (93.79%) 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 3,718,888 1,919,550 51,200 5,638,438 5,638,438 5,689,638 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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 W Bridge) 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 5,221,088 5,221,088 0 (5,221,088) (100.00%) Total expenditures 2,120,000 4,141,688 6,261,688 1,510,509 (4,751,179) (75.88%) Revenues over (under) expenditures (2,120,000) (4,478,176) (1,510,509) Beginning fund balance 8,581,715 8,581,715 4,103,539 Ending fund balance 6,461,715 4,103,539 2,593,030 Page 11 of 20 H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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 9,128,161 73, 628,181 65, 937, 052 68,660,147 9,051,975 77,712,122 69,248,623 10, 945,146 1,634,029 12, 579,175 10, 350, 763 16,665,944 3,089,661 19,755,605 17,426,542 Page 14 of 20 1 52.57% 1 1 53.05% 1 H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 8/25/2015 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 17,400 731,002 39,699 5.74% 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 prat > $434.6K lease prrd 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 40,700 39,320,199 981,317 2.56% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 103,318 (96,099) 214,328 118,229 '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 10yr 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 = (145,052) 21,005,974 20,860,922 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 City Council 001.011.000.511.60.48.02 Copier Maintenance Deputy City Manager 001.018.013.513.10.48.02 001.018.013.513.10.49.10 Copier Maintenance 8/25/2015 Line -Item Line -Item Budget @ Increase Budget @ 6/16/2016 (Decrease) 8/25/2015 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 R 3,500 (1,000) 2,500 R 3,000 (1,000) 2,000 Public Information - Hot Topic Mailers R 18,500 18,400 36,900 Finance 001.018.014.514.23.48.02 Copier Maintenance 17,400 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 43,200 R = recurring 40,700 N = nonrecurring 2,500 43,200 Page 16 of 20 H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget General Fund - Recurring Department Changes from 2015 to 2016 8/25/2015 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 68,400 7,076 11.54% Total 691,303 731,002 39,699 5.74% 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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget General Fund - Recurring Department Changes from 2015 to 2016 8/25/2015 (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 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget General Fund - Recurring Department Changes from 2015 to 2016 8/25/2015 (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 39,320,199 981,317 2.56% 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 4,410,179 (133,924) (2.95%) 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 39,320,199 981,317 2.56% Page 19 of 20 H:\Budget\2016\RCAs and Intros and PowerPoint presentations\2015 08 25\budget summary as of 2015 08 25.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 25, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: ❑ public hearing VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS 08/06/2015 6297-6324 08/12/2015 36063-36129; 52578; 16022106; 730150044; 805150012 GRAND TOTAL: TOTAL AMOUNT $ 1,849.00 $3,010,869.90 $3,012,718.90 Explanation of Fund Numbers found #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.032.000. Public Works 001.058.050.558. CED - Administration 001.058.051.558. CED — Economic Development 001.058.055.558. CED — Development Services -Engineering 001.058.056.558. CED — Development Services -Planning 001.058.057.558 CED — Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. 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 on Voucher Lists Other Funds 101 — Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121— Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 123 — Civil Facilities Replacement 204 — Debt Service 301 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 - REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Interim Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists 4 vchlist 08/06/2015 3:16:37PM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6297 8/6/2015 004531 ANSETT, LESLIE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND MIRABEAU MEF 52.00 Total : 52.00 6298 8/6/2015 004532 BARNES, MIKE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND MIRABEAU MEF 52.00 Total : 52.00 6299 8/6/2015 004517 CAREY, JODI PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND BROWNS PARK 52.00 Total : 52.00 6300 8/6/2015 004528 CARLSON, JEFF PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND VALLEY MISSIO 52.00 Total : 52.00 6301 8/6/2015 004523 COEUR D ALENE TRIBE, ECLC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND DISCOVERY PL. 52.00 Total : 52.00 6302 8/6/2015 003910 CONVERSION CONCEPTS INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME/ 52.00 Total : 52.00 6303 8/6/2015 004530 CRUME, LINDA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND MIRABEAU SPR 52.00 Total : 52.00 6304 8/6/2015 004516 DEMPSEN, REBECCA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND EDGECLIFF PAf 52.00 Total : 52.00 6305 8/6/2015 004524 GENOVA, LA DONNA PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND TERRACE VIE\P 52.00 Total : 52.00 6306 8/6/2015 003830 GOVETT, KATHLEEN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND SULLIVAN PAR? 52.00 Total : 52.00 6307 8/6/2015 004533 GUMMERSALL, WHITNEY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND MIRABEAU MEF 52.00 Total : 52.00 6308 8/6/2015 004515 HOWARD, CLARENCE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND MIRABEAU PAR 52.00 Total : 52.00 6309 8/6/2015 004525 INGALLS, CAROL PARK REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND TERRACE VIE 52.00 Page: 1 vchlist '08/06/2015 3:16:37PM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6309 8/6/2015 004525 004525 INGALLS, CAROL (Continued) Total : 52.00 6310 8/6/2015 003121 KEMPFF, BETTY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME) 52.00 Total : 52.00 6311 8/6/2015 004527 LAWEN, CYNTHIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND VALLEY MISSIO 52.00 Total : 52.00 6312 8/6/2015 004534 LEACH, CANDANCE PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 107.00 Total : 107.00 6313 8/6/2015 004522 MCCORKLE, DENNIS PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND DISCOVERY PL. 52.00 Total : 52.00 6314 8/6/2015 004526 MCMANUS, SHANNON PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND TERRACE VIEV, 52.00 Total : 52.00 6315 8/6/2015 004520 OROZCO, LIZ PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND DISCOVERY PL, 52.00 Total : 52.00 6316 8/6/2015 003936 PAWN 1 INC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND VALLEY MISSIO 52.00 Total : 52.00 6317 8/6/2015 004452 PITTMAN, HEATHER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 SUMMER DAY CAMP REFUND 107.00 Total : 107.00 6318 8/6/2015 004514 ROBERTS, VIRGINIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND FOR SUMMER DAY CAMP 117.00 Total : 117.00 6319 8/6/2015 004521 SCHOONOVER, RACHEL PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND DISCOVERY PL, 65.00 Total : 65.00 6320 8/6/2015 004519 SIAHAYA, MARK PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND GREENACRES 1 52.00 Total : 52.00 6321 8/6/2015 003106 SPEAR, MICHELLE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND GREENACRES I 52.00 Total : 52.00 6322 8/6/2015 000295 VALLEYFEST PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DAMAGE DEPOSIT MIRABEAU ME) 257.00 Page: 2 vchlist '08/06/2015 3:16:37PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 6322 8/6/2015 000295 000295 VALLEYFEST 6323 8/6/2015 004529 VALLY, GORDON 6324 8/6/2015 004518 WESSELMAN, JUDY 28 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref 28 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date (Continued) PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount Total : 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND MIRABEAU PAR Total : 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND GREENACRES I Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 257.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 1,849.00 1,849.00 Page: 3 vchlist 08/12/2015 9:01:41AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 36063 8/12/2015 000197 ACRANET 36064 8/12/2015 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 36065 8/12/2015 004278 ARCHITECTS WEST INC 36066 8/12/2015 000030 AVISTA 36067 8/12/2015 001545 BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC 36068 8/12/2015 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG 36069 8/12/2015 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 36070 8/12/2015 000322 CENTURYLINK 36071 8/12/2015 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 36072 8/12/2015 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 36073 8/12/2015 003795 CLEARWATER SUMMIT GROUP 36074 8/12/2015 001888 COMCAST 105775 Expenses 8152 July 2015 2015-1196 Expenses 9665574 S0114407 S0114427 JULY 2015 August 2015 July 2015 PAY APP 1 AUG 2015 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.018.016.518 NEW HIRE BACKGROUND CHECK; Total : 001.032.000.543 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 310.000.215.594 0215 -CITY HALL DESIGN & CN ADN Total : 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: PW ACCOUNT NOT ON Total : 309.000.225.594 0225 -VM DOG PARK ARCHITECHTI Total : 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : 001.076.000.576 2015 PHONE SVCS: ACCT 509 Z14- Total : 001.076.305.575 PETTY CASH PARKS: 8988,89,90 Total : 001.032.000.543 PETTY CASH: 13058, 59,60,62,63,6, Total : 309.000.217.594 0217-EDGCLIFF PICNINC SHELTEF Total : 001.090.000.518 INTERNET CITY HALL 140.00 140.00 9.20 9.20 20,690.40 20,690.40 54.00 54.00 2,517.49 2,517.49 10.18 10.18 446.34 171.47 126.51 744.32 501.58 501.58 24.97 24.97 6.25 6.25 57,553.50 57,553.50 143.03 Page: vchlist 08/12/2015 9:01:41 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 36074 8/12/2015 001888 001888 COMCAST 36075 8/12/2015 004437 COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES INC 36076 8/12/2015 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 36077 8/12/2015 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 36078 8/12/2015 003348 DATA PRO SOLUTIONS INC 36079 8/12/2015 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 36080 8/12/2015 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 36081 8/12/2015 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 36082 8/12/2015 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 36083 8/12/2015 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 36084 8/12/2015 000746 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 36085 8/12/2015 004165 EXPRESS SERVICES INC (Continued) 1447 41763860 July 2015 16789 78068351 RE-313-ATB50714066 RE-313-ATB50714068 RE-46JG6436L002 July 2015 Expenses July 2015 July 2015 000-217156-00-2 Fund/Dept 001.090.000.558 001.018.014.514 001.076.300.576 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.548 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 001.076.304.575 001.013.015.515 101.042.000.542 001.076.300.576 502.502.000.517 16012068-9 001.058.057.558 Description/Account Amount Total : SPOKANE VALLEY RETAIL STRATE Total : JULY 2015: FLEET FUEL BILL UTILITIES: CP COMPUTER SOFTWARE 4,686.06 Total : 4,686.06 143.03 6,430.01 6,430.01 2,876.26 Total : 2,876.26 Total : 932.04 932.04 COMPUTER LEASE ON 001-892211 Total : STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINTEP SIGNAL AND ILLUMINATION MAIN REGIONAL DECANT FACILITY Total : ADVERTISING FOR SENIOR CENTE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : WATER CHARGES: PW WATER CHARGES FOR EDGECLIF Total : 2ND QTR 2015 UI TAX EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 1,006.63 1,006.63 21,866.65 5,027.59 2,805.99 29,700.23 40.00 40.00 107.49 107.49 922.67 191.47 1,114.14 6,182.58 Total : 6,182.58 Total : 344.38 344.38 Page: r 2' vchlist 08/12/2015 9:01:41 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: m%3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 36086 8/12/2015 001926 FARR, SARAH 36087 8/12/2015 003176 FIVE STAR CONCRETE INC 36088 8/12/2015 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 36089 8/12/2015 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 36090 8/12/2015 003177 GUTH, ERIC 36091 8/12/2015 002607 HUB SPORTS CENTER 36092 8/12/2015 002384 IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MGMT. LLC 36093 8/12/2015 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. 36094 8/12/2015 002041 J. SCRIVNER INVESTIGATIONS INC 36095 8/12/2015 004464 KNOWLEDGENET 36096 8/12/2015 000523 LASER QUEST Expenses 06-002-2759 44082 44083 44103 441100 44145 Juy 15 1042 Expenses 2015 2015 11515-2 PAY APP 2 July 30, 2015 32700 014072215 Fund/Dept 001.018.014.514 001.058.055.595 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 001.032.000.543 105.000.000.557 105.000.000.557 101.042.000.542 311.000.188.595 001.013.015.515 001.018.014.514 001.076.301.571 Description/Account Amount EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SIDEWALK ON E. MISSION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS Total : Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 2015 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB LODGING TAX GRANT REIMBURSE Total : 2015 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PL Total : 0188-SULLIVAN ST PRES CN CONI Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAINING COURSES FOR IT Total : Total : SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP Al Total : 88.55 88.55 10,600.00 10,600.00 112.80 91.80 133.30 25.00 89.25 452.15 3,708.03 3,708.03 45.59 45.59 7,293.78 6,593.66 13,887.44 1,794.00 1,794.00 597,722.96 597,722.96 500.00 500.00 1,625.07 1,625.07 798.94 798.94 Page: vchlist 08/12/2015 9:01:41 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 36097 8/12/2015 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 36098 8/12/2015 004537 MOORE, BRIANNA 36099 8/12/2015 003090 NORTH 40 OUTFITTERS 36100 8/12/2015 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC. 36101 8/12/2015 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 36102 36103 36104 36105 36106 8/12/2015 000058 OMA 8/12/2015 001133 PATRIOT FIRE PROTECTION INC. 8/12/2015 000677 PAW 8/12/2015 001860 PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 492 499 Aquatic Refund 64028/3 95039 1800684594 779664695001 780579446001 781552498001 781552573001 782846028001 782846100001 784589793001 784620722001 A500163 2313596 2015 H244851 8/12/2015 004355 PRESIDO NETWORKED SOLUTIONS IN 6011115003742 Fund/Dept 001.013.015.515 001.013.015.515 001.076.302.347 Description/Account Amount PROFESSIONAL SVCS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : AQUATIC REFUND: MOORE 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 001.018.016.518 SLOTTED NAME BADGE 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.076.301.571 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.018.016.518 001.090.000.518 001.018.016.518 001.076.305.575 001.058.056.558 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.594 Total : Total : Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: BUDGET WOR( OFFICE SUPPLIES: GENERAL GO\/ OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS AND RE OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS AND RE OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS AND RE OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS AND RE OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR PRINTER AND TONER NEW HIRE PHYSICALS Total : Total : ANNUAL INSPECTION OF WET SPF Total : PAW 2015 MEMBER DUES Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 3,176.73 648.50 3,825.23 35.00 35.00 18.47 18.47 16.85 16.85 61.96 14.12 11.26 181.10 6.51 8.64 5.89 25.10 241.84 556.42 375.00 375.00 413.06 413.06 150.00 150.00 192.33 192.33 GPS UNITS FOR SVPD 6,554.61 Page: vchlist 08/12/2015 9:01:41 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 i5 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 36106 8/12/2015 004355 004355 PRESIDO NETWORKED SOLUTION: (Continued) 36107 8/12/2015 000952 RECALL DESTRUCTION SVC 3901132852 36108 8/12/2015 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER 36109 8/12/2015 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS 36110 8/12/2015 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 36111 8/12/2015 000189 SILVERWOOD THEME PARK INC. 36112 8/12/2015 001971 SITELINES PARK AND PLAYGROUND 36113 8/12/2015 003081 SOUZA, CATHERINE 02-421946 IN21714 IN28643 6787002 40205 16039 Aquatic Refund 36114 8/12/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 42000163 51502752 36115 8/12/2015 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST #3 36116 8/12/2015 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW, THE 36117 8/12/2015 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE July 2015 432173 3271082005 36118 8/12/2015 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOLUT 8010098353 Fund/Dept 001.058.057.558 001.076.301.571 001.058.057.558 001.058.057.558 001.016.000.521 001.076.301.571 001.076.300.576 001.076.302.347 001.016.000.554 001.016.000.523 101.042.000.542 001.013.000.513 001.090.000.519 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount Total : 6,554.61 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION SERVI Total : SUPPLIES FOR REC PROGRAMS Total : JULY 2015 COPIER COSTS JUNE 2015 COPIER COSTS Total : MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC- Total : SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP AI Total : BENCHES FOR BROWNS PARK Total : AQUATIC REFUND: SOUZA Total : AUGUST 2015 ANIMAL CONTROL JUNE 2015 HOUSING INVOICE Total : WATER CHARGES: PW Total : ADVERTISING ACCOUNT 9004210 Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL GOV Total : 61.61 61.61 78.40 78.40 1,370.29 2,121.93 3,492.22 960.75 960.75 2,608.30 2,608.30 2,268.79 2,268.79 35.00 35.00 20,435.67 55,137.88 75,573.55 1,275.90 1,275.90 323.08 323.08 213.47 213.47 ANSWERING SVC CP: SEA4590531 55.54 Page: vchlist 08/12/2015 9:01:41 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 36118 8/12/2015 003532 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOI (Continued) 36119 8/12/2015 004005 STONE CREEK LAND DESIGN & DEV PAYAPP 6 36120 8/12/2015 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 36121 8/12/2015 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 74649 891215 36122 8/12/2015 002555 T. LARIVIERE EQUIPMENT &, EXCAVATIO PAYAPP 1 36123 8/12/2015 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 2324 36124 8/12/2015 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 36125 8/12/2015 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP 36126 8/12/2015 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 7302014 120814 120815 120816 July 2015 36127 8/12/2015 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 9747533051 9749327316 36128 8/12/2015 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 46718 B 36129 8/12/2015 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC. 006484 Fund/Dept 309.000.176.595 001.018.016.518 101.042.000.542 311.000.220.595 309.000.217.594 001.011.000.511 001.013.015.515 001.058.056.558 001.058.099.558 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.058.057.558 311.000.224.595 001.058.055.558 Description/Account Amount Total : 0176 APPLEWAY TRAIL 2A CONSTF Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRANSFER STATION Total : Total : 0220-HOUK-SINTO-MAXWELL ST P Total : 0217-EDGECLIFF SHELTER PROJE Total : BROADCASTING COUNCIL MEETIN Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMP PLAN UPDATES UTILITIES: JULY 2015 Total : Total : JULY 2015 VERIZON CELL PHONE: JULY 2015 WIRELESS DATA CARD: Total : REMAINING BALANCE ON INVOICE Total : 55.54 41,830.88 41,830.88 70.50 70.50 155.28 155.28 321,067.47 321,067.47 400.00 400.00 1,292.00 1,292.00 1,113.00 500.00 25,930.63 27,543.63 3,560.22 3,560.22 1,329.96 329.43 1,659.39 11.82 11.82 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,151.01 Total : 1,151.01 Page: vchlist 08/12/2015 9:01:41 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 52578 7/27/2015 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 16022106 7/31/2015 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 730150044 7/31/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 805150012 8/5/2015 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 71 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 71 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date 2nd QTR 2015 1st OTR 2015 9290200777 JULY 2015 Fund/Dept 001.076.301.586 001.076.302.576 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.512 Description/Account Amount LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX Total : COMBINED EXCISE TAX RETURN Total : LE CONTRACT BILLING JULY 2015 Total : SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 3,161.85 3,161.85 1,168.84 1,168.84 1,586,081.00 1,586,081.00 155,594.96 155,594.96 3,010,869.90 3,010,869.90 Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 25, 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 August 15, 2015 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 279,068.56 $ $279,068.56 Benefits: $ 54,929.60 $ $ 54,929.60 Total payroll $ 333,998.16 $ $333,998.16 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, August 11, 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 Joe Pursch of Valley Fourth Memorial Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Members from Boy Scout Troop 431 led 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: Mayor Grafos welcomed Senator Mike Padden, and State Representatives Matt Shea and Robert McCaslin. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Hafner: said that August is typically a month of no agency/committee meetings; said he attended the outdoor Sportsplex meeting where he heard good suggestions about an outdoor activity for the area, and said there will be further opportunities for conversing on that topic in the future. Councilmember Pace: said he also attended the Chamber of Commerce's sportsplex meeting and it was exciting to see so many stakeholders; said he rode with a detective and visited various National Night Out Against Crime activities. Councilmember Higgins: said he met with the Spokane Regional Clean Air Board where they continued discussion on the repair of the building. Councilmember Gothmann- said he attended the Chamber's meeting concerning an outdoor sports facility and said one of the possible areas is near the HUB in Liberty Lake; attended the City's audit entrance meeting where the State Auditors stated their objectives for the upcoming audit; participated in some National Night Against Crime activities; said that he met with City Manager Jackson concerning the topic of gravel sites and mining operations and later toured the Eden and Flora sites, said the tours were very informative, and that he asked Geologist Marcia Sands whether gravel pits can be reclaimed, and she said they certainly can be and that the big problem is noise and dust; Ms. Sands also told him that you don't want to penetrate the aquifer because if it comes up water and water has fish in it, then you automatically have another shoreline; Councilmember Gothmann said he feels we need a geologist to help so we can make intelligent decisions. Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the Chamber hosted meeting about the outdoor sports complex, and feels more data is needed to determine what kind of complex is needed; went to some Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT National Night Out events and met more neighbors, including a BNSF (Burlington Northern Sante Fe) rail master who talked a little about their operation and train whistles; attended the regional transportation SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) meeting's audit entrance where the focus was on the federal side of issues. Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he also attended several National Night Out events; attended the meeting on the sportsplex; met with Representative McMorris Rodgers and they talked about grade separation and he encouraged her to use her influence on our TIGER grant. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Grafos reported that he also attended several National Night Out events; today met with Sheriff Knezovich and members of the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations, which was founded 35 years ago as part of the federal, state and county emphasis to remove the Arian Nation Organizations, and said they will be asking us to be part of the Spokane County task force which is being formed, and that he expects more information to come later, adding that if we participate it will not require any financial assistance; mentioned a letter he received from the Department of Commerce regarding the Appleway Trail and he read portions of that letter extending congratulations to us for securing the $1 million state grant, and Mayor Grafos also extended thanks to Senator Padden, and Representatives McCaslin and Shea for their efforts. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Steve Latoszek, Spokane Valley: said he has been here since 1986 so has a vested interest in making our city beautiful; that he drives around and notices shrubs and trees blocking speed limit signs, directional and other signs throughout the Mirabeau Park Area, and in particular, a 35 -mph sign is blocked; said there are other signs on Parkway and on Sullivan blocked by shrubbery; said he wants CenterPlace to look pristine; and whether on public or private land, these things need to be taken care of; said he goes to the Senior Center and remarked about the problem in the turn and almost being sideswiped by vehicles; also said he sees cars turning the wrong way on Argonne and Mullan onto Sprague and that he is not sure if that was ever measured. Lynn Plaggemeier: said he came in about three weeks ago and provided photos of Value Village store and now it is worse and he wants to know when the City staff has looked at "that mess" and asked if any citations have been given to Value Village; and again mentioned the "derelict" Albertson's and asked if our City has an ordinance where the owners of those properties or the real estate companies have an obligation to maintain the exterior of those buildings. Representative Bob McCaslin: said he is here to thank Spokane Valley for being such a great city and that a lot of that has to do with Council and staff; and that people approach him about our City and how well it is run and said he gets to brag about his hometown, and he again thanked Council for their support. Representative Matt Shea: said this year the legislature secured the most capital funding in the twenty years since they have worked together, and he mentioned the funding of the Spokane Valley Tech School and of the Appleway Trail; and said he looks forward to the development of Barker Road Interchange and the expansion of the Industrial Park. Senator Mike Padden: said they had a good session and he appreciated working with City Manager Jackson and with the City's lobbyist; mentioned the construction money for all the school districts for new buildings and he extended congratulations on a very good job on the asphalt overlay on Sullivan and that he is glad to hear we are staying on schedule for the Sullivan Bridge; and said he is proud to represent Spokane Valley and often mentions his wish that the state was run as well as the City of Spokane Valley with a low growth rate and great reserves. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 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 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-015 Adopting Mining 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 No. 15-015 adopting findings of fact justfing 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. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained the history and reasons for the new ordinance, and gave a review of the findings, as noted in his Request for Council Action form; said we have not designated mineral resource land to -date, but are in the midst of the 2015 comprehensive plan update process; said we will review where those lands are appropriate as well as the associated mining regulations; and without a moratorium it would be possible for inconsistent new uses that might be contrary to regulations; mentioned that today we have received seven written comments, all of which will be included in the Council Agenda Packet for the second reading, if this is moved forward; said the moratorium is a temporary measure while the City proceeds through the comp plan update and does not impact current lawful mining operations; that it is not a permanent ban on mining, and in fact we have previously moved forward a CAR (citizen action request) concerning mining. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if the purpose of this ordinance is to give us a chance to do the land analysis and then put together that analysis into the comp plan along with the required zoning, and Mr. Lamb concurred; said it is a temporary measure to allow the time to do that analysis; and since the date of the original moratorium we have not received any applications from any of the currently operating mining sites. Councilmember Higgins stated that this does not affect any currently permitted operation and again, Mr. Lamb concurred. Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Jana McDonald: briefly commented about Councilmember Gothmann's comments concerning the shoreline issues, and said gravel pits that go into the shoreline are exempt; she offered a tour of any of their facilities; and added that that "nice asphalt overlay" was due to her company of Central Pre -Mix. Kevin Bill: said he works for Central Pre -Mix; his son helped put together that basketball court in Browns Park; that his company supports many nonprofits and that they are a responsible company and have been here 85 years. Sue Devaney: said she is the Chief Financial Officer for Central Pre -Mix; expressed concern with the moratorium and asked Council for reconsideration; said over the last four years they paid $1.5 million in property taxes and another $2 million in property and product sales tax for things they bought and sold; said she is concerned with the economic development and wants to be an active partner in the community; and she asked Council to consider the financial impact of moving their operation further out; said they have about 300 employees who live in the immediate area and also pay fuel taxes and supports charitable activities, and again asked Council to consider removing the moratorium. She handed her August 11, 2015 letter to the City Clerk for the record. John Shogren: also with Central Pre -Mix; asked to stop this unnecessary mining moratorium and said it is not a good economic decision for the City; said asphalt is a fundamental element for growth and Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT everything starts with aggregate; and that a vote for this is a vote for a tax increase and he feels this contradicts state law and is out of compliance with state planning goals; that it will damage Central Pre- mix as it disallows mining plant adjustments; and he asked Council to lift the moratorium to allow free - enterprise like them to operate. He handed his August 11, 2015 letter to the City Clerk for the Record. Stacy Bjordahl: speaking on behalf of Central Pre -Mix, said the resource dictates the location, which is why the GMA mandates that those resources are preserved and protected and they cannot be re -located; said the industrial uses will create noise and dust; she commended the bringing forth of this issue again and to solicit comments, and said there is no support for the moratorium, rather quite the opposite and in that regard, Council should repeal the moratorium as there is no support for it from the community. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Gothmann explained that a moratorium is a delay so the question can be studied and that he feels that studying this for six months is not unreasonable; said this is not going to prevent mining. Councilmember Hafner said he agrees that this is a temporary delay until the whole situation can be studied including how it will affect the aquifer, as well as the reclamation process. In response to Deputy Mayor Woodard's question about extending this moratorium, Mr. Lamb said that state law allows extensions, but prior to any extension, a public hearing would be required as well as another round of findings; and said this moratorium is currently scheduled to end February 23, 2016. Deputy Mayor Woodard acknowledged the importance of gravel and that time is needed to examine those land uses as well as meet state law; said this moratorium is for six more months and is not a ban or closing down of Central Pre -mix or any other pits. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Grafos called for a recess; he reconvened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. 3. Proposed Resolution 15-007 Amending Governance Manual — Chris Bainbridge It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to approve Resolution 15-007 amending the Governance Manual as proposed. City Clerk Bainbridge explained that as a result of the last meeting of the Governance Committee, the following issues were suggested to be brought back to the full Council for further discussion and decision: Page 18 discussion of whether to leave the Table of Parliamentary Procedure as is, or to change the motions to "close debate" and "suspend the rules" to require a 2/3rd majority vote as per Robert's Rules of Order. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to amend the table to change those two motions, from requiring a majority to pass, to requiring a 2/3'd majority to pass. Discussion included comments from Councilmember Pace that he favors the change to keep things simpler and to have the motions consistent with Roberts Rules of Order, while Councilmember Hafner suggested not changing it since there hasn't been a problem in the past. Mayor Grafos also stated that this has not been a problem in the past. After further brief discussion, Deputy Mayor Woodard called for the question: All in Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Gothmann, Higgins, Pace, and Hafner. Opposed: Councilmember Wick. Motion passed to call the question. Vote by acclamation on the motion to change the noted motions in the table to require 2/3' d majority: In Favor: Councilmembers Pace, Gothmann, and Wick. Opposed: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner, Higgins. The motion failed and the table will remain as it currently is in the Manual. Page 27: under section "C" for the process for selecting a temporarily councilmember, the question is whether or not to omit the sentence: "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." It was moved by Councilmember Pace and seconded to remove that sentence. Councilmember Pace said his suggestion is to keep the Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT process simple, clean, and apolitical, and said he feels if there are rules for when a job ends, Council should adhere to those rules. During the discussion about the process for filling a Council vacancy versus a temporary position, Councilmember Gothmann noted he would recuse himself from this vote since he is at the moment, that temporary Councilmember. Vote by acclamation to remove the sentence: In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner, Higgins, and Pace. Opposed: Councilmember Wick. Abstentions: Councilmember Gothmann. Motion carried and the sentence will be removed. Page 25, and 27-28: After brief discussion about the voting process, limiting nominations to only one, unless the person declined the nomination or there was no second of the nomination, and to have the vote by written ballot, other than making a minor change about what to do in case of a lack of a second on the nomination, and to make sure the subsequent voting rounds are included in case of no majority vote, it was determined to leave the proposed verbiage as written. Page 13: concerning steps to take for considering any tax rate change, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to eliminate the entire paragraph 5 Tax Rate Changes. There was brief discussion on the pros and cons of the verbiage. Vote by Acclamation: In favor of removing the paragraph: Mayor Grafos, and Councilmembers Gothmann, Hafner, and Wick. Opposed to removing the paragraph: Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Pace and Higgins. Motion carried and the paragraph will be removed. There was also brief discussion about the phrase "city manager or designee" and the rationale for removing "or designee." Mr. Jackson explained that the City Code permits Mr. Jackson to always have the ability to appoint a designee, so we took that out of this manual so as not to be redundant, and as Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned, and Mr. Jackson concurred, the designee would always fall to the Deputy City Manager unless otherwise stated. Mayor Grafos mentioned page 12, item 4 Placing Items on an Agenda, and the section on the top of page 13 under iii(b) explaining the process for Councilmembers to place an item on an advance agenda and the involvement of the agenda committee. Mayor Grafos noted the verbiage includes consensus of three or more Councilmembers shall move the item forward to a future agenda, and he explained that he would prefer a majority rather than three or more, to bring back an item for a future agenda. Deputy Mayor Woodard said the purpose of having three or more Councilmembers is to address the concerns of the minority of the Councilmembers. Councilmember Hafner said that if three Councilmembers think something is important enough to put on a future agenda, he feels that should be done for if nothing else, discussion purposes; and Councilmember Gothmann agreed with leaving it at three in order to give those minority three Councilmembers the chance to argue their case. Councilmember Pace agreed with leaving it three or more; but also noted that getting something on an agenda should be a Council decision, and even if staff indicates a lack of time to work on an issue, Council should be able to discuss it anyway; that Council needs to be able to control what gets on the agenda and three people should be able to add something to the agenda no matter what. It was moved by Mayor Grafos and seconded that item #4 be changed to a majority of councilmembers to bring the item back on a future agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Grafos and Councilmember Hafner. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmembers Pace, Higgins, Wick and Gothmann. Motion failed and the proposed verbiage with "three or more" will not be changed. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned there are other small changes throughout the document, mostly through the end of Chapter 2, and she asked if Council had other concerns to discuss. The nomination process for filling a vacancy was brought up by Councilmember Wick and after brief discussion, Council agreed that the intent is, if a Councilmember's nomination is not seconded, that Councilmember may make another nomination if desired. Ms. Bainbridge said she would make that clarification in the manual. It was then Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT moved by Councilmember Hafner, seconded and unanimously agreed to adopt the Governance Manual as further amended. 4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project #0206 — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the Sprague/Long Sidewalk improvements, Project #0206 to Bacon Concrete, Inc., in the amount of $237,647 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Public Works Director Guth explained that four bids were received, with Bacon Concrete as the lowest responsive bidder. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Lynn Plaggemeier; regarding the new city hall, said the number should be broken out from real estate, staff time, and site work; said he hasn't seen a tentative published schedule for when the new city hall should be open for bids and if you want good prices, that should be done around January; said he knows there have been some revisions to the architect's plans but it would be nice to see what is in that statement of work as he doesn't know if there is a hot tub in there or not; said public review of that statement of work is important and Council should direct that the architect will design to 85% of the programmed amount; that public review should take place at 35, 65, and 90% of final design documents; said he has concerns with our City doing a comp plan at the same time as a new city hall and asked how long will Council be in positions when the comp plan comes in at a different location than what was selected; and said a lot of work needs to be done before this goes further. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 5. 2016 Budget Estimated Revenues/Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor went over the estimated 2016 revenues and expenditures as noted in her August 11, 2015 Request for Council Action form; gave some background on the 2016 budget; explained that two new funds are being proposed: Fund 104 for the 1.3% new Lodging Tax, and Fund 106 to account for Comcast PEG contributions and expenses. Via her PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Taylor highlighted the general fund revenues and expenditures including nonrecurring expenditures; mentioned other funds such as the motor vehicle fuel tax revenue collected by the State and remitted to the street fund; the Motel/Motel tax revenues, stormwater management fees, and aquifer protection area fees, and mentioned upcoming Council budget discussions. 6. Council Goals and Policies for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) — Mark Calhoun Deputy City Manager Calhoun went over the background of Council Goals and Priorities for use by the Lodging Tax Committee, as noted on his Request for Council Action (RCA) form; and after brief discussion and explanation of the four goals listed on the RCA, Council concurred with the proposed goals and priorities as listed. Mr. Calhoun said he will include these goals and priorities with the LTAC materials which will be sent out early September, and will discuss these goals as he meets with the LTAC early September. 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos Councilmember Hafner mentioned that several vacant lots are looking trashy and not being taken care of; said he heard two complaints about this and wanted to make sure vacant owners are taking care of their lots; and suggested making that a requirement for vacant businesses and residences. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Jackson explained that presentations from Outside Agencies is currently set for the September 1 Council meeting, and that Council has been awarding funds to GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) for economic development since our City's incorporation; at a workshop in June staff proposed taking a Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT portion of those funds and working on a formal contract with GSI in lieu of Council awarding them funds through our Outside Agency process, and had originally proposed $40,000. Mr. Jackson said staff and GSI have worked through the contract and come to an agreed upon amount of $43,000; and with that in mind, said it is now important to discuss this since they would likely need to make a decision about appearing as an outside agency. Mr. Jackson said he proposes awarding the contract to GSI, that although it is within the administrative authority of the City Manager, he wanted to make Council aware of this and to let Council know that GSI has signed the contract. In connection with this contract, Mr. Jackson said this could reduce the total amount of funds for Outside Agencies by $43,000 if Council desired. Mr. Jackson explained that this contract amount is based on the average amount given to GSI over the years, but is less than what was awarded over the last three years; that the agreement is well-defined and requires performance on various levels, and would be very measurable, and as well, GSI would have to submit an annual report to be reviewed by the Community Development Director and reported to the City Manager. Mr. Jackson said this is a good contract and he asked if there were any objections to him executing this for next year. Mr. Jackson said the contract is for one year and starts January 2016; it has the option of three, one-year renewals at the City's discretion and any renewal must be done thirty days in advance of the end of the year. In response to a question about not fulfilling performance measures, Mr. Jackson said we would not cancel mid -contract, but if that were the case, we simply would not renew. There were no objections from Council with Mr. Jackson signing the contract, and said they would also like a copy. Mr. Jackson asked about increasing the total Outside Agency allotment or to keep it at $150,000; and Council agreed to keep it at $150,000, for at least the next year. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT August 17, 2015 Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Staff 8:30 a.m. Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember ABSENT: Ed Pace, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Eric Guth, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: John Culton, Eastern Washington Director for US Senator Patty Murray Evan Schatz, Staff Director at Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Johan Hellman, Executive Director of State Government Affairs, Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad (BNSF) Company, Pacific NW Richard Wagner, Manager Public Projects, NW Division, BNSF Railway Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m. (Note that Mr. Culton reported that Mr. Johan Hellman's GPS was a little off but that he was en -route; hence the reason for the meeting's late start.) ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Pace. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Pace from the meeting. Mayor Grafos welcomed and thanked everyone for coming. After self -introductions, the meeting's focus turned to rail issues. Part I: In response to Mr. Hellman's request for a briefing on the rail issue, City Manager Jackson explained that this meeting is to discuss the City's commitment, and re -commitment, to Bridging the Valley and to pursue grade separation projects wherever possible; that the City has prioritized four projects as we continue to pursue rail consolidation; and that all current grade separation projects deal with the BNSF, and there is no plan yet for the UP (Union Pacific) rail. Councilmember Wick added that there have been past discussions, and we wanted to see where the railroad's priorities are concerning investment in the infrastructure, that we are looking to expand and grow and can help each other through this process; said there was an agreement about 2007 which had been led by SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) at the time, with the main emphasis of bridging the valley; said there were discussions with UP and others to align corridors together; they had discussed rail investments and the pursuing of a federal grant, with SRTC as the primary sponsor at that time; that the design had been completed up to 30%, and the package passed at a federal level but the funding never came to fruition; said discussion prior to incorporation included doing the Argonne bridge project with the County doing the grade separation; the idea was embraced and an analysis was conducted for the corridors, but then the regional council came about and took a different direction and the previous coalition fell apart, and Special Council Meeting: August 17, 2015 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT therefore without federal funding, there are inadequate resources to accomplish this and at that time, since we had not yet incorporated, we were not at the table to help move it forward. Mr. Jackson mentioned that Senior Engineer Worley was on the original steering committee to develop the plans. Mr. Worley said that there was a stakeholder committee when we incorporated, with the goal to get all the grade crossings for Washington and Idaho up to 30% designed, and combine both railroads into the same corridor; they discussed how the tracks would be laid out and how many. Mr. Worley said that the regional SRTC would not have been able to get to the 30% level if there had not been an agreement between UP and BNSF, prior to our City's 2003 incorporation; said the 30% design was completed in 2004 and this has been languishing ever since. Mr. Worley said we had asked early on, what changed, and how was it that there was a concept of bringing the two into the same corridor, and now there is not; he said we have some historical letters from Glenn Miles of SRTC and the railroad; that there used to be coordination but it disappeared and we are wondering what changed; he said some railroad folks were going to look into it but we never heard back about why the change for a no-go and that the sense was there was no way the two would ever be combined. [Councilmember Hafner asked for, and copies were distributed of a two-page handout from SRTC's website (http://www.srtc.org/btv.html) concerning Bridging the Valley.] Mr. Worley said that the tenor of the letters between the railroad and SRTC were focused on where the federal funds would go; that BNSF didn't think the bridging project would get enough federal funding to move it forward, so they backed off of the project. Mr. Hellman said that it sounds like there was forward movement on the crossing projects but not the consolidation, and Mr. Worley said that the issue was that the two railroads were not in agreement, that we still wanted to move forward to try to get those grade projects done as it represented a huge safety issue, that the railroads were growing which meant increased traffic leading to increased safety concerns, that we were pushing to continue the move forward on the project but even the consolidation was an issue needing to be addressed. Mr. Hellman referenced a BNSF May 12, 2008 letter from Jeffrey B. Wright, which he said was probably the last correspondence the railroad did, and said that this letter fits in the timeframe we are discussing; he distributed copies of the letter, which was addressed to Todd Mielke, Chairman Board of Directors of the SRTC. Mr. Hellman read some of the letter (a copy of which is attached to these minutes) into the record, which reiterates the BNSF position and of the outstanding issues yet to be resolved, such as financing, joint operation, and which explain that BNSF doesn't support moving UP onto their line in the corridor as it is not best for their customers, franchise, or owners to adversely impact the competitive balance between the carriers. Mr. Hellman also noted, as pointed out in the letter, that our situation is similar to a Chicago area experience, with about 1,200 trains per day in one of the most populated regions of the nation; and with all the points outlined in the letter, the letter stated that BNSF agrees that grade separating vehicle and train traffic at key intersections will have local safety and mobility benefits, and that they fully support key separation projects in the bridging the valley program as those specific projects are pursued. Mr. Hellman said from a railroad perspective, there are a number of factors that played into why the consolidation didn't follow logic, including a lack of potential funding, challenges between the two railroads and the inability to move things through, but said they still recognize that important issues like safety need to be addressed; said since this letter was written in 2008, and even going back to 2005, those operating issues have become even more significant as well as the finance issues; said looking historically at the record for rail consolidation, that probably becomes less feasible over time; said the issues haven't changed in the past decade and may be even less feasible in terms of consolidation; said the idea of crossings are important here as in every community, and said if we could strategize to find ways to create public/private partnerships with state, local, and federal government, that this area would probably compete well for those funds; and Mr. Wagner agreed that has been the case with every at -grade crossing in Washington for the last six years that he has worked on. Mr. Hellman said the issue is about creating Special Council Meeting: August 17, 2015 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT access; in the 1980's and 1990's there was recognition that crossings were holding up freight mobility, there were safety issues and community issues and the idea was to get a group of projects together and move them forward as a package and maybe they'd get some traction; and that is what they did; a group was created of a dozen or two projects with the idea of creating partnerships with private industry, local, state and federal government contributing some dollars; said if you look at this regionally, look at it as a network with a regional concern and move some of those key projects forward, then we can have some success. He said they moved a couple projects ahead that way: grade separation and a freight mobility component to it and for them, it was helpful as they could resolve safety issues at the same time as resolving economic development issues; said it is similar to the way other big serious issues such as environmental cleanups are approached: there is a recognition of the projects and of the benefits and several communities get together and move them forward; and he said that could be done with grade separations as well. Mr. Hellman said he is aware since he does a lot of travelling around the nation, that these issues are a part of just about every community; said he would talk about rail safety to groups, which would lead to questions about safety and crossing, and then there would be work to build toward that model; said there have been some general successes in Spokane Valley as we are getting some money for some grade separation. Mr. Jackson replied that the only grade separation was pre -incorporation and that we have been trying to raise money and haven't been successful; and said we have applied for the TIGER funds for the Barker overpass. Mr. Wagner said that with all the grade separations, all the railroads are going to gladly participate in separations as per the federal regulations, which is 5% of the infrastructure at the crossing; said that Barker has a lot going on, and not necessarily associated with the actual crossing over the railroad tracks; said the current plans do not meet the standard requirements for grade separations as the clearances are incorrect, from the top of the rail to the lowest point of structure, as well as the horizontal distances; said it generally requires a clear span of the right-of-way, that they work with agencies and planners to make the project work and for example, if columns are needed on the property they could do easements; but said they generally like to have a clean span right-of-way; and again said that the plans do not meet the requirements for grade separation projects, adding that the project will require a fresh look or massaging what we have to bring the project up to their needs. Mr. Worley said that he and Mr. Wagner have had e- mail correspondence and discussed the need to get together; said we have not been in a position to move it forward and didn't think it would be worth it until the project was funded; and said they can meet and find out the new requirements and that we would make adjustments. Mr. Wagner said he recommends not waiting until the project is funded but rather to start working now; said the key element with all grant opportunities they want to see is substantial headway on the plans, at perhaps 60 to 90% completed is what puts the project in the running for those offerings; said if it was just development, occasionally the TIGER grant has funding opportunities for preliminary and engineering development of the project, but that's a very heavy cost for any community; said the further along in the design the better off for funding opportunities. Mr. Hellman agreed and said they want to have the project as complete as it can be so it is competitive; and that he doesn't want to create a situation where there is any doubt about the project should one piece not fall into place; again said this is a very competitive process and the winner tends to be the one who is most complete. Mayor Grafos remarked that we could spend millions on design but if the situation on the ground changed, what would prevent them from having to change a design again ten years from now. Mr. Wagner replied that when a project languishes as long as Barker has, that is the problem; said Barker seems pretty in-depth and is trying to do a lot which means a lot of design work which would take a couple of years to complete; said they have a specification book for grade separations that he shared with Mr. Worley (Mr. Worley was shaking his head no), and he also has the document digital, that explains how to meet those requirements which would mean smooth sailing by BNSF; said if the City needs accommodations, to just ask; said some requirements change over time but they can only run trains so high and so wide; and if a crash wall needs to be added, someone has to evaluate the cost effectiveness of Special Council Meeting: August 17, 2015 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT that project to see whether it is worth construction. Mr. Hellman said the clearances are the most critical. Mr. Wagner said in particular for future expansion, all grade separations require enough room for an additional track, an access road, ditches or some way to handle the runoff as the track beds aren't designed to hold water; at one point they were 23.4 and now they are 23.6 inches; said if we approved or had no comments at 30%, he doesn't know who evaluated the existing plans; said the first time he looked at them he knew they were bad clearance -wise; said he doesn't believe they changed that much and that there are some changes that do differentiate them from UP. Councilmember Wick asked if they only looked at Barker or did they see Pines as well and asked would all the plans need to be re -visited. Mr. Wagner said they would probably have to look at them all since ten year-old plans is a long time; said the plan reviews are only good for one year so we would have to keep it moving, and 30% is only good for a year after; he said if we were building an underpass, they would want to see those plans; spoke of corridor plans for our region and said that changes about two or three times a month and it is under constant review; said there are other areas of focus, such as Flora where about two months there were future plans for an additional track, said he can't think of anything else in Spokane Valley at this point, and that the Flora project was important then but think it was moved off the long-range plan. Mr. Hellman mentioned that long-range plans are very dynamic. Councilmember Wick asked if they could give a sense of what direction they are looking at and where we can help. Mr. Wagner said they would probably have to get back to Council on that and give us a list of questions dealing with long-range projects. Councilmember Wick said if they are going toward a fast corridor, were there some rail improvements or something to add another track line for UP? Mr. Wagner shook his head no; and the leadership has already stated what the plan is moving forward about shared corridors. Councilmember Wick replied that since the long-term is so dynamic, we can talk about it but Mr. Hellman said the bet approach is for us to focus on a specific project and try to move those forward; said even if they get into the fast corridor model it will be based on the most feasible, most tangible and most well-prepared project; and that he feels the best approach is to focus on a handful or small number of projects. Mr. Wagner said just to be clear, there are only so many trains that they can run and the speed of the trains is determined by track conditions as set by the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration); that we don't speed up trains; we do track improvements but don't just arbitrarily change the speed but that they want to run the trains at the speed the track is designed for; said constructing new sidings cost a lot. Mr. Hellman agreed the train speed is important and is mandated by federal law according to track quality; said they hear about volumes and moving certain commodities and it is all very dynamic; that over the last few years they have invested about $15 billion in new tracks, new sidings, to increase capacity and velocity and keep the safety factors in mind; said they have some of the newest and most modern tracks of any in North America; said over the last two to three decades safety has increased most dramatically; and last year more than $1 billion was spent in the northern corridor; said it is a much safer railroad then it was a couple of years ago; and as a railroad they tend to make capital decisions over many decades which is why they look so far in the future; they have to adapt for 20-30-40-50 years out. Mr. Wagner asked if Barker or Pines is the focus on the short-term projects. Mr. Jackson responded that they are both of equal stature; that Barker is the primary focus because of the opportunity to expand the industrial lands, and that Pines has more vehicle traffic; but that we can't put in for two projects at once due to limited resources; said we continue to focus on Barker and have funded the City's matching share with over $2 million; that we also have a future reconstruction project on Sullivan, as well as a Park Road overpass. FMSIB (Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board) funds were mentioned and Councilmember Wick asked about the possibility of funneling any toward engineering. Mr. Worley replied that FMSIB can only fund construction and not design and that there is a timeline on that funding. In reference to the 30% design, Mr. Jackson said that on one hand he understands Mr. Wagner's comments about the specification changes, but as a community, we are investing a great deal and trying to paint a picture to request funds and therefore don't want to insinuate in any way that our TIGER grant is not under consideration; said that he hasn't heard that comment, but some communities get funded with Special Council Meeting: August 17, 2015 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT less design work than what we have done; he said we don't want to do anything to impact the quality of our application as we are hopeful we will be funded with TIGER grant funds; said it would require a heavy investment of outside engineering to bring us to 1 00% drawings. Mr. Hellman said he understands and respects Mr. Jackson's statement, but his own message is to make the application as complete as possible as that will only improve the ability to get some of these very competitive TIGER grant funds. Mayor Grafos asked about what the chances are of getting TIGER funding even with 80% drawings, or would we just be spending a lot of money. Mr. Hellman said he could not speak to that, but did reply that putting a specific number on completeness is challenging, and reiterated that the more complete the project, the better chance of getting funds; said that within the region are areas of concern that people have about crossing projects, and that some specific areas are recognized for the challenge more than other areas, and that when you talk with people in freight mobility, the general recognition is that Spokane Valley is a challenging area. Mayor Grafos said that so what he is hearing is we should lose the concept of Bridging the Valley and just concentrate on one project to make it as complete as we can to apply for federal funds, and to forget the consolidation of lines. Mr. Hellman replied that he would need to see the record but that the consistent message is, that the consolidation is not workable and not feasible and he doesn't think that message has changed; said he can't tell the City what to do or not to do but thinks the logic of it points to one path forward, and to focus on that and try to get those drawings as complete as they can be and move that forward; said we have been having this conversation for a long time and consolidation never registered, but Barker Road has been recognized as important. There was some discussion about the "envelope" for tracks in the access road, and about the rail company's ability to build clearances based on topographical issues or existing structures; and Deputy Mayor Woodard commented that he would want to make sure we aren't planning one thing and end up with something different. Mr. Wagner said he would advise any agency building something to ask for grade separation standards, said most design firms already have them, and they like the agencies to have them so there are no miscommunications as they need to look at the conceptual plans at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Jackson said that generally speaking, even the grade separation projects sound like the primary benefit at the local level, while the railroad would contribute 5% toward construction cost, the railroad doesn't pursue these grade separation projects; that there must be an incentive for the railroad and the onus is on the community to put in those separations; that the railroad doesn't try to champion the crossings; said it doesn't feel like a partnership to get the crossings in, as it seems like all the responsibility is on the local community. Mr. Hellman noted, also generally speaking, that no one likes at - grade crossings as they affect traffic and safety; the railroad doesn't like them because of safety as that is the most likely place to see conflict between train and traffic or pedestrians; said the challenge is there are thousands of these and that there tends to be more road projects then rail projects; said sometimes the railroad might have a specific interest because of freight mobility or specific safety issues and can put more resources to the area, but generally this tends to be more of a community solution than a railroad solution. Mr. Wagner brought up the idea of putting together a draft construction maintenance agreement which he said is helpful when you submit an application for funding through whomever, they'll ask about adjoining property owners and who else might be impacted and whether you have agreements, and said if you can say yes we have an agreement and are talking with the railroad, or working on an agreement, that matters, particularly in the near future as you don't want to wait ten years but rather stay on top of it right away; he urged Spokane Valley to do that and said there will be folks to help with grants when we have agreements. Mr. Hellman agreed it is best to put oneself in the best position possible; and Mr. Wagner added that those agreements could take a year from start to fmish as property issues are expensive and demanding. Councilmember Wick asked if we could use that before the 30% design, and Mr. Wagner said that you would generally start before that, said a lot of times people want to build the next year and want to know how fast they can do this, and the answer is, not very fast. Special Council Meeting: August 17, 2015 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mayor Grafos asked how much does the equation change as far as receiving funds if there are thousands of these projects and limited funds; and how much does it change the chance of receiving funds if the city has some of its own dollars in it; does it make a difference in how the project is looked at or whether the design is ready to go. Mr. Schatz said there are billions of funds requested and you would want to make sure the dollars are there to complete the project; so as much city funds that can go toward the projects, that obviously helps; he said TIGER funds would be for helping the last part of the project, and full design helps. In response to a question from Mr. Hellman about the general themes seen within the TIGER program and what kinds of projects tend to get funds, Mr. Schatz said for a lot of these projects, the TIGER funds are the last dollars in the project; so broad support from state, county and other federal dollars behind the project helps as well as having a multitude of transportation modes, pedestrian, train, etc., and Mr. Hellman agreed that the ones that tend to move on have the support from all sectors: local, state, local legislative delegation writing letters of support; a very complete package from people from all areas supporting that this is something to move forward, adding once again that it is a very competitive program. Councilmember Hafner asked if there is anything else we could do to help with how our project is considered. Mr. Schatz said he would agree with the idea of having broad political support as when there are two to three competing projects within one region, it is a struggle; other advice would be if the City fails to get a TIGER grant, would be to ask the Department of Transportation (DOT) to go over the grant application to explain why the grant is not competitive, said they want to be helpful and know some cities can afford grant writers and some can't. Mr. Jackson responded that we have taken advantage of that suggestion, with Mr. Worley adding that we did so twice on the Barker Road, and we were encouraged to re -submit, we were told we hit a lot of the elements they were looking for and we were on the recommended funding list by the scoring committee; said there wasn't anything else the DOT suggested as something that we might be missing; said we put in a second TIGER grant and clarified a few things like the number of trains at crossings; and said he appreciated the debriefings. Councilmember Wick asked how we could get more support from Senator Murray's office as we are doing everything we can to convince you that this is the project to select. Mr. Schatz said he has a good understanding of the applications received and that the City has done a great job over the years in addressing the issue and making the Senator aware, and that he thinks the City is doing a good job of socializing the project. Mr. Hellman said that this is a tremendously challenging problem as there are billions of dollars' worth of projects out there with thousands across their network, and even a small scale project can cost tens of millions; said these projects are very expensive and sometimes it just a matter of continuing to advocate the issue and over time it ripens; he suggested the City continue to be aggressive and not lose hope as these are challenging projects and will take a while to solve these issues, but there are great people working on it at all levels; and Mr. Culton mentioned the recent funding of the North/South Freeway as a good example of pushing for funding year after year; that he thinks we are doing a good job of selling this, and the state needs to know what needs to happen next and why. Mr. Hellman agreed that the recent transportation revenue package is a good example of what can happen with an incredible amount of diligence, hard work and thought. Mr. Culton said he feels our conversation today has been helpful and perhaps it would be helpful to have the west side of the state made aware of the argument for our project. Councilmember Wick said we get complaints from citizens on a monthly basis about various train issues, that the public doesn't see the issues between the UP and BNSF, that there are forty-six more crossings on this corridor. Mayor Grafos as well as Mr. Culton thanked Mr. Hellman and Wagner for coming today, and Mr. Hellman extended his thanks for the conversation as well; said they take these issues seriously even though he won't always have the answers the City wants to hear; and he thanked Council and everyone for the time today and for patience in waiting for him to arrive at today's meeting. Mr. Hellman and Mr. Wagner left the meeting at 10:08 a.m., and Mayor Grafos called for a short recess. The meeting was reconvened at 10:16 a.m. by Deputy Mayor Woodard. Special Council Meeting: August 17, 2015 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT Part II: City Manager Jackson said that over the past few years our City has been more active at the federal level specifically concerning the railroad, and generally concerning infrastructure, like sewer and road projects to enhance our industrial area, and also has a primary focus on law enforcement; so we have Mr. Schatz to talk a little about the federal agenda over the past few years or other things they'd like to tell us; then Council can ask questions. Mr. Schatz explained that there have been ongoing conversations concerning infrastructure and investment, and the Senator supports the bill which sets up six years of mostly inflation rate increases in transportation spending, which received positive response on a lot of fronts; said they have moved a little on freight issues, set up some new programs that ensures WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) has an understanding of the long-term level of funding; said the difficulty in Washington, D.C. is this package doesn't really move the ball on any dramatic increased infrastructure spending as the feds did not increase the gas tax; said it moves some money around to pay for slight increases, but this is mostly to continue where we are; said the Senator was focused on a more robust package but it wasn't going to come with this Congress. He explained that we could see this fall, both the house and the senate working on both sides of a transportation package with a little more about intermodal issues and rail, and establishes for the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) and WSDOT what the funding will be; said on top of what little they could do, this would allow WSDOT to think about long-term project prioritization and like the North/South Corridor, we can see how this can reach through the next few phases. He explained that other federal funding and some long term state funding is further down the road; said the TIGER grant is run almost completely separate, and mentioned that the TIGER VII is up for obligation soon, with announcements to be made in the fall; adding that their office and WSDOT are trying to make some decisions so far as this round of applications; said there are a lot of other things going on in Washington, D.C., like health care and job training; and he welcomes questions from Council; and as Council thinks about the various projects and issues, about how we can be better partners at the federal level; said the Senator's office is very concerned about federal priorities, and the more communication we have about the core issues, the better; and he mentioned the quality of schools/education for example. Mr. Jackson asked about the status of the At -Grade Crossing Enhancement Act. Mr. Schatz said that Congressman Rick Larsen sits on the House Transportation Committee and it was he who introduced that bill to be part of a larger conversation with the House's long-term transportation package; said there should be more on that in September or October and that there are a lot of members who represent areas like ours who are trying to move that as part of the larger package. Mr. Culton also mentioned the Every Child Achieves Act, which is now the Nation's main education bill since the No Child Left Behind is apparently broken; said with the new Act the idea is to make clean goals and targets. Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned an article about the Spokane County Sewer District dumping six million gallons into the river and he asked what will happen from an EPA standpoint, and will they force the County to put that into basic reclamation; he also mentioned a concern with possibly adding that to the Saltese Flats within the next three to four years. Mr. Schatz said he would have to speak with the EPA as he is not familiar with that issue. Deputy Mayor Woodard also mentioned his concern about gray water and Mr. Culton said he would have to look into that as well. Mr. Jackson mentioned the Affordable Care Act; said it appears that in 2018 the City with the basic program from AWC (Association of Washington Cities) would have to pay a 40% excise tax on health care; said we currently have a fairly average health care program and the talk is the proposed ceiling can only be raised by the cost of living, which is one to two percent; said health care cost usually increases five to six percent annually; so this is a big concern. Mr. Schatz referenced what Mr. Jackson was referring to as the "Cadillac tax" and said there have been many conversations about not having it implemented as a key piece of the Affordable Care Act; said there are ongoing conversations and a bill is coming in September to eliminate the tax; said he thinks we will Special Council Meeting: August 17, 2015 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT see more information before implementation and about it not coming to full fruition, and said the Senator is very involved. Councilmember Wick asked about issues moving this year and since it is an election year, that perhaps there is a lot of talk but no action. Mr. Schatz said there should be some interesting movement in the fall as the Democrats and Republications do not agree on appropriation spending levels, and perhaps we are headed to another shut down; said there are some "major cliff" items coming up in October or November, and Senator Murray is working closely with the feds to get us through these tough situations; said we will have to wait and see how it all plays out, but that 2016 should be a year where probably as much won't be accomplished as was in past years; that overall it will be a very complicated year with this fall being a critical time to see what can get accomplished. Mr. Culton mentioned some kind of an industrial base agreement concerning a push for EXIM Bank reauthorization and where Kaiser Aluminum might stand on that issue. Councilmembers indicated they were not aware of that issue. There was no further discussion and Mayor Grafos thanked everyone for attending today's meeting. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:3 8 a.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Special Council Meeting: August 17, 2015 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: Jeffrey B. Wright Regional Vice President North Operations HALLWAY May 12, 2008 Todd Mielke, Chairman Board of Directors Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Avenue, Suite 310 Spokane, WA 99201-3613 BNSF Railway Company P.O. Box 961034 Fort Worth, Texas 76161-0034 2600 Lou Menk Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76161-2830 leffrey.wright1@bnsf.com 817-352-0132 Dear Chairman Mielke, In response to inquiries by state and federal legislators regarding BNSF Railway's participation in the Bridging the Valley (BTV) program, 1 would like to take this opportunity to reiterate BNSF's position on this issue. As noted in Steve Goodall's March 912200)5 letter to Glenn Miles, there are several outstanding issues yet to be resolved regarding this project. tlhese issues include financing for the project, joint operating issues, and issues concerning the competitive balance of railroads in the region. The letter goes on to stress that, while these issues are central to our acceptance of the entire BTV program, BNSF has and will continue to support the grade separation projects. We believe these grade separations are the most important community safety and mobility benefits of the BTV program. Our railroad's position on "Bridging the Valley" has not changed or altered from this letter, which Mr. Miles received three years ago. And, at virtually every relevant opportunity, we have sought to clearly and respectfully communicate this with local, state, and federal partners. At this time, BNSF does not support the BTV concept of moving Union Pacific Railroad operations onto our line within this corridor. We do not believe it to be in the best interests of our customers, franchise, or owners to adversely impact the competitive balance that now exists between the two carriers. Additionally, it continues to seem unlikely that the availability of state or federal funding will be of a sufficient magnitude to make substantial progress in the delivery of the BTV program. Our basis for this view is bolstered by the experience of a similar program in the Chicago area, called "CREATE." This project would (in part) provide 31 highway and rail grade separations, in a region that manages 1,200 freight and passenger trains per day. Despite the dramatic volume of train traffic, this 51.5 billion Chicago area program was authorized just $100 million in the most recent six-year federal surface transportation bill. Given the Chicago area experience—with 1,200 trains per day in one of the most populated regions of the nation—it is difficult for us to see how the BTV program's reliance on such significant public funding will be realized within a reasonable time period. These points notwithstanding, we agree that grade separating vehicle and train traffic at key intersections in the Spokane area will indeed have local safety and mobility benefits. Again, this is why we have fully support key grade separation projects in the BTV program, as these projects are pursued—and funded—in a more predictable project -by -project fashion. We look forward to continued participation in Spokane region grade separation projects, and other endeavors that provide mutual benefit to the community and to BNSF Railway. Respectfully, Attachment cc: Glenn Miles Doug Jones Dan MacDonald Walt Smith Terry Finn Barbara Ranf Andrew Johnsen Af/d---- Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action August 25, 2015 Department Director Approval: X Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business X new business ['public hearing ['information ❑ admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration — Set public hearing date for the 2016 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: State law requires the City to a set a public hearing date to review the 2016 Budget and Staff is proposing September 22, 2015. This public hearing is included in the seven separate opportunities the Council will have to discuss the budget, including two public hearings to gather input from citizens: • June 16 Council Budget Workshop • August 11 Admin report: Estimated 2016 revenues and expenditures • August 25 Public hearing #1 on 2016 revenues and expenditures • September 8 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2016 Budget • September 22 Public hearing #2 on 2016 Budget • October 13 First reading on ordinance adopting the 2016 Budget • October 27 Second reading on ordinance adopting the 2016 Budget OPTIONS: The Council could choose to set the public hearing on another date but the recommendation will keep us on schedule to adopt the budget on October 27, 2015. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to set the 2016 Budget hearing date for September 22, 2015. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This is part of the 2016 Budget development process leading to its scheduled adoption on October 27, 2015. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Interim Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • None. P:IClerklAgendaPackets for Web12015Iagendapacket 2015, 08-2511tem 2e Motion set budget hearing.docx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 25, 2015 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance No. 15-015 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 and a first reading on August 11, 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. However, a moratorium may not be extended in such a manner so as to create a permanent ban on the activity subject to the moratorium. 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 approve proposed Ordinance No. 15-015, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve 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. 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 - 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 - Map of existing mining pits (operational and non -operational) - Copies of written materials received on and since August 11, 2015 - Copy of draft minutes of first reading of proposed Ordinance No. 15-015 on August 11, 2015 and written materials submitted at that meeting 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 may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be thwarted or rendered moot by intervening development; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, 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"; 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 -tern 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 may be heard, at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall, City Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague, Spokane Valley, 99206, to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance. Section 5. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall be in effect as of the date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect 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'LTE 4/111., A City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved, as p Form: Office of the City Attorney Dean Grafos, Mayor (0jj Date of Publication: f ii 1 17), 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: I101IlC VOIC IIi4'' U P.' 14Apr2015spokanevalley 2a864932.685f•4c87•ae9c-86f4160843b1,mp4 • 24Feb2015spokanevalley a4f981ff-efa5-49a1-86ab-284c895ab787.mp4 24tMar2015spokanevalley_0d180e89.2d9c-4131•b053•ae1787dc4780.mp4 28Apr2015spokanevalley_86c767cc-fe38.4194•al8c-4955247c4aaa,mp4 • 301un2015spokanevalley_1504c316•a4aa-43c5.92ad•7b394db1d858.mp4 Lj City Council links 211u12015.docx 5: City of Spokane Valley map of mining sites for 28Apr2015 mtg.pdf CPM map of WaDNRGeology permitted sites in city labeled 28Apr15,jpg 7/16/20154:05 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 12:08PM 4/28/20154:13 PM "yFC Video MP4 Video MP4 Video MP4 Video MP4 Video Microsoft Word D... )be Acrobat D... JPEG 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 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 Nearing 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 V M 4P,Li e rel f& S Po K..61.-1 E N Lue- y V LcrQ ca ri"L r Spokeine_ \I, Ile.A. v.\ a Mkt.\ot 4t,J- p o . Ot)Likk\-.4.6 Cia C -CA .{-,0 k__Gt vi_e___ d- 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 Ginna Vasquez 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 SPOKAN E,.11LICOUNTY 01 1-1(1:1'11 COI '.\ Il' C.71M:1USS71'h\1:1cf' TODD NItI:LKti, 1sT insTiticr • Si:my U'Qt1INN, 2ND 1)t: CRtrr • AI. FRENCl1, 381' I) S t Rlc:I- 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.councilmembers@sokaneyalley.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 concems 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. 1 1 16 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASI IiNGION 99260-0100 • (509) 477-2265 0;Miik(4.0; e...44 7'2J) 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, J 71 _' \ J t c'p's. TODD MIELKE, Chair SHE,11 Q j ', Vice Chair AL FRE (1 mmissioner Enclosures SPOKANE May 14, 2015 -�-'s ill C 6C1 eli9craot& COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TODD MIELKE, IST DISTRICT • SI IEU.Y O'QUINN, 2ND DISIRICI' • AI. FRENCH, 3RD DISTRICT 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 RE: City of Spolcane 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 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 mad 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 1 Vice Chair AL F , Commissioner SPOKANE OUNTY O►►1. I •q (iir \l C.(41(111.1)111.\/.11' '1i'ln1\1111ki1 •SIII LIN"( •Or►\ti.2NI)I►I41'ItU:! • \I Fin-+.e11.31(1)111::11t1('I March 24, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard Councilman Rod Higgins Councilman Ed Pace Councilman Cbuck Hefner Councilman Ben Wick Councilman Bill Bates City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 VL9 ELECTRONIC MAIL mavor councilmernbers((vsnokanevallet'.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. 1116 \\`INI tiuu1Iw \1 AV! N111 • Slit(, \VI WA41111Nt.lr)r: 99260 (11(1!1 • (5)))1.177.7164 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, D MIELKE, Cha Enclosures 4M O'QU , Vice Chair AL F NCH, mmissioner Flora Pit Aerial 4 523.5 261.77 523.5 Feet 0 r This map la a user generated static output born an Internet mapping site and Is for reference onkyer • Data las That appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise I 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. 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 Mitchell S. 2 ei4ter, PE County Engineer Engineering Roads Division Spokane County, Washington (509) 477-3600 1 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 Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL mayor.councilmembersPsokanevalley.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 Tong -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. Sofet.4.--- qg-(e ,c2447t 5. Lance Senter comments SPOKANE VALLEY MINING MORATORIUM I am Lance Senter, born and raised in Spokane and have lived in my home o� i 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. M1k Central Pre -Mix Prestress Co. Inland Asphalt Co. Interstate Concrete & Asphalt Co. ICON ICON Materials WSG Wenatchee Sand and Gravel Central Washington Concrete Eugene Sand & Gravel Viking Redi-Mix kt- Green & White Rock Products Klamath Pacific Corporation Bandon Concrete & Development River Bend Sand and Gravel Salem Road & Driveway Valley Concrete & Gravel IlL1111 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 Goff 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 jmcdonald�a oldcastiematerials.com if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, CPM Development Corp. 7( 42872 eet 67( Jana McDonald, PE Environmental Engineer Links to City of Spokane Valley City Council Meeting agendas and videos: February 24, 2015 Zink to agenda and video — Mining Moratorium added item at 19:38 in video http://spokanevaliev•granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=3&clip id=323 http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlaver.php?view id=3&clip id=323 March 24, 2015 Zink to agenda and video http://spokanevalley.granicus.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://spokanevallev.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=3&clip id=336 htto://sookanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=3&clip id=336 April 28, 2015 link to agenda and video http://spokanevallev.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view id=3&clip id=338 http://spokanevallev.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://spokanevallev.granicus.com/MediaPlaver.php?view id=3&clip id=356 DNR Permits in CSV o. Co. Flora Road CPM Sullivan Road 7. July 28, 2015 materials From Stacy Bjordahl PARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL/HUMEU ATTORNEYS Stacy A. Bjordahl sbjotdahl@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 Liabaity 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 Encl. LL EXHIBITS PARSONS/BORNE TT/BJORDAHL/HUMELLP ATTORNEYS Stacy A. Bjordalil 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 ofSpokane 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 men, acceptanc-, : - • ... _ _ . • . ... . - of any permit applications or licenses by or for new mining and/el! 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/HOME, LLP Stacy A. Bj Encl. EXHIBIT "A" Urban Growth Area Update Land Quantity Analysis for The City of q:sokane Valley September 2010 City of 4okane Valley 1 RESDq\f11AL LAND QUANTITYANALYSS The City of q:lokane Valley is responsible for developing its own Land Quantity Analysis (LOA) report to determine the amount of land available within existing urban areasto support residential and non-residential growth. The Steering Committee of Bected Officialswiil use this quantitative information to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners County wide Ranning Polides direct jurisdidionsto utilize the LDA methodology developed by the Washington aate Department of Community Trade and Economic Development and from the guidebook, ° Issues in Designating Urban Growth Areasi'. The Steering Committee of Bected Officials adopted this methodology on November 3, 1995. This report analyzes land quantity using the most current data. The analysis incorporates an aerial photography review to verify the accuracy of various sources of land use data. Below is a summary of the City of Spokane Valley's application of the adopted methodology: Step 1 Identify land that can accommodate future growth. In determining residential land quantity, these landsfall under three categories: Preliminary and final plats Ratted 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 is land that contains existing residential development but is large enough to be further subdivided based on the current zoning classification. Partially used residential land indudes propertiesthat can be subdivided into five (5) or more lots` consistent with the current zoning dassification. Step 2 Subtract all parcelsthat 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 hymning. City of Spokane Valley Therefore, lands containing physical limitations are not induded in the residential land supply. These include the following critical areas deductions Critical areas deduction Wetlands Identified wetlands and an associated 100 foot buffer area are subtracted from land inventory. Fish and Wildlife Geologically Hazardous areamsand associated riparian area buffers are subtracted from the land inventory. ertain geologic units and slopes over 30% are deducted from available land inventory. The geologic units include 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 Step 1. A20%reduction is taken from residential land initially identified asvacant or partially -used for these purposes. In the second instance, the Spokane 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 illustratesthe 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— Highway 46 Trans— Parking 47 Communication 48 Utilities 49 Trans— Other 67 %rvice — Governmental 68 Service — Educational 71 Oaltural Activity 72 Public Assembly 73 Amusement 74 %creational 75 %sort- Camping State Levy Exempt Public Schools Exempt 76 Park 77 Churches 79 Other Cultural Cemetery Exempt DoRlnstitutional Exempt Government Property Exempt Operating R-operty Exempt aty of Siokane Valley Step 4 Subtract all paroelswhich your community determines are not suitable for development for social and economic reasons. Deduction for parcels with low improvement value Parcels appraised at Iessthan $500 land value per Assessor's code are removed from the available land supply. Deduction for parcelswith high improvement value Sngle family residential parcels that have an improvement value greater than 3 times the lot area are considered unlikely to redevelop and are 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 experts determined that a build -out factor of 70%was an acceptable average countywide, also referred to as a "market factor". Therefore, the City of Spokane Valley assumes that approximately 30%of the total land identified will not be available for development during the 20 -year planning horizon. Step 6 Build a safety factor Building a safety factor is considered a local methodology option to be used if a jurisdiction is not able to monitor land supply and consumption on a regular basis. The Qty of Sookane Valley has not employed a safety factor in past studies due to GScapabHities enabling effective monitoring. Additionally, an amendment to the Countywide Planning 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 Qty of Spokane Valley Mixed use, commercial and industrial zones Mixed Use: Wthin 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 Faview Afinal step in the analysis included a review of recent aerial photography to compare the results of the GSanalysis to the existing landscape and identify any major errors or anomalies. The review identified a number of anomalies relating to land determined to be vacant using the Assessor's property use codes` The LOAwas modified to exdude the identified areas from lands available for development. 2010 Fbpulation Capacity " Table 7 illustrates the 2010 population capacity for the aty of qpokane Valley using the adopted land quantity methodology and assumptions as described in this report. City of qpokane Valley Vacant and Partially Used Land Net Developable Acres Potential New Dwelling Units Population Capacity aty 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 qpokane Valley COMM HAL LAND QUANIITYANALYSIS On March 15, 1996, the Growth Management aeering Committee adopted a methodology for determining commercial land demand. The following is a summary of the Qty 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 Qty of Spokane Valley's official population allocation adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOW) 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 Code Description 16 Hotels and Motels 17 Lodging and daycare 46 Automobile parking 52 Building materials, lumber yard, nursery, florist, and farm equipment 53 Shopping centers 54 Grocery stores, convenient stores, and auto body repair 55 Automobile sales and service 56 Apparel, photography, and Laundromats 57 Furniture and equipment 58 Restaurants, fast food, and tavems 59 Miscellaneous retail trade 61 Financial institutions 62 Personal services 63 Business services 64 Repair services 65 Professional services Spokane Valley did not apply a land utilization factor. The adjusted commercial acres of demand are then calculated by a market factor of 25%to determine the total demand of commercial acres. The total demand of commercial acres is then subtracted from the commercially zoned acres resulting in the demand for commercial acreage. Using this methodology the City of Spokane Valley determined that there was adequate commercial property for the next twenty years of commercial growth (see formula below). aty of Spokane Valley 6 Population Allocation +Current Population / Current Fbpulation = Growth Factor 90,210.00 ( 1.21 108,956.00 Growth Factor Commercial Acres X in Use 1.21 Commercial Acres of Demand X 1,369.11 Adj. Commercial Acres of Demand 1,369.11 1,133.56 = Commercial Acres of Demand 1,369.11 Land Utilization Factor = 1.001 Commercial Acres - in Use 1,133.56 Vacant Commercial Acres of Demand X Market .Factor 235.56 1.25 Total Commercial Acres of Commercial Acres Demand + in Use 294.45 Adjusted Commercial Acres of Demand 1,369.11 Total Vacant Commercial Acres of Demand 235.56 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 QUANTITYANALYSiS Additional Comm. Acreage = needed -1,210.53 Minus indicates surplus The industrial employment forecast for 2031 is determined using a ratio method that compares industrial employment to total population. ibis forecast 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 Fbpulation The ratio is established using the 2000 census, which includes detailed employment datafor industrial employees. The categories considered 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. Snce the land quantity analysis focuses on urban growth area needs, rural industries such as agriculture, aty of Spokane Valley 7 1 forestry, and mining are not induded. This number is compared to the total population for 2000 (417,939) to determine a percentage ratio asfollows 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 ookane County. The equation is illustrated as follows 2010 population x 0.135 = Industrial employees for 2010 90,210 x 0.135 =12,178 employees 3. Estimate industrial employment for 2031 The UGA update contemplates land use needs for the year 2031. Estimating industrial employment for 2031 is necessary to determine future industrial employment needs and can be estimated similarly to step 2. The equation is illustrated 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 5)okane County in 2000. The study provided a detailed analysis of industrial lands in the unincorporated areas of the County. Parch 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 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 condusion is dty-wide and does not include the industrial land needsfor unincorporated UG4s. aty of okane Valley 2: In order to evaluate the industrial landswithin the Qty, staff used an industrial land study developed in 2000 by a committee composed of representatives from various economic development, business, and real estate organizations. This committee developed a rating system to evaluate the marketability of land designated for industrial use. The rating system utilized Geographical Information Systems(GIS7 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 dassified 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 City of qpokane 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 Oty of Spokane Valley. The majority of the remaining industrial property was dassified as tier four and five considered as land that is "built out" with little opportunity for redevelopment in the near term. Table 9 summarizesthe industrial land analysis in the City of Spokane Valley. Table 9: Industrial Land Analysis Industrial Analysis Acres Tier 1 838.9046 Tier 1 (P/Q-P) 250.4862 Tier 4 2349.5993 Tier 4 (P/ 4P) 2.6502 Tier 5 54.5821 Tier 5 (P/ 4P) 22.9966 Totals 3,519.22 Based on the analysis, the needed industrial land for the 2031 planning horizon is 158 acres. Currently, the City has 839 acres of tier one industrial land. Essentially, the City hasfour times the industrial land needed in tier one industrial properties alone. In condusion, the City 4:sokane Valley has an adequate supply of industrial land for the next 20 years PREVIOUS ECONOM ICSTUDIES & ANALYSIS The City of ,okane Valley, as part of the planning processfor the Sprague-Appleway Revitalization Flan, conducted economic analyses providing a basis for recommendations in the Flan. The most recent study performed by Gbbs Planning Group, Inc. in 2007 specifically examined the economic feasibility of establishing a town center in Spokane Valley. The Gibbs City of 4:tokane Valley study examined three trade area scenarios 1) Micro Trade Area, 2) Primary Trade Area, and 3) 100 Mile Trade Area. These trade areas are discussed in more detail below. Micro Trade Area This model established the minimal possible trade area for the proposed town center site. The Spokane Valley Mall and downtown Spokane 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 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 bokane Valley region where most of the study area's (Spokane Valley Town Center) potential shoppers reside. The Spokane Valley Mall and surrounding retail were induded in this model; downtown qookane was exduded from this model. The estimated Primary Trade Area's overall 2006 retail sales (supply) were $223 billion with total consumer demand (spending) of only $1A6 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 qookane, 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. Asrnall 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 Ragion. aty of Spokane Valley ••• •:•• £1 -4 `` r 4"‘ -bts•-••••7 — • •:* .11:4-r±-17 • a ,e* e • tfr - ;•;••'4 17• • I st':;44;•-;,,• . • I • ." ••••••, pa. ,•-1 - • ...1 • ., ,.•-1 --.- . '. 4 i I-, " I • .':,T-fi'L 1 ..1i" ,-,...:.:-::: , ii .--1-::2" -5*•...'= 11 -75-1-)&.. ,r; -r---. , . • , - ___ _ .. ... . r , . ., - ......, . , • ... -1 ...,- - . . 3 ..fd L:7-. ''' .1 -....:4,— ' • '-:-.1, i ' • '"1: i ._.71,--: -•.' 11 7,L,41 i . . ,..-.. - I I .. ' •• 1 $. - . -. .:1 .11 •f4-• • 1 • • I-di:1.A • • , -143:3; • • TTk • ti.viri I•• frit . 't ...""?' :I • - -• "'•"11'1!7".','"*. I. tit' ••. •'-,....-V - •-i•.-.., 'J. r Z1- I;.'''' '. ' - 4?- . --- 1 i -i...-; • "..-•40.4".• * -S-* i" lel' . • , .:2 .er.,%, .. 1 'O.' - ,. , • ,arge. .. e.-, ••• re,u, • ' - 43: : •• ' \ ,_ ',.. X, „...4.....„...... i'N .1 •f•kij ' • . t* i . `e . . . • . 4 . •-•{ • ' "--."•...41,1S.14C2.-ii. , '. I ...,.. '," ;.0,,,..._,',.'.1,..„2-- ••••.: 1_ ' der -..T. 74 • ' '••• -74 Tr. 4- 1.1,ii „ .. • • • ,I 1 • 7'•P'1'—' 1 v.1 • --* :i. jtri it f.....}...i. - r • : 1.14,4j. .::::(z...t.22 .• - 1.t.-7..... ''''''' if ' .... ,i.. -Q4:;-...7 . rr• riti jr•iirg, • ,.`ii I 'a.g.i. . • ;4•17-":"•4r. 1..:::1-1 '1•"'"'/..,• . -•' . hi."' i in=,=1:Xli 11 ....1.:!---,2'1•;:41,..:"..1147.:' ,.•_.1--i'r i 4 , • , • • i..:Fit:•*. i -• : • - ...k.:4 rn. c_.,..irl •te.1 ,_,•,...---.4.S' ...... .0: ...' • ‘:. • — .1. 1.), ' "---.7.... ••••• 4 k • N,,.. ,..„. :''i: -.:;.:.;.':12'''r...'..1'1.7: -.1.s• :::''[.7 1 in ''' u ..._ 'Cil • • A. ... 1.•:•?-•fe jr -1,, • • f,.-- . ... . •-• 4 'i. IS. : ' %. 4 I• . ''''' , , •.;,.... i • 1-.1.?.A-•:':r'•:-- "' 'A - ' -0 - fs•i,'- p•(•.''44vk• :; 4 . ...1.!-*"dI.''4-7t•-.'" ll' • \73#1----4,1,„_,, •• i• •V&1 ;-• t J '. • • • t„.„• 491 • &, \ C44dSpolramerailey 2•10 famIliendarlayiQuerdyltnaffsisResa6 • ,•assa•mswie• MI•WIA•l•Qtwa Of1.4.••• Da••••••••••• izjrcv. i=i••••••.• aty of 41okane Valley EXHIBIT "B" Site Acreage Parcel # Current uses/zoning Current Zoning Comp Plan Historical uses Years in operation Moratorium Impact Sullivan Road Approx. 242 45123.9008 Mining/Industrial 1-2 Heavy Industrial Mining 35+ Modifications to Reclamation plan to 45123.9007 Asphalt Production Asphalt Production inlcude removing the common boundary • 45122.9005 Concrete Production Concrete Production between CPM and County property to 45122.9004 Shop Fadlitles Shop Facilities 45123.9006 Recycling maximaize the resources In both mining 45123.9011 permits including but not limited to mining 45125.9157 the Flora Pit Road and the existing house 45135.9007 property. 45124.9012 45121.9016 Spokane County Flora Pit under lease/buy option Approx. 30 45121.9015 Mining/Industrial Shop Facilities 1-2 Heavy Industrial Mining/Industrial Shop Facilities 35+ See Sullivan Road Details Above Park Road Approx. 108 35134.9095 Mining/Industrial 1-2 Heavy Industrial Mining 35+ Not known at this time 35134.9057 Quality Control Concrete Production 35134.9028 V Shop Facilities 35134.9075 Quality Control 35134.9030 35134.9029 35134.3232 35134.9081 Carnahan Approx. 34 35234.9099 Mining, Recycling MF -1 Medium Density Mining, Recycling 35+ Not known at this time Residential 8th & Havana Quarry Approx. 50 35233.9191 Mining R-4 Light Density Mining 35+ CPM just purchased the property in 35233.9192 Asphalt Production Residential Asphalt Production December. DNR Plan is under review and 35233.0709 Recycling Recycling • 35233.0513 may require modiFlcations in which the City 1 35233.0710 would need to sign off. 35233.b604 35233.0605 35233.0606 35233.0607 35233.0608 35233.0609 35233.0505 35233.9176 • - 35133.0303 cy emir '-1518:,3193P.1. 21 - .;:41 '174- • •• t•-,1 • 1, r titt.3.)134 ,-7r- -151P3100 .)5133: 222P-iT "..°411'.5'..0. 3 3,131 TrEn 2 -••••••77tifi.ftireT-4. r • ,44,444. 'Tr 11 -3 1T00 1-4'...; P53,975' "." PARK '352.?A'9099 .-T4-7•• N42)- ' •47-•I , • 11: •,,, a:4;`• -t •f '••• . • , tr 3522. 1L2610 ..:1`--•'' .. --..- 1—.1,.:v—kl -, , ...-.:.... -- .-- - .4.4.*.: _ 11, ..r.---, ---.., 4.4a4.0---7 .:- ' .,,, ......, ..._.' „. • , .... ' .•!.. ' •31 ' '. . . lir • --=1 ,,, ,,,z *.,,'•; '‘..- ... - '''r .: .'•• . 4::a. " . ''' . ' 0 . .‘: • ,- ----7i L. '±.:. M14 • - --.4 .5:f. -r, L35233.3-16. • •;.•I'233'....':.,:..3.; 1. -.L•i=1 - ..--" ___;..1.J.7:--:.-.,,.. '11:•';••:_-_-L2J1';:a1Ct_ ..,,J....,,,,..___N- :•-,:•_. . 4 1 1 . ... 1 ' ....:.:1 ' .• ',G7; • "•E',. *2. A 8TH & HAVANA ' • _ • " f..;." • s ite.ftggig".0352.;3.0r;2.S1'..I146# 611 -t • t• r, • 42 irfi... ,, 7 ••••••••,_,- .1 , '.. .:. 1. ,,....,,,,..-.1 ' I Al" ;1: II •••, 4 df;'C.1: •14 • f 'IC! It Ze........A....../3.4......I. .........,1, •,''''It.. --...---',i1 ,r-'.. ,..7,-c u II,I a n Q� IIiIIIVIflf I Uiui0 III b MINUTES Special Joint Meeting Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Spokane Valley City Council Monday, February 9, 2015 9:00 a.m. — 11:30 a.m. 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 Vallev 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 Carolbelle 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 Tom 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 1/10" 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 1/10th 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 to look 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 putsue;.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 1/10th 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. Conunissioner Mielke said the Board of County Commissioners has not been the driving effort in this project. The discussion about the field 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., CounciImember 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 trac.k 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. CounciImember Hefner 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 CounciImember 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 comer agreements; said it has been in their six-year plan to get sewer to this. area 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 line, up 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 own the property but not the mining rights and again stated that it is challenging to try to find locations 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 Board to 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 on 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 Planning 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 fled, 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 2001, 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 DeI 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, CounciImember 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 commissions 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'Quinn'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. E „T Grafos, Mayor 6.e..� .1 4/??+ t.. 1.414...44;r. ytrpt Christine Bainbridge; City Clerk -- " Joint -Spokane Valley/Spokane County Meeting Minutes 02-09-2015 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: 03-24-2015 MTTNUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, February 10, 2015 Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Cita 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 Driskell, 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 Councilmefnber Bates. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmembers 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 AND 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 attonded 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 Iot 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 hesaid 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 81 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 times 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: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on Feb 10, 2015 Request for Council Action Form, Totaling:$2,213,740.66. 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 unanimozisly agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 02-10-2015 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 marrfuana uses, to a second reading. After Deputy City Attorney Lamb gave an overview of the ordinance, Mayor Grafos invited public comment. No continents 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 comments. 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 Iegislative 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 copnties 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.n1. ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk D Grafos, Mayor Minutes RegularCouncil 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 8:30 a.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Dean Grafos, .Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Bill Bates, Councilmember —via phone Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councihnember 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 covert Mr. Jackson mentioned the Workplan under Tab #1, which includes budget goals for Council and major projects for all departments; said that this document is the department's timeline to keep things on track throughout the year; and said he uses it as a reference for how we are doing. Concerning the Business Plan, Mr. Jackson said that each year at this time departments submit their performance measures and workload indicators as we work to finalize this plan, even though we always consider it a draft as the material contained within the Plan gets refined over time. Mr. Jackson said if Council has any questions about who does what or about the organizational structure, that information can be found .in the Business Plan, adding that it builds a good history of how we're handling the workload. He said that in the next week or so, staff will start to build the new business plan for 2016; that we lead the budget with this business plan, so before we do the budget, each department considers the resources needed and anything they propose will be included in the business plan. Mr. Jackson said it has been a good process, that we use a lot of the same language year after year rather than try to do a complete re -write each time. Mr. Jackson also noted the Legislative Agenda, which can be found under Tab #1 immediately after the Workplan, and which can be referenced when we telephone Lobbyist Briahna Taylor at 11:00 a.m. teday. Mr. Jackson said we wilt work our way through the agenda and have plenty of time at the end for brainstorming; and that Council can stay with an item as long as desired as there are some items which will likely generate more discussion than others. 2. Economic Development Update (incentives, etc.) — John Hohman, Erik Lamb Mr. Jackson said that this is an opportunity to discuss incentives, and noted a recent interesting article concerning the State of Washington considering holding back some of the tax breaks they had previously given Boeing, if the company reduces its overall Washington state workforce. In reality, Mr. Jackson said, Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 1 of 12 Approved by Council: 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 thepermitsystein 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 fol. retail, CounciImember 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 ap 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 to show the customer more graphically, all the different information about the properties; he mentioned they continue working with the marketing consultant, that they have had some good commercials last year, and mentioned the billboard advertisements, which he said appear to be working as we have heard from people in Moses Lake and elsewhere about our marketing efforts. After Mr. Hohman noted the items in the "Incentive Toolbox," the discussion moved to the "Economic Development Incentives" memo behind tab 2. Mr. Jackson invited Council's feedback on the toolbox idea,and encouraged Council to let him know if there is something more they would like added to that toolbox. A question came up concerning financial assistance to developers,. and Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that we are limited by our State Constitution from just giving money to developers for them to construct a building or bring business here, which in turn led to 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 coming to Council in the future with a more in-depth look at some of the developer driven incentives/expenditures listed in the memo; that the goal is as we identify particular areas in the strategic plan on which to focus, like retail, we will work to determine what tools we can use to assist businesses locating here, and said the idea is to have a quick and easy reference material. Mr. Hohman stated that we want a flexible development code, and as we work through that code, we want to make sure it works for customers and staff, and to simplify things as much as possible, and he gave the example of the recent ordinance amendment concerning extensions to file plats, as well as eliminating some of the criteria for a plat extension. On the top of page 2 concerning the Direct City Incentives, Mr. Lamb explained that the City is not spending money as a budget line .item, but that those items could represent a loss of City revenues; he mentioned the last bulleted item concerning multi -family tax exemptions, and said for example, this could be an eight-year exemption, which means the City would lose those revenues for future years. Mayor Grafos said this might be something to merge into the comp plan as we look at areas north of Trent where there is apartment activity. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like to encourage revitalization along Sprague and Appleway; that with these incentives, we don't lose current taxes and haven't lost anything, but more that we would not yet have started to realize those revenues. Mr. Jackson added that it would also depend on the investment the City would have to make as well; and -said that developers are looking for that quick permitting process and turn -around time; and Mr. Lamb concurred that an expedited process is important as developers realize that time is money. Further discussion included focusing development on a specific area, like Trent; the pros and cons of a TIF (tax increment financing); that the idea would be to entice a developer; mention from Mr. Calhoun that our current property tax levy each year while static for the last .several years, still includes new construction so we would not want to change that; talk of the use of general obligation or revenue bonds to finance infrastructure or other public capital projects, noting that there must be an existing revenue source to repay those bonds or seek voter approval for an increased tax levy. The Hotel -Motel Lodging Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 3 of 12 Approved by Council: 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 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 woutd 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 Hefner 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 Hefner said this could Help in establishing our identity especially once we get our new city hall. Mr. Lamb said staff has identified some areas end 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 workto incorporate that idea into an economic analysis as part of the comp plan review. Mayor Grafos called for a recess at 10:15 a.xn., and reconvened the .meeting at 10:26 a.m. 3. Law and Justice Council — Cary DriskeIl City Attorney Driskell explained the history and composition of the Law and Justice Council (LJC), which he said is required by state statute, although the County didn't have one for about twenty-four years. He explained that the County examined the entire law-related system to see what areas might need assistance, and they came up with a blueprint reform in 2013,. which identified that the Law and Justice Council needed to be reformed, which the County did in 2014, as evidenced by the County's resolution 14-0392, which establishes the Council and Administrative Committee, including the composition, purpose, terms, meeting rules and regulations, officers, mission statement, and powers and duties. As noted in the chart included in the Council packet, it appears the membership of the LJC is evenly split with ten members who are eiecteds, 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 acid 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 riot heard of an agenda issue for a unified police department, but would like to be clear about this Council's feelings in case the topic was to surface. Chief VanLeuven said he feels that mission and purpose is merely to address duplication of services; said they work with the Spokane Police Department when it comes to shared technology as it makes for more efficient communications; likewise they work collaboratively with the Spokane Police Department in maintaining records; and they also have a joint forensics unit; all to make law enforcement more efficient and effective, and said that he has not sensed an issue of having a metropolitan police department. Councilmember Hafner said as a member of the 9-1-1 Board, he has not heard any conversation about a territorial resource; however, in looking at the County's resolution, he noted the fourth "whereas" clause does not mention our City. Mr. Jackson reminded everyone that we contract with Spokane County for these services so we are included; that this was designed this way on purpose to be. formed by Spokane County and the City of Spokane as the major service providers in the region. Deputy Mayor Woodard said three to five years ago, he knows the sheriffs office was trying to negotiate with the City of Spokane to combine the two police forces, but that he hasn't heard anything more on that since; said it is a concern and that we want to make sure we keep our identity. Chief VanLeuven said the Sheriffs Office intent is to continue to contract with Spokane Valley for the. best law enforcement services possible. Mr. Driskell said we might see or hear comments from some who want a consolidation, but that only represents one view; and from the LJC standpoint, there are "no sacred cows" as they have to look at all the options to determine the best process for what they do. Councilmember Pace said he has 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 1;vtagnussons 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 pennit 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 Hafner asked about the misinformation concerning moving the Sheriff's 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 foriner area and then we hope to move the permit center in about sic 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 it's a good start and we would still have the right to have a junior lien for the difference. Mr. Jackson asked Mr: Driskell if a bill were to pass with a $2,000 cap, but an abatement amounted to 37,000, could we include a request for payment for $7,000, and would we be limited to apply for just the lien authority, but still include the other 35,000 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: 03-1D-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 language. and clarify if necessary. Concerning marijuana legislation, Ms. Taylor said several bills were introduced with lots of talk about reconciliation of medical and recreation marijuana; she noted our City has a preference to eliminate the medical marijuana and have the regulations the same for all marijuana use; but she noted that none of the bills proposed removing medical marijuana, and the proposal gaining the most traction would create similar regulations fbr medical and retail establishments, and would remove the cap on the number of retail establishments, regardless of use; it would eliminate community gardens and allow people to grow marijuana in their own home if they are a patient or to do so on behalf of a medical patient if the patient were a juvenile. Ms. Taylor said she has arranged a meeting with some of the legislators to explore whether vaping lounges could be regulated under the existing authority, or have them separate. Regarding the juvenile or under age access to marijuana, as well as the appearance of being under the influence of marijuana, she said there are several bills introduced and said she should know more Friday after the deadline; she also noted there were several bills introduced concerning various formulas for marijuana revenue sharing, including whether a jurisdiction should receive local revenues if they chose to ban marijuana, and said most feel if marijuana is banned, that municipality should not receive revenue; said others feel if a city chooses to ban marijuana, a vote of the people should be held to affirm that ban; said these issues will continue to evolve and she urged legislators to aid in any effort to reconcile. Ms. Taylor said she shared with legislators the story about the vaping lounge. Mr. Jackson added that the Board needs to implement rules that would meet our needs as there is no law requiring. identification checks prior to entering a vaping lounge. Mr. Lamb added that possession is illegal for anyone under 21 years old. Mr. Jackson said the issue also includes indoor smoking. Mr. Lamb said he notified the Health District about the smoking issue but so far has not heard from them. Ms. Taylor said she should have a good idea by this Friday of what bills will or won't advance. Concerning the long-range agenda item of Barker Road, Ms. Taylor said that a bi-partisan group released the transportation package last week, which included an 11.7¢ gas tax increase; that $8 billion will be regulated to projects, with a direct distribution of $350 million to cities and counties over sixteen years based on capital; said she sent out a full report to Council when the revenue report was released; that she discussed with thi$ Senator Padden who is not planning to vote for it said this will next be heard in the senate transportation committee Wednesday afternoon; that there are still several "sticking points" in the bill. Ms. Taylor said she has been advocating for Barker Road funding, but that project is not included in the transportation package, although the Spokane freeway is as it is felt that would be of benefit to the greater Spokane region; she noted we have chosen not to take a position on the gas tax revenue package, so she is simply monitoring the legislation. Councilmember Wick asked if there was anything that could be included to cover the grade separation on Barker. Ms. Taylor replied that we might be able to use multiple grant programs to add up to the full amount. Councilmember Wick also asked about the North/South corridor actually being allocated more funds than were requested, and Ms. Taylor explained that since the project was moved to a later start date, they higher difference accounts for inflation, with the project starting in 2018 instead of 2016. She also noted the exact project schedule has not yet been released. Ms. Taylor said she continues to be very directed on our City's priorities; and she looks forward to having Council and staff in Olympia next week. The meeting recessed for lunch at 11:50 a.m., and reconvened at 12:23 p.m. Mayor Grafos acknowledged Councilmember 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 ail 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 diffir,e,it 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 tracks. the trend; that some have changed, but over time they tend to even out; said this has tended to be a little more frustrating as we don't have much control over indirect costs, 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 Hafiier 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 puiet 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 Hefner 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 haying a quiet zone doesn't ensure the railroad won't blow their horns; and that unless the grades are separated, there is no way to assure the horns don't get blown. Councilmember Wick noted that the railroads will not fund these projects, and if we want to do it, we would have to come up with funding. Mayor Grafos suggested this is somewhat of a "dead-end street" even if we did authorize the funds. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested waiting to see what happens from local and federal government; that we don'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 cash needed for a quiet zone project. 8. Public Works Projects.— Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth briefed Council on the three projects as noted in the workshop materials; said staff has spent several months negotiating with the property owner on the Mansfield Avenue connections for right-of-way purchase, and said he is hopeful the area will be signed by the end of this month; and after the final right-of-way negotiation, the project moves before the TIB (Transportation Improvement Board) for approval to move forward. 9. Historic Buildings and Buildings Codes —Doug Powell and Luis Garcia Director Hohman explained that this is a follow-up discussion of several weeks ago when Ms. Gloria Mantz talked about us becoming a Certified Local Government, and some ensuing questions as how the historic preservation ordinance works regarding existing building codes; he said Messrs. Powell and Garcia are here to give an overview of the different codes and how they relate to historic preservation. Mr. Powell went over the information contained in the packet materials in order to provide a better explanation of how codes apply to historic buildings when those buildings need repair, alternations; or reconstruction; followed by an explanation from Mr. Garcia concerning the hierarchy of the International Family of Codes, and what addresses existing buildings, and specifically historic buildings; noting that whatever is done, it cannot lessen the fire safety regulations or precautions, adding that it is the building Official who is the safety professional. Mr. Powell explained that some regulations are left to the discretion of the building official and the situation to determine if there is a life safety item, such as smoke detectors. Mr. Garcia added that there could be no waiving of design requirements, and nothing could be done to compromise the level of safety to the historic structures. 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 thein; Mr. Powell said the rafters would have to be builtto the current codes. Councilmember Pace suggested it would be nice to have some flexibility to be able to roll back the code as it was when the original rafters were built: Mr. Powell stated that under the IEBC (International Existing Building Code), there are some permitted controlled departures from full compliance with the technical codes, but any departure must not compromise the minimum standards for fire prevention and life safety features; said for example grand stairways would no longer comply with today's code, so some things could be changed provided there is no hazard increase. Mr. Hohman said that the intent of an historic preservation program would be to preserve those structures that had some significance and try to protect those as much as possible; sometimes those property owners can get a tax reduction under the program, but the program is built more for protection than trying to keep those structures the way they are, which is why any modification would have to go through the Commission; and he noted that further research will be needed in. order to. determine the criteria that Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 9 of 12 Approved by Council: 03-10-2015 would be aysed by the commission; and said if a building were to move to a different location, it would no longer be historic because it would be on a new foundation, and again, said more research would be needed for these issues. Councilmember Pace suggested a new foundation shouldn't make a difference regarding the building's historic value, but Mr. Hohman explained that in the original home, there were no living spaces below, and with a new place with Living spaces below, there must be ingress and egress; and said there would likely be several resolutions to examine for each scenario. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested that historic preservation is not relevant to where the structure might be, but rather to what it looks like; and suggested it should not make any difference where a building sits. Deputy Mayor Woodard also stated that the only person to determine if a property stays on an historic preservation roster, should be the property owner. [At 1:52 p.m., Councilmember Bates excused himself from the remainder of the meeting, and thanked Council for the opportunity to phone into the meeting.] Councilmember Hafner 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 crimes, including driving under the influence; and stressed the need for a law addressing MIP (minor in possession) by consumption. Oil and Coal Trains: Mr. Jackson mentioned yesterday's derailment in West Virginia; said staff sent a letter to the Department of Ecology (DOE) about their transport study; said they responded and said they had included the City of Spokane, but Mr. Jackson said he explained to them once again, that they did not include anything the City of Spokane Valley; he said the DOE indicated they would take our comments under consideration. Gambling Tax: Mr. Calhoun briefly discussed the downward trend from gambling tax revenues; said Council twice heard during Council comments about the Back Pearl's owner's feelings that our gambling taxes were high; the information in the Council packet shows the gambling tax rates as permitted by the State, and what those rates are for the City of Spokane and the City of Spokane Valley, as well as what any reductions might mean in terms of reduced revenues. Mr. Jackson noted that he also plans to visit with the owner of the Black Pearl. Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 10 of 12 Approved by Council: 03-10-2015 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; whatkind 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. Lainb said it would have to be part of tourism, promotion and marketing site; night 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 haye an opportunity to get public input about additional sport facilities needed; mentioned acquisition of property central to our City that could be used as a sport complex; said sports is a lodging tax item if handled correctly;. that the school districts need some input and this could be part of the private/public partnership; perhaps more of a long-term vision. Councilmember Pace said he would like to see the entire topic, from schools to property acquisition, discussed further as a main topic; Mayor Grafos suggested including it as an element of economic development. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would prefer to see discussion sooner than later; that we don't want to necessarily own the grounds for playing fields, but might be willing to help acquire and/or maintain. Mayor Grafos suggested waiting to see what the LTAC says about the issue, and Councilmember Wick agreed this might be able to be accomplished under the name of tourism; said he hopes to start at the LTAC then have it evolve. Deputy Mayor Woodard said we need basic information and a Performa of what is needed for our City; that we need to come up with our own plan as Eric Sawyer's plan might not be what best fits our City. Councilmember Hafner suggested a need to indicate to this community that we don't want the sports complex downtown, so if it comes to a vote, they will vote no. Councilmember Higgins said it was his understanding through speaking with Lee Cameron, that Eric Sawyer was telling others that our Council was 100% in favor of having a sports complex downtown, which is of course, not the case. There was some mention of an upcoming ballot measure and Mr. Lamb reminded everyone of the procedure as outlined in the State Statutes and this City's Governance Manual; and said that process (how to address ballot measures) might be a topic for a future meeting. Consider a study session to discuss renaming our City: Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested this might be a topic for a future study session, especially since we will be building a new city hall. Hot Topics Newsletter: Councilmember Pace said he feels it would be a good investment to do a complete citywide mailing every time the Hot Topics Newsletter is published: Mr. Jackson said that would be a good issue to discuss during the 2016 budget discussions; that direct mailing is very effective, but it is a matter of available funds. Councilmember Pace also suggested the. idea of mailing to all businesses as well, and/or having the newsletter as an insert in the Spokesman Review and/or the Current, and in all the free newsstands. Rail and Transportation Concerns: Concerning the trains moving throughout the City, Councilmember Higgins said we need to be more focused with an idea to take action;•like the overpass. project. Councilmember Pace said he would like to pass a resolution stating we are pro-business and pro -commerce, and we want to protect citizens, and that we do not want to be a "bottleneck" for the trains and or trucks. Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Page 11 of 12 Approved by Council: 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: CounciImember 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 Parka 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. Concerning acquiring the rand, 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. ATTES ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Workshop minutes: 02-17-2015 Approved by Council: 03-10-2015 .40 Dean Grafos, Mayor Page 12 of 12 BEFORE THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD EASTERN WASHINGTON REGION STATE OF WASHINGTON CPM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ) ) Case No. 15-1-0001 Petitioner, ) v. ) ) RESPONDENT'S INDEX ) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent. ) ) ) ) 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 this2y of July, 2015. LiVTI; 7ifi , . S BEYER, LLP KENNETH W. HARPER WSBA #25578 807 North 39th Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 Attorneys for Respondent City of Spokane Valley RESPONDENT'S INDEX - 1 MENKE JACKSON BEYER, 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 Mail/United Parcel Service [x] By Email: eastern@eluho.wa.gov (without exhibits) Ms. Stacy A. Bjordahl Mr. Taudd A. Hume Attorneys at Law Parsons/Bu nett/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 ) day of July, 2015, at Yakima, Washington. JANET L. ROSE RESPONDENT'S INDEX - 2 MENKE JACKSON BEYER, LLP 807 North 396 Avenue Yakima, WA 98902 Telephone (509)575-0313 Fax (509)575-0351 Index for City of Spokane Valley Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009 Index No. Administrative Exhibit No. From To Type Date 1 Amended Agenda: Added Emergency Item Ordinance 15-005 February 24, 2015 2 Request for Council Action Explaining Proposed Emergency Ordinance February 24, 2015 3 Draft Ordinance 15-005: Adopting Moratorium February 24, 2015 4 Approved February 24, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes March 10, 2015 5 Notice of Ordinance Passed for Ordinance 15. 005 March 6, 2015 • 6 Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Ordinance Passed for Ordinance 15-005 March 6, 2015 7 Audio/video Recording of Council Meeting (accessible at http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlay er.php?view_id=3&clip_id=323.) February 24, 2015 8 Amended Agenda: Public Hearing Mining Moratorium March 24, 2015 9 Request for Council Action for the Public Hearing March 24, 2015 10 Signed Copy of Ordinance 15-005 February 24, 2015 11 Media Release February 25, 2015 12 Public Hearing Notice March 16, 2015 13 - Approved March 24, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes April 14, 2015 14 Audio/video Recording of Council Meeting (accessible at http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlay er.php?view_id=3&clip id=333) March 24, 2015 15 Public Hearing Sign -in Sheet March 24, 2015 16 Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor and 1Councilmembers Memorandum re Mining Moratorium (with Commissioners attaciunents) March 26, 2015 Index for City of Spokane Valley Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009 17 Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor and Councilmembers Memorandum re Mining Moratorium (with Bjordahl attachments) March 26, 2015 18 Agenda: First Reading Ordinance 15-009 April 14, 2015 19 Request for Council Action re Ordinance 15- 009 April 14, 2015 20 Audio/video Recording of Council Meeting (accessible at http://spokanevalley.g,ranicus.com/MediaPlay er.php?uiew_id=3&clip' d=536) April 14, 2015 21 Approved April 14, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes April 28, 2015 22 Agenda: Second Reading Ordinance 15-009 April 28, 2015 23 Request for Council Action re Ordinance 15- 009 April 28, 2015 24 Public Hearing Sign -in Sheet March 24, 2015 25 Spokane Valley Mining Pits Map 26 Audio/video Recording of Council Meeting (accessible at http://spokanevalley.granicus.com/MediaPlay er.php?view id=3&clip id=338) April 28, 2015 27 Notice of Ordinance Passed for Ordinance 15. 009 May 1, 2015 28 Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Ordinance Passed for Ordinance 15-009 May 1, 2015 29 Approved April 28, 2015, Council Meeting Minutes April 28,2015 30 Copy of Ordinance 15-005 February 24, 2015 31 Copy of Ordinance 15-009 April 28, 2015 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 241 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 "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 mining 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 S1=101CANE May 14, 2015 COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TODD MIELICE,1ST 13151'RIC1' • SHELLY O'QUINN, 2ND DISTRICT • AL FRENCH, 3RD DISTRICT 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 O'QU , Vice Chair AL F' NCH, mmissioner 0110 CO( All COMAILSIVON7.; KS TODt)111E1.1C1i.IST uisntic r•SIuSI.i.,`tYQUiN.2NI Uhrlticr•_AL FRENCH. 31a)ni�>7tirr 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(aspokanevallev.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 1 16 WEST BR(>AWWAY AVl r u • SPOKANE. WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (5091477-2265 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 detrimentaIIy 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. AL F' 440 ,ommissioner Eden Pit No. 55-06 582.9 9 291.45 582.9 Feet O This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and Is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Flora Pit Aerial 523.5 9 261.77 523.5 Feet 0 This mep is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and Is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this mep may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 9. Copies as requested from Mitch Reister: Council meeting Minutes and attachments 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 fimding 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 fimding 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 comments 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 \\\\YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, March 24, 2015 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS Please sign in if you wish to make Public comments. NAME PLEASE PRINT TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU WILL SPEAK ABOUT YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE ,� Cpc(\ie‘‘j •_�; A'ld t. C -k l 1 sTc fi lie-t..rbeU - to I ler �i i \ S i'�c d < <6)l A . /,,, 1_ ' /bc.' C) -CSC' l�_ /N r /� F ��,e_ rri l,5�'6►1-cch.C4 i l i -i -t C '3/,/ 6 //ii, /,111,7 iced L. c.1: crit o ,:vo 1,J Lc -0 c,i, i /,./(;_:, ! -R-X PedK I. IF_ UAL L --(---7 IICAki ._--1--v/ka;2-1\ ntAccuA,L, (-Ou-v"- ,. ,\ -, .. C� C Cr. <*:ev_ -;--1-(5.c ?r':`ec CPA-ZcI OY3l- S,,(:�‘,z (/iztta �_ Q.16-si Gt r (1I `CUtiI ('i " t.)16 --t'6 0 . Y>I(IA_ itk.�,`c._ ..C4_; r ff<< ft,�o '4'4/ J � JC.,' SACC 4 -,,i,ilitc)-2., Coi,i) '1‘,111/1 ak - 1M Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 24, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET SUBJECT: Mining Moratorium Please sign below if you would like to speak at the PUBLIC HEARING. PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. There may be a time limit for your comments. Any documents for Council consideration should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution. NAME PLEASE PRINT Your City of Residence fT� ell Y JT-eder.476-2 f -N /) L' i LG g './1001,1 _1,1 G a [(i , c.(c(iI- (, (L/t ( r- t i , Ci) 111 nnC ltiqc,;(4 SA S+(J 2rd 6_ ,l-. ice, ( 1.‘ 1fz_ j.im G-£' C 1-1 l'ac---O 1(-C ,,,c -i Q-'_ \)aI le Please note that once information is entered on this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. Spokane 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 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). P O K A N EliFfrt OUNTY O1:,., : )1 CO( \-nYCOMM I.SShi\1:rc. TODD :\ KE, 1ti! DISI ItI(:rSIIIiI.I.I O'QI:INN, 2N1) DIS MCI • \l FRENCH. 3111) DlSIRI( .I 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(atspokanevallev.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 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 , Commissioner`""`' 2014 Printing Chapter 14.620 Mineral Lands 14.620.100 Purpose and Intent The Mineral Lands zone is provided to allow for the quarrying, blasting, reduction, processing and mining of minerals or materials in urban, industrial, rural. and resource areas. The Mineral Lands (M) zone is intended to ensure continued development of natural resources through inclusion of deposits of minerals and materials within this zone reserved for their development and production, to assure that the best undeveloped mineral and material resources will not be lost forever by developing of the land for other purposes, to allow for the necessary processing to convert such minerals and materials to marketable products, and to assure that mining activities do not detrimentally impact the environment or surrounding land uses. 14.620.200 Types of Uses The uses for Mineral Lands shall be as permitted in table 620-1, Mineral Lands Matrix. Accessory uses and structures ordinarily associated with a permitted use shall be allowed. Multiple uses are allowed per lot. Additional use restrictions may apply pursuant to the Critical Areas Ordinance as amended, chapter 11.20 of the Spokane County Code. The uses are categorized as follows: 1. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letter P. These uses are allowed if they comply with the development standards of the zone. 2. Limited Uses: Limited uses are designated in table 620-1 with the letter °L". These uses are allowed if they comply with the development standards of the zone and speciflc 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 Mineral Lands Zoning Code Chapter 14.620 2014 Printing 14,620.210 Mineral Lands Zone Matrix Table 620-1, Mineral Lands Matrix Uses Mineral Lands Adult entertainment establishment N Adult retail use establishment N Commercial composting storage/processing CU Caretakers residence L Forestry P General agriculture/grazing/crops, not elsewhere classified P Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, on-site L Landfill CU Landfill, inert waste disposal facility CU Public utility transmission facility (EPF) L Quarying, blasting and mining L Reduction and processing of minerals L Sewage sludge land application CU Solid waste recycling/transfer site (EPF) L Stormwater treatment/disposal P Tower L Wireless communication antenna array L Wireless communication support tower CU 14.620.220 Uses with Specific Standards Uses that are categorized with an "L' in table 1, Mineral Lands Matrix, are subject to the corresponding standards of this section. 1. Caretakers residence A caretakers residence may include a dwelling that is used and required by mining or quarrying operations for continuous supervision by a caretaker or superintendent and his immediate family. 2. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities, on-site. a. On-site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall comply with and be subject to the State's siting criteria adopted pursuant to section 70.105.210 RCW, as administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology or any successor agency. b. The hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities shall be limited to wastes produced or used on the site. 3. Public utility transmission facility. a. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to assure for the proper construction, maintenance, and general safety of properties adjoining the public utility transmission facility. b. All support structures for electrical transmission lines shall have their means of access located a minimum of 12 feet above the ground. c. The height of the structure above ground shall not exceed 125 feet. 4. Quarrying, blasting and mining Quarrying, blasting and mining of minerals or materials, including but not limited to, sand and gravel rock, and clay. Spokane County Page 620 2 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 recyclingrfransfer 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 easements) 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 "CV. 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. Thls 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 erea 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 Minion 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 t 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 Airbome; 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 backfllled materials between the aquifer high-water mark and the final grade of the reclaimed site, for surface mining sites outside the Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer area. c. Physical barriers, as required in section 14.620.270 shall remain. d. Provisions shall be made for limitation of access to, and activities within, the rehabilitated site until the use of the land is changed. 2. Subsequent land uses in reclaimed gravel pits within Spokane County may be limited or specifically conditioned. 14.620.290 Development Standards Prior to the issuance of a building permit, evidence of compliance with provisions of this Section shall be provided. 1. Lot Standards: Lot standards are illustrated In table 620-2 as follows: Table 620-2 — Lot Standards for Mineral Lands a. There is no minimum frontage for permitted uses on Mineral Lands, but all required access permits shall be obtained from the County Engineer prior to use of the site. b. Provided that such mining or quarrying does not impair lateral or subjacent support or cause earth movements or erosions to extend beyond the exterior boundary lines of the mining zoned property. c. If a mining or quarry operation is located adjacent to another mining or quarry operation, the mining or quarry operation shall be permitted up to the property line. 2. Parking, Signage, and Landscaping Standards: Parking, signage and landscaping standards shall be as provided in chapter 14.802, Off Street Parking and Loading Standards; chapter 14.804, Signage Standards; and chapter 14.806, Landscaping and Screening Standards. 3. Storage Standards a. The storage of materials and equipment normally associated with farm and agricultural activities is permitted. b. All storage (including storage of recyclable materials) on lots not qualifying as a primary agricultural parcel shall be entirely within a building, or shall be screened from view from the surrounding properties, and shall be accessory to the permitted use on the site. There shall be no storage in any of the front yard or flanking street yards. c. The private, noncommercial storage of 2 junked vehicles shall be allowed, provided they are completely sight -screened year-round from a non -elevated view with a fence, maintained Type Spokane County Page 620 -6 Mineral Lands Zoning Code Chapter 14.620 Permitted uses Minimum lot area 5 Acres Minimum frontage No Requirement (a) Minimum yards For Mining/Quarrying 50 feet — To property lines (b) (c) For Structures/Buildings 100 feet — From residential zone 50 feet — To property line(s) a. There is no minimum frontage for permitted uses on Mineral Lands, but all required access permits shall be obtained from the County Engineer prior to use of the site. b. Provided that such mining or quarrying does not impair lateral or subjacent support or cause earth movements or erosions to extend beyond the exterior boundary lines of the mining zoned property. c. If a mining or quarry operation is located adjacent to another mining or quarry operation, the mining or quarry operation shall be permitted up to the property line. 2. Parking, Signage, and Landscaping Standards: Parking, signage and landscaping standards shall be as provided in chapter 14.802, Off Street Parking and Loading Standards; chapter 14.804, Signage Standards; and chapter 14.806, Landscaping and Screening Standards. 3. Storage Standards a. The storage of materials and equipment normally associated with farm and agricultural activities is permitted. b. All storage (including storage of recyclable materials) on lots not qualifying as a primary agricultural parcel shall be entirely within a building, or shall be screened from view from the surrounding properties, and shall be accessory to the permitted use on the site. There shall be no storage in any of the front yard or flanking street yards. c. The private, noncommercial storage of 2 junked vehicles shall be allowed, provided they are completely sight -screened year-round from a non -elevated view with a fence, maintained Type Spokane County Page 620 -6 Mineral Lands Zoning Code Chapter 14.620 2014 Pdnting 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 Sfiokane��'' �Ualley Memorandum 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall®spokanevalley.org ,,mow ate.. a 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/HUMEup 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? 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 \V. Riverside Ave, Suite 500, Spokane WA 99201 • T (509) 252-5066 • F (509) 252-5067 • www.pbiaw.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 andier 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/HUJ E, LLP tacy A. Bj Encl. EXHIBIT "A" Urban Growth Area Update Land Quantity Analysis for The City of qpokane Valley September 2010 Qty of 4:sokane Valley 1 RESIDENTIAL LAND QUANTITYANALYSI$ The qty of Spokane Valley is responsible for developing its own Land Quantity Analysis (LOA) 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 Policies direct jurisdictionsto utilize the LOA methodology developed by the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development and from the guidebook,' Issues in Designating Urban Growth Areas". The Steering Committee of Bected Officials adopted this methodology on November 3, 1995. This report analyzes land quantity using the most current data. The analysis incorporates an aerial photography review to verify the accuracy of various sources of land use data. Below is a summary of the City of Spokane Valley's application of the adopted methodology: Step 1 Identify land that can accommodate future growth. In determining residential land quantity, these lands fall under three categories Preliminary and final plats Ratted lots that have not been built on are considered as available and calculated at one dwelling unit per lot. Vacant land Vacant lands are any lot or parcel that does not contain a structure or building, as determined from the Assessor's records Partially used land Partially used land is land that contains existing residential development but is large enough to be further subdivided based on the current zoning classification. Partially used residential land indudes properties that can be subdivided into five (5) or more lots, consistent with the current zoning dassification. Step 2 Subtract all parcels that your community defines as not developable due to physical limitation. In most uses throughout Spokane Valley, land on 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 Therefore, lands containing physical limitations are not included in the residential land supply. These indude the following critical areas deductions: Oitical areas deduction Wetlands Identified wetlands and an associated 100 foot buffer area are subtracted from land inventory. Fish and VVIIdlife Geologically Hazardous Streams 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 Slabtrad lands that will be needed for other public purposes. Land needed for public purposes is addressed in two different ways. In the first case, land that is necessary for new infrastructure, primarily for road right -of --way, is subtracted from the acreage figures generated in Step 1. A 20% redudion is taken from residential land initially identified asvacant or partially -used for these purposes. In the second instance, the Aaokane County Assessor's property Bass codes and exemptions are used to identify lands that may appear to be vacant but, in reality, are not available for residential development. These situations involve both public and private properties owned by entities such as utility companies, school dist rids, 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 — Hghway 46 Trans— Parking 47 Communication 48 Utilities 49 Trans—Other 67 Service — Governmental 68 Service — Educational 71 Cultural Activity 72 PlablicAssembly 73 Amusement 74 %Creational 75 %sort- Comping State Levy Exempt Public Schools Exempt 76 Park 77 Churches 79 Other Cultural Cemetery Exempt DoR Institutional Exempt Government Property Exempt Operating Property Exempt City of Spokane Valley 3 Step 4 Sibtract all paroelswhich your community determines are not suitable for development for social and economic reasons. Deduction for parcelswith low improvement value Parcels appraised at Iessthan $500 land value per Assessor's code are removed from the available land supply. Dedudion 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 Sibtract .. 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 offidalsand technical expertsdetermined that a build -out factor of 70%was an acceptable average countywide, also referred to as a ° market factor". Therefore, the aty 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 bass. The aty of Spokane Valley has not employed a safety factor in past studies due to CIScapabilitiesenabling effective monitoring. Additionally, an amendment to the Countywide Planning Fblides in 2008 established 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 capadty. Assumptions Iasidential zones Law Density: Available vacant land is calculated at a density of 4 dwelling units per acre Medium Density: Available vaunt 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 Qty 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. 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 Inview Afinal step in the analysis induded a review of recent aerial photography to compare the results of the GGSanalysis 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 LOA was modified to exclude the identified areas from lands available for development. 2010 Population Capadty Table 7 illustrates the 2010 population capacity for the aty of 8aokane Valley using the adopted land quantity methodology and assumptions as described in this report. :- - Vacant and Partially Used Land Net Developable . -Acres. - Potential New Dwelling Units ` Population Capacity City of 4okane 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 $3okane Valley COMM B JAL LAND QUANTITY ANALYSS On March 15, 1996, the Growth Management Steering 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 aty of Spokane Valley's official population allocation adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BoCa and dividing it by the current population determined by the Office of Financial Management (ORA). 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 (odes (ode Description 16 Hotels and Motels 17 Lodging and daycare 46 Automobile parking Building materials, lumber yard, nursery, florist, and farm equipment 52 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 Fbstaurants, fast food, and taverns 59 Miscellaneous retail trade 61 Finandal institutions 62 Personal services 63 Business services 64 Ftpair services 65 Professional services Spokane Valley did not apply a land utilization factor. The adjusted commercial aces 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). aty of :)okane Valley 6 Population Allocation + Current Fbpulation Growth Factor Current Population = Growth Factor 90,210.00' 1.21 Commercial Acres X in Use = Commercial Aaesof Demand 1.21 1;133.56 1,369.11 Land Utilization Commercial Acres of Demand X Factor 1,369.11 Adj. Commerdal Acres of Demand 1,369.11 Vacant Commercial Aaesof Demand Commercial Acres - in Use Adjusted Cbmmerdal Acres = of Demand 1,369.11 Total Vacant Commercial = Acres of Demand 1,133.56 235.56 Total Commercial Aaesof X Market Factor= Demand 235.56 1;25. 294.45 Total Commercial Acres of Commercial Acres Demand + in Use 294.45 Total Commercial Acres of = Demand 1,133.56 1,428.00 Commercial Acres Additional Comm. Acreage Total Comm. Acres of Demand - Zoned = needed 1,428.00 2;638.53 I -1,210.53 Minus indicates surplus INDUSTRIAL LAND QUANT11YANALYSIS The industrial employment forecast for 2031 isdetermined 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 indudes 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. ince the land quantity analysis focuses on urban growth area needs, rural industries such as agriculture, City of ,okane Valley forestry, and mining are not induded. This number is compared to the total population for 2000 (417,939) to determine a percentage ratio as follows: 10,644 divided by 79,000 = 0.135 or 13.5% 2. Estimate industrial employment for 2010 Estimating industrial employment for 2010 can be achieved by applying the ratio established in step 1 to the 2010 population for Aookane (bunty. 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 1101 update contemplates land use needs for the year 2031. Estimating industrial employment for 2031 is necessary to determine future industrial employment needs and can be estimated similarly to step 2. The equation is illustrated as follows: 2031 population 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 *done County in 2000. The study provided a detailed analysis of industrial lands in the unincorporated areas of the (bunty. 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 needsfor 2031: (16 employees per acre) / 2,531 employees =158 acres The condusion 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 condusion is city-wide and does not include the industrial land needsfor unincorporated UGAs. Qty of 400kane Valley In order to evaluate the industrial Iandswithin the City, staff used an industrial land study developed in 2000 by a committee composed of representatives from various economic development, business, and real estate organizations This committee developed a rating system to evaluate the marketability of land designated for industrial use. The rating system utilized Cleographical Information Systems (GP 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 "tiers". Tier one lands were 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. Ung this methodology, it was determined that there is 839 acres of tier one industrial property within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. In addition, there is 250 acres of tier one industrial property currently in a public/quasi-public use. There is no tier two or three industrial properties looted 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/Q-F) 250.4862 Tier 4 2349.5993 Tier 4 (P/Q-F) 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 Qty hasfour times the industrial land needed in tier one industrial properties alone. In condusion, the City Spokane Valley has an adequate supply of industrial land for the next 20 years RREVIOUS IMONOM ICSTUDIES& ANALYSIS The Qty of Spokane Valley, aspen of the planning process for the Sprague-Appleway Rt vitalization Ran, conducted economic analyses providing a basis for recommendations in the Ran. The most recent study performed by Gbbs Ranning (roup, Inc. in 2007 spedfically examined the economic feasibility of establishing a town center in Spokane Valley. The Gbbs Qty of Spokane Valley 9 study examined three trade area so narios:1) Miao Trade Area, 2) Primary Trade Area, and 3) 100 M He Trade Area. These trade areas are discussed in more detail below. Miao Trade Area This model established the minimal possible trade area for the proposed town center site. The Spokane 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 Miao Trade Area analysis indicated an over -supply of all retail categories except for specialty foods such as ice seam, bagels, and coffee. Overall, the Miao TradeArea2006 retail sales were reported at $1.29 billion, with a consumer demand of only $738 million. The Miao Trade Area thus had an over- supply of $550 million per year or approximately 2 million square feet. Primary Trade Area The Rimary Trade Area induded most of the Spokane Valley region where most of the study area's (pokane Valley Town (anter) potential shoppers reside. The Spokane Valley Mall and surrounding retail were included 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 Rimary Trade Area 100 Mile Trade Area Due to the relatively remoteness of Spokane, 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 (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. Qty of Spokane Valley aty of gaokane Valley EXHIBIT "B" Ivor torwrwm mp ct Modifications to Reclamation plan to inlcude removing the common boundary between CPM and County property to maximaiiethe resources in both mining permits including but not limited to mining the Flora Pit Road and the edging house property I Q 2 ! I ! $ I ! . t t a | 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. ■ ■ ! \! A ! ƒ § g! ��g f� �fl m !#u_ m` ; 1{ 14 Mining Concrete Production Shop Facilities quaky Control . f k E % ff Illy ££a A - /\ Heavy Industrial k \ !_#_ Jk1k !! ! \.1 2 2 2 ! be C t!4}' hI t72� e2/ k/ Ei {fl I§§ X5'0 q,§§§§'A „ a;;;-;m9v4 k s 35134.9095 35134.9057 35134.9028 35134.9075 35134.9030 35134.9029 35134.3232 351349081 c ; m )k§§)Rkgoq§§§ §B■§B§MEAA § m2;■; ;■@m.m■ - k k t k ($ £ # £ . i I5pokane County Flora Pit under lease/buy option 2 S k ! 2 C'::n..t�rhrcRY]lN' c23 I yt -' ..a.,<sac ^- „--ws:.,mrn<-_t7:47 .+tY„p- RGwLc,.u: 4 1�iJ� f -.-...•-.:c-anmrtan 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 thanlcing 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: 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 govermnents; 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 ofJuly 7, 2015 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval ofJuly 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 wayfmding 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 wayfmding 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 wayfmding 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: 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: Spokane i.Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 1 Fax: 509.921.1008 1 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: August 20, 2015 Re: Mining Moratorium The attached letters were received in opposition to the mining moratorium: 1. Letter from Robert Seghetti, President of ACME Concrete Paving, Inc., received August 11, 2015 2. E-mail and letter from Tom Dugger, Grace Construction Products; received August 11, 2015 3. E-mail and letter from Peter Hitschler, CXT, Inc., received August 11, 2015 4. E-mail and letter from Peter Gay, Oldcastle Precast, received August 11, 2015 5. E-mail and letter from Joe Frank, Greenstone Corp., received August 11, 2015 6. CPM Development Corporation letter from John Shogren, handed to Clerk during August 11, 2015 Council meeting 7. CPM Development Corporation letter from Sue Devaney, handed to Clerk during August 11, 2105 Council meeting 8. E-mail to Sue Passmore from Mike Meidling, Martz Mountain Industries, Inc., received August 11, 2105 9. Faxed letter and cover sheet from Michael Schimmels, Red Diamond Construction, received August 11, 2015 10. Letter received August 11, 2015 from Jim Cameron, Cameron -Reilly 11. Letter received August 11, 2015 from Joel White, Executive Officer Home Builders Association 12. Letter received August 12, 2015 from Larry Wittkopt, Wittkopf Landscape Supplies 13. Letter received August 12, 2015 from Thomas C. Stewart, of Frank Gurney, Inc. General Contractor 14. Letter received August 12, 2015 from Carl M. Stewart, of Frank Gurney, Inc., General Contractor 15. Letter received August 12, 2015 from Thomas C. Stewart, Standard Traffic Control, Inc. 16. Letter received August 12, 2105 from Thomas P. Tantriella, Standard Traffic Control, Inc. 17. Letter received August 12, 2105 from Glenn R. Stewart, Standard Traffic Control, Inc. 18. Letter received August 14, 2105 from Kathryn A. Wilson, President Eller Corporation ACME Concrete Pavng, Inc. August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: ([D[1IMCD AUG 11 2015 City of Spokane Valley I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for 13 years and we are proud to do work for the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane, WSDOT, Spokane County and the Felts Feilda and the Spokane Airport. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete on every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Sincerely, Ac. e-C6ec -t 4124 E Broadway, Spokane, WA 99202 • (509) 242-1234 • FAX (509) 242-1232 An Equal Opportunity Employer Chris Bainbridge From: Dugger, Thomas <Thomas.E.Dugger@grace.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 6:53 AM To: Chris Bainbridge Subject: Grace Construction Products Attachments: Gracesupport.docx Field Service Representative W.R Grace & Co. , 4710 W. Belmont Dr, Spokane, Wa 99208, USA (509) 714-5172 thomas.e.duquer t(a�,grace.com August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company, Grace Construction Products has done business in the Spokane Valley for over 30 years and we are proud to maintain a presence in the greater Spokane area supporting companies like Central Pre -Mix. A temporary ban on mining and the possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. The cost of ready mix concrete and asphalt is heavily impacted by the availability of high quality, local aggregate sources. We know that price, and therefore the construction business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If local aggregate sources are eliminated this will create more wear and tear on our streets, increase emissions, and negatively impact every construction project in the area. Mining is essential to our community and the vitality of the construction business. Without local sources, future economic growth and development in the City will become a more costly endeavor. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request to repeal this moratorium. Sincerely, Tom Dugger Field Sales Technician Grace Construction Products Spokane, WA Chris Bainbridge From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: August 10, 2015 Peter Hitschler <PHitschler@lbfoster.com> Tuesday, August 11, 2015 7:29 AM Chris Bainbridge; Dean Grafos; Arne Woodard; Ed Pace; Chuck Hamer; Bill Bates CSV Moratorium CXT Letter - CSV Moratorium.pdf Inc. an L.B. Foster Company Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: I am writing to express our concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Please see attached Letter. Thanking you in advance Best Regards Peter Hitschler Supply Chain Systems Manager CXT Inc. an LB Foster Company (509)892-3242 Office (509)440-3227 Cell (509)928-8270 Fax PHitschler(cr�lbfoster.com www.lbfoster.com 1 OW® , Inc. an L.B. Foster Company August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for 28 years and we are proud to maintain our corporate offices within the City. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. eter Hitschler Supply Chain Systems Manager CXT Inc. an LB Foster Company (509)892-3242 Office (509)440-3227 Cell (509)928-8270 Fax PHitschler@lbfoster.com 3808 N. Sullivan Road, Building #7 • Spokane, WA 99216 Phone: 509.921.8766 • Fax: 509.928.8270 Toll Free: 800.3663.5789 Email: info@lbfoster.com • www.ofinc.com Chris Bainbridge From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good Morning, Gay, Peter <Peter.Gay@oldcastle.com> Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:21 AM Chris Bainbridge Oldcastle Precast, Spokane- Mining Moratorium Oldcastle Precast Spokane- Letter To City Of Spokane Valley- Mining.pdf Attached is a letter to the Mayor and City Council relating to Oldcastle Precast's position on the mining moratorium in Spokane Valley. I appreciate your help in passing it along to them, and its inclusion in the public record. Please let me know if there is any additional information that I can provide. Sincerely, Peter Peter Gay Site General Manager I Oldcastle Precast P: 509-536-3324 C: 509-998-1467 922 N. Carnahan ; Spokane. WA 199212 1 Oldcastle Precast Spokane Plant 922 N. Carnahan Road Spokane Valley, WA 92212 Phone: (509) 536-3300 • Fax: (509) 536-3313 August 11, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: or PCI. CE 971F'f0 t'.+.rn4 A PCI and CSA Certified Plant I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council consider repeal. This moratorium is about more than the aggregate companies. It is about each and every business and community infrastructure project that relies on aggregate as a core building block. Most notable for our business is the upgrading and replacing of aging bridges such as the current project on Sullivan Rd. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for over 50 years and the temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use aggregate to produce our structural precast concrete products, notably exporting an entire prison structure to Canada this year, and are dependent on local sources of aggregate to remain competitive locally and regionally. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to our plant. If aggregate must come from farther away, this creates more cost to us and our end-users including the City of Spokane Valley. Mining is essential to our community. Without local sources of aggregate economic development in the City and our businesses ability to compete are limited. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Sincerely, ag,„ Peter Gay Site General Manager- Oldcastle Precast Chris Bainbridge From: Joe Frank <joe.frank@greenstonehomes.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 1:51 PM To: Chris Bainbridge Subject: Re: Mining Moratorium Attachments: Letter to City of Spokane Valley for Mining Moratorium.docx Letter attached regarding our concern for the City Council's decision to institute a mining Moratorium. Sincerely, Joe Frank 1 August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in or around the City of Spokane Valley for over 30 years. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Sincerely, Joe Frank President Greenstone Corp. 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 City of Spokane Valley Testimony on Ordinance 15-015 Mining Moratorium By: John Shogren —VP/GM CPM Development/Central Pre -Mix Tuesday, August 11, 2015 Oldcastle° Materials Our company is respectfully asking you to stop this unnecessary moratorium tonight. This moratorium is not a good economic decision for the City. • Aggregate in the form of crushed rock, concrete, block, pipe or asphalt is the fundamental foundation for all economic growth whether in streets, bridges, buildings, water and sewer systems or general residential development. It all starts with aggregate. • For every 20 miles round trip of additional haul, you double the cost of the material. Displacement from the City creates this cost increase • The largest consumer of aggregate materials is governmental agencies including the City. Disallowing aggregate access within or near the use is essentially a tax increase on the citizens and development community. If you vote for this you are voting for a tax increase on the citizens of this area. This moratorium contradicts State Law. • Placing a moratorium against a natural resource operation within the Cities boundaries is out of compliance with Statewide planning goals via the Growth Management Act and places the city in non-compliance with those goals. The mining moratorium you are readopting has and will continue to damage Central Pre -Mix. • Following a joint planning session with Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley on Feb. 9th in which the County disclosed a real estate transaction to exchange properties and mining rights with CPM, the City chose to implement a mining moratorium 15 days later. o This moratorium is disallowing our planned mining area adjustments and increasing our operational costs. o This moratorium has potentially impacted our mining reserves at the property on Tschirley Ave. There is no factual evidence to validate this moratorium. • There are only 5 operations currently within the City. o Three of those are near depletion. • Some of you have stated that there is a concern for protecting areas needed for industrial development. Forecasts of necessary available industrial land prepared for the City state that there is more than 5 times the amount of undeveloped industrial land available as would be required over the next 20 years. Even if some of you believe that demand for Industrial land is wrong and would double, you still would have almost 3 times as much in inventory as even the most optimistic forecast of demand might be. This is ignoring the fact that properties like our Park Rd and in the future portions of Sullivan, Flora Rd and Tschirley post -reclamation would also be coming back into the inventory. • This moratorium needs to be lifted and allow for free enterprise, like ours, to continue to work through the lawful process of permitting and development. The outright ban of our future operations is both prejudicial to our business and economically burdensome to our company now and the citizens of the area going forward. We, Central Pre -Mix respectfully request that you not go on the record voting for this moratorium again. Respectfully, 411111111W/- John i John Shogren 1IPage t./9u..-eLP in* d 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 City of Spokane Valley Testimony on Ordinances 15-015 & 15-013: Mining Moratorium By: Sue Devaney —CFO, CPM Development/Central Pre -Mix Members of the Council: l� Oldcastle° Materials Tuesday, August 11, 2015 Please consider my testimony as a request for reconsideration of the moratorium against aggregate (gravel) operations within the City of Spokane Valley. Herein are just a few points on the financial benefits having our company within the City provides. Over the last four years we have paid the City of Spokane Valley nearly $1.5 million in property taxes alone and another $2 million in product sales tax including both sold and purchased products on activities within the City. We are your partners and the partner of every citizen in the economic development of this community. Like you, we enjoy being here and being an active part of the community. Please consider the impact to the community if you eventually force us to move our operations out of town away from the very consumers that we serve, including the City. In addition to the financial benefits listed above, we also provide the following: • Direct jobs for around three hundred of our employees in the immediate area. o Sales, fuel and other transactional taxes that these employees pay. o A multiplier of these employees impacts in the form of suppliers and vendors we use. • Other transactional taxes and fees that we as a company pay in the area not included above. • Charitable contributions to the area in the form of cash, products and our employee's time. Like you we love this community, we invest in with our money our time and our hearts. We respectfully request that you remove from consideration this mining moratorium and allow us to continue to invest in our facilities and operations within our City of Spokane Valley. Respectfully, \ge, Sue Devaney Chief Financial Officer liPage Att,_.vAief J)--/1—/5"— Sue Passmore From: Mike Meidling <mike@marzmtn.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:10 PM To: mayor/ councilmembers Subject: Moratorium on mining Mayor Grafos and Council members, I have heard about a moratorium on mining within the city limits of Spokane Valley. This is a cause for concern in the construction community of which I am a part. I do not know the reason for a ban, but my concern would be for not only the higher cost of transporting these materials from another location, but also for the extra wear and tear we have on our already bad road system. Perhaps there are other ways to reduce the mining need and consider protecting structures already built. I have seen complete teardown of supporting bridge structures where the concrete that exists could last another 100 years. Products exist that greatly reduce water and salt intrusion into existing concrete and can minimize corrosion due to freeze thaw cycles. Please consider the effect you will have on the economy of the valley. We have had a hard time existing since 2008, increased costs for materials can deter any progress. Thank you, MIKE MEIDLING PRESIDENT MARZ MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIES, INC. P.O. Box 369 GREENACRES, WA 99016 CELL: (509) 979-7185 PHONE / FAX: (509) 928-MARZ (6279) WWW.MARZMTN.COM 1 08/11/2015 115: 15F'M b J24241d RED DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION, INC PO BOX 14806 OPPORTUNITY, WA 99214 OFFICE (509) 922-6674 FAX (509) 924-2413 SHOP - PHONE/FAX (509) 926-7903 FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: 0 1 t 1 TIME: l% Pi) COMPANY: FAX #: 00 31 FROM: 5 Pv NUMBER OF PAGES: Z— INCLUDING COVER SHUT. (IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES —PLEASE CALL (509) 922-6674 • COMMENTS Received Time Aug. 11. 2015 5:16PM No, 2262 RED DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION INC August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: PO BOX 14806 Spokane, WA 99214 Office (509) 922-6674 Fax (509) 924-2413 I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for 25 years and we are proud to maintain our corporate offices within, the City. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Sincerely, G. Michael Schimmels, President Received Time Aug, 11. 2015 5:16PM No.2262 August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for 10 years and we are proud to maintain our corporate offices within the City. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned_ We use concrete or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Jim Cameron Cameron -Reilly LLC 11rOMELDERS OCIATION 5813 East 4th Ave, Ste 201 • Spokane Valley, WA 99212 • (509) 532-4990 • Fax (509) 532-4980 • www.SHBA.com August 11, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City Council Members City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining To Mayor Dean Grafos, Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard and Council Members Ed. Pace, Ben Wick, Chuck Hafiier, Rod Higgins, Bill Gothman: The Spokane Home Builders Association would like to express its concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. The SHBA represents nearly 700 member businesses, representing all facets of the building industry including general contractors, developers, realtors, architects, excavators, plumbers, electricians, financial institutions, etc. In one way or another, this moratorium potentially impacts each and every segment that we represent. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban is concerning. Access to local aggregate sources is critically important from a financial perspective but also because aggregates are the necessary building block of our residential communities, providing concrete for foundations for homes, apartments, sidewalks and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, and roads. The building industry is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site because if increased transportation costs and time delays. Further, if sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and greater congestion. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Best Regards, kka, Joel White Executive Officer August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: RECEMED AUG 122015 City of Spokane Valley I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for 40 years and we are proud to maintain a location within the City. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Sincerely, La y Wittl$pf President Wittkopf Landscape Supplies P.O. Box 6295, Spokane, WA 99217 509-467-0685*Fax 509-467-0720 Frank Gurney Inc. August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: General Contractor P.O. BOX 11557 - PARKWATER STATION SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 99211 PH. (509) 535-3069 FAX (509) 535-1911 CONTR. LIC. #FR-AN-KG*3060J Since 1959 AUG 12 2015 City of Spokane Valley I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for over 50 years and we are proud to maintain our corporate offices within the City. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Sincerely Frank Gurney, Inc.' Thomas C. Stewart President — An Equal Opportunity Employer — Frank Gurney Inc. August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: V General Contractor Since 1959 P.O. BOX 11557 - PARKWATER STATION SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 99211 PH. (509) 535-3069 FAX (509) 535-1911 CONTR. LIC. #FR-AN-KG*3060 RECEDED AUG 12 2015 City of Spokane Valley I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for over 50 years and we are proud to maintain our corporate offices within the City. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. 'ncerely Fran urney, Inc. rl M. Stewart Vice President — An Equal Opportunity Employer — STANDARD TRAFFIC CONTROL INC. August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: P.O. Box 11066-PARKWATER STATION SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99211 Phone 509-535-3069 " Fax 509-535-1911 AUG 12 2015 City of Spokane Valley I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for over 50 years and we are proud to maintain our corporate offices within the City. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Sincerely 4111 Standard Traffic Contr-a Thomas C. Stewart President STANDARD TRAFFIC CONTROL INC. August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: P.O. Box 11066-PARKWATER STATION SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99211 Phone 509-535-3069 " Fax 509-535-1911 RECEArgiD AUG 12 2015 City of Spokane Valley I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for over 50 years and we are proud to maintain our corporate offices within the City. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Standard Traffic Control, Inc. Thomas P. Tantriella Contract Administrator STANDARD TRAFFIC CONTROL INC August 10, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: P.O. Box 11066-PARKWATER STATION SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99211 Phone 509-535-3069 " Fax 509-535-1911 AUG 122015 City of Spokane Valley I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the City of Spokane Valley for over 50 years and we are proud to maintain our corporate offices within the City. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Sincerely Standard Traffic Control, Inc. Glenn R. Stewart Vice President ELLER CORPORATION P.O. BOX 117 NEWMAN LAKE, WASHINGTON 99025 509-226-0333 --- Fax: 509-226-1332 DBE# D2F0009032 223-01 EL-LE-RC*242 C3 an equal opportunity employer August 11, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Moratorium on Mining Dear Mayor Grafos: R CEN D AUG 14 2015 City co Spokane Valley I am writing to express my concern regarding the City's moratorium on mining and ask that you and the City Council strongly consider repealing this moratorium. This moratorium is about more than the sand and gravel companies -it is about each and every business or citizen that relies on essential community services where aggregate is the building block to our community. Things like concrete foundations for our schools, churches, sidewalks and houses and asphalt for bike paths, basketball courts, parking lots, roads and the many other vital civic, public and municipal needs. Our company has done business in the area that is currently the City of Spokane Valley for 39 years and we are proud to use the local suppliers for all our projects. The temporary ban on mining and possibility of a permanent ban has us concerned. We use concrete, crushed aggregate and/or asphalt for every project and we are dependent on local sources. We know that price, and therefore our business, is directly impacted when materials are not available close to the job site. If sources must come from farther away, this creates more wear and tear on our streets, increases emissions, and increases the cost to us and our end-user because of the increased distance and travel time to transport the material. Mining is essential to our community and business and without local sources, economic growth and development in the City is stymied. Thank you for taking time to consider this issue and our request that the moratorium be repealed. Sincerely, Eller Corporation Kathryn Wilson President DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, August 11, 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 Joe Pursch of Valley Fourth Memorial Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Members from Boy Scout Troop 431 led 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: Mayor Grafos welcomed Senator Mike Padden, and State Representatives Matt Shea and Robert McCaslin. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Hafner: said that August is typically a month of no agency/committee meetings; said he attended the outdoor Sportsplex meeting where he heard good suggestions about an outdoor activity for the area, and said there will be further opportunities for conversing on that topic in the future. Councilmember Pace: said he also attended the Chamber of Commerce's sportsplex meeting and it was exciting to see so many stakeholders; said he rode with a detective and visited various National Night Out Against Crime activities. Councilmember Higgins: said he met with the Spokane Regional Clean Air Board where they continued discussion on the repair of the building. Councilmember Gothmann- said he attended the Chamber's meeting concerning an outdoor sports facility and said one of the possible areas is near the HUB in Liberty Lake; attended the City's audit entrance meeting where the State Auditors stated their objectives for the upcoming audit; participated in some National Night Against Crime activities; said that he met with City Manager Jackson concerning the topic of gravel sites and mining operations and later toured the Eden and Flora sites, said the tours were very informative, and that he asked Geologist Marcia Sands whether gravel pits can be reclaimed, and she said they certainly can be and that the big problem is noise and dust; Ms. Sands also told him that you don't want to penetrate the aquifer because if it comes up water and water has fish in it, then you automatically have another shoreline; Councilmember Gothmann said he feels we need a geologist to help so we can make intelligent decisions. Councilmember Wick: reported that he attended the Chamber hosted meeting about the outdoor sports complex, and feels more data is needed to determine what kind of complex is needed; went to some Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT National Night Out events and met more neighbors, including a BNSF (Burlington Northern Sante Fe) rail master who talked a little about their operation and train whistles; attended the regional transportation SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) meeting's audit entrance where the focus was on the federal side of issues. Deputy Mayor Woodard: said he also attended several National Night Out events; attended the meeting on the sportsplex; met with Representative McMorris Rodgers and they talked about grade separation and he encouraged her to use her influence on our TIGER grant. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Grafos reported that he also attended several National Night Out events; today met with Sheriff Knezovich and members of the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations, which was founded 35 years ago as part of the federal, state and county emphasis to remove the Arian Nation Organizations, and said they will be asking us to be part of the Spokane County task force which is being formed, and that he expects more information to come later, adding that if we participate it will not require any financial assistance; mentioned a letter he received from the Department of Commerce regarding the Appleway Trail and he read portions of that letter extending congratulations to us for securing the $1 million state grant, and Mayor Grafos also extended thanks to Senator Padden, and Representatives McCaslin and Shea for their efforts. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Steve Latoszek, Spokane Valley: said he has been here since 1986 so has a vested interest in making our city beautiful; that he drives around and notices shrubs and trees blocking speed limit signs, directional and other signs throughout the Mirabeau Park Area, and in particular, a 35 -mph sign is blocked; said there are other signs on Parkway and on Sullivan blocked by shrubbery; said he wants CenterPlace to look pristine; and whether on public or private land, these things need to be taken care of; said he goes to the Senior Center and remarked about the problem in the turn and almost being sideswiped by vehicles; also said he sees cars turning the wrong way on Argonne and Mullan onto Sprague and that he is not sure if that was ever measured. Lynn Plaggemeier: said he came in about three weeks ago and provided photos of Value Village store and now it is worse and he wants to know when the City staff has looked at "that mess" and asked if any citations have been given to Value Village; and again mentioned the "derelict" Albertson's and asked if our City has an ordinance where the owners of those properties or the real estate companies have an obligation to maintain the exterior of those buildings. Representative Bob McCaslin: said he is here to thank Spokane Valley for being such a great city and that a lot of that has to do with Council and staff; and that people approach him about our City and how well it is run and said he gets to brag about his hometown, and he again thanked Council for their support. Representative Matt Shea: said this year the legislature secured the most capital funding in the twenty years since they have worked together, and he mentioned the funding of the Spokane Valley Tech School and of the Appleway Trail; and said he looks forward to the development of Barker Road Interchange and the expansion of the Industrial Park. Senator Mike Padden: said they had a good session and he appreciated working with City Manager Jackson and with the City's lobbyist; mentioned the construction money for all the school districts for new buildings and he extended congratulations on a very good job on the asphalt overlay on Sullivan and that he is glad to hear we are staying on schedule for the Sullivan Bridge; and said he is proud to represent Spokane Valley and often mentions his wish that the state was run as well as the City of Spokane Valley with a low growth rate and great reserves. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT 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 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 15-015 Adopting Mining 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 No. 15-015 adopting findings of fact justfing 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. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained the history and reasons for the new ordinance, and gave a review of the findings, as noted in his Request for Council Action form; said we have not designated mineral resource land to -date, but are in the midst of the 2015 comprehensive plan update process; said we will review where those lands are appropriate as well as the associated mining regulations; and without a moratorium it would be possible for inconsistent new uses that might be contrary to regulations; mentioned that today we have received seven written comments, all of which will be included in the Council Agenda Packet for the second reading, if this is moved forward; said the moratorium is a temporary measure while the City proceeds through the comp plan update and does not impact current lawful mining operations; that it is not a permanent ban on mining, and in fact we have previously moved forward a CAR (citizen action request) concerning mining. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if the purpose of this ordinance is to give us a chance to do the land analysis and then put together that analysis into the comp plan along with the required zoning, and Mr. Lamb concurred; said it is a temporary measure to allow the time to do that analysis; and since the date of the original moratorium we have not received any applications from any of the currently operating mining sites. Councilmember Higgins stated that this does not affect any currently permitted operation and again, Mr. Lamb concurred. Mayor Grafos invited public comments. Jana McDonald: briefly commented about Councilmember Gothmann's comments concerning the shoreline issues, and said gravel pits that go into the shoreline are exempt; she offered a tour of any of their facilities; and added that that "nice asphalt overlay" was due to her company of Central Pre -Mix. Kevin Bill: said he works for Central Pre -Mix; his son helped put together that basketball court in Browns Park; that his company supports many nonprofits and that they are a responsible company and have been here 85 years. Sue Devaney: said she is the Chief Financial Officer for Central Pre -Mix; expressed concern with the moratorium and asked Council for reconsideration; said over the last four years they paid $1.5 million in property taxes and another $2 million in property and product sales tax for things they bought and sold; said she is concerned with the economic development and wants to be an active partner in the community; and she asked Council to consider the financial impact of moving their operation further out; said they have about 300 employees who live in the immediate area and also pay fuel taxes and supports charitable activities, and again asked Council to consider removing the moratorium. She handed her August 11, 2015 letter to the City Clerk for the record. John Shogren: also with Central Pre -Mix; asked to stop this unnecessary mining moratorium and said it is not a good economic decision for the City; said asphalt is a fundamental element for growth and Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT everything starts with aggregate; and that a vote for this is a vote for a tax increase and he feels this contradicts state law and is out of compliance with state planning goals; that it will damage Central Pre- mix as it disallows mining plant adjustments; and he asked Council to lift the moratorium to allow free - enterprise like them to operate. He handed his August 11, 2015 letter to the City Clerk for the Record. Stacy Bjordahl: speaking on behalf of Central Pre -Mix, said the resource dictates the location, which is why the GMA mandates that those resources are preserved and protected and they cannot be re -located; said the industrial uses will create noise and dust; she commended the bringing forth of this issue again and to solicit comments, and said there is no support for the moratorium, rather quite the opposite and in that regard, Council should repeal the moratorium as there is no support for it from the community. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Gothmann explained that a moratorium is a delay so the question can be studied and that he feels that studying this for six months is not unreasonable; said this is not going to prevent mining. Councilmember Hafner said he agrees that this is a temporary delay until the whole situation can be studied including how it will affect the aquifer, as well as the reclamation process. In response to Deputy Mayor Woodard's question about extending this moratorium, Mr. Lamb said that state law allows extensions, but prior to any extension, a public hearing would be required as well as another round of findings; and said this moratorium is currently scheduled to end February 23, 2016. Deputy Mayor Woodard acknowledged the importance of gravel and that time is needed to examine those land uses as well as meet state law; said this moratorium is for six more months and is not a ban or closing down of Central Pre -mix or any other pits. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. At 7:00 p.m. Mayor Grafos called for a recess; he reconvened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. 3. Proposed Resolution 15-007 Amending Governance Manual — Chris Bainbridge It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to approve Resolution 15-007 amending the Governance Manual as proposed. City Clerk Bainbridge explained that as a result of the last meeting of the Governance Committee, the following issues were suggested to be brought back to the full Council for further discussion and decision: Page 18 discussion of whether to leave the Table of Parliamentary Procedure as is, or to change the motions to "close debate" and "suspend the rules" to require a 2/3rd majority vote as per Robert's Rules of Order. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to amend the table to change those two motions, from requiring a majority to pass, to requiring a 2/3'd majority to pass. Discussion included comments from Councilmember Pace that he favors the change to keep things simpler and to have the motions consistent with Roberts Rules of Order, while Councilmember Hafner suggested not changing it since there hasn't been a problem in the past. Mayor Grafos also stated that this has not been a problem in the past. After further brief discussion, Deputy Mayor Woodard called for the question: All in Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Gothmann, Higgins, Pace, and Hafner. Opposed: Councilmember Wick. Motion passed to call the question. Vote by acclamation on the motion to change the noted motions in the table to require 2/3' d majority: In Favor: Councilmembers Pace, Gothmann, and Wick. Opposed: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner, Higgins. The motion failed and the table will remain as it currently is in the Manual. Page 27: under section "C" for the process for selecting a temporarily councilmember, the question is whether or not to omit the sentence: "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." It was moved by Councilmember Pace and seconded to remove that sentence. Councilmember Pace said his suggestion is to keep the Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT process simple, clean, and apolitical, and said he feels if there are rules for when a job ends, Council should adhere to those rules. During the discussion about the process for filling a Council vacancy versus a temporary position, Councilmember Gothmann noted he would recuse himself from this vote since he is at the moment, that temporary Councilmember. Vote by acclamation to remove the sentence: In Favor: Mayor Grafos, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Hafner, Higgins, and Pace. Opposed: Councilmember Wick. Abstentions: Councilmember Gothmann. Motion carried and the sentence will be removed. Page 25, and 27-28: After brief discussion about the voting process, limiting nominations to only one, unless the person declined the nomination or there was no second of the nomination, and to have the vote by written ballot, other than making a minor change about what to do in case of a lack of a second on the nomination, and to make sure the subsequent voting rounds are included in case of no majority vote, it was determined to leave the proposed verbiage as written. Page 13: concerning steps to take for considering any tax rate change, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to eliminate the entire paragraph 5 Tax Rate Changes. There was brief discussion on the pros and cons of the verbiage. Vote by Acclamation: In favor of removing the paragraph: Mayor Grafos, and Councilmembers Gothmann, Hafner, and Wick. Opposed to removing the paragraph: Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Pace and Higgins. Motion carried and the paragraph will be removed. There was also brief discussion about the phrase "city manager or designee" and the rationale for removing "or designee." Mr. Jackson explained that the City Code permits Mr. Jackson to always have the ability to appoint a designee, so we took that out of this manual so as not to be redundant, and as Deputy Mayor Woodard mentioned, and Mr. Jackson concurred, the designee would always fall to the Deputy City Manager unless otherwise stated. Mayor Grafos mentioned page 12, item 4 Placing Items on an Agenda, and the section on the top of page 13 under iii(b) explaining the process for Councilmembers to place an item on an advance agenda and the involvement of the agenda committee. Mayor Grafos noted the verbiage includes consensus of three or more Councilmembers shall move the item forward to a future agenda, and he explained that he would prefer a majority rather than three or more, to bring back an item for a future agenda. Deputy Mayor Woodard said the purpose of having three or more Councilmembers is to address the concerns of the minority of the Councilmembers. Councilmember Hafner said that if three Councilmembers think something is important enough to put on a future agenda, he feels that should be done for if nothing else, discussion purposes; and Councilmember Gothmann agreed with leaving it at three in order to give those minority three Councilmembers the chance to argue their case. Councilmember Pace agreed with leaving it three or more; but also noted that getting something on an agenda should be a Council decision, and even if staff indicates a lack of time to work on an issue, Council should be able to discuss it anyway; that Council needs to be able to control what gets on the agenda and three people should be able to add something to the agenda no matter what. It was moved by Mayor Grafos and seconded that item #4 be changed to a majority of councilmembers to bring the item back on a future agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Grafos and Councilmember Hafner. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmembers Pace, Higgins, Wick and Gothmann. Motion failed and the proposed verbiage with "three or more" will not be changed. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned there are other small changes throughout the document, mostly through the end of Chapter 2, and she asked if Council had other concerns to discuss. The nomination process for filling a vacancy was brought up by Councilmember Wick and after brief discussion, Council agreed that the intent is, if a Councilmember's nomination is not seconded, that Councilmember may make another nomination if desired. Ms. Bainbridge said she would make that clarification in the manual. It was then Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT moved by Councilmember Hafner, seconded and unanimously agreed to adopt the Governance Manual as further amended. 4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project #0206 — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the Sprague/Long Sidewalk improvements, Project #0206 to Bacon Concrete, Inc., in the amount of $237,647 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Public Works Director Guth explained that four bids were received, with Bacon Concrete as the lowest responsive bidder. Mayor Grafos invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Grafos invited public comment. Lynn Plaggemeier; regarding the new city hall, said the number should be broken out from real estate, staff time, and site work; said he hasn't seen a tentative published schedule for when the new city hall should be open for bids and if you want good prices, that should be done around January; said he knows there have been some revisions to the architect's plans but it would be nice to see what is in that statement of work as he doesn't know if there is a hot tub in there or not; said public review of that statement of work is important and Council should direct that the architect will design to 85% of the programmed amount; that public review should take place at 35, 65, and 90% of final design documents; said he has concerns with our City doing a comp plan at the same time as a new city hall and asked how long will Council be in positions when the comp plan comes in at a different location than what was selected; and said a lot of work needs to be done before this goes further. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 5. 2016 Budget Estimated Revenues/Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor went over the estimated 2016 revenues and expenditures as noted in her August 11, 2015 Request for Council Action form; gave some background on the 2016 budget; explained that two new funds are being proposed: Fund 104 for the 1.3% new Lodging Tax, and Fund 106 to account for Comcast PEG contributions and expenses. Via her PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Taylor highlighted the general fund revenues and expenditures including nonrecurring expenditures; mentioned other funds such as the motor vehicle fuel tax revenue collected by the State and remitted to the street fund; the Motel/Motel tax revenues, stormwater management fees, and aquifer protection area fees, and mentioned upcoming Council budget discussions. 6. Council Goals and Policies for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) — Mark Calhoun Deputy City Manager Calhoun went over the background of Council Goals and Priorities for use by the Lodging Tax Committee, as noted on his Request for Council Action (RCA) form; and after brief discussion and explanation of the four goals listed on the RCA, Council concurred with the proposed goals and priorities as listed. Mr. Calhoun said he will include these goals and priorities with the LTAC materials which will be sent out early September, and will discuss these goals as he meets with the LTAC early September. 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos Councilmember Hafner mentioned that several vacant lots are looking trashy and not being taken care of; said he heard two complaints about this and wanted to make sure vacant owners are taking care of their lots; and suggested making that a requirement for vacant businesses and residences. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Jackson explained that presentations from Outside Agencies is currently set for the September 1 Council meeting, and that Council has been awarding funds to GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) for economic development since our City's incorporation; at a workshop in June staff proposed taking a Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT portion of those funds and working on a formal contract with GSI in lieu of Council awarding them funds through our Outside Agency process, and had originally proposed $40,000. Mr. Jackson said staff and GSI have worked through the contract and come to an agreed upon amount of $43,000; and with that in mind, said it is now important to discuss this since they would likely need to make a decision about appearing as an outside agency. Mr. Jackson said he proposes awarding the contract to GSI, that although it is within the administrative authority of the City Manager, he wanted to make Council aware of this and to let Council know that GSI has signed the contract. In connection with this contract, Mr. Jackson said this could reduce the total amount of funds for Outside Agencies by $43,000 if Council desired. Mr. Jackson explained that this contract amount is based on the average amount given to GSI over the years, but is less than what was awarded over the last three years; that the agreement is well-defined and requires performance on various levels, and would be very measurable, and as well, GSI would have to submit an annual report to be reviewed by the Community Development Director and reported to the City Manager. Mr. Jackson said this is a good contract and he asked if there were any objections to him executing this for next year. Mr. Jackson said the contract is for one year and starts January 2016; it has the option of three, one-year renewals at the City's discretion and any renewal must be done thirty days in advance of the end of the year. In response to a question about not fulfilling performance measures, Mr. Jackson said we would not cancel mid -contract, but if that were the case, we simply would not renew. There were no objections from Council with Mr. Jackson signing the contract, and said they would also like a copy. Mr. Jackson asked about increasing the total Outside Agency allotment or to keep it at $150,000; and Council agreed to keep it at $150,000, for at least the next year. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ATTEST: Dean Grafos, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 08-11-2015 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 25, 2015 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ❑admin. report AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Department Director Approval: ® new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session Motion Consideration: Bid Award — Citywide Safety Program Project #0167 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Info memo on 2014 City Safety Program Call for Projects, June 10, 2014; Admin report on 2014 City Safety Program Call for Projects, June 24, 2014; Adoption of the 2015-2020 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) on June 24, 2014 (Resolution #14-006) which included this project; Motion for consideration on 2014 City Safety Program Call for Projects, July 8, 2014; Adoption of the 2016-2021 Six Year TIP on June 23, 2015, Resolution #15- 005; Informational RCA, August 18, 2015. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley was successful in receiving a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant for design and construction of citywide safety improvements. The citywide safety project was split into two categories: local forces work and publically bid work. The local forces work includes upgrading regulatory and warning signs, upgrading pedestrian indicators at traffic signals, and installing bike route signing. The publically bid work includes the installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) at the intersections of Valleyway/Argonne, Valleyway/Mullan, Indiana/Twigs entrance, and 32nd Avenue/Collins. The RRFB construction was publically advertised on July 31, 2015, and bids are scheduled to be opened on August 21, 2015. Once the bids are open and the results are tabulated, staff will identify the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Staff will present a motion for an award consideration of the contract at the August 25, 2015 formal Council meeting. OPTIONS: Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Citywide Safety Project, #0167 to in the amount of and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The project budget is $503,424. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant covers $400,000 and the City's local share is $103,424, which will be paid by Fund 302. There are sufficient funds to cover the cost of this project. 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 Map INDIANA SITE 2 _r- HAN EUCLID EUCLID Y isvic SPQR ANE COM/464M ik� COLLEGE smhs.Zi l rEPROAD WA z PASSICti AY 5 Ir AGE iALLEYIAY SITE fli 47. A4TH 32N0 SITE uaERTY LE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 25, 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: Mayoral Appointment: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Member GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.20.040; RCW 67.28.1817 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: n/a BACKGROUND: Per state statute, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee shall consist of five members: two representatives of businesses required to collect the tax, two members involved in activities authorized to be funded by the tax, and one City Council member. A vacancy exists for a member involved in activities authorized to be funded by the tax. This appointment would fill a recently vacated appointment with a term expiring December 31, 2015. Mr. Herman Meier's term was to run 1/1/14 to 12/31/15; however, Mr. Meier unexpectedly passed away June 9, 2015. Ads ran for the majority of the month of July in the Valley News Herald and the Spokesman Review, and notice of the opening was placed on the City's website. The application deadline was August 7, 2015. The current committee consists of Councilmember Wick as Chair, and: Entities which collect the tax Jeff Fiman (term ends 12/31/2015) Lee Cameron (term ends 12/31/2016) Entities Involved in Activities funded by the tax Peggy Doering, Valleyfest (term ends 12/31/2016) OPTIONS: Confirm or not confirm, the Mayoral Recommended Appointment to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. If the Mayor's recommendation is not confirmed by Council, Mayor Grafos may either make another recommendation, or the matter can be postponed. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: / move to confirm the Mayor's recommended appointment of to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for a term beginning immediately upon appointment, and expiring December 31, 2015. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Mayor Grafos ATTACHMENTS Applications for openings. Applications were received from 1. Meredith Decker Coupland, Evergreen Regional Volleyball Association 2. Bill Crawford, Spokane Valley Heritage Museum 3. TJ Hake, Visit Spokane 4. David C. Pier, Sports Commission and Spokane Indians 5. Jan Quintrall, Visit Spokane 6. Charles Stocker, The HUB Spokane ,,,Ii.* Valley Application Form for Committees/Boards/Commissions RECEIVED AUG 0 5 2015 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Return Completed form to City Clerk at City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5102 phone; 509-688-0194 fax POSITION APPLYING FOR: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Applicant's name (please print): Meredith Decker Coupland Applicant's Residence Address: 11815 E Marietta Avenue Spokane Valley 99206 Street City Zip Code Applicant's Mailing Address (if different from Residence address): Applicant's Email: mc2coupland@gmail.com Street City Zip Code Home Phone: 509-922-5004 Work Phone: 509-532-0500 Cell Phone: None Length of time continuously lived within Spokane Valley City Limits: Fall of 1993 - total of 22 years NOTE: You must be a resident of the City of Spokane Valley to participate on most boards, committees and commissions. Gender: Female Male r=1 U.S. Citizen? Yes Wa. State Registered voter? Yes EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: Present or last employer: Larry Ham and Associates Physical Therapy PS Position Held: Office Manager Dates of Employment: 09/07/2004 - Present Address: 3151 E. 29th Avenue Spokane, WA 99223-4800 Phone: 509-532-0500 Previous Employer: HealthSouth/formerly Eagle Rehab/formerly Spokane Sports & Orthopedic Therapy Position Held: Athletic Trainer then Office Manager Dates of Employment: 02/1994-09/03/2004 Address: 3021 S Regal Street Spokane, WA 99223 Phone: 509-535-4408 (no longer in business) EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: High School: West Anchorage High School City/State Address Anchorage, AK College/University: Whitworth University City/State Address: Spokane, WA Diploma: Yes MI No Degree Earned: BA in Physical Education w/ Athletic Training Emphasis College/University: Degree Earned: City/State Address: COMMUNITY RELATED ACITVITIES, PAST & PRESENT: (attach additional sheets if necessary) Volleyball Coach - Evergreen Region (ERVA) - 1994 to present, Evergreen Region of USA Volleyball Adult Player Rep - 2003 to 2007, ERVA Asst. Commissioner - 2007-2009, ERVA Commissioner 2009 -Present VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCES, PAST & PRESENT: 05/1990 Bloomsday Volunteer, 03/1993 & 1994 Athletic Training Volunteer State B Basketball, 06/2000 Athletic Training Volunteer Hoopfest, 2007 -Present Volunteer Volleyball Coach YMCA of Spokane SPECIAL SKILLS/INTERESTS: Athletic Training Education, CPR Trained, Sports -Related Activities, Gardening...I also enjoy community activities with my family (husband and dog)...we utilize our community parks with sand volleyball and walking/biking (including the Dog Park at Liberty Lake) PAST OR PRESENT MEMBER OF THE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONAL, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS OR GOVERNMENT BOARDS, COMMI TI EES, OR COMMISSIONS: Board Member - VIP Juniors Volleyball Club - 2004 to Present Spokane Valley, WA Committee Name City/State Insurance Committee of the Regional Volleyball Associations Assembly (RVAA) of USA Volleyball - 2013 to Present Colorado Springs, CO CcOmp tiionaeommittee of the RVAA of USA Volleyball - 2009 to 2012 RVAA of USA Volleyball Admin Council - 2011 to 2014 City State Colorado pangs, CO Colorado Springs, CO Committee Name City/State Pacific Zone of the RVAA (of USA Volleyball) Zonal Chair - 2011 to 2014 Colorado Springs, CO What do you feel you can contribute to the community that may not be evident from information already furnished? I have lived in the Spokane Valley 22 of the 28yrs I have been in Spokane County. When we looked to purchase a home we looked in in SV only. As I am aging and no longer "play" my first love...volleyball....my exercise includes the use of Mirabeau Park and the Centennial Trail, as well as County Golf Courses. Except for where my "real" work is located, I am Valley -centric and even though I may seem to be Volleyball -centric I work hard to maintain neutrality in working with the different ERVA divisions. I feel I would be able to use the facts and figures and prospectus provided to the LTAC in vetting grant applications. Why do you feel you are qualified to act as a member of the Board, Committee or Commission for which you are applying? As ERVA Commissioner, I have to hold ALL our Division leadership accountable to our members and board. If programs operate at a loss or break-even, then I have to task those divisions to either develop additional events/sponsorships/ programming or we may have to consider a cut in funding. Would your appointment to this position create a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest? Theoretically YET, as Commissioner of ERVA I have to assist with our ethics committee and I am held to make sure our different divisions are working towards our mission statement of "growing the game". /' 1 C )e51 Aid Signiture / ' L� Today's Date 46 Spokane Valley Application Form for Committees/Boards/Commissions C �© ijED 31.1I_ 31 2015 Spokane Valley City of Sp City Clerk Return Completed form to City Clerk at City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5102 phone; 509-688-0194 fax POSITION APPLYING FOR: 1._ c)3,161 t Irl 3 T X /kGi r/ Co yr VY1 L ►T�� Applicant's name (please print): 8 i i t J C oKav'e- Applicant's Residence Address: 1 5.2-0 ci L_ A I Cfi l 16., CA -V a fte.1 Q057 Street City Zip Code Applicant's Mailing Address (if different from Residence address): r 1 Street City Applicant's Email: irYk CY`(�,,J -Po ✓' 'L U i Cj el r Home Phone: 5 OR 32, 44- Work Phone: Zip Code Cell Phone: -7428-4-0 Length of time continuously lived within Spokane Valley City Limits: Z_O v e_a, P"5 NOTE: You must be a resident of the City of Spokane Valley to participate on m6st boards, committees and commissions. Gender: Female MI Male 11E4 U.S. Citizen? Y CS Wa. State Registered voter? 'Y -E-S EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: Present or last employer: CI v• eak-''vt/ „dc, D l Sir c l h 1© n L_ ©a. � iG5 Position Held: Q- '1* NA c ;' ct Er Dates of Employment: z — Q Address: 3 3? Z --S u U 1 kVa 1'\ Fj i C3 Zd 5 3 K.QvI e a Phone: :50'1 _ S et Z— Z C1 I y q 2-1 !o Previous Employer: C a Sc_. -61.61e. ,U 1 r /� o,lei S _ Position Held: r' i _ ' ' C Dates of Employment: Z©0 5 __ 2_Q( Address: L 0 D l_- 1\kc:0 Phone: -.5062 — 1 77 — �S Iz$ EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: High School: 3-c(1 rv1 it Scv\ (b ir' R l C, Diploma: Yes City/State Address 17 C',� I i�1 hu tin . \A./ l c. �J College/University: d r -9 on. S�Q U n \ Ve f'S Ay Degree Earned: City/State Address: (y V i c k <`, i No Backcia r 0-F ier1L� College/University: Degree Earned: City/State Address: �c15 cub s - k Poe ;,a Dek\Je-S COMMUNITY RELATED ACTIVITIES, PAST & PRESENT: (attach additional sheets if necessary) Ce��eini��a i k rai \ ups 10 rl Corn vvt 1-4 - S po i r e CO a fii-y Fa i A rn bassetcL0 rs VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCES, PAST & PRESENT: c7(2,ra v "71rec;-ly FS . p(r)({nP Volley ey^ i-ert-4gc, useUvi l SPECIAL SKILLS/INTERESTS: Abt 1► i-. • 4-0NVO rK. w 11-h � v P- --, ova 1 Ua A - pro posy k Z C. vn i 1/1"i' L -es--11-8. i v1 d o t v\ el I c -a ✓1 t p ‘r -o\) PAST OR PRESENT MEMBER OF THE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONAL, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS OR GOVERNMENT BOARDS, COMMI1TEES, OR COMMISSIONS: gOard Dor„ Committee Name LlIa►rb -n Local 6oue✓'v)G✓ie Com�ni�}ee �n+Line- Valley Charylber- o-( 6201yr) erGe_ Cha l o Karl P /f(/ (,-) /'1�/'/ !e✓'C-�%- City/State Wit" o-6 (o vnvj 14-eC' s„ rie Vol City/Stated Gi r 1 Ov o�v�vnerce �-©uc� Committee Name CO 6 ► n vt ' a vt) G n-Fzv rLeed ran-fio V) Committee Name Bea r t ©f bt (' ; 5 po K rt e vci !lei C Ina vr\b' What do you feel you can contribute to the community that may not be evident from information already furnished? .1-1(1 Obit Cki 47, r" V GI I p tijelh+ ci ecus i o V15 /1LLint2r rr-s Why do you feel you are qualified to act as a member of the Board, Committee or Commission for which you are applying? r I' Ive, pplt& forLvr1c�il I ay. cuncl5 oc - 3 t4-ert1-a e Aoseuvn - T uridit----d 4)e prcre 5 u cietiine5; Would your appointment to this position create a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest? i\j() City/State Signature 2-q/lam Y Toda s ate ear r°el,�✓' �..." I iII netlike Valley Application Form for Co: mutteeslards/Ccmni ss ons Return Completed form to City C erk at City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5102 phone; 509-688-0194 fax POSITION APPLYING FORLOit/A-2 / rr-x/au/s0 Applicant's name (please print): Applicant's Residence Address: alb W �' e - Street Applicants Mailing Address (if different from Residence address): Spo/ c/e_ City 003 Zip Code Applicant's Email: 1-114-ke_ p. f s,'1S( /4rJe . Cor\ Street City Zip Code Home Phone: Work Phone:5-09-7i9- g Cell Phone: so9-�O`�� '0 Length of time continuously lived within Spokane Valley City Limits: /0" NOTE: You must be a resident of the City of Spokane Valley to participate on most boards, committeesand commissions. Gender: Female d I Male CM U.S. Citizen? ` Wa. State Registered voter? 1f,S EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: Present or last employer: \/(St t S(70,L w e - Position Held: .ileda'- 1;(15/1,6e SS Orue{o/w"piDates of Employment: l//90/nom - Pis s e ti/— Address: 80/ t't/. R")/ s,r,& Sof Sp0,2rde . W//- 49o4o Phone: S-07- 7/(- q 3 7 Previous Employer: Ueg X,f s 5 / Position Held: lei rr,o> S,4 -/e f �r�cr c — Dates of Employment: elhoo de, Address: / (3 /u. /1/64,-J'(- , sui Yea, St e44-1 t {i✓.� �� o Phone: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND. / High School: r? u r'5 (7/4 S c c' L Diploma: Ye City/State Address Yi I /rui4-- lrtlA-- College/University:v 54✓`^- Gov�+�^ City/State Address: S/(i✓ / 4 G 6/1/1.// ".4. a s/ Li Degree Earned: �7r/•'SY� a0/S' College/University: Degree Earned: City/State Address: COMMUNITY RELATED ACTIVITIES, PAST & PRESENT: (attach additional sheets if necessary) 6'2r�/ 4 — o1, --,b0-( J -ll cG A e vert. s ' /c t'/o g� 6-/ze . tiCon� ,�'� 4Nrs i."-rzr war/ - 7/14cP- VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCES, PAST & PRESENT: / Seco ( -ueS / S/f t� ty/J�vn ��/hi2 14 i� s aw l'e ,� ( �n�+ ( C l� YC�'� ✓ J 1 I C„ S ref �C"w�.t V v't " J/'v1-t1� .'4-�^r%� 4, SPECIAL SKILLS/INTERESTS: USe- L/ iff2r447 0-4 S`JecIr / 52/% �l�/t y /2e/ (//sr�/` S�cY� * . / let) � �/ `% T�/v / Ori/ (4�r /c r•/ //G�c `> c�i/j/ S, �r� //LJd 0/C// �e /'-r ./ /yrJ ��62 YS S /lr/�,4(�% c✓9 ( P/Z:trl %) / v' -dl /, -i /2 C /+ loftoY i v ` ' , t TCS �dv+ e�tdti, Gy PAST OR PRESENT MEMBER OF THE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONAL, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS OR GOVERNMENT BOARDS, COMM%ITTEES, OR COMMISSIONS: /r ^ / - r Committee Name / City/State Thi1/i,A7 40'!//'C 4 /� �f�/tfGtrr /e•c I/Weso - �� tc/ D./WPf✓ Cz 6(1/— Committee Name City/State Committee Name City/State What do you feel you can contribute to the community that may not be evident from information already furnished? /.(,��IJY,� �,t,;,u�,�/,/G )/6 e _ Why do you feel you are qualified to act as a member of the Board, Committee or Commission for which you are applying? d / q ,lefi iT'-(j 4 OVA" I C/14 2 {' vt/c c ) /2 e re -t"-_ Would your appointment to this position create a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest? Nd Signatu - Today's Date SPOKROE EXPANDING REGIG ;tTY August 7, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos and City of Spokane Valley Council Members City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Redwood Plaza Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mayor Grafos and City Council Members; It is my pleasure to recommend TJ Hake as a candidate for the City of Spokane Valley Lodging Tax Committee. TJ is a key member of the Visit Spokane team and is responsible for business development. In his position at Visit Spokane TJ plays an active role in the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce and interacts with businesses within the Valley on a frequent basis. His business analytical skills will be an asset to the committee as they evaluate how an application meets the criteria and priorities set by city council. As an organization that is eligible to receive funds I encourage you to consider a representative from Visit Spokane to serve on the Lodging Tax Committee and ask that you give TJ Hake serious consideration. Sincerely, Cheryl Kil:ay, CDME President and CEO Visit Spokane (509)742-9370 / (800)662-0084 www.VisitSpokane.com 801 W Riverside, Suite 301 Spokane, WA 99201 VisitSpokane.com P: 509.624.1341 T: 800.662.0084 Sgo5rane NopHeatdon Foram ill. AUG -72015 City of Spokane Valley City Clerk Return Completed form to City Cleric at City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5102 phone; 509-688-0194 fax POSITION APPLYING FOR: /---0-06)kA `� A (1) U12 L'rOtit'l I�- Applicant's name (please print): , I c i2 Applicant's Residence Address: 2 L( 22 (4 biag(2N LAKs.: (J! (ic/IC J 9 Street City Zip Code Applicant's Mailing Address (if different from Residence address): Street Applicant's Email: --C)7I `2. (2 e 5 PDKA.U`c C H� O it._ Home Phone: Work Phone: J 70 `6/-16) Z Cell Phone: 6-/)/ -S 7 Length of time continuously lived within Spokane Valley City Limits: NOTE: You must be a resident of the City of Spokane Valley to participate on most boards, committees and commissions. City Zip Code Gender: Female j fl Male [,7 f U.S. Citizen? "I� Wa. State Registered voter? V -/e' S EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: _ Present or last employer: 7Ze�-iT �� l 5 3 iI)l-Ak L ��'f-(f`jt?j }G A Position Held: Citlila2(Cur-7 0141(6:(L2 Dates of Employment: E-/fI9(r Vii' S Address: W 700 I\ LL 0 L.) q?120 t Phone: 3`10— SL/02— Previous '-/0L Previous Employer: Position Held: Dates of Employment: Address: Phone: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: High School: "'z I ii .4 yt_`c L( Diploma: Yes No City/State Address -.2--,ti-70V-Au OA `-(/ tt-)0 College/University: City/State Address: L (/—A11Li1C-. FAL L � CC% IG( iU Li i `l Degree Earned: College/University: Degree Earned: City/State Address: COMMUNITY RELATED ACTIVITIES, PAST & PRESENT: (attach additional sheets if necessary) C c-1002— S ()y&. A. iT T h.' . KAiJec 1..\e_(4 5i3c�;u� C14,7vttTT� tJ C. T t D -60 Cv tl"'" TT VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCES, PAST & PRESENT: GJ 5�0Wi-s ('OAC S l OlX-_ itt� ki (V_ `r}DK4uiz I---CPCSs5t kiTi it,l ())f2 SPECIAL SKILLS/INTERESTS: \ L /111A e G -QA -6`_ .(` -( 474 e.( H—(1— PAST OR PRESENT MEMBER OF THE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONAL, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS OR GOVERNMENT BOARDS, COMMITTEES, OR COMMISSIONS: 5t'UKA(LA. AL i -'(SCai�E�s l�Sibt� 7, K;!46 . I,uA Committee Name City/State �c2T c/ z - I, OD 1,0-7 T/1X Ortati6l IT L I: - Committee Committee Name S?bizAttL ((UU �L 1- tci-) -TAX Ott(iT r�� City/State Committee Name City/State What do you feel you can contribute to the community that may not be evident from information already furnished? t-(4 Uig L4%0Q_K;M.t i(2c t..) 0c)-71tia( IT7`zz3 P--)�f(.T---e-) 74.4.6 1 c) ' PO �CDiv( x,. X(2-7-1(111-13 4.5.S0L 1117-L) hGCk� /cU 74K '-`cU1,11-(2c1c,C r Jc(„r5aQ— /�! ( `C/l1(�zJ rDE- 704) .3..) Why do you feel you are qualified to act as a member of the Board, Committee or Commission for which you are applying? G� t7di,Zlc'tUCt..— LOLD(J4TI1/4]4S 37)N Would your appointment to this position create a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest? (J O Signature Today's Date Sibilra<e\`' . jValley Application Form for Committees/Boards/Commissions RECEVED AUG - 5 2015 City of Spokane Valley City Clerk Return Completed form to ity Clerk at City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5102 phone; 509-688-0194 fax POSITION APPLYING FOR: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Member Applicant's name (please print): Jan Quintrall Applicant's Residence Address: 1221 W. Railroad Alley, Loft #3, Spokane, WA 99201 Street City Applicant's Mailing Address (if different from Residence address): janspokane@gmail.com Applicant's Email: Zip Code Street City Zip Code Home Phone: 509-838-3188 Work Phone: Cell Phone: 509-714-8038 Length of time continuously lived within Spokane Valley City Limits: None—Representing Visit Spokane NOTE: You must be a resident of the City of Spokane Valley to participate on most boards, committees and commissions. Gender: Female MI Male Q U.S. Citizen? Yes Wa. State Registered voter? Yes EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: Present or last employer: City of Spokane Position Held: Director. Business and Developer Services Dates of Employment: Address: 808 West Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: 509-625-6250 2012-2015 Previous Employer: Better Business Bureau of Eastern Washington, North Idaho and Montana Position Held: President and CEO Dates of Employment: 1998-2012 Address: 152 South Jefferson, Suite 200, Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: 509-0455-4200 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: High School: Bear Creek High School Diploma: Yes ® No City/State Address 9800 W Dartmouth P1, Lakewood, CO 80227 College/University: Pikes Peak Community College Degree Earned: None City/State Address: 5675 S Academy Blvd Colorado Springs. CO 80906 College/University: Degree Earned: City/State Address: COMMUNITY RELATED ACFIVTTIES, PAST & PRESENT: (attach additional sheets if necessary) Spokane Arts Fund, Spokane Crimes Stoppers, Council of Better Business Bureaus, Arlington, VA, Montana State Chamber of Commerce, Helena, MT VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCES, PAST & PRESENT: Spokane Club Board of Trustees, President SPECIAL SKtL S/INTERESTS: Ethical Leadership series with Father Robert Spitzer, Gonzaga University; Leadership trainer for Yoke's Fresh Market Emerging Leaders Program; Designer/facilitator of customized customer service training for large corporate clients; Regular speaker to large and small groups on subjects from women in today's workplace to life balance and board function PAST OR PRESENT MEMBER OF THE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONAL, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS OR GOVERNMENT BOARDS, COMMITTEES, OR COMMISSIONS: Visit Spokane, Spokane, WA Committee Name Spokane Business Improvement District, Spokane, WA Committee Name Washington Tech Cities, Seattle, WA Committee Name City/State City/State City/State What do you feel you can contribute to the community that may not be evident from information already furnished? I'm a versatile leader who is focused on identifying issues, establishing cohesive teams, and formatting the groundwork and blue prints tor successful completion of highly visible and high profile projects and resolution of issues. Why do you feel you are qualified to act as a member of the Board, Committee or Commission for which you are applying? I'm a transformational leader who took a 263 person Division with a $40 million dollar budget through massive change in a challenging environment. Division includes Streets, Engineering Services Field and Design, Planning, Building and Asset Management. I was a member of the Mayor's cabinet in this position. Would your appointment to this position create a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest? No Signature 8.5.15 Today's Date SPOlifIDE EXPANDING REGIONAL PROSPERITY August 7, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos and City of Spokane Valley Council Members City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Redwood Plaza Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mayor Grafos and City Council Members; This letter is in support of Jan Quintrall as a candidate for the City of Spokane Valley Lodging Tax Committee. She serves on the Visit Spokane board of directors and is active in the regional community. Jan understands the scope of the requirements for the allocation of funds and will contribute to the committee discussion with an appreciation for arts and culture, events, tourism promotion, and municipal priorities. As an organization eligible for receiving funds Visit Spokane has a strong interest in having one of our board members on the committee. Please give Jan your full consideration. Sincerely,C, Jody Sanger Visit Spokane Board Chair 509-928-6848 801 W Riverside, Suite 301 Spokane, WA 99201 VisitSpokane.com P: 509.624.1341 T: 800.662.0084 Spokane 1Valley Application Form for Committees/Boards/Commissions RECEV 2 7 2015 City of Spokane Valley City Clerk Return Completed form to City Clerk at City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 509-720-5102 phone; 509-688-0194 fax POSITION APPLYING FOR: r0it, (0 Pr) 7L ?Le e. Applicant's name (please print): Applicant's Residence Address: 1315 4/ ,Ji y ref , jai /tevw' a ;1 %„ . Street City Applicant's Mailing Address (if different from Residence address): Street City Zip Code Applicant's Email: C/ 5"7 /67C� �Y !f' /2i /1%'2* ,r4 Zip Code Home Phone: -`3-0 C `2 ,26 7> Work Phone: i f Length of time continuously lived within Spokane Valley City Limits: 3 v�Y7 — A62„4/- ,. 3 A/ w' NOTE: You must be a resident of the City of Spokane Valley to participate on most boards, committees and commissions. Gender: Female Male,- U.S. Citizen? Wa. State Registered voter? Qom' EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: �—) / Present or last employer: rt /G ti N % /� Position Held: (`U n, rr a+ r , 717 / � is 71: v s. Dates of Employment: 1 04.5 - 06 9 Address: Phone: �() t? / Ds,s�Y,� Cell PhoneP 65 54.1( oc /r2k Previous Emplo er: Position Held: r.� �nC�ur i Dates of Employment: /9- �/ / 1 Address: Phone: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: SO r High School: v o .'n vb A M. 7A 5 a v i' 1 City/State Address -5.r) U A v in ; .>/ , be/goi h 910 :7 College/University: /2/' 7714/ // rn a / i)o•o% City/State Address: College/University: z.?' Li City/State Address: /1}-1-1 a r. Ulax7A Diploma: Yes „IM No MI Degree Earned: 4/, 6./Yore �dt r`--(;4 10\ ;,,o)" _) /ey : r_/ Sc:_i/� t' c' E' ti, Degree Earned: /y-7 d,,7 fe rre? e- n'? int. 5 - /.2," •-• 4; 5-C/0 ca.() Yip. u i` u rc�i 5— v r7 COMMUNITY RELATED ACTIVITIES, PAST & PRESENT: (attach additional sheets if necessary) (." t a raC Z�) VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCES, PAST & PRESENT: SPECIAL SIGLIS/INTERESTS: PAST OR PRESENT MEMBER OF THE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONAL, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS OR GOVERNMENT BOARDS, COMMITTEES, OR COMIVIISSIONS: Committee Name City/State Se- €. 7/61, p Committee Name City/State Committee Name City/State What do you feel you can contribute to the community that may not be evident from information already furnished? e 01 E Lin C' •:- 42 is P -04 -- Why do you feel you are qualified to act as a member of the Board, Committee or Commission for which you are applying? k u GJ 0 T"v 71 ery "-A re <s- v it n c) Ge . S Would your appointment to this position create a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest? ,x'C' (12 Signature g4t1 To ay's Dat CHARLES G. STOCKER 931.5 North Murray Road Newman Lake, WA. 99025 (509) - 226-2078 — home (509) — 789-4244 — office SUMMARY Educational administration with over 29 years of experience in the full range of school administrative functions. Unique appreciation and understanding of the relationship between students, staff, administrators and the community. Excellent reputation for design and implementation of sound procedures for budget and long-range planning and for innovation programs and procedures that maximize human productivity and organization effectiveness. Well experienced in planning new buildings and improving existing plant facilities. Strong values on community involvement in youth sports, church, and civic organizations. MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS Personnel • Responsible for the entire personnel program for both certificated and classified employees which includes selection, evaluation, certification, assignment, class load, and transfer of personnel, as well as separation of employment and record keeping. • direct all administrative, certificated, and classified negotiations • interpret all bargaining agreement for employees, supervisors, and the community • review and handle all grievances and arbitration cases • confer with the district's legal counsel on administrative and personnel matters when needed • organized a district Job -sharing program • developed an Affirmative Action program • instructed and administered a district Administrative Internship program • direct staff orientation programs • developed an Employee Assistance program • instructor of Personnel Graduate Studies at Gonzaga University Long -Range Planning • developed a Mission Statement for the district • developed a long-range improvement plan, instituting construction of new plant facilities, as well as making improvements of existing structures • rewrote administrative team guidelines • project future enrollments and determine appropriate staffing levels • on-going budget review to include increasing cash position • implemented community goal setting process for the school district • advised school board members in setting District goals and direction Curriculum • developed an AIDS education curriculum for the district • developed a new K-12 counseling program • reorganized the grades 4-6 vocal music program • developed a vocational cooperative program with Spokane Community College, culminating in the building of the Spokane Vocational Skills Center • developed new programs in traffic safety, drug education, and horticulture • provided leadership for the Central Valley, Freeman, and East Valley School Districts total instruction program • at Central Valley, directed and implement a new K-6 pupil progress reporting system; initiated the elementary physical education specialist program; placed full time reading specialists in each elementary school; directed the preparation of curriculum guides for major subject areas; and initiated the graphics program for University High School • at Freeman, began an elementary counseling program; initiated a new technology program for the District; conducted and finalized the District Self Study program • at East Valley, began an alternative Program for high school students; implemented a restructuring process for the District; started campus security personnel for our schools; developed a long-range District technology plan and helped to implement multi-age classrooms • started a year around program for East Valley students K-8 Policy • administer all district personnel policies • provide guidance in developing, revising and updating all Board policies • administer the Student Responsibilities and Rights policy • administer the safety and health program for the district • administer the risk management program • administer the Washington Administrative Code for Schools School Business • responsible for planning and supervising the school district budget • plan and recommend bond and levy issues • approve district purchases and expenditures • administer the Collective Bargaining Agreement • participate in legislative conferences in Olympia • keep abreast of and interpret State education laws Community Relations • Spokane Valley Hospital: President 1991 — 1996; Community Advisory Board, 1979 — 1980 and 1988-1996 • Empire Health Services: Director 1991 — 2001; Treasurer of Board June, 1994 — June, 1996; Vice -President of Board, July 1996 — 1998 Committees: --Evaluation of CEO --Finance Chairman, two years --Audit -- Nominating • Attendance at six national conferences on health care. • Past president of Spokane Valley Hospital Foundation Board of Directors • Member of the committee to select the Dean of Education and two professors for Gonzaga University • Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce: Board of Directors, two years; Vice President, 1987-88; Co-chairman of Education Committee, 1988-89; Vice President 1996-97; organized the first "One -on -One" (business/school) program • Rotary Club: Charter member new club 1979; various offices held, including president, 1983-84 • Board member of the Spokane YMCA (six years) • Board member of New Hope Training Center (five years) • Redeemer Lutheran Church: elder, usher, Education Committee, and chairman of the Building Committee completed construction of a new $1.2 million facility, 1987; chairman of fund raiser committee 1990 • Past member of the Spokane Future Committee of 100 • Volunteer Coach for youth sports teams (16 years) • Member of New Century Steering Committee for Spokane county and area • Public communications: radio, television, and newspaper Presentations/Accomplishments • Many community meeting presentations during 1991-1996 for goal setting, levies and bond issues. • "How to Pass Bond Issues" to Washington State Construction Conference, 1990 • "Principal Evaluation" to Western Canada Administrator's Conference, Calgary, B.C., 1988 • "Team Management" to National Personnel Conference, Seattle, 1985 • "Leadership Styles" to Western Canada Administrator's Conference, 1982 • "Leadership, Motivation, and Evaluation" to Kamloops, B.C. School District, 1982 • "Team Management" to National Personnel Conference, Seattle, 1981 • "Team Evaluation" to administrators in Calgary, B.C., 1981 • "Team Management" to National Personnel Conference, Detroit, 1980 • Consultant re: Management Team Concepts to Edmonton, Alberta, School District, 1980 • Washington State Public School Employees Honorary Member Award, 1986 • Washington Congress PTSA Outstanding Service Award, 1984 • Central Valley Education Association (CVEA) "500 Hours" Award • Outstanding Young Agriculture Teacher of the State of Washington, 1967 • Central Valley Teacher of the Year Finalist, 1966 Professional Development • President Northeast Washington School Administrators, 1992-1994 • Received the Washington Association School Administrator's Award of Merit, 1995 • Member Board of Directors Washington Association of School Administration, October 1995 —1998 • Liaison to the Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association for Superintendents of the State of Washington, 1994-1998 • President of Bi -county Superintendents' Association, 1988-1990 • Member, Collegian Superintendents' Organization, 1991 —1998 • Member, Advisory Committee to Judith Billings, SPI Office, 1990-91 • President, WASA Superintendents' Component Group, 1990- 91 • "One Minute Manager" workshop, Blanchard & Associates, 1986 • organized the Washington State Personnel Conference, 1985 • National School Board presentation on "Merit Pay" by Dr. Glenn Tucker, 1985 • University Associates Organizational Development Conference, 1984 • Completed SRI Perceiver Interview Course • State and national committees --State Vocational Advisory Committee - - State Gifted Committee - - Reader, State Grant Committee -- NEWASA Resolutions Committee - - NEWASA Benefits Committee, chairperson -- AASPA Resolutions Committee -- School Information and Research Service State Committee, six year Note: ,,ll Married for*years. My wife and I have four grown children and t grandchildren. Attachment After retiring from education July 1998, I became an employee at Inland Power & Light Company September of 1998. I work in the area of Community Relations. My present job description includes four major areas of responsibilities. 1. Visit and interact with 90-100 key accounts in 13 different counties served by Inland Power & Light. 2. Be involved with the different area Chamber of Commerce's and other civic groups. 3. Maintain a liaison with our local, state and federal elected officials 4. Contact potential new accounts as required. I have been involved on a regular basis with the Spokane Regional Chamber and the Spokane Area Economic Development Council in the Past. I have served on both agencies Board of Directors and presently serve on the Chamber Public Policy Committee. Attendance at the last 5-7 legislative meetings in Olympia has been on my agenda. I have just been appointed to the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. I attend the Deer Park and West Plains Chamber's monthly meetings. I also served as chairman of the West Plains Business Association for five years. Presently I serve on the Inland Northwest Blood Bank Board. Starting July 1, 2007 I will become treasurer of the Blood Bank Board of Directors. I am still involved with many different organizations in the area. During the calendar year 2011 Valley chamber 1. attend the government affairs committee 2. member Business and Education committee 3. help to host the candidate forums for the chamber Member of the Valley Hospital advisory board President of the Inland Northwest Blood Bank Board of Directors Member of the HUB Board of Directors Chairman of the Vocational committee of the Spokane Valley Sunrise Rotary Club Help with the golf tournament and development committee of the Valley Partners Working with my church playground committee to erect a new playground Member the the Breakfast forum group (14' /-C h 1,/ yG k /-'Aa Va ri( sr 1 G 5 % 2 - J77, G e'i S,LdY'r,Se- e /47 L) L "cf C) (7G LLG = =nr. haruK.ESMA,N-REVIEW I THURSDAY, DECEMBER 29.2011 Stocker chosen as Citizen of Year By Nina Culver ninac@spokesman.com, (509) 927-2158 Former East Valley School District Superintendent Chuck Stocker has racked up hundreds of hours of volunteer time over the decades. Now 73, he regularly leaves his Newman Lake home bound for a variety of meetings and gatherings. In recognition of his longtime work in the community, Stocker has been named the 2011 Harry E. Nelson Citizen of the Year by the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce. He will receive his award at the organization's annual gala in January.• "I was totally surprised," Stocker said of hearing about the honor. "1 really have no idea who nominated me or how that came about." Stocker, who won the Chamber's volunteer of the year award several years ago, said he See CITIZEN, 8 J. BART RAYNIAK The Spokesman-Reviex Chuck Stocker, seen here in his Newman Lake home, has been named the Harry E. Nelson Citizen of the Year by the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce. CITIZEN Continued from 1 views the award as recognition of his community service.'"This is really a culminating award," he said. Stocker is chairman of the Inland Northwest Blood Center board of directors, serves on the Valley Hospital advisory board, is a member of the Valley HUB board and the Chamber's education and government affairs committees. He also is 'heavily involved in his church, Redeemer Lutheran, and has been involved with Spokane Valley Partners and the Sunrise Rotary Club for years. In 2010 he and wife Lu led a group of volunteers to Bogota to teach women how to quilt. "I've always been pretty active," he said. "I'm just a great believer in we all have to give something back to our community and make it better." It's a philosophy that can be traced back to his youth in Snohomish, Wash., where his dairy farmer father was a regular volunteer in community activities. After Stocker graduated from Washington State University and spent two years in the Army, it was a philosophy that was also encouraged by the Central Valley School District, where he started work as a teacher. He earned a ',nctPT'c dpprPP. in If you. -Ig The Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce ,. annyar Gem of the. Valley Gala will be at 6 pair Jan 28 at the Nirabeau Park l- otel: Awards Willa?e given:; for the small medium and.large businesses of the', year as well as volunteer. of. the year and nonprofit-of- theyear: Tickets are $50. Cali (509)924-4994 reservations. education from WSU and received his principal credentials, but never used them. He was mentored by his principal at Central Valley High School, Bill Ames Sr., who recommended him for an administration job as the curriculum director. "One day he was my boss and the next day I was his," Stocker said. His 24 -year career at Central Valley included 13 as assistant superintendent for administration. He moved on to be superintendent of the Freeman School District for four years before taking the top job at East Valley. He was there for seven years before retiring in 1998. He retired again in 2009 after several years of working part-time in community relations for Inland Power and Light. There are several highlights that Stocker likes to look back on. He was involved in the early promotion of the WSU medical center. His Rotary Club started a scholarship program. He was on the Valley Hosuital board when St. Luke's Rehabilitation was launched. East Valley's Continuous Curriculum School was begun under his leadership. "I don't know if I can say I have necessarily a favorite," he said. "There's always been something where I felt we have helped make a difference. There are just niches where I can point that good things happened." But Stocker doesn't want to be seen as a one-man band. He points to the support of his wife and four grown children along with the help .of others over the years. "You don't do these kinds of things by yourself," he said. 'When the opportunity is right and the correct people are involved, usually the right things happen." Stocker apparently has no plans to retire from his community work, but he has learned that it is OK to say "no" sometimes. Stocker said he tries to focus his volunteer efforts on kids, health care and his church. "You just can't do everything," he said. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 25, 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: Legislative Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: n/a PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: n/a BACKGROUND: Ms. Briahna Taylor and Mr. Alex Soldano of Gordon Thomas Honeywell will present Council a review of the 2015 Legislative Session. OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation; Session Review 2015 Government Relations Report August 25, 2015 1 Briahna Taylor Alex Soldano Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs Session Overview • The 2015 Legislative Session(s) is the longest in history (178 days). • Adopted Operating, Capital, and Transportation funding: ▪ 2015-2017 Operating Budget: $37.45 billion ▪ 2015-2017 Capital Budget: $3.925 billion ▪ Transportation Revenue Package: • 11.9 cents • $16.28 billion over 16 years. • 2,895 bills introduced in 2015 ▪ 382 passed by the Legislature. ▪ 10 bills partially vetoed, 1 full veto Spokane Valley Had A Successful Session • Appleway Trail - FUNDED • Protecting State/Local Shared Revenues - "'[JNDED • Nuisance Abatement Cost Recovery — MORE TO DO • Medical/Recreational Marijuana Reconciliation - PASSED Vaping Lounges - PROHIBITED • Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation —MORE TO DO Appleway Trail • City requested $1 million from Capital Budget 0 Funds segment from Evergreen to Sullivan • Significant Lobbying Effort • House Proposed Capital Budget: $1 million • Senate Proposed Capital Budget: $813,000 (WWRP Grant) Final Budget: $1.813 million 5 State/Local Shared Revenue • Liquor Profits: $1,619,376 for Spokane Valley • Liquor Taxes: $803,957 for Spokane Valley (restored to historical level) • Streamlined Sales Tax: $1,143,612 for Spokane Valley • Municipal Criminal Justice Assistance: $559,804 for Spokane Valley TOTAL STATE SHARED REVENUES: Over $4.1 million this biennium NOT new money (restores/maintains existing revenues) Nuisance Abatement • Sen. Padden introduced SB 5694, at City's request ▪ First priority lien to recover costs ▪ Notice included in property tax statements. • Bill passed out of Senate, amended in House Local Government Committee, died in the House Finance Committee ▪ $2,000 v. $5,000 cap on the lien authority. • Rolled into omnibus local government bill — House Bill 2156 • Return in 2016? Marijuana Regulation/Taxation • HB 2136: Regulation/tax of recreational marijuana O Revenue sharing: $6 million/year to cities/counties. ▪ Local control: Amendment to require vote for bans failed. ▪ Bans "marijuana clubs" and vaping lounges • SB 5052: Regulation/tax of medical marijuana O Retail locations will become "medical endorsed" ▪ Cooperatives will replace collective gardens (2016) • Smaller (size restrictions) • Must be licensed by LCB Barker/Trent Grade Separation • Requested $20.5 million for grade separation at Barker/Trent from BNSF Rail and intersection improvement. • Multi-year Lobbying Effort • Included in Senate version during regular session (amendment from Sen. Padden) • Not included in House counter -proposal • Not included in final transportation package Next Steps • Express appreciation to the legislative delegation. • Next Session: Short Session • Many Issues Remaining O Nuisance abatement O Barker Road Funding • "Transportation Futures Account" • Other new issues? Questions? Briahna Taylor btay1orgth-gov. com (253) 310-5477 Alex Soldano asoldano@gth-gov.com (206) 920-7967 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS City of Spokane Valley Government Relations Report 2015 Legislative Sessions Dear Spokane Valley City Council: It was a pleasure to represent the City of Spokane Valley in Olympia this legislative session. We are happy to report that this session was a success for the City of Spokane Valley. The City's top priority, the Appleway Trail, was awarded a total of $1.8 million in the Capital Budget, and we were able to preserve and restore major state -shared revenues. But, there is work left to be done — we continue to work on amending state law to allow the city to recover nuisance abatement costs, and securing transportation funding for Barker Road. This session's successes came only after the longest session in state history. This session lasted 178 days, including the regular 105 -day session and three subsequent special sessions. Over this time, 2895 bills were introduced, 382 of which passed into law. And, after many months, the Legislature adopted a $37.45 billion Operating Budget, a $3.9 billion Capital Budget, and a $16.28 billion gas tax package. The following report outlines the many issues that we worked on throughout the legislative sessions for Spokane Valley. We would like to sincerely thank all three members of the 4th Legislative Delegation- they were all very clearly dedicated to the City's priorities and enthusiastic supporters on behalf of Spokane Valley in Olympia. Thank you! Briahna Taylor Alex Soldano 1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 2100 Tacoma, WA 98401 Phone: (253) 620-6500 Fax: (253) 620-6565 www.gth-gov.com 203 Maryland Ave., NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 544-2681 Fax: (202) 544-5763 Overview of the 2015 Legislative Sessions In the weeks leading up the 2015 legislative session, the Supreme Court held the Legislature in contempt for failing to develop a plan to fully fund education by 2018, as called for in the 2012 McCleary court decision. The Court stopped short of imposing sanctions on the Legislature, indicating that it would wait the duration of the 2015 session to allow the Legislature to act. On January 12, 2015, the Legislature convened for a 105 -day session — the first year of a two-year biennium — with the task of developing operating, capital and transportation budgets and addressing a number of policy issues. Having just elected new legislators in the 2014 November election, the Senate Majority Coalition Caucus (comprised of Republicans and one token Democrat) solidified their majority in the Senate (26-23). And, party margins in the House got much closer, with 51 Democrats and 47 Republicans. The divided chambers, close margins, and contempt order on McCleary triggered early rumors about the likelihood of a special session. These rumors proved true when the Legislature adjourned after meeting for 103 days, with no agreement on the operating, capital, or transportation budgets. The Legislature went on to hold three subsequent special sessions, making it the longest session in state history. Recognizing the challenges of the 2015 session and the failure of the state to address local government needs in recent sessions, there was an effort to establish a "local government caucus" — a group of legislators organized to ensure that cities and counties issues are given adequate consideration. The greatest success of this new local government caucus was that the Operating Budget restored liquor tax revenue distributions to the historical levels. The Operating Budget funds all of the state agencies, including the state's K-12 and higher education systems. In recent years, the economic recession reduced revenues and increased demand on this budget, leading to significant cuts. This year, a rebounding economy increased revenues, but the Court order and pressure to fully fund education presented challenges. The Governor's proposed Operating Budget funded education through a new carbon tax, which Republicans immediately opposed. Democrats rallied around imposing a capital gains tax to fully fund education, while Republicans explained that, due to the increase in revenue from the improving economy, tax increases should not be needed. In the final days of June, an agreement was reached on a compromise Operating Budget, which increased revenue by eliminating tax preferences. The resulting budget was $37.45 billion. The Capital Budget funds brick -and -mortar construction projects. A dedicated percentage of the Operating Budget is used to repay bonds to fund these construction projects. Therefore, the overall size of the Capital Budget is dependent on the size of the Operating Budget. The Legislature chose not to adopt a supplemental Capital Budget in 2014, which resulted in a significant demand for Capital Budget funds in 2015. Once an agreement was reached on the Operating Budget, an agreement on the Capital Budget followed, with $3.9 billion allocated projects throughout the state. Additionally, early in the legislative session, there was discussion about passing a water infrastructure bond bill. While there were many iterations of the proposal, generally it imposed a per parcel fee to generate revenue to fund stormwater, flood mitigation, and water supply projects that currently rely on capital budget revenues. Due to opposition to the per parcel fee, the proposal did not advance out of the Senate. The two Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 2 chambers developed their respective capital budget proposals without including the larger water bond proposal. The Legislature has struggled with how best to address state transportation needs since 2013. Once again, the Legislature attempted to adopt a revenue and reform package that invests in transportation projects throughout the state. Several weeks into session, the Senate released a transportation revenue proposal. This proposal included an 11.7 cent gas tax as well as some other fees. This would fund approximately $13.7 billion in projects and maintenance statewide. The Senate package also included eight reforms: • Senate Bill 5990 (Sales Tax Diversion) • Senate Bill 5991 (Stormwater/MTCA) • Senate Bill 5992 (Ferry Vessel Construction) • Senate Bill 5993 (Prevailing Wage/Apprenticeship Labor issues) • Senate Bill 5994 (Expedited Permitting for WSDOT Projects) • Senate Bill 5995 (Adding the system goal of mobility to WSDOT priorities) • Senate Bill 5996 (Permit streamlining) • Senate Bill 5997 (WSDOT Design/Build Contracts Requirement) After the Senate passed this package, the House released a corresponding proposal that also included an 11.7 cent gas tax increase and robust project list. The House also advanced several of the reforms. Ultimately, the House and Senate were not able to reach an agreement on the transportation package before the end of the regular session. House Democratic leadership shared openly that did not want to pass a transportation package until after education funding (i.e. the Operating Budget) has been addressed. During the special sessions, transportation leaders formed a small negotiating group, consisting of two members from each caucus and a member of the Governor's staff. This group was able to reach an agreement in the final weeks of the 2015 legislative sessions on a transportation package that funds projects and programs for 16 years, and includes 7 of the 8 reforms to change the way that transportation projects are done. These reforms include the application of practical design and design -build contracts, which will impact the cost and schedule for WSDOT projects. The bill also transfers $518 million of state sales tax on transportation projects out of the state general fund, into the transportation budget. Additionally, the final package states that if the Governor imposes a low carbon fuel standard, all multimodal funding will be directed to road projects. This package includes an 11.9 cent gas tax (phased 7 cents, followed by 4.9 cents) as well as a number of fees, and raises approximately $16.3 billion over 16 years. Over $10 billion is invested in projects throughout the state. Additionally, over the 16 years, $1.2 billion is invested in WSDOT highway preservation (repaving WSDOT facilities, etc.) and the following programs are allocated funding: • $31 million for Freight Rail Projects • $63 million for Local Rail Projects • $123 million for the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board • $70 million for the Transportation Improvement Board • $70 million for the County Road Administration Board • $75 million for a Bike/Pedestrian Grant Program • $56 million for a Safe Routes to School Grant Program • $106 million for a Complete Streets Grant Program (administered by TIB) • $300 million for WSDOT Fish culverts Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 3 In addition to funding these investments by the state, the package authorizes cities and counties increased Transportation Benefit District Authority (details below). Now that the session has ended, the Legislature will submit a report to the Supreme Court outlining their investments in education to address the McCleary decision. The Court will then indicate whether the Legislature is under compliance with the court order, or whether it is still in contempt and additional sanctions are needed (it's unclear what those sanctions would be). The Legislature began work on a property tax levy swap this session, but did not complete this work — the Court could tell the Legislature that they need to do more to address this issue in 2016, but they could also be directed back for another special session this fall. In other words — year one of a two-year biennium is over for now, but there might be more work needed! City's Legislative Priorities The City adopted its legislative priorities prior to the beginning of the 2015 legislative session. GTHGA focused its efforts on those issues identified as priorities by the council. Our efforts on each legislative priority are outlined below: Appleway Trail Capital Funding Request Spokane Valley's top legislative priority was securing $1 million for Appleway Trail construction. Throughout the interim, the City worked with Sen. Mike Padden (R- Spokane Valley) and Rep. Matt Shea (R- Spokane Valley) to secure their support of the project request and to develop a plan that would yield a compelling case in favor of funding this session. After the November 2014 elections, newly -elected Rep. Bob McCaslin (R - Spokane Valley) was also included in the City's advocacy plan. At the beginning of the legislative session, we worked with city staff to complete and submit the formal funding request paperwork in both the House and Senate. During session, Spokane Valley staff and councilmembers visited Olympia a number of times. During each visit we met with all of the Spokane -region legislators and informed them about the Appleway Trail proposal. Many of these regional legislators sent letters of support to the capital budget leadership, or otherwise expressed their support for the project in the budget -development process. Each chamber then released its budget. The House capital budget proposal included $1 million for Appleway Trail from Evergreen to Sullivan. The Senate proposal contained a much smaller list of Local and Community Projects ($46.8 million, compared to the House's list worth $71.8 million) and did not include a direct appropriation for Appleway Trail. However, the Senate proposal did include $813,000 for Appleway Trail Phase 3 as a WWRP Trails grant. In response to the different funding allocations in the two Capital Budget proposals, GTHGA worked with the City's legislators and asked them to speak with their Capital Budget leaders about the importance of funding this project. During the second special session, the House and Senate were able to reach a compromise on the Capital Budget. This negotiated agreement included an earmark for $1 million for Appleway Trail, and also funded an additional grant for Appleway Trail for $813,000. In total, the Appleway Trail project was appropriated $1.8 million in the 2015-2017 Capital Budget! Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 4 State Shared Revenues Liquor Revenue Sharing The local revenue share for liquor comes from two different sources: Liquor Excise Tax and Liquor Profits. The excise taxes are collected on each sale of liquor to the consumer, while the profit account is collected by the Liquor Control Board for licenses, etc. Liquor tax revenues are funded in the Operating Budget, while liquor profit revenues are statutorily capped at 2011 amounts. Historically, liquor tax revenues are distributed 50% to the state, and 50% to the local level. In recent sessions, the Legislature has swept the local portion of the funds into the state general fund. This session, we advocated restoring the historical revenue sharing relationship. When the House released its proposed Operating Budget, it included $49.4 million in funding for liquor tax distributions to cities/counties- this amount reflected the historic local distribution. Shortly after the House, the Senate released an Operating Budget proposal that included approximately $23 million for liquor tax - the same distribution level that was received in 2013-2015. The final Operating Budget fully funds liquor profits ($98.9 million) and restores liquor excise taxes to historical levels ($50.1 million). Spokane Valley is expected to receive $1,619,376 in profits during the 2015-2017 biennium, and $803,957 in liquor taxes — this is an increase from the 2013-15 budget. In addition to ensuring liquor revenues were funded the budget, we worked with the local government caucus to advance legislation to remove the 2011 cap on liquor profit revenues. House Bill 1517, sponsored by Rep. Chris Reykdal (D- Olympia), and Senate Bill 5896, sponsored by Sen. Karen Fraser (D- Olympia) would have provided a share of the overall amount of revenue collected on liquor. Unfortunately, neither bill made it out of committee this session. However, we will continue to work to advance this issue during the 2016 session. Streamlined Sales Tax (SST) Mitigation GTHGA has been active on behalf of the City in the coalition of local governments to preserve the Streamlined Sales Tax (SST) mitigation program. This account was created as a compromise between local governments and the State to make cities whole for revenue loss associated with sales tax sourcing changes. In the past several years there have been conversations in Olympia that this fund could be used to help balance the Operating Budget. Prior to the legislative session, GTHGA participated in a number of meetings between cities and budget leaders from the Legislature, as well as the Governor's office. During session, meetings were held with a number of key legislators asking them to preserve this funding source. Both Operating Budget proposals this session proposed full funding of the SST Mitigation Program at $47.7 million, and the final Operating Budget maintained this agreement. Spokane Valley is expected to receive $1,143,612 in the 2015-2017 biennium from SST Mitigation. Nuisance Abatement Cost Recovery This is the third legislative session that the City has requested legislation related to recovering costs of completing nuisance abatements. The requested legislation would allow cities to impose a first priority lien on properties when the City conducts abatement to recover the costs the City incurred in completing the abatement. Additionally, under the requested legislation, the City would be able to contract with the county to include a notice with the property taxes indicating the amount owed by the property owner. The Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 5 Community Bankers of Washington have opposed the City's request for a first priority lien, stating that they oppose any effort to put lien holders in the first priority position. The City's proposal advanced further this session than any of our previous efforts. And, while the bill did not pass this session, the groundwork has been laid for its passage in the 2016 session. Prior to the beginning of the legislative session, we met with many legislators, particularly Senators since the bill died in the Senate in 2014. Feedback from these meetings was that the city should aim to reach a compromise with the Community Bankers of Washington. During the first week of the legislative session, we met with Sen. Mike Padden, Sen. Pam Roach, and representatives from the Community Bankers of Washington. No compromise was reached in that meeting. Sen. Mike Padden introduced Senate Bill 5694 at the request of the city. As drafted, the bill granted the City unlimited lien authority as well as the ability to contract with the County to collect costs. The bill was heard in the Senate Government Operations Committee. Councilmember Rod Higgins and City Attorney Cary Driskell traveled to Olympia to testify in support of the bill. During this hearing, the Community Bankers of Washington expressed opposition. The Committee chose to amend the bill to cap the City's lien authority at $2,000. This version of the bill advanced forward, and passed out of the Senate, 40-9. After being passed out of the Senate, the bill was referred to the House Local Government Committee and scheduled for a hearing. Councilmember Rod Higgins and City Attorney Cary Driskell once again testified in support of the bill. The Community Bankers of Washington did not show up at the hearing. In that committee, there was support — largely due to Rep. Bob McCaslin's efforts — to increase the cap on the lien authority from $2,000 to $5,000. With this change, the bill passed out of the House Local Government Committee and was referred to the House Finance Committee. A hearing was held in the House Finance Committee, where City Manager Mike Jackson and Cary Driskell testified in support of the bill. The Community Bankers of Washington testified in opposition to the bill, indicating that with a $2,000 cap they are neutral, but are opposed to a bill with a $5,000 cap. After this testimony, the Chair of the House Finance Committee indicated that he did not plan to advance the bill. Instead, the bill was rolled into an omnibus local government bill, House Bill 2156. When the bill was rolled into House Bill 2156, the cap on the lien was reduced to $2,000. In an effort to get the bill passed, the city took a neutral position despite the reduced lien amount. Unfortunately, this omnibus local government bill was not able to advance through the Senate this year, and nuisance abatement stalled alongside this larger effort. Concerns from the Senate were not specific to the nuisance abatement provisions, but were instead focused on other sections of the bill, particularly around public records. Additionally, the landlord/tenant groups raised some last minute concerns with the nuisance abatement portion of the bill. Moving forward in the 2016 session, Senate Bill 5694 will still be under consideration. We will work with key legislators over the interim to position it for success. Notably, the Chair of the House Finance Committee who chose not to advance the bill will likely no longer be chair of that committee because they are advancing to the Senate. This change in dynamic could present a pathway forward for the bill in 2016. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 6 Marijuana Reconciliation/Revenue Since passage of Initiative -502, cities and counties have been working to make improvements to how marijuana is regulated. Specifically, Spokane Valley sought changes in regulating/banning "marijuana clubs" — an effort that culminated in provisions being added into House Bill 2136. While many bills were introduced to reform marijuana regulation, most of them were consolidated into two main bills, summarized below: 1. Senate Bill 5052- Cannabis Patient Protection Act Senate Bill 5052, sponsored by Sen. Ann Rivers (R- La Center), reconciling medical and recreational marijuana, passed the Legislature and has been signed into law. Under the final version of the bill, medical marijuana can be sold at medically endorsed retail locations, or through cooperatives. Existing recreational marijuana retailers can seek a medical endorsement. Additionally, the Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) will increase the number of retail locations to allow for more "medical endorsed/licensed" locations. Medical endorsed retailers can only sell to qualifying patients and designated providers. To become a qualifying patient, a health care professional must complete and sign an authorization form developed by the Department of Health. Patients present that authorization to medical marijuana retailers, and are then entered into a database and obtain a recognition card, which is valid for one year. In addition to retail locations, medical marijuana cooperatives will replace collective gardens starting in 2016. Cooperatives are limited to 4 people and 60 plants. The cooperative must be licensed by the LCB and must be the domicile of one of the cooperative participants and must be at least one mile from a marijuana retailer. Also, qualifying patients may grow up to 15 plants at home. During the first special session, SB 5052 was brought up for a vote and passed. Although this is a big step toward reconciling the medical marijuana system, more work is likely to be needed in the next several sessions. 2. House Bill 2136 - Marijuana Taxation The other major marijuana bill introduced this session was House Bill 2136, sponsored by Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D- Seattle). This bill was written to effectively regulate and tax the marijuana market. Throughout the legislative sessions, there was significant debate over whether locals should receive a portion of marijuana tax revenues, and at what level. Integrated with this discussion was a desire to incentivize jurisdictions to remove bans/moratoria and allow marijuana retail locations. Spokane Valley also pursued statutory changes that would regulate marijuana vaping lounges. On behalf of the City, GTHGA testified on three different occasions requesting that language addressing the issue be included in any bill that passes the Legislature. The final version of HB 2136 includes language that would effectively ban this type of activity: (1) It is unlawful for any person to conduct or maintain a marijuana club by himself or herself or by associating with others, or in any manner aid, assist, or abet in conducting or maintaining a marijuana club. (2) It is unlawful for any person to conduct or maintain a public place where marijuana is held or stored, except as provided for a licensee under this chapter, or consumption of marijuana is permitted. (3) Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. (4) The following definitions apply throughout this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (a) "Marijuana club" means a club, association, or other business, for profit or otherwise, that conducts or maintains a premises for the primary or incidental purpose of providing a location where members or other persons may keep or consume marijuana on the premises. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 7 (b) "Public place" means, in addition to the definition provided in RCW 66.04.010, any place to which admission is charged or for which any pecuniary gain is realized by the owner or operator of such place. Here are some other key provisions: • The bill allocates $6 million per year ($12 million for 2015-17) to cities and counties, distributed based on the retail sales conducted in the jurisdiction. This retail -sales based formula was advanced to incentivize jurisdictions to remove bans. Jurisdictions with bans in place will not receive any funding. • Starting in 2018, if the state general fund receives more than $25 million in revenue, then 30% of all marijuana excise tax revenues are distributed to cities and counties, with 30% of the revenue distributed based on the retail sales conducted in the jurisdiction, and 70% distributed on a percapita basis, 60% to counties, and 40% to cities. Again, jurisdictions with bans in place will not receive any funding. • Throughout the process of passing the bill, there was an effort to preempt local authority to ban marijuana. This language would have required any city or county to go to a vote of the people if they wanted to ban marijuana within the jurisdiction. Thanks, in part, to a strong effort from cities to oppose this language was not included in the final bill. • The bill allows local governments to reduce the buffer for retail stores from 1000 feet down to 100 feet if they choose to do so. This is not allowed for buffers from schools or playgrounds. In the final days of the 2015 sessions, House Bill 2136 was brought to the House and Senate floors and passed. This bill, as with Senate Bill 5052, is a big step forward in developing marijuana policy, but more work is still needed in the next several years BNSF Rail Grade Separation at Barker/Trent Last year, the City identified a grade separation project from BNSF Rail at SR 290 (Barker Road) and Trent Road as a long-range legislative agenda item. This project would improve a failing intersection, increase safety for Spokane Valley drivers, and enable the development of a large industrial site in Spokane Valley. While the City recognized that this proposal had been introduced late in the process of developing a transportation package, we continued to work with legislators to seek inclusion of the project in any final agreement. Several weeks into session, the Senate released a transportation package that had been negotiated between the Majority Coalition and Senate Democrats. The initial proposal did not include Spokane Valley's project at Barker/Trent, but did include a project for Spokane Valley at Bigelow Gulch. Before the proposal was voted out of the Senate Transportation Committee, Sen. Padden was able to secure an amendment added full funding for grade separation at Barker/Trent. Because of budget limitations, this item was added at the expense of the Bigelow Gulch project. After the Senate passed their transportation package, both the proposal and reforms were sent over to the House to be considered. Subsequently, the House Transportation Committee released a "House Democratic proposal" counter to the Senate proposal. The House did not include funding for the Barker/Trent grade separation project. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 8 During the third special session, the House and Senate were able to come to an agreement on a compromise transportation package. Unfortunately, the BNSF grade separation at Barker/Trent was not included in this final negotiated agreement. Moving forward, we will continue to explore funding sources for this project, including the possibility of a rail safety/transportation proposal. Other Legislative Items In addition to those issues identified in the city's legislative agenda, there are a number of other issues that we worked on that would impact the city. Many times these issues are advanced in collaboration with the Association of Washington Cities. Below are detailed descriptions of those issues and a chart outlining all of the bills tracked this session: Oil Transportation Safety Over the interim, GTHGA participated in an ad hoc rail safety committee that was brought together by the Association of Washington Cities to assess local concerns and priorities related to rail safety. A major focus of the work the group focused on safe transport of oil by rail in Washington State. This session, GTHGA followed a number of bills that were introduced to address oil by rail transportation: • Senate Bill 5057, introduced by Sen. Doug Ericksen (R- Ferndale), was the Republican proposal to address oil by rail transport. Rail operators and oil companies in Washington State also identified this bill as their preferred approach. • House Bill 1449, sponsored by Rep. Jessyn Farrell (D- Seattle), was the Democratic oil by rail proposal, which directly competed with SB 5057. This bill was strongly preferred by the environmental community as well as the Governor. o Senate Bill 5087, introduced by Sen. Christine Rolfes (D- Bainbridge Island), was the Senate companion to HB 1449. This bill was not given a hearing in the Senate Environment, Energy & Telecommunications Committee and died early in session. • Senate Bill 5834, introduced by Sen. Kevin Ranker (D- Deer Harbor) was another Senate Democratic proposal that directly competed with Sen. Ericksen's SB 5057. This bill also failed to receive a hearing in committee and did not advance. The two primary proposals became House Bill 1449 and Senate Bill 5057. Both bills passed out of their respective chambers. In the opposite chamber, House Bill 1449 and Senate Bill 5057 were amended to effectively become the other bill. On the final day of regular session, the House and Senate were able to compromise on an oil train bill. This compromise would: • Require railroads to demonstrate an ability to pay for a worst case scenario oil spill and complete oil spill contingency plans. • Increases Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) regulatory fees on railroads that haul crude oil to 2.5% of intrastate operating revenues (currently at 1.5%). • Directs local emergency response committees to develop response plans every 5 years. These committees will be funded by oil spill prevention account funds, and a progress reports if due to the Legislature by 2018. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 9 • Directs oil pipelines to submit reports twice each year about the volume and origin of oil transported in the pipeline. • Railroads that transport crude oil must provide advance notice of shipments to the Dept. of Ecology each week. This information is kept secret, but Ecology must publish this information (after the fact) each quarter on their website. • UTC must adopt safety standards for private rail crossings and grants them the authority to enforce safety requirements on private property. Real Estate Excise Tax Flexibility One of the Association of Washington Cities' and Washington State Association of Counties' joint policy goals this session was to create additional flexibility for Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) proceeds. Currently, cities and counties are allowed to use up to 35% of their REET funding (with a cap of $1 million) for maintenance and operations for capital facilities; the remainder must be dedicated to financing capital projects, but this flexibility is set to expire in 2016. Throughout the session a number of bills were introduced, but the cities, counties and realtors could not reach an agreement on any of the bills causing them to die. During the special sessions, cities and Realtors worked together on finding agreement on a compromise proposal. Ultimately, House Bill 2122 was passed and delivered to the Governor. This bill includes: • Authorization for cities and counties that impose REET to use greater of $100,000 or 25% for maintenance of capital projects. • Authorizes cities and counties that impose REET to use up to the greater of $100,000 or 25% for planning, acquisition, construction, repair, replacement, rehab, improvement, and maintenance of capital projects. • Requires cities and counties to electronically post any ordinance, resolution, or policy that imposes requirements on landlords or sellers of real estate that are not included in state or federal law. While this level of flexibility is not ideal, it is better than no flexibility at all. It is a compromise that can be revisited in future sessions. Body Cameras In light of recent controversy related to law enforcement, two competing bills were introduced this session related to law enforcement's use of body cameras. Only one of the proposals, House Bill 1917, passed out of committee but not without significant amendment. Neither proposal passed out of the House. This will be an issue that is revisited in the 2016 legislative session. • House Bill 1910, sponsored by Rep. Cindy Ryu (D- Shoreline), brought by the ACLU, would require that cameras be operated at all times while the officer is on duty. All recordings of use of force, and any recordings requested by someone involved in a contact with police, would have to be "flagged" and retained as evidence — these would not be subject to public disclosure. All recordings not "flagged" would have to be kept for at least 60 days, and any recordings used as evidence are required to be kept for the duration of the investigation or 3 years; whichever is longer. • House Bill 1917, sponsored by Rep. Drew Hansen (D- Bainbridge Island), brought by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, focused on amending the Public Records Act. This approach would exempt all recordings (video or sound) made by uniformed law enforcement or corrections officers from being considered a public record unless the request is made by a person directly involved Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 10 in the incident recorded and public disclosure outweighs privacy interests. It would also allow the agency responding to the request to require the requester to pay the costs of redacting the recording prior to disclosure. In committee, this bill was amended to only apply to jurisdictions with body cameras in place on the effective date of the bill. It also allows a person not involved in the incident to request the video or sound recording with a court order. Water Bond Proposal As mentioned in the overview, this session, Sen. Jim Honeyford (R- Yakima) introduced Senate Bill 5628 to increase revenue to fund water supply, flood mitigation, and storm water projects across the State with a per parcel fee. The bill estimated the assessment to be approximately $35 per year for two-thirds of all property parcels in a year, and the highest would have been $500. In turn, Sen. Karen Keiser, lead -Democrat on capital budget issues, drafted a striking amendment that funded water supply, flood mitigation, and storm water projects with a $35 parcel fee, a sewer utility tax, and sweeping Public Works Assistance Account loan repayments. Both proposals failed to get the necessary support to advance out of the Senate Ways & Means Committee. It is likely that this proposal will re-emerge in 2016. Local Transportation Funding Within the transportation revenue package, cities requested that a portion of revenue raised be dedicated to the local level. Both chambers have done this, each in a different manner. Under the House proposal, cities and counties would each receive 1/2 cent gas tax direct distribution. This is the method that is currently in place for existing gas tax. Using this method, Spokane Valley would receive a total of $4,632,440 over the next 16 years. The Senate proposal allocates a flat $375 million over the 16 year life of the package, distributed per capita to each city. Under this plan, Spokane Valley would receive $3,144,849 over the next 16 years. Ultimately, the final transportation package included a flat $375 million distribution to cities and counties, based on population. Under this model, Spokane Valley can expect to receive a total of $4,292,160 over the next 16 years from the transportation package. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 11 Bill Status Report High Priority Bill # Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position HB 1517 Concerning the distribution of liquor revenues to local jurisdictions. H Approps Reykdal High Support (Dead) (SB 5896) SSB 5694 Allowing assessments for nuisance abatement in cities and towns. S Rules 3 Padden High Support (Dead) Gen. Gov/Finance Bill # Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position HB 1018 Preventing breed -based dog regulations. H Judiciary Appleton Monitoring (Dead) HB 1205 Concerning the payment of interim attorneys' fees to nongovernment parties under certain claims. H Judiciary Shea Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5370) HB 1370 Increasing the total amount of tax credits allowed under the Washington main street program. H Finance Wylie Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5313) HB 1517 Concerning the distribution of liquor revenues to local jurisdictions. H Approps Reykdal High Support (Dead) (SB 5896) HB 1550 Simplifying the taxation of amusement, recreation, and physical fitness services. C 169 L 15 Carlyle Monitoring HB 1661 Restoring resources to the capital budget. H Approps Pike Monitoring (Dead) HB 1702 Addressing local authority in the regulation of fireworks. H Rules C Moscoso Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5914) ESHB 1745 Enacting the Washington voting rights act. H Rules 3C Moscoso Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5668) HB 1815 Revising local government treasury practices and procedures. H Rules R Wylie Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5767) HB 1938 Enacting the tourism marketing act. H Finance Appleton Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5916) HB 1992 Restoring resources to the capital budget. H Approps Stanford Monitoring (Dead) HB 2097 Revising the authority to charge fees in courts of limited jurisdiction. H Judiciary Kirby Monitoring (Dead) HB 2153 Relating to improving the ability of cities and counties to keep pace with service delivery demands through revenue H Finance Reykdal Monitoring (Dead) Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 12 Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 13 reforms. HB 2154 Relating to providing revenue flexibility, assistance, and options to cities and counties to promote fiscal sustainability. H Finance Reykdal Monitoring (Dead) HB 2155 Relating to local government finance. H Finance Reykdal Monitoring (Dead) ESHB 2156 Promoting the fiscal sustainability of cities and counties. H Rules 3C Reykdal Monitoring (Dead) HB 2157 Relating to improving the fiscal health of local governments to ensure the continued provision of vital public services and high quality of life in Washington communities. H Finance Carlyle Monitoring (Dead) HB 2158 Relating to modifying taxing authority of special purpose taxing districts. H Finance Carlyle Monitoring (Dead) HB 2255 Modifying 1% Property Tax Limit H Finance Haler Monitoring HB 2258 Requiring a study to evaluate the impact of the property tax levy limitation on cities, counties, special purpose districts, and property owners. H Finance Haler Monitoring HJR 4202 Providing for community redevelopment financing in apportionment districts. H Comm Dev, Hous Springer Monitoring (Dead) SB 5096 Concerning the supplemental capital budget. S Ways & Means Honeyfor d Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1116) SB 5313 Increasing the total amount of tax credits allowed under the Washington main street program. S Ways & Means Warnick Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1370) SB 5339 Creating a business and occupation tax credit for new businesses. S Ways & Means Padden Monitoring (Dead) SB 5370 Concerning the payment of interim attorneys' fees to nongovernment parties under certain claims. S Ways & Means Dansel Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1205) SB 5511 Reducing the frequency of local sales and use tax changes. S Rules 3 Braun Monitoring (Dead) SB 5525 Concerning property taxation. S Ways & Means Sheldon Monitoring (Dead) ESSB 5550 Regulating providers of commercial transportation services. C 236 L 15 Habib Monitoring SB 5585 Granting counties and cities greater flexibility with real estate excise tax proceeds. S Rules X Dansel Monitoring (Dead) SB 5664 Promoting efficiency in the procurement of interpreter services. S Commerce and La Jayapal Monitoring (Dead) SB 5668 Enacting the Washington voting rights act. S Rules X Habib Monitoring (Dead) (ESHB 1745) SSB 5694 Allowing assessments for nuisance abatement in cities and towns. S Rules 3 Padden High Support (Dead) SB 5767 Revising local government treasury S Rules X Cleveland Monitoring Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 13 (Dead) (HB 1815) practices and procedures. Status Sponsor Priority Position SB 5811 Concerning a property tax exemption for certain property owned by an Indian tribe that is used for economic development purposes. S Trade & Econom Pearson Monitoring (Dead) SB 5866 Providing that counties are not required to distribute to the cities within the county certain county sales and use taxc proceeds. S GovtOp&Se Honeyfor d Monitoring Oppose (Dead) SB 5896 Concerning the distribution of liquor revenues to local jurisdictions. S Ways & Means Fraser Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1517) SB 5914 Addressing local authority in the regulation of fireworks. S Rules 3 Benton Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1702) SB 5916 Enacting the tourism marketing act. S Rules 2 Brown Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1938) SB 6129 District -based elections S GovtOp&Se c Roach Monitoring Human Services Bill # Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position HB 1107 This legislation authorizes counties to impose a sales tax or property tax increase to fund cultural access programs, with voter approval. If a county does not utilize the authority after two years, anyC city within that county may do so. This bill was integrated in to House Bill 2263, which passed into law. H Rules Springer Monitoring (Dead) (SSB 5463) HB 2049 Supporting the development of affordable housing in urban areas. H Cap Budget Santos Monitoring (Dead) SB 5244 Disposing tax foreclosed property to cities for affordable housing purposes. S Rules X Darneille Monitoring (Dead) Labor Bill # Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position HB 1455 Permitting local governments to opt out of prevailing wage requirements. H Labor Pike Monitoring (Dead) HB 1930 Addressing the nonemployee status of athletes in amateur sports. H Rules X MacEwen Monitoring (Dead) (ESB 5893) Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 14 HB 1934 Regulating local employment laws and contracts. H Labor Manweller Monitoring Position (Dead) (SB 5332) SB 5332 Regulating local employment laws and contracts. S Rules X Braun Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) (Dead) (HB 1934) SB 5602 Prohibiting public entities from giving or loaning public funds to bargaining unitX representatives for nongovernment functions. S Rules Warnick Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) (Dead) (HB 1773) ESB 5893 (HB Addressing the nonemployee status of athletes in amateur sports. (REVISED FOR ENGROSSED: Addressing the nonemployee status of athletes affiliated with the Western Hockey League.) C 299 L 15 Fain Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) (SB 5402) 1930) SB 6126 Addressing collective bargaining. S Rules 2 Braun Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) (SSB 5398) HB 1411 Marijuana Bill # Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position HB 1165 Concerning the establishment of a dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund and the distribution of a specified percentage of marijuana excise tax revenues to local jurisdictions. H Commerce &Gam Condotta Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 1335 Permitting cities, towns, and counties to reduce the buffer between recreational marijuana businesses and various entities. H Commerce & Gam Condotta Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 1359 Ensuring safe, responsible, and legal acquisition of marijuana by adults. H Commerce & Gam Moscoso Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) (SB 5402) HB 1360 Concerning marijuana, useable marijuana, and marijuana -infused products in public. H Commerce & Gam Moscoso Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) (SSB 5398) HB 1411 Concerning the siting of marijuana facilities. H Commerce & Gam Moscoso Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 1412 Concerning municipalities prohibiting the operation of recreational marijuana production, processing, and retail facilities within their jurisdictional boundaries. H Commerce & Gami Moscoso Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 1413 Revising licensing regulations pertaining to the buffer distances required between recreational marijuana businesses and specified public and private facilities. H Commerce & Gam Moscoso Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 1438 Permitting cities, towns, and counties to H Commerce Sawyer Monitoring Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 15 (Dead) (Inactive) prohibit the production, processing, and sale of marijuana under Initiative Measure No. 502 only by public vote. & Gam HB 1458 Concerning the age of individuals at which sale or distribution of tobacco and vapor products may be made. H Rules C Orwall Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) (SB 5494) HB 1461 Relating to marijuana. H Commerce &Gami Hurst Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 1650 Clarifying provisions regarding the seizure and disposition of marijuana and processed marijuana products by state and local law enforcement agencies. H Commerce & Gam Hurst Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 1698 Concerning medical cannabis. H Commerce &Gam Appleton Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 1766 Concerning medical marijuana. H HC/Wellness Cody Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 1776 Clarifying transportation and delivery services for licensed marijuana producers, marijuana processors, and marijuana retailers. H Commerce & Gam Condotta Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 1907 Restricting the operation of state licensed marijuana producers, marijuana processors, or marijuana retailers within one thousand feet of a religious facility. H Commerce & Gami Klippert Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 2008 Concerning comprehensive marijuana tax reform to ensure a well regulated and taxed marijuana market in Washington. H Finance Carlyle Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) HB 2058 Concerning the medical use of cannabis. H Commerce &Gam Moscoso Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) 2E2SHB 2136 Concerning comprehensive marijuana market reforms to ensure a well - regulated and taxed marijuana market in Washington state. C 4 L 15 E2 Carlyle Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) SB 5002 Concerning traffic infractions for marijuana, marijuana -based substances, or marijuana -infused substances. S Rules X Rivers Monitoring (Dead) 2SSB 5052 Establishing the cannabis patient protection act. C 70 L 15 Rivers Monitoring SB 5130 Restricting marijuana producer and processor businesses from being located in certain residential and rural areas. S Ways & Means Pearson Monitoring (Dead) SSB 5398 Concerning marijuana, useable marijuana, and marijuana -infused products in public. S Rules 3 Rivers Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1360) SB 5402 Ensuring safe, responsible, and legal acquisition of marijuana by adults. S Rules X Conway Monitoring (Dead) (HB Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 16 1359) Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position SB 5417 Concerning local government marijuana policies. S Ways & Means Rivers Monitoring (Dead) SB 5450 Expanding the restrictions on locating marijuana businesses. S Ways & Means O'Ban Monitoring (Dead) SB 5461 Vacating marijuana convictions. S Law & Justice Ranker Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) SB 5467 Providing a single point of excise taxation on sales of recreational marijuana. S Ways & Means Hatfield Monitoring (Dead) ESSB 5477 Requiring substances intended for use in a vapor product to satisfy child -resistant effectiveness standards, adopting warning standards, and prohibiting the use of vapor products in schools. S Rules 3 Dammeier Monitoring (Dead) SB 5493 Distinguishing cannabis health and beauty aids from marijuana. S Rules X Kohl - Welles Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) (HB 1753) SB 5494 Concerning the age of individuals at which sale or distribution of tobacco and vapor products may be made. S Commerce and L Miloscia Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) (HB 1458) SB 5519 Enacting the comprehensive marijuana reform act. S Ways & Means Kohl - Welles Monitoring (Dead) SB 5572 Concerning the sales, distribution, and delivery of marijuana. S Commerce and L Kohl - Welles Monitoring (Dead) (Inactive) SB 6136 Concerning comprehensive marijuana market reforms to ensure a well- regulated and taxed marijuana market in Washington state. S Ways & Means Rivers Monitoring Planning Bill # Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position EHB 1123 Regulating the minimum dimensions of habitable spaces in single-family residential areas. H Rules 3C Blake Monitoring (Dead) HB 1158 Granting local governments the authority to make challenges related to growth management planning subject to direct review in superior court. H Local Govt Pike Monitoring (Dead) HB 1250 This legislation was developed by the Office of Financial Management. The bill requires OFM to be notified if there are changes in boundaries through annexations, etc. AWC requested some technical amendments to the bill that were integrated. The bill did not pass. H Rules C Holy Monitoring (Dead) (SSB 5138) Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 17 HB 1373 Repealing growth management planning requirements in chapter 36.70A RCW. H Local Govt Taylor Monitoring (Dead) HB 1383 This legislation is the latest iteration of tax increment financing. It is accompanied with a constitutional amendment. H Comm Dev, Hous Springer Monitoring (Dead) HB 1394 This legislation stems from the Kirkland Potala case, and would make changes to the vested rights doctrine. Cities and counties generally opposed the bill, but we did not take specific action. H Judiciary Takko Monitoring (Dead) (ESB 5921) SHB 1576 Concerning sales and use tax for cities to offset municipal service costs to newly annexed areas. H Rules 3C Fitzgibbon Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5864) HB 1587 Creating a cause of action for persons who are adversely affected by the judicial review of a decision made under the state environmental policy act. H Environment Taylor Monitoring (Dead) HB 1588 Establishing categorical exemptions in the state environmental policy act for development proposals that are consistent with locally adopted land use and shoreline regulations. H Environment Taylor Monitoring (Dead) HB 1629 Prohibiting conversion of agricultural lands to wetlands or fish habitat under the shoreline management act. H Local Govt Scott Monitoring (Dead) HB 1630 Prohibiting conversion of agricultural lands to wetlands or fish habitat under the growth management act and the shoreline management act. H Local Govt Scott Monitoring (Dead) HB 1648 Concerning infrastructure financing for local governments. H Finance Walsh Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5109) H13 1789 Granting counties and cities greater flexibility with real estate excise tax proceeds. H Local Govt Springer Monitoring (Dead) HB 1848 Requiring voter approval for direct petition annexations. H Local Govt Schmick Monitoring (Dead) E2SHB 1850 Exempting certain department of transportation actions from local review or permit processes under the shoreline management act. H Rules 3C Hayes Monitoring (Dead) SHB 1851 Creating an expedited permitting and contracting process for bridges owned by local governments that are deemed structurally deficient. C 144 L 15 Hayes Monitoring HB 1997 Authorizing the creation and use of community facilities districts in limited areas of more intensive rural H Rules R Tharinger Monitoring (Dead) Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 18 Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 19 development. HB 2036 Improving permit and approval efficiencies under the shoreline management act. H Gen Govt & Inf Fitzgibbon Monitoring (Dead) HB 2038 Prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development. H Judiciary Holy Monitoring (Dead) HB 2046 Adding a definition of streams to the shoreline management act. H Rules 3C Dent Monitoring (Dead) HB 2062 Increasing certainty and predictability in the land use permit process. H Judiciary Takko Monitoring (Dead) HB 2112 Addressing annexation of islands of unincorporated territory in areas subject to boundary review. H Local Govt Hunter Monitoring (Dead) EHB 2122 Concerning real estate as it concerns the local government authority in the use of real estate excise tax revenues and regulating real estate transactions. C 10 L 15 E2 McBride Monitoring (Dead) SB 5044 Concerning mitigation measures for shoreline development. S Rules X Brown Monitoring (Dead) SB 5109 Concerning infrastructure financing for local governments. S Ways & Means Brown Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1648) ESB 5111 Concerning projects of statewide significance for economic development and transportation. S Rules 3 Brown Monitoring (Dead) SSB 5138 Concerning notice and review processes for annexations, deannexations, incorporations, disincorporations, consolidations, and boundary line adjustments under Titles 35 and 35A RCW. S Rules 3 Roach Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1250) SB 5139 Concerning building code standards for certain buildings four or more stories high. C 226 L 15 Roach Monitoring SB 5189 Concerning eminent domain. S Rules X Benton Monitoring (Dead) SB 5191 Prohibiting the state of Washington and its political subdivisions from adopting and developing environmental and developmental policies that infringe or restrict private property rights without due process. S Law & Justice Benton Monitoring (Dead) SB 5200 Modifying legislators' participation on regional transportation planning organization transportation policy boards. S Transportation Benton Monitoring (Dead) SB 5363 Prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development. S Rules 3 Padden Monitoring (Dead) SB 5604 Addressing the review and evaluation of countywide planning policies under the growth management act. S Rules X Liias Monitoring (Dead) Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 19 SB 5809 Requiring the provision of comprehensive information in writing to real property owners during negotiations for the acquisition of the property by government agencies. S Rules X Benton Monitoring Position (Dead) SB 5832 Modifying time limitations for certain plat approvals. S Rules X Angel Monitoring (Dead) (Dead) SB 5869 Concerning restrictions on the location of manufactured/mobile homes. S Rules X Sheldon Monitoring (Dead) (Dead) SB 5882 Concerning education and training for building officials. S Commerce and L Liias Monitoring (SSB 5455) (Dead) ESB 5921 Preserving the common law interpretation and application of the vested rights doctrine. (REVISED FOR ENGROSSED: Increasing certainty and predictability in the land use permit process.) S Rules 3 Honeyford Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5537) (Dead) (HB 1394) SB 5985 Extending the date for allowing certain counties and cities to not plan under the growth management act. S Rules X Dansel Monitoring (Dead) (2SSB 5755) (Dead) ESJR 8204 Amending the Constitution to allow the state to guarantee debt issued on behalf of a political subdivision for essential public infrastructure. S Rules 3 Keiser Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5732) (Dead) Police/ Fire/ Corrections Bill # Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position HB 1028 Requiring cities and counties to provide security for their courts. H Judiciary Appleton Monitoring (Dead) HB 1141 Requiring certain operational standards for regional jails. H Public Safety Goodman Monitoring (Dead) SHB 1382 Addressing the delivery of basic firefighter training and testing. C 43 L 15 Griffey Monitoring (SSB 5455) HB 1606 Establishing regional fire protection service authorities within the boundaries of regional cities. H Finance McBride Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5537) HB 1885 Addressing and mitigating the impacts of property crimes in Washington state. H Rules R Klippert Monitoring (Dead) (2SSB 5755) HB 1910 Encouraging effective oversight of law enforcement conduct. H Judiciary Ryu Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5732) HB 1917 Concerning video and/or sound recordings made by law enforcement or corrections officers. H Rules C Hansen Monitoring (Dead) HB 1951 Clarifying the authority of local law enforcement agencies to use unmarked vehicles. H Rules C Pike Monitoring (Dead) SHB 2085 Providing alternatives for penalties stemming from traffic infractions. H Rules 3C Goodman Monitoring (Dead) Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 20 SB 5099 Restricting conditional releases of sexually violent predators outside their county of origin. S Rules X Darneille Monitoring Position (Dead) (SHB 1668) SSB 5455 Addressing the delivery of basic firefighter training and testing. S Rules 3 Rivers Monitoring (Dead) (Dead) (SHB 1382) SB 5482 Addressing the disclosure of global positioning system data by law enforcement officers. C 91 L 15 Roach Monitoring (Dead) ESHB 1349 SB 5537 Establishing regional fire protection service authorities within the boundaries of regional cities. S Rules X Habib Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5678) (Dead) (HB 1606) SB 5732 Encouraging effective oversight of law enforcement conduct. S Law & Justice Jayapal Monitoring (Dead) (Dead) (HB 1910) 2SSB 5755 Addressing and mitigating the impacts of property crimes in Washington state. S Rules 3 Hargrove Monitoring (Dead) (Dead) (HB 1885) SB 5955 Reimbursing the criminal justice training commission for basic law enforcement training. S Ways & Means Braun Monitoring (Dead) (Dead) Public Records Bill # Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position HB 1086 Establishing a cost recovery mechanism for public records sought for commercial purposes. H Approps Moeller Monitoring (Dead) HB 1189 Regarding hours of availability of cities, towns, and special purpose districts for inspection and copying of public records. H Rules 3C Hunt Monitoring (Dead) ESHB 1349 Concerning public records requests for the purpose of obtaining exempted employment and licensing information. H Rules 3C Hunt Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5678) HB 1374 Requiring disclosure of specified contract information by state and local agencies. H Judiciary Taylor Monitoring (Dead) HB 1684 Concerning charges for the cost of providing public records in response to public records requests. H Rules R Takko Monitoring (Dead) HB 1691 Concerning remedies for actions under the public records act. H State Government Van De Wege Monitoring (Dead) HB 1723 Allowing booking photographs and electronic images at jails to be open to the public. H Rules R Hayes Monitoring (Dead) ESHB 1980 Implementing recommendations of the sunshine committee. C 224 L 15 Springer Monitoring (SB 6020) EHB 2084 Imposing fines, withholding taxes, and other measures to encourage local jurisdictions to timely file state -required reports. (REVISED FOR ENGROSSED: Allowing the state treasurer to withhold H Rules 3C Hunter Monitoring (Dead) Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 21 Public Works Bill # taxes to encourage local jurisdictions to timely file financial reports. ) Status Sponsor Priority Position SB 5482 Addressing the disclosure of global positioning system data by law enforcement officers. C 91 L 15 Roach Monitoring (Dead) SB 5533 Establishing charges for providing electronic data under the public records act. S GovtOp&StSec Hobbs Monitoring (Dead) SB 5678 Concerning requesting public records for the purpose of obtaining exempted information relating to employment and licensing. S Rules X Pearson Monitoring (Dead) (ESHB 1349) SB 6014 Changing remedies for actions under the public records act. S GovtOp&Sec Honeyford Monitoring (Dead) SB 6020 Implementing recommendations of the sunshine committee. S GovtOp&Sec Chase Monitoring Oppose (Dead) (ESHB 1980) SB 6136 Concerning comprehensive marijuana market reforms to ensure a well- regulated and taxed marijuana market in Washington state. S Ways & Means Rivers Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5345) Public Works Bill # Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position HB 1056 Restricting the use of certain parcels of public land to access a public body of water. H State Governme Haler Monitoring (Dead) HB 1057 Modifying authority regarding where mopeds may be operated. H Trans Haler Monitoring (Dead) HB 1079 Allowing public agencies to enter into contracts providing for the joint utilization of architectural or engineering services. H Rules X Kochmar Monitoring (Dead) (SSB 5348) HB 1102 Concerning a local government installing a public sewage system within the public right-of-way under certain circumstances. H Local Govt Takko Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5055) HB 1133 Authorizing counties to impose a public utility tax. H Local Govt Tharinger Monitoring Oppose (Dead) HB 1399 Annually adjusting the limit on distribution of hazardous substance tax revenues to the state and local toxics control accounts to correct for inflation. H Approps Hudgins Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5345) ESHB 1417 Subjecting a resolution or ordinance adopted by the legislative body of a city or town to assume a water -sewer district to a referendum. H Rules 3C Takko Monitoring (Dead) (ESSB 5048) ESHB 1449 Concerning oil transportation safety. C 274 L 15 Farrell Monitoring (SB 5087) EHB 1513 Concerning local infrastructure project H Rules 3C Springer Monitoring Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 22 (Dead) areas. HB 1515 Modifying the operation of motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic. H Trans MacEwen Monitoring (Dead) (ESSB 5623) HB 1572 Establishing an electric vehicle infrastructure bank. H Trans Clibborn Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5444) HB 1593 Concerning local transportation options. H Trans McBride Monitoring (Dead) (SB 5813) HB 1711 Concerning criteria for bidders on public works contracts. H Rules R Senn Monitoring (Dead) HB 1715 Protecting Puget Sound through funding and implementing local on-site sewage program management plans. H Rules C Peterson Monitoring (Dead) HB 1757 Concerning local transportation options. H Rules R Fey Monitoring (Dead) HB 1817 Providing liability immunity for local jurisdictions when wheeled all -terrain vehicles are operated on public roadways. C 160 L 15 Shea Monitoring HB 1843 Creating a residential energy efficiency incentive pilot program. H Rules R Morris Monitoring (Dead) HB 1911 Authorizing municipalities to create assessment reimbursement areas for the construction or improvement of water or sewer facilities. H Rules C Fitzgibbon Monitoring (Dead) (SSB 5795) HB 1959 Concerning public works. H Cap Budget Dunshee Monitoring (Dead) HB 2010 Creating appeal procedures for single - family homeowners with failing septic systems required to connect to public sewer systems. H Rules 3C Takko Monitoring (Dead) (ESB 5871) HB 2029 Concerning population -based representation on the governing body of public transportation benefit areas. H Trans Fey Monitoring (Dead) HB 2102 Allowing expansion of public facilities districts formed before July 31, 2002. H Finance Appleton Monitoring (Dead) HJR 4205 Requiring all revenues from any state taxes levied for the purpose of funding local government public infrastructure to be paid into the state treasury, deposited into the public works assistance account, and used exclusively for funding local government public works projects. H Approps Pike Monitoring (Dead) SSB 5022 Providing fee immunity for certain city, town, and county water facilities. S Rules 3 Angel Monitoring (Dead) ESSB 5048 Subjecting a resolution or ordinance adopted by the legislative body of a city or town to assume a water -sewer C 172 L 15 Chase Monitoring (ESHB 1417) Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 23 Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 24 district to a referendum. SB 5055 Concerning a local government installing a public sewage system within the public right-of-way under certain circumstances. S GovtOp&StSec Angel Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1102) E2SSB 5057 Concerning the safe transport of hazardous materials. S Rules 3 Ericksen Monitoring (Dead) SB 5087 Concerning oil transportation safety. S Energy, Enviro Rolfes Monitoring (Dead) (ESHB 1449) SB 5314 Modifying the use of local storm water charges paid by the department of transportation. C 231 L 15 Benton Monitoring SB 5345 Annually adjusting the limit on distribution of hazardous substance tax revenues to the state and local toxics control accounts to correct for inflation. S Ways & Means Keiser Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1399) SB 5356 Concerning a fishing line or monofilament recycling pilot program. S Ways & Means Mullet Monitoring (Dead) SSB 5411 Providing liability immunity for local jurisdictions when wheeled all -terrain vehicles are operated on public roadways. S Rules 3 Roach Monitoring (Dead) SSB 5438 Allowing bicycles and mopeds to stop and proceed through traffic control signals under certain conditions. C 32 L 15 King Monitoring SB 5444 Establishing an electric vehicle infrastructure bank. S Transportation Hobbs Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1572) SB 5446 Requiring incentives for electric vehicle readiness in buildings. S Rules X Hobbs Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1929) ESSB 5623 Modifying the operation of motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic. S Rules 3 Sheldon Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1515) ESB 5624 Concerning financing essential public infrastructure. S Rules 3 Keiser Monitoring (Dead) SB 5628 Providing for storm water, flood control, and water supply infrastructure in the state. S Ways & Means Honeyford Monitoring Oppose (Dead) SSB 5795 (HB Authorizing municipalities to create assessment reimbursement areas for the construction or improvement of water or sewer facilities. C 96 L 15 Roach Monitoring 1911) SB 5813 Concerning local transportation options. S Transportation Cleveland Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1593) SB 5834 Concerning oil transportation safety. S Energy, Enviro Ranker Monitoring (Dead) ESB 5871 (HB Creating appeal procedures for single - family homeowners with failing septic C 297 L 15 Angel Monitoring 2010) Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 24 Transportation Revenue Bill # systems required to connect to public sewer systems. Status Sponsor Priority Position SB 5902 Concerning the sale of department of transportation surplus property. S Transportation Benton Monitoring (Dead) 2ESB 5993 Concerning public works contracts and projects. C 40 L 15 E3 King Monitoring (Dead) SB 6115 Limiting tax imposed by a city or town on a water distribution business, a sewerage system business, or water and sewerage system business. S GovtOp&Sec Chase Monitoring (Dead) S13 6119 Private RR Crossings S Energy, Environ Ericksen Monitoring (Dead) Transportation Revenue Bill # Short Description Status Sponsor Priority Position SB 5358 Concerning transportation revenue. S Transportation Liias Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1300) SB 5359 Making 2013-2015 supplemental transportation appropriations. S Transportation Hobbs Monitoring (Dead) (HB 1297) 2ESSB 5987 Concerning transportation revenue. C 44 L 15 E3 King Monitoring (Dead) 2ESSB 5988 Concerning additive transportation funding and appropriations. C 43 L 15 E3 King Monitoring (Dead) ESSB 5989 Authorizing bonds for transportation funding. C 45 L 15 E3 King Monitoring (Dead) ESSB 5990 Transferring certain state sales and use taxes collected on transportation projects to the connecting Washington account. S Rules 3 King Monitoring (Dead) ESSB 5991 Concerning activities at the department of transportation funded by the environmental legacy stewardship account. S Rules 3 King Monitoring (Dead) 2ESSB 5992 Modifying certain requirements for ferry vessel construction. C 14 L 15 E3 King Monitoring (Dead) 2ESB 5993 Concerning public works contracts and projects. C 40 L 15 E3 King Monitoring (Dead) 2ESSB 5994 Concerning permits for state transportation corridor projects. (REVISED FOR ENGROSSED: Concerning permits for state transportation projects.) C 15 L 15 E3 King Monitoring (Dead) 2ESB 5995 Modifying the transportation system policy goal of mobility. C 16 L 15 E3 King Monitoring (Dead) 2ESSB 5996 Concerning Washington state department of transportation projects. C 17 L 15 E3 King Monitoring (Dead) 2ESSB 5997 Concerning transportation project delivery. C 18 L 15 E3 King Monitoring (Dead) Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs City of Spokane Valley Legislative Update 25 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 25, 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: Proposed Tourism Study GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Not Applicable PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Currently, the City collects a 2% lodging tax from all hotels and accommodation facilities. In addition, the City recently adopted a 1.3% increase in lodging tax with the additional funds being dedicated to funding sporting venues or other venues for tourism -related facilities. The 2% lodging tax generates about $500,000 each year to support existing regional tourism efforts. The City would like to have a better understanding of the success of tourism efforts in the City. The City is proposing to commission a study to examine how tourism and hospitality benefits local economic development, and explore other approaches for leveraging lodging tax dollars to increase tourism. This proposed scope of work would examine several key questions, including: — What are the key drivers of tourism in the City of Spokane Valley and are there deficits in tourism offerings and associated revenues in the City? — What are the current drivers of hotel revenues and what is the City's role in fostering tourism in Spokane Valley? — What investments and strategies can the City undertake to improve tourism and what impact would they have on visitor attraction? OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community & Economic Development Director Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Lodging and Tourism Analysis and Strategy, Approach and Scope LODGING AND TOURISM ANALYSIS AND STRATEGY APPROACH AND SCOPE 11,111111111.14 August 19, 2015 Submitted to: City of Spokane Valley • cap Submitted by: community attributes Inc BACKGROUND The City of Spokane Valley is interested in a study that examines how tourism and hospitality benefit local economic development efforts and that investigates additional strategies for leveraging lodging tax dollars to benefit the city's tourism economy. Currently, the City collects a 2% lodging tax from all hotels and accommodation facilities. In addition, the City recently adopted a 1.3% increase in lodging tax with the additional funds being dedicated to funding sporting venues or other venues for tourism -related facilities. A substantial portion of lodging tax revenues are currently dedicated to help fund existing regional tourism efforts. The City is interested in better understanding the current state of tourism in the City and how it impacts the local hospitality industry as well as other tourism related businesses. This preliminary scope of work investigates several key questions, including: > What are key drivers of tourism in the City of Spokane Valley and are their deficits in tourism offerings and associated revenues in the City? > What are the current drivers of hotel revenues and what is the City's role in fostering tourism in Spokane Valley? > What investments and strategies can the City undertake to improve tourism and what impact would they have on visitor attraction? Existing Efforts and Facilities The City already has a number of facilities, events and efforts that are working to drive tourism and lodging activity. In addition, studies already completed or underway such as the city's Parks and Recreation Plan as well as the Spokane Valley Retail Strategy are important to consider and build upon. APPROACH This preliminary scope is divided into two phases that provide a framework for the analysis. To start, CAI will assemble a baseline of information to inform an economic understanding of the tourism environment both regionally and locally. These data will anchor the formulation of strategies and investment options for the City to consider. The second phase of the project will focus on evaluating select strategies to better understand their potential impact, overall feasibility and value (Phase II to be completed at a later date). City of Spokane Valley August 14, 2015 Tourism and Lodging Scope of Services DRAFT Page 1 GENERAL WORK PROGRAM BY TASK The following provides an outline of major tasks and includes details on the types of analytics and services that will be provided. We are happy to work iteratively with the City to refine this scope of work to better reflect the City's needs. Phase 1 - Existing Conditions and Strategy Task 1: State of tourism in Spokane Valley Task 1 will provide an overview of tourism and hospitality in the region as well as a detailed look at tourist activities in the City of Spokane Valley. It will also provide context for the role of tourism in the local economy. a) Review existing tourism related studies and strategies recently completed for the region or City of Spokane Valley b) Inventory and profile key tourism assets and activities in the City and compile data for each. Data in the profiles may focus on topics like customer/visitor segmentation, business operations and business drivers. Assets and activities may include: Special events Lodging facilities Retail destinations Dining destinations Convention facilities Recreation facilities Sports facilities c) Assess the regional hospitality and tourism market and its relative significance within the City of Spokane Valley through analysis of applicable employment, lodging tax and hospitality industry data d) Compile up to four case studies that provide examples and guidance on tourism efforts and investments made by cities and/or public entities. Focus on the initial investment of the City or entity, ongoing operations and the impact their investment has had on tourism and hospitality e) Analyze regional and local spending on tourism using available data sources and identify relative impacts on the City of Spokane Valley. Data sources may include: Taxable retail sales Gross business incomes Consumer buying power Hotel occupancy/room nights Meetings: 1) Project kick-off conference call; 2) interim check-in conference call Deliverables: Interim summary of findings (via data deck or technical memorandum) Schedule: Weeks 1-8 Budget: $15,000 Task 2: Interviews and Workshop Task 2 will provide an opportunity to learn from local businesses and hotel operators. a) Asses the City's current hospitality market through a series of stakeholder interviews with local hoteliers, restaurant owners, businesses and/or property owners: — Conduct up to 8 stakeholder interviews City of Spokane Valley August 14, 2015 Tourism and Lodging Scope of Services DRAFT Page 2 b) Conduct a tourism and hospitality workshop with local stakeholders to review existing conditions findings and identify strategies and investment opportunities Meetings: 1) Stakeholder workshop Deliverables: Interview and workshop findings Schedule: Weeks 5-8 Budget: $8,000 Task 3: Tourism and Hospitality Strategies This task will utilize the analysis from Phase 1 as well as a collaborative approach with City staff to develop a clear, concise tourism strategy. a) Identify the strengths of the local and regional tourism market and identify any deficits that may exist in the City of Spokane Valley in terms of tourism offerings, attractions, resources and marketing b) Develop a strategy framework and define tourism segments in the City; also ensure compatibility with the City's ongoing retail strategy c) Produce a draft and final strategy Meetings: Up to 2 conference call work sessions (informal check -ins are welcome) Deliverables: Draft and Final Strategy Schedule: Weeks 7-10 Budget: $8,500 Task 4: Draft and Final Report Incorporate Tasks 1-3 into a complete profile and strategy document with maps, data and graphics suitable for public dissemination. a) Compile findings and analysis into a draft report b) Conduct two rounds of edits with City staff and one round of review with project stakeholders c) Prepare final report Meetings: Draft review conference call with client Deliverables: Draft and final report Schedule: Weeks 10-13 Budget: $6,500 Task 5: Presentation to stakeholders Present project findings and strategies to select audiences. a) Develop a presentation deck based on project findings and analysis b) Present once to City Council c) Present once to a stakeholder group Meetings: Two in person meetings Deliverables: NA Schedule: TBD Budget: $6,000 City of Spokane Valley August 14, 2015 Tourism and Lodging Scope of Services DRAFT Page 3 Phase 11 Task III: Technical Evaluation of Investment Opportunities Building on the strategies developed in Phase I, this phase will evaluate the feasibility of potential investments by the City that would support lodging and tourism. > Identify funding sources for strategies, highlighting strategies that may be funded by lodging tax dollars > Analyze the market potential and economic feasibility of each strategy > Where possible, project economic impacts related to strategy adoption and evaluate the ROI of a reallocation of lodging tax dollars to fund the strategy Meetings: TBD Deliverables: TBD Schedule: Planned for 2016 Budget: TBD SCHEDULE AND BUDGET We are confident in our ability to conduct an analysis of tourism and hospitality in the timeline outlined below. We happy to work iteratively with the client to adjust project timelines and milestones as needed. TASKS Task 1. State of Tourism in Spokane Valley Task 2. Interviews and Workshop SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER Project Kick- off ickoff I I Interim I I Findings Stakeholder Workshop DECEMBER Task 3. Tourism and Hospitality Work sessions Strategies Task 4. Draft and Final Report Task 5. Presentations Draft I (Final Report I (Report Presentations TBD City of Spokane Valley August 14, 2015 Tourism and Lodging Scope of Services DRAFT Page 4 The budget outlined below presents a summary of the expected costs as outlined in the work program. Note that Phase 11 work is anticipated to be carried out in 2016 after Phase 1 work has been completed. Task Hours Cost Task 1. State of Tourism in Spokane Valley 148 $15,000 Task 2. Interviews and Workshop 90 $8,000 Task 3. Tourism and Hospitality Strategies 84 $8,500 Task 4. Draft and Final Report 64 $6,500 Task 5. Presentations 70 $6,000 Subtotal $44,000 Estimated Expenses $2,000 TOTAL $46,000 City of Spokane Valley August 14, 2015 Tourism and Lodging Scope of Services DRAFT Page 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 25, 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: Port Districts — Strategic Business Plan Proposal GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 53.04 Port District Formation PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Initially in the State of Washington, ports were limited to operating transportation facilities such as docks, airports and short line railroads. In the 1950's Washington ports were authorized to undertake economic development efforts. Approximately 25% of the nation's port authorities are in Washington State. Currently, there are 75 Washington port authorities and of that only 6 of the 75 are deep draft cargo ports, the balance have an economic development focus. Port districts are special purpose local governments; unlike general purpose governments they have no traditional regulatory responsibility which provides ports broader flexibility to assist in economic development efforts. Port districts are able to do this by financing long-term investments, such as infrastructure, needed for growth. Port districts use taxes, service fees, bonds, and grants or gifts as revenue sources. Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI) is proposing to commission Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. to prepare a Strategic Business Plan to support the consideration of creating a Port Authority in Spokane County. GSI is requesting assistance from partnering agencies to pay for the development of the Strategic Business Plan Proposal. OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $7,500.00 STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community & Economic Development Director Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Strategic Business Plan Proposal Otp MAUL FOSTER ALONGI 1329 North State Street, Suite 301 ! Bellingham, WA 98225 r 360 594 6262 1 www.maulluster.com July 16, 2015 Project No. 1120.01.03 Robin Toth Greater Spokane Incorporated 801 W. Riverside, Suite 100 Spokane, WA 99201 Re: Strategic Business Plan Proposal Dear Robin: Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. (MFA) appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to prepare a Strategic Business Plan to support the consideration of creating a Port Authority in Spokane County pursuant to RCW 53.04. We have prepared this scope of work and budget to address the issues you raised in your RFC as well as the recent discussion we had with your advisory committee. The MFA team will be led by Jim Darling and staffed by Bill Hager, both of whom have extensive port experience. In addition there may be a need for focused subconsulting assistance. The scope and budget reflect that possibility. Overall this process is likely to consist of three phases: • Phase 1: Development of Strategic Business Plan (Topic of this scope.) Phase 2: Support for Community Outreach—We understand that you have a working relationship with a public affairs firm; if requested, MFA could assist with support material and/or additional research that may arise. This phase is not included in this scope of work. • Phase 3: Implementation—Once a decision has been made there will be the need for preparation of implementing documents. These "keystone documents" are either required by State statute or represent best management practices. If requested, MFA is prepared to assist in this effort and, as part of the scope in Phase 1, MFA will prepare an inventory of the types of documents that will be needed for implementation. The cost for the preparation of the documents are not included in this scope of work. PHASE 1: SCOPE OF WORK Task 1—Workshops with Advisory Committee It is anticipated that a total of 2 on-site workshops with the GSI Advisory Committee will be needed to develop a strategic business plan. (The workshops will be timed so that field R:\P1120.01 Greater Spokane Incorporated\©3_2015.07.16 Strategic Business Plan Proposal\Pf Strategic Business Plan.docx Robin Toth July 16, 2015 Page 2 Project No. 1120.01.03 research takes place during the same site visits.) Workshops will be facilitated by MFA and be designed as follows: • Workshop 1: Kick off meeting with the Advisory Committee to layout the overall schedule, confirm additional interested parties and stakeholders to interview as part of the background research, identify key documents to review, solicit overall feedback from Committee members on their thoughts and vision for a new authority, identify potential port initiatives, and provide an overview of Washington public port authorities, structure and powers. Strategic discussion on findings to date, structure of the business plan, review of goals, mission and operating values of the proposed port. • Workshop 2: Review of the draft strategic business plan and financials, review of planned strategies (initiatives and projects), inventory of keystone implementation documents and mission vs margin considerations. (This will include a PowerPoint presentation about the proposed port that can be utilized by the Advisory Committee in Phase 2 activities.) Task 2—Research and Background In conjunction with the workshop schedule, the MFA team will conduct personal or small group interviews with identified key stakeholders to inform the business strategy with local knowledge. In addition, there will be background research into known and speculative development plans, likely conducted by phone interviews where appropriate and off site document review. Task 3—Draft and Final Strategic Business Plan The MFA team will produce both a DRAFT strategic business plan as well as a FINAL after review by the Advisory Committee. This plan will include a multiyear budget projection to the extent projects are identified, the identification of keystone documents for both management and governance, and will detail the proposed port's mission, values and planned strategies. Ports are required to adopt a Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor Improvements (CSHI) and the strategic business plan will be structured with that eventual requirement in mind. The purpose of the CSHI is to identify the specific intent of a port authority in carrying out its mission. (Please note the reference to "Harbor" is a historical carryover.) BUDGET The estimated cost to perform the proposed work in Phase 1 is $54,946 (see attached estimated budget which includes expenses). This cost estimate does not represent a lump sum. MFA bills for time and materials, consistent with the attached schedule of charges. MFA may apply money from one task to another to complete the scope of work. R:\P 1120.01 Greater Spokane Incorporated \03_2015.07.16 Strategic Business Plan Proposal\Pf Strategic Business P1an.docx Robin Toth July 16, 2015 Page 3 Project No. 1120.01.03 SCHEDULE MFA will begin work within 10 days of receiving authorization to proceed. This proposal is valid for 30 days. After you have reviewed this submittal, please indicate your approval of the proposal by signing below and returning the document to us as electronic or hard copy. Please retain a copy for your records. Sincerely, Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. Ji Darling ce Presid-�nt/ Principal lanner Attachments: Estimated Budget Strategic Business Plan Draft Work Plan Schedule of Charges General Terms and Conditions The above proposal, including all attachments, has been read and understood and is hereby agreed to and accepted. It is agreed that the attached "Schedule of Charges," "General Terms and Conditions" (which contains a limitation of liability provision), and Addendum(s), if any, form an express part of the Contract, as evidenced by my signature below: Greater Spokane Incorporated By Date Name Title (please print) R:\P1120.01 Greater Spnkane Incorporated \03_3015.07.16 Strategic Business Plan Proposal \PE Strategic Business Plan.doce Estimated Budget Greater Spokane Incorporated Strategic Business Plan Task Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. Hours Labor Direct Subcontractors Total Workshops 2 3 Research and Background Business Pion 124 $13,498 $3,800 $0 128 115 $21,000 $14,648 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $17,298 $23,000 $14,648 Total Estimated Cost $54,946 R:\P1120.01 Greater Spokane Incorporated\03_2015.07.16 Strategic Business Plan Proposal\GSI Budget.xlsx\Summary Budget 7/16/2015 GREATER SPOKANE INCORPORATED: PORT AUTHORITY Strategic Business Plan 1 DRAFT Work Plan MAUL FOSTER ALONG! RESEARCH & BACKGROUND Research Tax base; Community Economics; History of Effort in Past, Airport Budget and Financial Commitments; and Community Projects Identify Interviews Additional Research Interview Interview Key Other Community Stakeholders Leaders interview Airport Leadership Additional Interviews Strategic Workshop: 1. Findings to Date 2. Structure of Strategic Business Plan 3. Explore Early Vision and Goals 4. Understanding Ports & the Legal Authorities Strategic Workshop: 1. Review Draft of Strategic Business Plan 2. Prioritize Planned Strategies 3. Mission vs Margin Considerations DELIVERABLES LEGEND j1 Interactions & Interviews 11 Advisory Committee Research & Reporfs Draft Strategic Business Plan Final Strategic BusinessNan: 1. Multi-year Budget Projection 2. Identify & Prepare Select Keystone Documents 3. Articulate Key Messages 4. Strategic Plan Oc MAUL FOSTER ALONG1 w.mauiioster.com PERSONNEL CHARGES SCHEDULE OF CHARGES Principal $130 — 250/hour Senior $110 - 170/hour Project $95 - 140/hour Staff $70 - 110/hour GIS Professional $90 - 180/hour Drafter/CADD Operator $70 - 95/hour Technical Writer/Editor $70 - 85/hour Administrative Assistant $60 - 85/hour Depositions and expert witness testimony, including preparation time, will be charged at 200 percent of the above rates. Travel time will be charged in accordance with the above rates. OUTSIDE SERVICES Charges for outside services, equipment, and facilities not furnished directly by Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. will be billed at cost plus 10 percent. Such charges may include, but shall not be limited to the following: Printing and photographic reproduction Rented vehicles Transportation on public carriers Special fees, permits, insurance, etc. SUBCONTRACTORS Rented equipment Shipping charges Meals and lodging Consumable materials Charges for subcontractors will be billed at cost plus 15 percent. L:\MFA Policies & Procedures Manual\08 Project Management\Contract Forms \ Original \MF,i Schedule of Charges 2015.docx 1 DIRECT CHARGES Vehicle per mile $0.75 COMPUTER CHARGES CADD, ArcGIS $20.00/hour EQuIS, EVS, Modeling Applications $30.00/hour FIELD EQUIPMENT The rates for field equipment are set forth in the Field Equipment Rate Schedule. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION The rates for document production are set forth in the Document Production Rate Schedule. RATE CHANGES Schedule of Charges and Standard Equipment Rates are subject to change without notice. BILLING AND PAYMENT Invoices will be submitted monthly and shall be due and payable upon receipt. Interest at the rate of one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month, but not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law, shall be payable on any amounts that are due but unpaid within (30) days from receipt of invoice, payment to be applied first to accrued late payment charges and then to the principal unpaid amount. L: \MFA Policies & Procedures Manual\08 Project \Management\Contract Forms \Original\MFA Schedule of Charges 2015.docx 2 MAUL FOSTER ALONGI www.maulfoster.com GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARTICLE 1—PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY MFA shall perform the Services specified in this Agreement consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional consultants under similar circumstances at the same time the Services are performed; subject, however, to any express limitations established by the CLIENT as to the degree of care and amount of time and expense to be incurred and any other limitations contained in this Agreement. No other representation, warranty or guaranty, express or implied, is included in or intended by this Agreement or any other of MFA's services, proposals, agreements or reports contemplated by this Agreement. ARTICLE 2—INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS; LEGAL RELATIONSHIP The parties intend that MFA, in performing Services specified in this Agreement, shall act as an independent contractor and shall have control of its work and the manner in which it is performed. MFA shall be free to contract for similar services to be performed for other individuals or entities while it is under contract with CLIENT. The parties further intend that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as requiring MFA to assurne the status of an owner, operator, generator, person who arranges for disposal, transporter or storer, as those terms, or any other similar terms, are used in any federal, state or local statute, regulation, order or ordinance governing the treatment, storage, handling and disposal of any toxic or hazardous substance or waste. ARTICLE 3—BILLING AND PAYMENT Invoices will be submitted monthly and shall be due and payable upon receipt. Payment shall be made to Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. and delivered to: Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. 400 East Mill Plain Blvd., Suite 400 Vancouver, WA 98660 Interest at the rate of one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month, but not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law, shall be payable on any amounts that are due but unpaid within thirty (30) days from receipt of invoice, payment to be applied first to accrued late payment charges and then to the principal unpaid amount. MFA may, at its option, withhold delivery of reports and any other data pending receipt of payment for services rendered. Remittance will be mailed to MFA at the address noted on such invoices or as MFA may otherwise advise. ARTICLE 4—LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CLIENT agrees to limit the liability of MFA, its officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents and representatives (the "MFA Parties") to CLIENT for all claims and legal proceedings of any type arising out of or relating to the performance of Services under this Agreement (including, but not limited to, MFA's breach of the Agreement, its professional negligence, errors and omissions and other acts) to the greater of 5100,000 or the amount of MFA's Fee. Failure of CLIENT to give written notice to MFA of any claim of negligent act, error or omission within one (1) year of performance shall constitute a waiver of such claim by CLIENT. In no event shall MFA be liable for any direct, special or consequential loss or damages. MFA is solely responsible for performance of this contract, and no affiliated company, director, officer, employee, or agent shall have any legal responsibility hereunder, whether in contract or tort, including negligence. ARTICLE 5—INDEMNIFICATION Subject to the limitation of liability above, MFA shall indemnify, defend and hold CLIENT harmless from the proportionate share of any claim, suit, liability, damage, injury, cost or expense, including attorneys fees, or other loss (hereafter collectively called "Loss") arising out of (a) MFA Parties' breach of this Agreement or (b) MFA Parties' willful misconduct or negligence in connection with the performance of the Services under this Agreement. MFA\L:\MFA Policies & Procedures Manual \68 Proiect Management\Contract Forms\\'ith Clients \ Original \MMFA T&C.cloc 1 CLIENT agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless MFA Parties from any Loss arising out of (a) CLIENT's breach of the Agreement, or (b) CLIENT's willful misconduct or negligence in connection with performance of the Agreement. To the extent such Loss is caused by MFA's negligence, CLIENT shall indemnify, defend, and hold MFA harmless from the proportional share of the Loss resulting from the acts or negligence of others. ARTICLE 6—TERM OF AGREEMENT; TERMINATION The obligations of the parties to indemnify and the limitations on liability set forth in this Agreement shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE 7—TIME OF PERFORMANCE/FORCE MAJEURE MFA makes no warranties regarding the time of completion of Set -vices, and shall not he in default of performance under this Agreement where such performance is prevented, suspended or delayed by any cause beyond MFA's control. Neither parry will hold the other responsible for damages for delays in performance caused by acts of God or other events beyond the control of the other party and which could not have heen reasonably foreseen or prevented. If such events occur, it is agreed that hoth parties will use their best efforts to overcome all difficulties arising and to resume as soon as reasonably possible performance of Services under this Agreement. Delays within the scope of this provision will extend the contract completion date for specified services commensurately or will, at the option of either party, make this Agreement subject to termination or to renegotiation. ARTICLE 8—SUSPENSION OF SERVICES CLIENT may suspend further performances of Services by MFA by ten (10) days prior written notice. If payment of invoices by CLIENT is not maintained on a thirty (30) day current basis, MFA may suspend further performance until such payment is restored to a current basis. Suspensions for any reason exceeding thirty (30) days will, at the option of MFA, make this Agreernent subject to termination or renegotiation. All suspensions will extend the contract completion date for specified services commensurately, and MFA will be paid for services performed to the suspension date plus suspension charges. Suspension charges are defined as those charges relating to costs incurred which are directly attributable to suspension of services, including, but not limited to, personnel rescheduling, equipment rescheduling, and/or reassignment adjustments. ARTICLE 9—CHANGED CONDITIONS If, during the course of the performance of the Services under this Agreement, conditions or circumstances develop or are discovered which were not contemplated by MFA at the commencement of this Agreement, and which materially affect MFA's ability to perform the Services or which would materially increase the costs to MFA of performing the Services, then MFA shall notify the CLIENT in writing of the newly discovered conditions or circumstances, and CLIENT and MFA shall renegotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If amended terms and conditions cannot be agreed upon within thirty (30) days after the mailing of such notice, MFA may terminate the Agreement and be compensated as set forth in the section of this Agreement entitled TERM OF AGREEMENT; TERMINATION. ARTICLE ID—INSURANCE MFA agrees to use its best efforts to maintain Professional Liability, Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability, statutory Worker's Compensation and Employers' Liability insurance coverage during the period of performance of services hereunder in the following minimum amounts: LIMITS OF LIABILITY A. Worker's Compensation Statutory Employer's Liability $1,000,000 B. Commercial General Liability (including Contractual Liability) Bodily Injury Property Damage $1,000,000 combined single limits for each occurrence or aggregate MFA \L:\MFA Policies & Procedures Manual \08 Project Management- \Contract Forms \With Clients \ Original \ MFA T&C.doc 2 C. Comprehensive Automobile Liability (Owned, Hired, and Non -owned Vehicles) Bodily Injury Property Damage LIMITS OF LIABILITY $1,000,000 combined single limits for each occurrence or aggregate D. Professional Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limits for each occurrence or aggregate At CLIENT's request, insurance certificates will be provided by MFA to evidence such coverages. ARTICLE 11—HAZARDOUS OR UNSAFE CONDITIONS CLIENT has fully informed MFA of the type, quantity, and location of any hazardous, toxic, or dangerous materials ot unsafe or unhealthy conditions which CLIENT knows ot has reason to suspect exists at all real property where the Services are to be performed (the "Project Site"). CLIENT shall immediately inform MFA when it hecornes aware of any new information as to the foregoing which may affect the project, such as information to constitute a CHANGED CONDITION subject to the provisions of Article 9 of this Agreement. MFA shall not be responsible for the health and safety of any persons other than the MFA Parties, nor shall have any responsibility for the operations, procedures or practices of persons or entities other than the MFA Parties. ARTICLE 12—RIGHT OF ENTRY AND UNAVOIDABLE DAMAGES Client agrees to grant or arrange for right of entry when deemed necessary by MFA to perform the Services at the Project Site, whether or not the Project Site is owned by CLIENT. CLIENT recognizes that the use of investigative equipment and practices may unavoidably alter conditions or affect the environment at the Project Site. While MFA will take all reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the Project Site, the cost of repairing any such damage shall be borne by CLIENT, and it is understood that the correction of such damage is not part of the Services or the Fee contemplated by this Agreement. ARTICLE 13—SUBCONTRACTORS MFA may, in its sole discretion, subcontract for the services of others without obtaining CLIENT's consent where MFA deems it necessary or desirable to have others perform certain services. If MFA, in its sole discretion, deems it necessary or desirable to obtain CIient's advance concurrence as to any proposed subcontract, MFA may make a written request to CLIENT to review the qualifications and suggested scope of work to be performed hy such proposed subcontractor and CLIENT shall either grant or deny such concurrence within a reasonable time after receipt of such request. ARTICLE 14—OWNERSHIP AND REUSE OF DOCUMENTS All documents furnished by MFA pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of MFA's services. MFA may retain an ownership and property interest therein, and MFA shall, in its sole discretion, have the right to dispose of or retain all such documents. Such documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by CLIENT or others. Any such reuse without specific written verification and adaptation by MFA for the specific purpose intended will be at the reuser's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to MFA, Any transfer of electronic data hereunder is solely for Client's convenience "as is" without warranty as to contents, and is not rhe project deliverable unless specifically agreed to the contrary. MFA disclaims all warranties express or implied with regard to any electronic data provided hereunder, including any warranties of mechantability or fitness for a particular purpose. ARTICLE 15—NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES There are no third party beneficiaries of this Agreement, and no third patty shall be entitled to rely upon any work performed or reports prepared by MFA hereunder for any purpose whatsoever. CLIENT shall indemnify and hold MFA harmless against any liability to any third party for any Loss arising out of or relating to the reliance by any such third party on any work performed or reports issued hy MFA hereunder. ARTICLE 16—DESIGNS AND DISCOVERIES In the course of providing Services to CLIENT, MFA may utilize or develop designs, ideas, discoveries, inventions, or improvements of these (collectively "Ideas"), made by the MFA Parties. CLIENT agrees that MFA's utilization or development NIFA\L:\MFA Policies & Procedures Manual \08 Project Management \ Contract Forms\With Clients \ Original \ MFA T&C.doc 3 of such Ideas does not grant CLIENT any right in the form or ownership or license to such Ideas. All Ideas utilized or developed while providing CLIENT Services shall be deemed to be property of MFA. ARTICLE 17—LAWS AND REGULATIONS Both parties will be entitled to regard all applicable laws, rules, regulations and orders issued by any federal, state, regional or local regulatory body as valid and may act in accordance therewith until such time as the same may be modified or superseded by such regulatory body or invalidated by final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction, unless prior to such final judicial determination, the effectiveness of such law, rule or regulation has been stayed by an appropriate judicial or administrative body having jurisdiction. In the event there are changes in existing laws, codes, regulations, orders or ordinances, or the interpretation thereof, following the performance of professional services, CLIENT agrees to defend, indemnify and hold MFA harmless from any and all claims, including claims for fines or penalties imposed, resulting from or alleged to have resulted from noncompliance with or nonincorporation of such changes in professional services prior to the effectiveness of such changes. ARTICLE 18—ASSIGNMENT Neither party to this Agreement may delegate, assign, or otherwise transfer its rights and interests or duties and obligations under this Agreement without prior written consent of the other party. ARTICLE 19—ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS If any action or proceeding is commenced to enforce or interpret any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or the performance thereof, including the collection of any payments due hereunder, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, including staff time at current hang rates, court costs, and other claim -related expenses. If MFA is requested to respond to any mandatory orders for the production of documents or witnesses on CLIENT's behalf regarding work performed by MFA, CLIENT agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by MFA not reimbursed by others in responding to such order, including attorney's fees, staff time at current billing rates and reproduction expenses. ARTICLE 20—GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be subject to, interpreted and enforced according to the laws of the State from which MFA's services are procured. ARTICLE 21—SEVERABILITY Any provision of this Agreement held in violation of any law will be deemed stricken and all remaining provisions shall continue valid and binding upon the parties. The parties will attempt in good faith to replace any invalid or unenforceable provision(s) of this Agreement with provisions which are valid and enforceable and which come as close as possible to expressing the intention of the original provisions. ARTICLE 22—ENT1RE AGREEMENT This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between CLIENT and MFA. It supersedes any and all prior written or oral agreements, negotiations, or proposals, or contemporaneous communications with respect to the subject matter hereof, and has not been induced by any representations, statements, or agreements other than those herein expressed. No amendment to this Agreement hereafter made between the parties will be binding on either party unless reduced to writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties. MFA \L:\MFA Policies & Procedures Manual \68 Project Management Contract Forms \With Clients \ Original \ MFA T&C.doc 4 To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of August 20, 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 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. Property Tax — Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 3. LED Lights — Eric Guth (15 minutes) 4. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 125 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. Traffic Detection Equipment — Sean Messner 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda [due Mon, Aug 31] (5 minutes) — Mike Jackson (30 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] Friday, Sept 11, 2015, Special Meeting: Spokane Regional Council of Governments 9:30 a.m. — 12:30 p.m. — Fair & Expo Center, 404 N Havana Street September 15, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Historic Preservation — Gloria Mantz 2. Solid Waste Update — Eric Guth 3. 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 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 October 6, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 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 [due Mon, Sept 7] (20 minutes) (30 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] Taylor [due Mon, Sept 14] (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 80 minutes] [due Mon, Sept 21 [due Mon, Sept 28] [due Mon, Oct 511 (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 8/20/2015 12:55:09 PM Page 1 of 2 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 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 [*estimated 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 *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Appts (either Dec 29 or Jan 12) — 3 Planning Comm Appointments (either Dec 29 of Jan 12) - 2 LTAC Appts: Various Committees (Dec 29 or Jan 12) Avista Electrical Franchise (2nd read Ord 15-011) City Hall Design Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement [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) meeting: 40 minutes] [due Mon, Dec 7] [due Mon, Dec 21] [due Mon, Dec 28] (15 minutes) False Alarm Program Hauling Uncovered Loads Public Safety Quarterly Costs Sidewalks and Development SRTMC Interlocal Agreement (prior to end of year) Used Oil Signage Ordinance Draft Advance Agenda 8/20/2015 12:55:09 PM Page 2 of 2 Spokane Walley City of Spokane Valley Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 Page Title 1 Cover Sheet 2 Pre -Application Meetings Requested 3 Online Applications Received 4 Construction Applications Received 5 Land Use Applications Received 6 Construction Permits Issued 7 Land Use Applications Approved 8 Development Inspections Performed 9 Code Enforcement 10 Revenue 11 Building Permit Valuations Printed 08/03/2015 08:02 Page 1 of 11 l��Ol.il .0 00.0 Valley Pre -Application Meetings Requested Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 A Pre -Application Meeting is a service provided to help our customers identify the code requirements related to their project proposal. Community Development scheduled a total of 9 Pre -Application Meetings in July 2015. 15 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre -Application = Commercial Pre -App Meeting Commercial Pre -App Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre -Application Meeting Monthly Totals 10 11 14 9 8 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: 74 Printed 08/03/2015 08:02 Page 2 of 11 l��a.Ile 4000 Valley Online Applications Received Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 Community Development received a total of 195 Online Applications in July 2015. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Trade Permit Sign Permit Right of Way Permit :;; Reroof Permit Demolition Permit ® Approach Permit Approach Permit Demolition Permit Reroof Permit Right of Way Permit Sign Permit Trade Permit M Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 1 3 2 0 2 0 2 7 13 20 22 30 37 27 53 0 1 0 2 59 54 65 64 3 2 0 3 18 26 49 81 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 79 100 0 0 0 0 0 onthly Totals 97 108 115 145 143 193 195 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 08/03/2015 08:02 996 Page 3 of 11 Spokane uai1ey Construction Applications Received Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 Community Development received a total of 435 Construction Applications in July 2015. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New Other Construction Permits ommercial - New ommercial - TI esidential - New ommercial - Trade esidential - Trade esidential - Accessory emolition • ign ther Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 3 3 51 3 3 2 18 14 12 24 14 12 7 11 0 0 0 8 11 22 17 18 13 16 0 0 0 *23 *23 *26 *18 *30 *32 *31 0 0 0 0 0 *86 *83 *146 *121 *122 *132 *143 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 14 7 13 19 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 *4 7 *4 2 *6 *5 0 0 0 0 0 11 *9 11 *13 13 *15 3 0 0 0 0 0 *97 *131 *169 *268 *197 *200 *188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 onthly Totals 253 281 470 465 410 426 435 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 08/03/2015 08:04 2,740 Page 4 of 11 *Includes Online Applications. I��Ol.ile ,� P Malley° Land Use Applications Received Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 Community Development received a total of 44 Land Use Applications in July 2015. 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary ! Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 5 3 7 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 50 51 80 48 35 39 36 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 54 60 42 47 44 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 08/03/2015 08:04 395 Page 5 of 11 r��a.Il .00 Valley, Construction Permits Issued Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 Community Development issued a total of 362 Construction Permits in July 2015. 600 400 200 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New I= Other Construction Permits ommercial - New ommercial - TI esidential - New ommercial - Trade esidential - Trade esidential - Accessory emolition • ign ther Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2 3 22 33 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 23 14 9 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 6 14 13 22 11 21 10 0 0 0 0 0 24 20 23 19 26 32 27 0 0 0 0 0 80 92 120 133 107 138 131 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 14 6 12 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 4 2 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 11 9 11 11 13 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 68 99 127 159 194 161 148 0 0 0 0 0 onthly Totals 213 258 360 401 376 399 362 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 08/03/2015 08:09 2,369 Page 6 of 11 .000 Valley Land Use Applications Approved Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 Community Development approved a total of 41 Land Use Applications in July 2015. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary f i Long Plat Preliminary Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 0 1 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 38 52 51 41 39 32 38 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 43 52 56 44 42 38 41 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 08/03/2015 08:09 316 Page 7 of 11 .010 Valley Development Inspections Performed Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 Community Development performed a total of 1608 Development Inspections in July 2015. Development Inspections include building, planning, engineering and ROW inspections. 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015', 2014 2013; —o— 2013 2014 2015 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 801 974 1,063 1,242 1,420 1,755 1,608 0 0 0 Totals 0 0 601 633 996 1,281 1,321 1,295 1,413 1,225 1,310 1,481 973 1,026 465 503 808 1,026 1,060 1,015 1,084 1,078 1,186 1,016 833 673 Printed 08/03/2015 08:10 Page 8 of 11 Siiokane p_Malley° Code Enforcement Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 Code Enforcement Officers responded to 30 citizen requests in the month of July. They are listed by type below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Complaint, Non -Violation Environmental General Nuisance Property Complaint, Non -Violation Environmental General Nuisance Property Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 18 26 22 23 32 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 7 5 12 11 23 12 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 23 26 32 35 36 57 30 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: 239 Printed 08/03/2015 08:10 Page 9 of 11 .010 Valley Revenue 2015 Trend 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Community Development Revenue totaled $162,551 in July 2015. 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 2014 -I- Five -Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals $74,775 $108,328 $161,174 $187,199 $123,918 $117,453 $162,551 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $935,398 $79,763 $67,972 $133,730 $131,195 $224,961 $199,161 $138,904 $100,987 $134,164 $109,327 $91,979 $67,777 $1,479,920 $74,628 $66,134 $198,571 $160,508 $282,086 $152,637 $117,776 $127,540 $153,838 $149,197 $84,442 $97,689 $1,665,046 $158,912 $51,536 $102,538 $106,496 $184,176 $409,592 $277,553 $102,021 $129,174 $133,561 $98,386 $66,559 $1,820,504 $34,204 $60,319 $177,737 $173,932 $268,672 $223,888 $123,137 $103,703 $113,731 $112,542 $108,948 $51,745 $1,552,558 $43,842 $77,247 $80,774 $118,237 $84,684 $106,909 $88,247 $83,949 $167,076 $78,237 $95,172 $58,881 11,083,255 $87,229 $84,626 $109,029 $96,800 $305,185 $102,781 $87,805 $87,724 $107,002 $73,100 $72,948 $64,009 1,278,238 Printed 08/03/2015 08:11 Page 10 of 11 .000 Valley Building Permit Valuation 2015 Trend 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 07/31/2015 Community Development Building Permit Valuation totaled $5,002,071 in July 2015. 35,000,000 30, 000, 000 25,000,000 20, 000, 000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -0-- 2015 2014 Five -Year Trend Jan $2.93M $7.58M $3.18M $25.49M $0.72M $1.46M $7.06M Feb Mar $10.71M $3.92M $2.45M $1.92M $2.95M $5.95M $6.34M $8.07M $6.13M $9.90M $3.59M $5.29M $5.03M $6.82M Apr $18.60M $6.87M $8.92M $7.30M $5.32M $6.15M $6.64M May $6.73M $23.25M $34.58M $22.22M $24.39M $2.53M $32.55M Jun $7.32M $18.45M $7.44M $41.88M $33.08M $4.98M $4.86M Jul Aug $5.00M $11.28M $6.37M $32.91M $7.91M $3.83M $5.36M Printed 08/03/2015 08:11 Page 11 of 11 $0.00M $6.65M $9.47M $6.52M $9.89M $3.45M $3.91M Sep $0.00M $10.77M $12.01M $8.11M $6.47M $21.54M $5.71M Oct $0.00M $7.64M $7.74M $14.22M $8.78M $4.46M $3.01M Nov Dec $0.00M $4.10M $3.60M $7.25M $3.76M $3.97M $1.93M $0.00M $2.93M $6.30M $2.54M $1.66M $1.85M $2.29M Totals $59.36M ' 109.56M 111.96M 173.95 M Spokane .1•0•*Ualley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Chelsie Taylor, Interim Finance Director C>(...71- Date: >L Date: August 14, 2015 Re Finance Department Activity Report - July 2015 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of July 2015 and included herein is a 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end of July. 2014 Yearend Process The 2014 books were closed during April and the annual financial report was completed in May. The State Auditor's Office is currently on site doing fieldwork for the audit of fiscal year 2014, and the auditors are currently working on completing the accountability portion of the audit. We expect the audit to be completed before the end of September. Vehicle Purchases The 2015 Budget included $30,000 for the addition of one vehicle for the Community and Economic Development Department, and during July the Ford Escape was delivered for a total cost of $23,790. 2015 Budget Amendment As we have progressed through 2015 the need for a number of budget amendments has arisen largely as a result of capital projects. Council review will take place at the following meetings: • September 22 Admin Report • October 13 Public Hearing • October 13 First reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2015 Budget • October 27 Second reading on proposed ordinance amending the 2015 Budget 2016 Budget Development Process The 2016 Budget development process began in the Finance Department in early March and all departments have completed detailed budget requests. By the time the budget is adopted on October 27th the Council will have had an opportunity to discuss the budget on seven occasions including two public hearings. • June 16 Council budget workshop • August 11 Admin report on 2016 revenues and expenditures • August 25 Public hearing #1 on 2016 revenues and expenditures • September 8 City Manager's presentation of preliminary 2016 Budget • September 22 Public hearing #2 on 2016 Budget • October 13 First reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2016 Budget • October 27 Second reading on proposed ordinance adopting the 2016 Budget P:IFinancelFinance Activity ReportstCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 07 31.docx Page 1 2015 Property Tax Levy A significant part of the budget development process includes the annual levy of property taxes which in 2016 are expected to account for approximately 29% of recurring General Fund revenues. Council discussions specifically related to this topic will take place at the following meetings: • September 1 - Admin Report on proposed ordinance levying 2016 property taxes. • September 22 - First reading of ordinances levying 2016 property taxes and confirming tax levy. • October 13 - Second reading of ordinances levying 2016 property taxes and confirming tax levy. Outside Agency Funding in the 2015 Budget The City has historically provided funding for local organizations involved in either social services or economic development activities and the preliminary 2016 Budget currently has $107,000 collectively available for this, with $43,000 being set aside for contracted economic development. The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: • June 26 - Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers. • July 24 - Agency requests are due at City Hall. • September 1 - Economic development and social service agency presentations to Council. • September 22 - Council makes final determination of awards. Lodging Tax The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: • September 2 - Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers. • October 2 - Grant applications due at City Hall. • October 14 - Grant applicant presentations to lodging tax advisory committee. • November 10 - Admin report to Council on results of lodging tax advisory committee meeting. • December 8 - City Council motion consideration: Award lodging tax for 2016. Budget to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2015 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2015 Budget was adopted is located on pages 6 through 18. Because we attempt to provide this information in a timely manner this report is prepared from records that are not formally closed by the Finance Department at month end or reconciled to bank records. Although it is realistic to expect the figures will change over subsequent weeks, I believe the report is materially accurate. We've included the following information in the report: • Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. • A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund. • The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that are expected to be reflected in our 2014 Annual Financial Report. • Columns of information include: o The 2015 Budget as adopted. P:IFinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reportsl201512015 07 31.docx Page 2 o July 2015 activity. o Cumulative 2015 activity through July 2015. o Budget remaining in terms of dollars. o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed. A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 5): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 52.02% of the amount budgeted with 58.3% of the year elapsed. This is typical and reflective of the nature of the timing of when revenues are collected. • Property tax are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser amounts typically remitted in June and December. Property taxes received thus far in 2015 are $6,143,733 or 54.48% of the amount budgeted. • Sales tax collections represent only 6 -months of collections thus far because taxes collected in July are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter part of August. Collections are currently $8,694,141 or 49.32% of the amount budgeted. • Gambling taxes are at $242,870 or 45.39% of the amount budgeted. This is because they are paid quarterly with second quarter payments due by July 31. • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. So far in 2015 we have received $649,341 or 52.45% of the amount budgeted. • State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a calendar quarter. Through July we've received remittances totaling $931,467 or 52.66% of the amount budgeted. • Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine and false alarm fees. Through July 2015 we've received remittances through the month of June with receipts of $716,117 or 47.52% of the amount budgeted. • Community Development service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. Revenues are currently $881,910 or 66.55% of the amount budgeted. • Recreation program fees are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in -season), and CenterPlace. Currently, revenues total $441,876 or 78.42% of the amount budgeted. Recurring expenditures are currently at 52.95% of the amount budgeted with 58.3% of the year elapsed. Departments experience seasonal fluctuations in activity so they don't necessarily expend their budget in twelve equal monthly installments. Investments (page 19) Investments at July 31 total $50,803,143 and are composed of $45,798,197 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,004,946 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 20) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through July and total $9,822,652 including general, criminal justice and public safety taxes. This figure is $379,125 (4.01 %) greater than the same 6 -month period in 2014. P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports1Council Monthly Reports1201512015 07 31.docx Page 3 Economic Indicators (pages 21 — 23) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 21) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 23) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 21 provides a 10 -year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2006. • Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $331,570 or 3.96%. • Tax receipts peaked in 2014 at $17,440,083, besting the previous record year of 2007 when $17,437,467 was collected. In terms of dollars collected this represents an increase of $2,616, but when one considers the increase in the CPI over that seven-year period plus the fact that Spokane Valley now has considerably more businesses, one could reasonably argue that our local economy is still in a recovery mode. Page 22 provides a 10 -year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2006. • Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $16,105 or 7.23%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2014, exceeding the previous high in 2013 by $30,595 or 5.90%. Page 23 provides a 10 -year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2006. • Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $494,250 or 79.59%. This increase is unusually high due to a state remittance of real estate excise tax of greater than $100,000 that is included in the April 2015 activity and an unusually high amount received in June 2015 (nearly $350,000 as compared to under $150,000 in the several years prior for that month). • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at nearly $2.6 million, decreased precipitously in 2008 and 2009, and are slowly gaining ground. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 24) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value for property taxes which for 2015 is $7,393,971,582. Following the August 2014 refunding of the 2003 LTGO Bonds and the December 1, 2014, debt service payment the City has $6,675,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 6.02% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.20% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. Of this amount: o $5,425,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $1,250,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. P:IFinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 07 31.docx Page 4 Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 25 and 26) The last two charts reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101. These include: • Page 25 provides a 10 -year history of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2006. o Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $10,822 or 1.19% o Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at just approximately $2.1 million, and subsequently decreased to a range of approximately $1,857,000 to $1,878,000 in the years 2011 through 2014. • Page 26 provides a 6 -year history of Telephone Utility Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2009 (the month in which the tax was imposed). o Unlike tax revenues collected by the State and remitted monthly, these taxes are paid to the City directly by the service provider. Consequently there is not a "clean cutoff' in terms of when a vendor pays the tax. Tax revenues currently reported for June include only those that were received through July 31 for June returns and will be adjusted for future collections pertaining to that month. o Tax receipts peaked in 2009 at $3,054,473 and have decreased each year since due to what we suspect is the reduction in land lines by individual households. o The 2015 Budget was adopted with a revenue estimate of $2,565,100. We will watch this closely as we progress through the coming months. P:IFinancelFinance Activity ReportstCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 07 31.docx Page 5 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports \2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% 2015 Budget Actual July Actual thru Budget July 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Property Tax 11,277,100 53,677 6,143,733 (5,133,367) 54.48% Sales Tax 17,628,400 1,693,461 8,694,141 (8,934,259) 49.32% Sales Tax- Criminal Justice 1,468,700 124,148 724,264 (744,436) 49.31% Sales Tax - Public Safety 820,100 68,653 404,247 (415,853) 49.29% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 535,100 112,590 242,870 (292,230) 45.39% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,238,000 303,007 649,341 (588,659) 52.45% State Shared Revenues 1,768,900 113,531 931,467 (837,433) 52.66% Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 1,507,100 98,317 716,117 (790,983) 47.52% Community Development 1,325,100 151,681 881,910 (443,190) 66.55% Recreation Program Fees 563,500 90,162 441,876 (121,624) 78.42% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 95,900 12,716 69,837 (26,063) 72.82% Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 131,200 8,716 66,234 (64,966) 50.48% Transfer -in - #101 (street admin) 39,700 3,308 23,158 (16,542) 58.33% Transfer -in - #105 (h/m tax -CP advertising) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Transfer -in -#402 (stormadmin) 13,400 1,117 7,817 (5,583) 58.33% Total Recurring Revenues 38,442,200 2,835,083 19,997,012 (18,445,188) 52.02% Expenditures City Council 513,114 24,795 236,551 276,563 46.10% City Manager 688,363 53,822 370,941 317,422 53.89% Legal 461,839 49,011 258,285 203,554 55.93% Public Safety 24,153,492 1,818,930 13,216,139 10,937,353 54.72% Deputy City Manager 691,303 54,049 375,357 315,946 54.30% Finance / IT 1,203,879 86,114 608,568 595,311 50.55% Human Resources 243,317 19,689 135,303 108,014 55.61% Public Works 921,914 59,742 423,314 498,600 45.92% Community Development - Administration 261,094 19,948 145,763 115,332 55.83% Community Development - Econ Dev 298,276 24,905 131,423 166,853 44.06% Community Development - Dev Svc 1,424,944 120,295 784,219 640,725 55.04% Community Development - Building 1,380,902 98,037 696,844 684,058 50.46% Parks & Rec- Administration 286,947 21,636 158,299 128,648 55.17% Parks & Rec - Maintenance 844,642 69,774 419,417 425,225 49.66% Parks & Rec - Recreation 226,174 40,506 135,382 90,792 59.86% Parks & Rec- Aquatics 496,200 132,905 205,162 291,038 41.35% Parks & Rec - Senior Center 91,985 8,013 49,332 42,653 53.63% Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 824,997 82,682 458,422 366,575 55.57% Pavement Preservation 920,000 76,667 536,667 383,333 58.33% General Government 1,741,200 87,810 573,586 1,167,614 32.94% Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 325,000 27,083 189,583 135,417 58.33% Transfers out -#310 (bond pmt>$434.6lease pr 67,600 5,633 39,433 28,167 58.33% Transfers out - #310 (city hall o&m costs) 271,700 22,642 158,492 113,208 58.33% Total Recurring Expenditures 38,338,882 3,004,690 20,306,480 18,032,402 52.97% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 103,318 (169,607) (309,467) (412,785) Page 6 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 #001 - GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues n/a Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of July July 31 Remaining Budget 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Transfers out - #309 (park grant match) 100,000 8,333 58,333 41,667 58.33% General Government - IT capital replacements 145,000 0 94,890 50,110 65.44% City Manager (2 scanners) 3,000 0 0 3,000 0.00% Public Safety (const offices for unit supervisors) 25,000 0 4,253 20,747 17.01% Community & Econ Dev (comp plan update) 395,000 0 121,916 273,084 30.86% Parks & Rec (upgrade dial-up modem at pools) 10,000 1,955 1,955 8,045 19.55% Parks & Rec (replace CP lounge carpet) 8,000 0 0 8,000 0.00% Parks & Rec (CenterPlace 10yr anniversary) 7,400 0 0 7,400 0.00% Police Department - CAD/RMS 949,000 0 0 949,000 0.00% Law Enforcement Contingency 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 1,642,400 10,289 281,347 1,361,053 17.13% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (1,642,400) (10,289) (281,347) 1,361,053 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (1,539,082) (179,896) (590,815)1 948,267 Beginning unrestricted fund balance 24,328,568 24,328,568 Ending unrestricted fund balance 22,789,486 23,737,753 Page 7 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 - STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of July July 31 Remaining Budget Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax 1,859,900 164,179 914,320 (945,580) 49.16% Investment Interest 3,000 288 1,468 (1,532) 48.93% Insurance Premiums & Recoveries 0 1,440 3,554 3,554 0.00% Utility Tax 2,565,100 187,412 1,155,231 (1,409,869) 45.04% Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 556 856 (9,144) 8.56% Total Recurring Revenues 4,438,000 353,875 2,075,429 (2,362,571) 46.76% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 677,297 51,658 412,396 264,901 60.89% Supplies 111,500 4,025 90,076 21,424 80.79% Services & Charges 2,122,808 139,510 854,219 1,268,589 40.24% Snow Operations 520,000 7,231 152,546 367,454 29.34% Intergovernmental Payments 748,000 97,697 258,864 489,136 34.61% Interfund Transfers -out - #001 39,700 3,308 23,158 16,542 58.33% Interfund Transfers -out - #501 (non -plow vehicle 12,077 1,006 7,045 5,032 58.33% Interfund Transfers -out - #311 (pavement preserve 206,618 17,218 120,527 86,091 58.33% Interfund Transfers -out - #502 (unemployment) 0 0 38 (38) 0.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 4,438,000 321,653 1,918,869 2,519,131 Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 0 32,222 156,560 156,560 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants Miscellaneous 0 0 43.24% 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Capital 45,000 0 0 45,000 0.00% Pavement marking grinder 8,000 0 6,019 1,981 75.23% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 53,000 0 6,019 46,981 11.36% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (53,000) 0 (6,019) 46,981 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (53,000) 32,222 150,541 203,541 Beginning fund balance 1,705,244 1,705,244 Ending fund balance 1,652,244 1,855,785 Page 8 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued #103 - PATHS & TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel (Gas) Tax Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Miscellaneous Capital Outlay Total expenditures Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% 1201 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of July July 31 Remaining Budget 7,800 692 3,856 (3,944) 49.44% 0 5 26 26 0.00% 7,800 697 3,882 (3,918) 49.77% 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 7,800 697 3,882 (3,918) Beginning fund balance 29,828 29,828 Ending fund balance 37,628 33,710 #105 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest 510,000 56,975 238,915 (271,085) 46.85% 300 46 226 (74) 75.47% Total revenues 510,300 57,022 239,141 (271,159) 46.86% Expenditures Interfund Transfers -#001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Interfund Transfers -#309 (Volleyball Cts) 0 68,000 68,000 (68,000) 0.00% Tourism Promotion 570,000 58,527 191,716 378,284 33.63% Total expenditures 600,000 126,527 259,716 340,284 43.29% Revenues over (under) expenditures (89,700) (69,506) (20,575) (611,443) Beginning fund balance 209,949 209,949 Ending fund balance 120,249 189,374 #106 - SOLID WASTE Revenues Sunshine Administrative Fee Transfers in - #001 125,000 31,250 62,500 62,500 50.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 125,000 31,250 62,500 62,500 50.00% Expenditures Services & Charges 125,000 23,538 23,866 101,134 19.09% Total expenditures 125,000 23,538 23,866 101,134 19.09% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 7,712 38,634 (38,634) Beginning fund balance 7,340 7,340 Ending fund balance 7,340 45,974 Page 9 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015'2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% IBM MI Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of July July 31 Remaining Budget #120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 #121 - SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer 8,200 575 3,384 (4,816) 41.26% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 8,200 575 3,384 (4,816) 41.26% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 8,200 575 3,384 (4,816) Beginning fund balance 5,453,199 5,453,199 Ending fund balance 5,461,399 5,456,583 #122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer 800 56 328 (472) 41.02% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Subtotal revenues 800 56 328 (472) 41.02% Expenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Total expenditures 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (499,200) 56 328 (500,472) Beginning fund balance 504,020 504,020 Ending fund balance 4,820 504,348 #123 - CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer - #001 1,300 107 676 (624) 52.02% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 1,300 107 676 (624) 52.02% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers out - #311 (pavement preservation) 616,284 51,357 359,499 256,785 58.33% Total expenditures 616,284 51,357 359,499 256,785 58.33% Revenues over (under) expenditures (614,984) (51,250) (358,823) (257,409) Beginning fund balance 1,174,070 1,174,070 Ending fund balance 559,086 815,247 Page 10 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% 2015 Budget Actual July Actual thru Budget July 31 Remaining % of Budget #204 - DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 373,800 0 99,400 (274,400) 26.59% Interfund Transfer -in - #301 82,150 6,846 47,921 (34,229) 58.33% Interfund Transfer -in - #302 82,150 6,846 47,921 (34,229) 58.33% Total revenues 538,100 13,692 195,242 (342,858) 36.28% Expenditures Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace 373,800 0 61,378 312,422 16.42% Debt Service Payments - Roads 164,300 0 5,353 158,947 3.26% Total expenditures 538,100 0 66,731 471,369 12.40% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 13,692 128,510 (814,227) Beginning fund balance 4,049 4,049 Ending fund balance 4,049 132,559 Page 11 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports \2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 - Taxes Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% 2015 Budget Actual July Actual thru Budget July 31 Remaining % of Budget 625,000 173,710 621,535 (3,465) 99.45% Investment Interest 1,000 112 624 (376) 62.39% Total revenues Expenditures Interfund Transfer -out - #204 82,150 6,846 47,921 34,229 58.33% Interfund Transfer -out - #303 221,980 0 5,123 216,857 2.31% Interfund Transfer -out - #311 (pavement preserr 251,049 0 0 251,049 0.00% 626,000 173,822 622,159 (3,841) 99.39% Total expenditures 555,179 6,846 53,044 502,135 9.55% Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 70,821 1,426,957 166,977 569,115 1,426,957 1,497,778 1,996, 072 (505,976) #302 SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2 - Taxes 625,000 173,710 493,672 (131,328) 78.99% Investment Interest 1,000 111 655 (345) 65.48% Total revenues 626,000 173,822 494,326 (131,674) 78.97% Expenditures Interfund Transfer -out -#204 82,150 6,846 47,921 34,229 58.33% Interfund Transfer -out -#303 365,290 0 40,223 325,067 11.01% Interfund Transfer -out -#311 (pavementpreserr 251,049 0 0 251,049 0.00% Total expenditures 698,489 6,846 88,143 610,346 12.62% Revenues over (under) expenditures (72,489) 166,976 406,183 (742,019) Beginning fund balance 1,325,144 1,325,144 Ending fund balance 1,252,655 1,731,327 Page 12 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% 2015V Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of July July 31 Remaining Budget #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 8,714,114 0 1,875,291 (6,838,823) 21.52% Developer Contribution 94,860 0 301,350 206,490 317.68% Miscellaneous 0 0 50 50 0.00% Transfer -in -#301 221,980 0 5,123 (216,857) 2.31% Transfer -in - #302 365,290 0 40,223 (325,067) 11.01% Transfer -in - #312 Sullivan Rd W Bridge 2,120,000 0 3,819 (2,116,181) 0.18% Transfer -in - #402 0 0 0 0 0.00% Investment Interest 0 3 15 15 0.00% Total revenues 11,516,244 3 2,225,871 (9,290,373) 19.33% Expenditures 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06-31 602,196 433,563 842,993 (240,797) 139.99% 123 Mission Ave -Flora to Barker 355,376 0 24,662 330,714 6.94% 141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 35,052 103 4,674 30,378 13.33% 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 0 0 586 (586) 0.00% 149 Sidewalk Infill 0 117 8,146 (8,146) 0.00% 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 7,201,779 921,024 2,131,934 5,069,845 29.60% 156 Mansfield Ave. Connection 570,480 881 56,680 513,800 9.94% 159 University Rd /1-90 Overpass Study 0 0 2,075 (2,075) 0.00% 166 Pines Rd. (SR27) & Grace Ave. Int. Safety 556,137 2,662 47,787 508,350 8.59% 167 Citywide Safety Improvements 320,560 2,154 31,341 289,219 9.78% 177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 0 0 16,759 (16,759) 0.00% 191 Vista Rd BNSF Xing Safety Improvements 0 0 190 (190) 0.00% 196 8th Avenue - McKinnon to Fancher 0 0 396 (396) 0.00% 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE Start 2014) 301,357 581 3,001 298,357 1.00% 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements 0 0 5,841 (5,841) 0.00% 206 Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project 246,231 11,777 58,289 187,942 23.67% 207 Indiana & Evergreen Transit Access 70,014 0 0 70,014 0.00% 211 Trent Lighting Replacement 151,576 0 1,251 150,325 0.83% 220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell St Preservation 0 2,177 2,177 (2,177) 0.00% 223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF & Trent 0 2,000 2,000 (2,000) 0.00% 224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation 0 1,179 3,785 (3,785) 0.00% xxx N. Sullivan Corridor ITS Project 105,486 0 0 105,486 0.00% Contingency 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0.00% Total expenditures 11,516,244 1,378,219 3,244,566 8,271,678 28.17% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (1,378,216) (1,018,695) (17,562,051) Beginning fund balance 72,930 72,930 Ending fund balance 72,930 (945,765) Note: Work performed in the Street Capital Projects Fund for preservation projects is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were bid with the pavement preservation work. Page 13 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of July July 31 Remaining Budget #309 - PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Interfund Transfer -in -#001 100,000 8,333 58,333 (41,667) 58.33% Interfund Transfer -in -#105 (Brown Volleyball Cl 0 68,000 68,000 68,000 0.00% Investment Interest 500 54 320 (180) 64.03% Total revenues 100,500 76,388 126,653 26,153 126.02% Expenditures 176 Appleway Trail 0 30,782 465,930 (465,930) 0.00% 203 Browns Park Volleyball Courts 176,200 33,436 241,481 (65,281) 137.05% 208 Old Mission Trailhead Parking Improvements 0 0 68 (68) 0.00% 212 Edgecliff Park Restroom Sewer Project 0 0 (6,923) 6,923 0.00% 217 Edgecliff picnic shelter 106,450 145 2,599 103,851 2.44% xxx Pocket dog park 75,000 0 0 75,000 0.00% xxx Mission Trailhead landscaping 25,000 0 0 25,000 0.00% xxx Shade structure at Discovery Playground 38,000 0 0 38,000 0.00% xxx City entry sign 70,000 0 0 70,000 0.00% Total expenditures 490,650 64,363 703,154 (212,504) 143.31% Revenues over (under) expenditures (390,150) 12,025 (576,501) 238,658 Beginning fund balance 451,720 451,720 Ending fund balance 61,570 (124,781) #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,200 146 859 (341) 71.61% Interfund Transfer -in -#001 339,300 28,275 197,925 (141,375) 58.33% Total revenues 340,500 28,421 198,784 (141,716) 58.38% Expenditures Capital 0 38,376 1,285,069 (1,285,069) 0.00% Total expenditures 0 38,376 1,285,069 (1,285,069) 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 340,500 (9,955) (1,086,284) Beginning fund balance 1,919,550 1,919,550 Ending fund balance 2,260,050 833,266 1,143,353 Note: The fund balance includes $839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,285.10. Page 14 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% 4015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of July July 31 Remaining Budget #311 - STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 2011+ Revenues Interfund Transfers in -#101 206,618 17,218 120,527 (86,091) 58.33% Interfund Transfers in -#123 616,284 51,357 359,499 (256,785) 58.33% Interfund Transfers in -#301 251,049 0 0 (251,049) 0.00% Interfund Transfers in -#302 251,049 0 0 (251,049) 0.00% Interfund Transfers in- #001 920,000 76,667 536,667 (383,333) 58.33% Grant Proceeds 971,032 0 83,658 (887,374) 8.62% Investment Interest 0 227 1,335 1,335 0.00% Total revenues 3,216,032 145,469 1,101,686 (2,114,346) 34.26% Expenditures Pre -Project GeoTech Services 50,000 0 0 50,000 0.00% Pavement Preservation 2,565,050 0 0 2,565,050 0.00% 179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2 0 133 2,851 (2,851) 0.00% 180 2013 Street Preservation Ph3 0 0 209 (209) 0.00% 186 Adams Road Resurfacing 0 0 388 (388) 0.00% 187 Sprague Ave Preservation Project 0 0 2,888 (2,888) 0.00% 188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 0 205,466 231,976 (231,976) 0.00% 202 Appleway Street Preservation Project 0 0 226 (226) 0.00% 211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley 0 237 4,095 (4,095) 0.00% 218 Montgomery Ave Street Preservation 0 905 14,493 (14,493) 0.00% 220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell Street Preservation 0 10,278 30,372 (30,372) 0.00% 224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation 0 1,002 8,244 (8,244) 0.00% Total expenditures 2,615,050 218,020 295,743 2,319,307 11.31% Revenues over (under) expenditures 600,982 (72,552) 805,943 (4,433,653) Beginning fund balance 1,922,013 1,922,013 Ending fund balance 2,522,995 2,727,956 #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 0 0 0 0 0.00% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Developer Contribution 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 0 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Transfers out -#303 - Sullivan Rd W Bridge 2,120,000 0 3,819 2,116,181 0.18% Total expenditures 2,120,000 0 3,819 2,116,181 0.18% Revenues over (under) expenditures (2,120,000) 0 (3,819) (2,116,181) Beginning fund balance 8,581,715 8,581,715 Ending fund balance 6,461,715 8,577,896 Page 15 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY 2015 Budget Year Elapsed = 58.9% 2015 Budget Actual July Actual thru Budget July 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,880,000 9,098 1,040,168 (839,832) 55.33% Investment Interest 1,500 164 967 (533) 64.46% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 1,881,500 9,263 1,041,134 (840,366) 55.34% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 488,101 31,221 192,899 295,202 39.52% Supplies 15,900 1,282 26,489 (10,589) 166.60% Services & Charges 1,097,468 187,826 649,598 447,870 59.19% Intergovernmental Payments 27,000 0 14,091 12,909 52.19% InterfundTransfers-out -#001 13,400 1,117 7,817 5,583 58.33% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,641,869 221,446 890,894 750,975 54.26% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 239,631 (212,183) 150,241 (89,390) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 0 212,670 212,670 0.00% Interfund Transfers -in 0 0 0 0 0.00% Developer Contributions 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 0 212,670 212,670 0.00% Expenditures Capital - various projects 600,000 0 83,490 516,510 13.91% VMS Trailer 16,000 0 15,546 454 97.16% 188 Sullivan Rd Preservation 0 49,105 49,105 (49,105) 0.00% 193 Effectiveness Study 0 56,750 192,638 (192,638) 0.00% 198 Sprague, Park to University LID 0 0 10,453 (10,453) 0.00% 199 Havana - Yale Diversion 0 0 4,887 (4,887) 0.00% 200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion 0 0 3,540 (3,540) 0.00% 218 Montgomery Ave. St Preservation 0 268 268 (268) 0.00% 220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell St Preservation 0 1,981 1,981 (1,981) 0.00% 224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation 0 215 2,398 (2,398) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 616,000 108,319 364,306 251,694 59.14% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (616,000) (108,319) (151,637) 464,363 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (376,369) (320,502) (1,396) 374,973 Beginning working capital 1,933,564 1,933,564 Ending working capital 1,557,195 1,932,168 Note: Work performed in the Stomiwater Fund for preservation projects is for stomiwater improvements that were bid with the pavement preservation work. Page 16 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201512015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 ENTERPRISE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% 20T5 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of July July 31 Remaining Budget #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 500,000 0 296,916 (203,084) 59.38% Grant DOE - Broadway SD Retrofit 1,260,000 0 83,813 (1,176,187) 6.65% Grant revenue 0 0 568,255 568,255 0.00% Total revenues 1,760,000 0 948,984 (811,016) 53.92% Expenditures 197 Broadway SD retrofit 1,200,000 427,639 525,360 674,640 43.78% Total expenditures 1,200,000 427,639 525,360 674,640 43.78% Revenues over (under) expenditures 560,000 (427,639) 423,624 (1,485,656) Beginning working capital 1,773 1,773 Ending working capital 561,773 425,397 Page 17 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Transfer -in - #001 Transfer -in - #101 Transfer -in - #402 Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Vehicle Acquisitions Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 58.3% .2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of July July 31 Remaining Budget 19,300 1,608 11,258 (8,042) 58.33% 12,077 1,006 7,045 (5,032) 58.33% 4,167 347 2,431 (1,736) 58.33% 1,000 97 571 (429) 57.08% 36,544 3,059 21,305 (15,239) 58.30% 30,000 23,790 23,790 6,210 79.30% 30,000 6,544 1,235,794 23,790 23,790 6,210 79.30% (20,731) (2,485) (21,449) 1,235,794 1,242,338 1,233,309 #502 - RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 1 3 3 0.00% Interfund Transfer -#101 0 0 38 38 0.00% Interfund Transfer -#001 325,000 27,083 189,583 (135,417) 58.33% Total revenues 325,000 27,084 189,625 (135,375) 58.35% Expenditures Auto & Property Insurance 325,000 0 284,112 40,888 87.42% Unemployment Claims 0 0 4,631 (4,631) 0.00% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital 325,000 0 288,743 36,257 88.84% 0 27,084 (99,119) (171,632) 168,209 168,209 168,209 69,090 SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 64,500,020 3,929,687 29,760,792 Per revenue status report 64,500,020 3,929,687 29,760,792 Difference 0 0 0 Total of Expenditures for all Funds Per expenditure status report 68,660,147 6,031,918 30,989,159 68,660,147 6,031,918 30,989,159 0 0 0 Total Capital expenditures (included in total expenditures) 17,632,944 2,203,931 6,352,214 Page 18 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Investment Report For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 Beginning Deposits Withdrawls Interest Ending 001 General Fund 101 Street Fund 103 Trails & Paths 105 Hotel/Motel 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 Winter Weather Reserve 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 301 Capital Projects 302 Special Capital Projects 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 304 Mirabeau Point Project 307 Capital Grants Fund 309 Parks Capital Project 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 311 Street Capital Improvements 2011+ 312 Capital Reserve Fund 402 Stormwater Management 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 Risk Management *Local Government Investment Pool 8/13/2014 T BBC : j etmens $ 46,360,569.46 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,004,945.54 $ 51,365,515.00 2,232,004.64 0.00 0.00 2,232,004.64 (2,800,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (2,800,000.00) 5,623.14 0.00 0.00 5,623.14 $ 45,798,197.24 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 2,004,945.54 $ 50,803,142.78 matures: 6/28/2016 rate: 0.40% 11/4/2015 0.50% Balance Earnings Budget Current Period 1 Year to date $ 32,510,999.82 $ 3,631.68 $ 20,563.29 $ 65,000.00 2,598,222.19 287.66 1,467.81 3,000.00 41,884.69 4.56 26.09 0.00 416,116.08 46.06 226.42 300.00 300,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,197,794.22 575.32 3,383.53 7,300.00 504,178.21 55.80 328.19 700.00 963, 396.86 106.63 676.29 1,700.00 1, 011, 462.44 111.95 623.93 1,000.00 1, 005, 837.76 111.33 654.75 1,000.00 22,879.12 2.53 14.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 491,802.39 54.44 320.15 500.00 1,320,179.69 146.12 859.37 1,900.00 2,051,142.15 227.03 1,335.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1, 485, 348.97 164.41 966.90 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 876,790.77 97.05 570.75 1,000.00 5,107.42 0.57 3.33 0.00 $ 50,803,142.78 $ 5,623.14 $ 32,020.91 $ 85,900.00 Page 19 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports\2015\2015 07 31.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Receipts For the Seven -Month Period Ended July 31, 2015 Month Received 2014 8/13/2015 Difference 2015 $ OA February 1,891,031.43 1,962,820.56 71,789.13 3.80% March 1,324,975.84 1,358,307.78 33,331.94 2.52% April 1,357,736.39 1,401,618.35 43,881.96 3.23% May 1,636,894.44 1,655,903.08 19,008.64 1.16% June 1,579,545.34 1,557,740.48 (21,804.86) (1.38%) July 1,653,343.86 1,886,262.22 232,918.36 14.09% 9,443,527.30 August 1,751,296.73 September 1,772,033.14 October 1,754,039.63 November 1,802,029.08 December 1,619,010.52 January 1,565,739.35 19,707,675.75 9,822,652.47 379,125.17 9,822,652.47 4.01% Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.7%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.7% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% * - Crminial Justice 0.10% * - Public Safety 0.10% * 2.20% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% * - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * - Spokane Transit Authority 0.60% 8.70% * Indicates voter approved sales taxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Collections - June For the years 2006 through 2015 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Sales Tax\2015\sales tax collections 2015.xlsx 2006 I 2007 j 2008 1 2009 I 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 I 2014 j 2015 January 1,572,609 February 1,068,743 March 1,072,330 April 1,371,030 May 1,392,111 June 1,362,737 1,759,531 1,155,947 1,196,575 1,479,603 1,353,013 1,428,868 1,729,680 1,129,765 1,219,611 1,423,459 1,243,259 1,386,908 1,484,350 1,098,575 1,068,811 1,134,552 1,098,054 1,151,772 1,491,059 963,749 1,018,468 1,184,137 1,102,523 1,123,907 1,460, 548 990,157 1,015,762 1,284,180 1,187,737 1,248,218 1,589,887 1,009,389 1,067,733 1,277,621 1,174,962 1,290, 976 1,671,269 1,133,347 1,148,486 1,358,834 1,320,449 1,389,802 1,677,887 1,170,640 1,201,991 1,448,539 1,400,956 1,462,558 1,732,299 1,197,323 1,235,252 1,462,096 1,373,710 1,693,461 7/27/2015 2015 to 2014 Difference $ 96 54,412 3.24% 26,683 2.28% 33,261 2.77% 13,557 0.94% (27,246) (1.94%) 230,903 15.79% Collected to date 7,839,560 8,373,537 8,132,682 7,036,114 6,883,843 7,186,602 7,410,568 8,022,187 8,362,571 8,694,141 331,570 3.96% July 1,555,124 1,579,586 1,519,846 1,309,401 1,260,873 1,332,834 1,302,706 1,424,243 1,545,052 0 August 1,405,983 1,516,324 1,377,943 1,212,531 1,211,450 1,279,500 1,299,678 1,465,563 1,575,371 0 September 1,487,155 1,546,705 1,364,963 1,227,813 1,191,558 1,294,403 1,383,123 1,466,148 1,552,736 0 October 1,526,910 1,601,038 1,344,217 1,236,493 1,269,505 1,291,217 1,358,533 1,439,321 1,594,503 0 November 1,369,940 1,443,843 1,292,327 1,155,647 1,139,058 1,217,933 1,349,580 1,362,021 1,426,254 0 December 1,366,281 1,376,434 1,129,050 1,070,245 1,141,012 1,247,920 1,323,189 1,408,134 1,383,596 0 Total Collections 16,550,953 17,437,467 16,161,028 14,248,244 14,097,299 14,850,409 15,427,377 16,587,617 17,440,083 8,694,141 Budget Estimate 16,002,000 17,466,800 17,115,800 17,860,000 14,410,000 14,210,000 14,210,000 15,250,000 16,990,000 17,628,400 Actual over (under) budg 548,953 (29,333) (954,772) (3,611,756) (312,701) 640,409 1,217,377 1,337,617 450,083 (8,934,259) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 103.43% 99.83% 94.42% 79.78% 97.83% 104.51% 108.57% 108.77% 102.65% n/a % change in annual total collected 10.02% 5.36% (7.32%) (11.84%) (1.06%) 5.34% 3.89% 7.52% 5.14% n/a % of budget collected through June 48.99% 47.94% 47.52% 39.40% 47.77% 50.57% 52.15% 52.60% 49.22% 49.32% % of actual total collected through June Chart Reflec 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 47.37% 48.02% 50.32% 49.38% 48.83% 48.39% 48.04% 48.36% 47.95% n/a Page 21 June 1 ■June ■ May ■rrl ■ March • February ■ January 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Page 21 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - June Actual for the years 2006 through 2015 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Lodging Tax\2015\105 hotel motel tax 2015.xlsx 2006 1 2007 1 2008 1 2009 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 J 2015 January 20,653.49 25,137.92 28,946.96 23,280.21 22,706.96 February 20,946.09 25,310.66 24,623.06 23,283.95 23,416.94 March 24,308.48 29,190.35 27,509.99 25,272.02 24,232.35 April 34,371.82 37,950.53 40,406.02 36,253.63 39,463.49 May 32,522.06 31,371.01 36,828.53 32,588.80 34,683.32 June 34,256.71 36,267.07 46,659.88 40,414.59 39,935.36 22,212.21 22,792.14 24,611.28 38,230.49 33,790.69 41,403.41 21,442.32 21,548.82 25,654.64 52,130.37 37,478.44 43,970.70 24,184.84 25,974.98 27,738.65 40,979.25 40,560.41 47,850.15 25,425.40 26,013.62 29,383.93 48,245.81 41,122.66 52,617.63 27,092.20 27,111.00 32,998.14 50,454.72 44,283.17 56,975.00 7/30/2015 2015 to 2014 Difference 96 1,667 6.56% 1,097 4.22% 3,614 12.30% 2,209 4.58% 3,161 7.69% 4,357 8.28% Total Collections 167,058.65 185,227.54 204,974.44 181,093.20 184,438.42 183,040.22 202,225.29 207,288.28 222,809.05 238,914.23 16,105.18 7.23% July 49,744.62 56,281.99 50,421.37 43,950.26 47,385.18 49,311.97 52,818.60 56,157.26 61,514.48 0.00 August 45,916.16 51,120.70 50,818.35 50,146.56 54,922.99 57,451.68 57,229.23 63,816.45 70,383.93 0.00 September 50,126.53 57,260.34 60,711.89 50,817.62 59,418.96 58,908.16 64,298.70 70,794.09 76,099.59 0.00 October 38,674.17 43,969.74 38,290.46 36,784.36 41,272.35 39,028.08 43,698.90 43,835.57 45,604.07 0.00 November 36,417.11 36,340.64 35,582.59 34,054.79 34,329.78 37,339.36 39,301.22 42,542.13 39,600.06 0.00 December 29,147.15 31,377.41 26,290.11 27,131.43 26,776.84 32,523.19 30,432.13 34,238.37 33,256.28 0.00 Total Collections 417,084.39 461,578.36 467,089.21 423,978.22 448,544.52 457,602.66 490,004.07 518,672.15 549,267.46 238,914.23 Budget Estimate 350,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 512,000.00 380,000.00 480,000.00 430,000.00 490,000.00 530,000.00 510,000.00 Actual over (under) budg 67,084.39 61,578.36 67,089.21 (88,021.78) 68,544.52 (22,397.34) 60,004.07 28,672.15 19,267.46 (271,085.77) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 119.17% 115.39% 116.77% 82.81% 118.04% 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% n/a % change in annual total collected 7.54% 10.67% 1.19% (9.23%) 5.79% 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% n/a % of budget collected through June 47.73% 46.31% 51.24% 35.37% 48.54% 38.13% 47.03% 42.30% 42.04% 46.85% % of actual total collected through June 40.05% 40.13% 43.88% 42.71% 41.12% 40.00% 41.27% 39.97% 40.56% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of June 300,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 1 2006 2007 2008 2009 June 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 • June May c April March ■ February ■ January Page 22 7/30/2015) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 1st and 2nd 1/4% REET Collections through June Actual for the years 2006 through 2015 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\REET12015\301 and 302 REET for 2015.xlsx 2006 1 2007 1 2008 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 January 243,894.16 February 172,154.72 March 182,065.71 April 173,796.61 May 306,871.66 June 226,526.64 228,896.76 129,919.79 263,834.60 211,787.08 222,677.17 257,477.05 145,963.47 159,503.34 133,513.35 128,366.69 158,506.43 178,202.98 55,281.25 45,180.53 73,306.86 81,155.83 77,463.58 105,020.98 59,887.08 64,121.61 86,204.41 99,507.19 109,624.89 105,680.28 64,128.13 36,443.36 95,879.78 79,681.38 124,691.60 81,579.34 46,358.75 56,114.56 71,729.67 86,537.14 111,627.22 124,976.28 56,898.40 155,226.07 72,171.53 90,376.91 116,164.91 139,112.11 61,191.55 67,048.50 81,723.70 105,448.15 198,869.74 106,675.77 96,140.79 103,507.94 165,867.91 236,521.17 165,748.39 347,420.87 2015 to 2014 Difference 34,949 57.11% 36,459 54.38% 84,144 102.96% 131,073 124.30% (33,121) (16.65%) 240,745 225.68% Collected to date 1,305,309.50 1,314,592.45 904,056.26 437,409.03 525,025.46 482,403.59 497,343.62 629,949.93 620,957.41 1,115,207.07 494,249.66 79.59% July 2,104.30 323,945.47 217,942.98 122,530.36 84,834.48 79,629.06 101,048.69 128,921.02 208,199.38 0.00 August 451,700.06 208,039.87 133,905.93 115,829.68 72,630.27 129,472.44 106,517.19 117,149.90 172,536.46 0.00 September 188,066.23 165,287.21 131,240.36 93,862.17 75,812.10 68,019.83 63,516.73 174,070.25 152,322.59 0.00 October 211,091.20 206,442.92 355,655.60 113,960.52 93,256.02 61,396.23 238,094.79 117,805.76 123,504.75 0.00 November 141,729.09 191,805.53 147,875.00 133,264.84 72,021.24 74,752.72 104,885.99 78,324.02 172,226.74 0.00 December 161,285.23 179,567.77 96,086.00 71,365.60 38,724.50 65,077.29 74,299.65 75,429.19 117,681.62 0.00 Total distributed by Spokane County 2,461,285.61 2,589,681.22 1,986,762.13 1,088,222.20 962,304.07 960,751.16 1,185,706.66 1,321,650.07 1,567,428.95 1,115,207.07 Budget estimate 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 760,000.00 800,000.00 950,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,200,000.00 1,250,000.00 Actual over (under) budget 461,285.61 589,681.22 (13,237.87) (911,777.80) 202,304.07 160,751.16 235,706.66 321,650.07 367,428.95 (134,792.93) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 123.06% 129.48% 99.34% 54.41% 126.62% 120.09% 124.81% 132.17% 130.62% nla % change in annual total collected % of budget collected through June % of actual total collected through June (1.19%) 5.22% (23.28%) (45.23%) (11.57%) (0.16%) 23.41% 11.47% 18.60% nla 65.27% 65.73% 45.20% 21.87% 69.08% 60.30% 52.35% 62.99% 51.75% 89.22% 53.03% 50.76% 45.50% 40.19% 54.56% 50.21% 41.94% 47.66% 39.82% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of June 1,400,000.00 June 1,200,000.00 • June 1,000,000.00 800,000.00 iii May • April 600,000.00 • March ■ February 400,000.00 200,000.00 0.00, • January , , , 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 age H:\Finance Activity Reports\2015\debt capacity.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Debt Capacity 2/8/2015 2014 Assessed Value for 2015 Property Taxes Voted (UTGO) Nonvoted (LTGO) Voted park Voted utility 1.00% of assessed value 1.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value 7, 393, 971, 582 Maximum Debt Capacity Outstanding as of 12/31/2014 Remaining Debt Capacity Utilized 73,939,716 110,909,574 184,849,290 184,849,290 554, 547, 870 0 6,675,000 0 0 6,675,000 73,939,716 104,234,574 184,849,290 184,849,290 547,872,870 T 0.00% 6.02% 0.00% 0.00% 1.20% Bonds Repaid Bonds Remaining 2014 LTGO Bonds Period Ending CenterPlace Road & Street Improvement Total 12/1/2014 12/1/2015 12/1/2016 12/1/2017 12/1/2018 12/1/2019 12/1/2020 12/1/2021 12/1/2022 12/1/2023 12/1/2024 12/1/2025 12/1/2026 12/1/2027 12/1/2028 12/1/2029 12/1/2030 12/1/2031 12/1/2032 12/1/2033 225,000 135,00 360,000 225,000 135,000 360,000 175,000 185,000 190,000 230,000 255,000 290,000 320,000 350,000 390,000 430,000 465,000 505,000 395,000 300,000 245,000 225,000 180,000 130,000 165,000 125,000 130,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 315,000 320,000 365,000 395,000 430,000 465,000 500,000 545,000 430,000 465,000 505,000 395,000 300,000 245,000 225,000 180,000 130,000 165,000 5,425,000 1,250, 000 6,675,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 Page 24 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\MVFT\2015\motor vehicle fuel tax collections 2015.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Collections - June For the years 2006 through 2015 2006 1 2007 ] 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 January 157,910 February 145,663 March 144,867 April 158,729 May 152,049 June 166,506 172,711 162,079 156,194 175,010 173,475 183,410 165,698 149,799 159,316 165,574 162,281 176,085 133,304 155,832 146,264 161,117 156,109 173,954 161,298 145,869 140,486 161,721 158,119 168,146 154,792 146,353 141,849 165,019 154,700 158,351 159,607 135,208 144,297 153,546 144,670 159,827 146,145 145,998 135,695 156,529 151,595 167,479 152,906 148,118 131,247 156,269 156,850 161,965 152,598 145,455 140,999 157,994 156,259 164,872 7/30/2015 2015 to 2014 Difference (308) (0.20%) (2,663) (1.80%) 9,752 7.43% 1,725 1.10% (591) (0.38%) 2,907 1.79% Collected to date 925,724 1,022,879 978,753 926,580 935,639 921,064 897,155 903,441 907,355 918,177 10,822 1.19% July 162,989 178,857 166,823 169,756 164,221 165,398 160,565 155,348 157,805 0 August 183,127 183,815 171,690 179,012 176,869 153,361 164,050 173,983 172,308 0 September 187,645 191,884 176,912 175,965 175,067 173,820 171,651 195,397 173,299 0 October 178,782 180,570 165,842 163,644 164,475 158,889 153,022 133,441 160,539 0 November 177,726 181,764 193,360 167,340 168,477 160,461 162,324 164,303 165,871 0 December 159,974 159,750 142,230 144,376 143,257 124,714 138,223 142,140 141,298 0 Total Collections 1,975,967 2,099,519 1,995,610 1,926,673 1,928,005 1,857,707 1,846,990 1,868,053 1,878,475 918,177 Budget Estimate 1,753,000 2,000,000 2,150,000 2,050,000 1,900,000 1,875,000 1,897,800 1,861,100 1,858,600 1,858,600 Actual over (under) budg 222,967 99,519 (154,390) (123,327) 28,005 (17,293) (50,810) 6,953 19,875 (940,423) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 112.72% 104.98% 92.82% 93.98% 101.47% 99.08% 97.32% 100.37% 101.07% n/a % change in annual total collected 9.57% 6.25% (4.95%) (3.45%) 0.07% (3.65%) (0.58%) 1.14% 0.56% n/a % of budget collected through June 52.81% 51.14% 45.52% 45.20% 49.24% 49.12% 47.27% 48.54% 48.82% 49.40% % of actual total collected through June 46.85% 48.72% 49.05% 48.09% 48.53% 49.58% 48.57% 48.36% 48.30% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of June 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 - 200,000 0 2006 June 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ■ June • May ■ April • March ■ February ■ January Page 25 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax Revenue\Telephone Tax\2015\telephone utility tax collections 2015.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Telephone Utility Tax Collections - June For the years 2009 through 2015 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 January 128,354 234,622 February 282,773 266,041 March 230,721 264,175 April 275,775 254,984 May 242,115 255,056 June 239,334 251,880 241,357 230,366 245,539 238,561 236,985 239,013 193,818 261,074 234,113 229,565 227,469 234,542 217,478 216,552 223,884 214,618 129,270 293,668 210,777 205,953 208,206 206,038 210,010 210,289 8/7/2015 2015 to 2014 Difference 177,948 (32,829) (15.58%) 212,845 6,892 3.35% 174,738 (33,468) (16.07%) 214,431 8,393 4.07% 187,856 (22,154) (10.55%) 187,412 (22,877) (10.88%) Collected to date 1,399,072 1,526,758 1,431,821 1,380,581 1,295,470 1,251,273 1,155,230 (96,043) (7.68%) July 269,631 250,593 244,191 226,118 213,078 205,651 0 August 260,408 246,261 349,669 228,789 211,929 205,645 0 September 249,380 240,111 241,476 227,042 210,602 199,193 0 October 252,388 238,500 237,111 225,735 205,559 183,767 0 November 254,819 247,848 240,246 225,319 212,947 213,454 0 December 368,775 236,065 236,449 221,883 213,097 202,077 0 Total Collections 3,054,473 2,986,136 2,980,963 2,735,467 2,562,682 2,461,060 1,155,230 Budget Estimate 2,500,000 2,800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,900,000 2,750,000 2,565,100 Actual over (under) budg 554,473 186,136 (19,037) (264,533) (337,318) (288,940) (1,409,870) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 122.18% 106.65% 99.37% 91.18% 88.37% 89.49% n/a % change in annual total collected n/a (2.24%) (0.17%) (8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) n/a % of budget collected through June 55.96% 54.53% 47.73% 46.02% 44.67% 45.50% 45.04% % of actual total collected through June 45.80% 51.13% 48.03% 50.47% 50.55% 50.84% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of June 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 80Q000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 June 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 June • May ■ April ▪ March is February ■ January Page 26 Rick VanLeuven Chief of Police Spokane Valley Police Department Accredited Since 2011 Services provided in partnership with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and the Community, Dedicated to Your Safety. Ozzie Knezovich Sheriff TO: Mike Jackson, City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: August 17, 2015 RE: Monthly Report July 2015 July 2015: July 2014: CAD incidents: 6,001** CAD incidents: 5,943 Reports taken: 1,902 Reports taken: 1,898 Traffic stops: 1,225 Traffic stops: 1,259 Traffic reports: 275 Traffic reports: 279 **This is the first time in Spokane Valley Police Department's history that we've reached over 6,000 CAD incidents in one month. CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self -initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing July residential burglaries, traffic collisions, vehicle prowlings, and stolen vehicles. Also attached are trend -line graphs for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015: Citations, Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls, Self -Initiated Calls, Collisions, Persons Crimes, Property Crimes, and Sex Crimes. Also included is the July Crimes by Cities stats report. This report reflects incidents that occurred in a specific city to which a deputy from Spokane County took the courtesy report. For example, an individual may have had his car stolen in Airway Heights, and he waited until he returned home in the Newman Lake area to make a report. In 2011, we switched from UCR to NIBRS classification. As a result, certain crimes were broken down to their violation parts for NIBRS and each part is now counted. Consequently, comparing certain crimes before 2011 to crimes during or after 2011 is not recommended using the graphs. The crimes that are impacted by the NIBRS classification changes that should not be compared to prior graphs include: Adult Rape, Assault, Forgery and Theft. Page 1 ADMINISTRATIVE: Chief VanLeuven and Lt. Szoke, who are both graduates of the FBINAA Academy, attended the annual FBINAA Conference, which was held in Seattle in mid-July. This was great training with the presence of attendees from all over the United States and foreign countries. The Department of Emergency Management hosted Mayor Walter Maddox of Tuscaloosa, Alabama at the Fire Training Center in mid-July to speak on how his city is recovering from a devastating tornado in 2011. Mayor Maddox has been nationally recognized for his crisis management following 4/27/11, when an EF -4 tornado destroyed 12 percent of the city and severely damaged or destroyed 5,300 homes and businesses. The mayor's visit is one in a series of trainings and workshops the Greater Spokane Emergency Management Department has coordinated to better prepare the Greater Spokane area in the event we suffer a major disaster. Chief VanLeuven along with lieutenants, sergeants, and detectives of the Sheriff's Office attended Quarterly Leadership Training at the end of July. Finally, the Spokane Police Department's Mental Health Steering Committee held its first annual Together Everyone Achieves More (TEAM) Conference at the end of July to highlight collaboration between first responders and mental health professionals. Chief VanLeuven attended the two-day event held on the Washington State University Spokane campus. The conference provided several networking opportunities, and more than two dozen sessions by experts in the fields of behavioral health, law enforcement, fire intervention and academic research. There was also an "Executive Track," specifically for agency leaders to learn about collaborative programs. The keynote speaker for the TEAM Conference addressed collaborative programs at the city, county and state level. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING In the month of July, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: • "Unveiling of Appleway Trail" • • "Healthy Kids Day" Spokane Valley YMCA • (OFID and Helmet giveaway) • • All S.C.O.P.E. Picnic • • S.C.O.P.E. Basic Training (13 new • Volunteers) • • Spokane Valley Cycle Celebration (Traffic Control) EFFORT (SCOPE): ValleyFest Meetings GoodGuides Mentoring WVHS East Valley Community Coalition Meeting Crime Stoppers Meeting GSSAC Coalition Meeting Operation Family ID July 2015 Volunteers Hours per Station *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover both Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. Location # Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 6 158.0 0 158.0 East Valley* 18 303.0 227.0 530.0 Edgecliff 29 726.0 36.0 762.0 Trentwood 6 202.5 92.0 294.5 University 19 535.5 349.0 884.5 West Valley* 24 580.0 16.0 596.0 TOTALS 102 2,505.0 720.0 3,225.0 Page 2 Volunteer Value ($21.62 per hour) $69,724.50 for July 2015 Spokane Valley Graffiti Report TRAINING HOURS 2012 2013 2014 2015 Jan. 0 2 3 5 Feb. 0 7 16 8 March 2 13 11 7 April 14 9 30 14 May 16 4 4 10 June 15 9 13 5 July 41 7 12 4 Aug. 57 22 6 Sept. 26 4 12 Oct. 30 7 6 Nov. 19 7 2 Dec. 37 1 7 Total 257 92 97 53 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 163 on -scene hours (including travel time) in July, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control. Of those hours, 38 hours were for incidents inside of Spokane Valley. Special Events in Spokane Valley in July included ValleyFest Cycle Ride, for a total of 14 hours. Total July volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 524; year-to- date total is 3,224 hours. Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in Spokane Valley in June totaled 30 and in July 31 with 10 vehicles in June and 6 in July, respectively, eventually cited and towed. Seventeen hulks were processed in June and 11 hulks processed in July. During the month of July, a total of 98 vehicles were processed; the total for 2015 to date is 472. SCOPE LATENT PRINT STATS Page 3 TRAINING HOURS SCSO SVPD TOTAL January 0 18 48 66 February 0 26 42 68 March 0 22 43 65 April 0 30 27 57 May 0 15 51 66 June 0 27 27 54 July 0 18 35 53 YTD - TOTAL 0 156 273 429 Page 3 SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of Vol. # of Vol. # of Hrs # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 0 0 0 0 0 February 2 10 2 0 0 March 3 24 1 0 0 April 2 22 1 0 0 May 2 45 2 0 0 June 2 33.5 5 0 0 July 3 35 4 0 0 YTD Total 14 169.5 16 0 0 Spokane County # of Vol. # of Hrs # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 3 16.5 0 0 0 February 6 26.5 1 0 0 March 7 54 2 0 0 April 3 39 10 0 0 May 2 13 0 0 0 June 2 16 0 0 0 July 1 10 0 0 0 YTD Total 24 175 13 0 0 OPERATIONS: Shoplifting Female Flees and Leaves Children — In early July at approximately 7:30 p.m., Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputy Stan Kravtsov responded to a reported theft at Home Depot located at 5617 East Sprague in Spokane Valley. A store Loss Prevention employee told Deputy Kravtsov that he observed a 31 -year-old female place several items in a child car seat under a baby she had with her. The female exited the store, passing several cash registers, without paying for the items. The store employee contacted her outside the store and attempted to detain her, but she ran. The female suspect discarded the concealed items as she continued running from the store employee. She ran toward a Suburban parked in the parking lot, placed the car seat on the ground and continued to flee. The employee located the car seat with the child inside and waited for deputies to arrive. A male was contacted in the Suburban who was cooperative with responding deputies. The male explained he was getting a ride from the female suspect, when she stopped at Home Depot. She went into the store with her one -year-old child while he stayed in the vehicle with the female's three- year-old child. A short time later, he observed the female suspect running from the store toward the Page 4 vehicle. She placed the child seat near the vehicle, told the male to take the children and run before she ran south from the parking lot. The male said the children were not his and he has never cared for them in the past. He said he was merely getting a ride from the female suspect and was not involved in the theft. Deputy Kravtsov noted the temperature at the time of the incident was 95 degrees and although the windows of the vehicle were rolled down, the children were very hot. The children were provided water and food as deputies contacted Child Protective Services and later released the children into their care. Deputies did not locate the female suspect at the time of the incident, but a request was completed charging her with Theft 3rd Degree and two counts of Abandonment of a Dependent Person. Eluding Suspect Cannot Hide from K9 Deacon — In mid-July, Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputy Joseph Wallace observed a white Ford pickup fail to stop for a red light at the intersection of Park Road and Mission Avenue in Spokane Valley. After a short pursuit, the 24 -year-old male driver crashed into a fence and ran on foot. The suspect was taken into custody after he was located hiding in a detached garage by K9 Deacon. The incident began on a Saturday night just before 11:00 p.m. when Deputy Wallace observed the suspect run the red light at Park and Mission. The suspect turned south on Park Road and accelerated as Deputy Wallace turned on the emergency lights of his marked patrol car and tried to catch up to the reckless vehicle. The male suspect accelerated to approximately 50 mph and recklessly passed another southbound vehicle prior to turning west on Cataldo. He then attempted to quickly turn south into an alley, but lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a fence. As the male jumped out of the vehicle, Deputy Wallace ordered him to stop and show his hands, and told him he was under arrest. The male suspect looked over his shoulder, directly at Deputy Wallace, decided to ignore Deputy Wallace's commands, and fled on foot. Deputy Wallace lost sight of the male suspect as he ran through backyards and around residences in the area. Assisting deputies arrived and quickly setup a containment perimeter. Deputy Kullman and his partner, K9 Deacon, arrived to help locate the male suspect. Several K9 announcements were made advising the suspect to give himself up and if he didn't, a K9 would be used to track and find him. The male suspect did not respond so Deputy Kullman and K9 Deacon began a search. K9 Deacon led the search to a detached garage with a tarp covering the entrance. Deputy Kullman immediately noticed a change in K9 Deacon's behavior leading him to believe the suspect was hiding inside. Not knowing if the suspect was armed, Deputy Kullman made two additional announcements advising the suspect that if he did not surrender, K9 Deacon would be released and he would bite him when he was located. The suspect again ignored the commands and did not respond. K9 Deacon was released under the tarp and immediately a struggle could be heard and the suspect began yelling. The male continued to ignore orders to show his hands and to stop struggling. Deputy Kullman grabbed the male's arm and pulled him from the garage as he continued to resist being arrested. Once outside, Deputy Wallace and Deputy Hilton took control of the suspect's arms and placed him in handcuffs. After being advised of his rights, the male suspect told deputies he ran because he knew he had a warrant for his arrest and he heard the K9 announcements. The male suspect received medical attention prior to being transported and was booked into the Spokane County Jail for Attempting to Elude, Burglary 2" Degree, Hit and Run Unattended Property, Resisting and Obstructing Arrest, Driving While License Suspended 1St Degree and a felony Department of Corrections' warrant for Escape Community Custody. Fugitive Arrested, Stolen Motorcycle and Drugs Recovered after Pursuit — In late July, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies attempted to conduct a traffic stop of a motorcycle. The driver fled and after a vehicle and foot pursuit, they eventually caught the 27 -year- old male driver and arrested him for Attempting to Elude Law Enforcement, Possession of a Stolen Page 5 Motor Vehicle and Possession of a Controlled Substance. Deputies also learned the suspect had a valid felony warrant from Montana for a parole violation. The incident began when Deputy Eaton attempted to stop the male for a traffic violation in the area of 4t'' and University Road in Spokane Valley. The male suspect slowed and pulled in the parking lot of the Valley Transit Center. The male looked at Deputy Eaton's fully marked patrol car with the emergency lights on before he began to accelerate. Deputy Eaton activated his siren as the male drove toward the 4th Street exit of the parking lot. The suspect drove around Deputy Keys' patrol car, which was partially blocking the exit with the emergency lights activated. Both deputies began to pursue the male suspect southbound on University Road. Deputy Eaton was informed, via his radio, that the motorcycle's license plate returned to a 2011 motorcycle, which did not match the bike the male suspect was riding. The pursuit ended when the suspect drove around the tennis courts at University High School and got stuck in a large depression in the grass field of the school. The male suspect continued his attempt to avoid capture on foot, but was caught by Deputy Keys. After the male suspect was taken into custody, a baggie containing a crystalline substance was found inside a plastic container located in his pants pocket. The substance was field tested, which showed a presumptive positive result for methamphetamine. The deputies learned the motorcycle was reported stolen in Flathead County, Montana. They found the ignition was severely damaged and the VIN number had been removed from the vehicle. After being advised of his rights, the male suspect said he ran because he initially did not believe Deputy Eaton and Deputy Keys were police officers, even though they were in fully marked Patrol cars and in full uniform at the time. The suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Attempting to Elude Law Enforcement, Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle and Possession of a Controlled Substance. Due to the felony warrant from Montana, the male suspect could be charged as a fugitive and face extradition back to Montana for a probation violation. Arrests, Property Recovered and Victims Identified — In late July, members of the Spokane Valley Investigative Unit, Spokane County Sheriff's Investigative Task Force, SWAT Team and Patrol Deputies served a search warrant at a residence located in the 4200 block of East Central in Spokane This investigation began when detectives, with the assistance of analysts from the Spokane County Sheriff's Regional Intelligence Group 9 (RIG 9), noticed a trend of vehicle prowlings at area trailheads. Working with Patrol Deputies, a 33 -year-old suspect was identified. With the assistance of Air 1, detectives began surveilling the suspect and developed information and evidence of his criminal activities, which led to Spokane County Sheriff's SWAT Team Members serving a search warrant at his residence. While detectives processed and collected evidence at the scene, additional people continued to arrive at the residence. During those contacts, a 21 -year-old male and 24 -year- old female were identified and arrested; the male was arrested for a felony warrant and Possession Stolen Motor Vehicle, and the female suspect for previous charges of Possession of a Controlled Substance, Reckless Driving and Theft 3r Degree. The search warrant yielded the following: 32 victims identified, 28 pieces of identification recovered, 36 credit cards recovered, numerous checks recovered, stolen enclosed cargo trailer recovered and returned to the owner, and 4 suspects arrested with additional charges/arrests possible. The initial male suspect was booked for Vehicle Prowling 2nd Degree, Theft 2nd Degree and Malicious Mischief 2nd Degree with several additional charges possible, as the investigation continues. A 17 -year-old juvenile female believed to be involved with the male's criminal activity was booked into Juvenile Detention for Vehicle Prowling 2nd Degree, Theft 2nd Degree and Malicious Mischief 2nd Degree. This is an example of detectives and analysts using the information that citizens report to identify criminal activity trends, recover stolen property, as well as evidence of additional criminal activity as they work to arrest suspects who prey upon others in our community. Page 6 Large Fight Ends with Stabbing — In late July, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies and Spokane County Sheriff's Air 1 responded to a large fight call (estimate of 50-74 people) at 10101 E. Main Avenue in Spokane Valley. Air 1 captured some FLIR video of the fight as deputies responded to the chaotic and violent scene. The video clip shows an initial fight taking place, but the situation appeared to begin to breakup on its own. A couple minutes later, the individuals involved came back together and the fight continued. Once deputies arrived, they located an adult male bleeding from what appeared to be a stab wound to his chest. Deputy Watts quickly provided medical care to the victim who was bleeding heavily from the wound. His first attempt to slow the bleeding was unsuccessful, so he quickly applied QuickClot to the wound, along with pressure, which substantially slowed the bleeding and potentially saved the victim's life. He continued providing medical care until he was relieved by Spokane Valley Fire and AMR medical personnel. Individuals at the scene told deputies they didn't witness the assault, were not cooperative when questioned, and provided very little information. The victim was transported to a local hospital where he was listed in stable condition. He told deputies he did not know who stabbed him. Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force members are investigating the incident and ask anyone who has information regarding this assault or can help identify the individuals involved to call Crime Check at 509-456-2233 and reference incident number 15-256375. Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force is comprised of members from the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, Spokane Valley Police, Spokane Police Department, Washington State Patrol, FBI, U.S. Border Patrol, DEA, ATF and the Washington State Department of Corrections. Traffic Stop Leads to Warrants & Drug Arrest — At the end of July, Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies arrested a 25 -year-old male suspect for Possession of a Controlled Substance, warrants and DWLS 3rd Degree after he was contacted during a traffic stop for an equipment violation. Deputy Bohanek and Deputy Nguyen, working patrol together, noticed one of the brake lights of an Oldsmobile stopped at a red light at the intersection of Argonne and Knox in Spokane Valley wasn't working. They stopped the vehicle, contacted the driver, and identified him by a Washington State ID card. A check of his name showed his Washington State driver's license status was suspended and he had active warrants for his arrest. The passenger of the vehicle, whose driving privileges were also suspended, was identified and released. A black backpack was observed inside the vehicle, but the male suspect did not consent to a search of the vehicle. The suspect stated the backpack and vehicle belonged to his girlfriend. The registered owner was contacted and responded to the scene. She gave consent for a search of the vehicle and denied owning the backpack. Inside the backpack, Deputy Bohanek located a fixed blade knife with a sheath, a digital scale with a white crystalline residue on it, a speaker with the initials "JDB" on it and a clear and green tinted plastic cylinder containing a chunk of a white crystalline substance. The substance was later tested and showed a presumptive positive result for methamphetamine. When asked again about the backpack, the male suspect, who had been advised of his rights, stated the backpack belonged to a "friend." He did not want to identify the "friend" and admitted his fingerprints would probably be found on several of the items inside. The male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for charges of Possession of a Controlled Substance, Theft 2nd Degree, Malicious Mischief 2nd Degree, Theft 3rd Degree and three counts of Driving While License Suspended 3rd Degree. Page 7 Spokane Valley Deputy Receives Lifesaving Award - Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputy Randy Watts was honored on 7/30/15 and presented with a Lifesaving Award by the Spokane Valley Fire Department. A Spokane Valley Firefighter nominated Deputy Watts for the award due to his actions on July 18th, 2014. Deputy Watts heard a medical call where it was reported a newborn baby was not breathing. Deputy Watts responded to the emergency call and found the baby was not breathing, had no detectable pulse and was purple in color. He immediately started rescue breathing, chest compressions and cleared the baby's airway. When Spokane Valley Fire personnel arrived, Deputy Watts continued CPR and worked with Fire Personnel as the baby was transported to a local hospital. Spokane Valley Fire Chief Bryan Collins presented the award to Deputy Watts in recognition of his lifesaving assistance which is credited for saving the baby's life. The Spokane County Sheriff's Office and Spokane Valley Police Department are extremely proud of Deputy Watts, for not only his lifesaving efforts, but also for the outstanding and professional service he consistently provides the citizens of Spokane Valley and Spokane County. Thank you Spokane Valley Fire Department for taking the time to recognize Deputy Watts' outstanding effort and for the professional service you provide all of us each and every day. Thank You From a Citizen: Officers D. Bratton did an amazing job when he responded to our DV situation on Father's Day. He was here fast and defused the situation immediately. He did a great job talking to each of us and his demeanor helped us stay calm. My son has mild Asperger's and your officer's communication skills are superior in being able to get his statement without triggering a new problem. It's hard for people to follow him when he gets upset, not your guy, he honestly listened and made my boy feel calm and collected. I'm happy to say our home has been very peaceful now, thank you. ******************** Page 8 SV Crime Report Date Range: 7/1/2015 to 7/31/2015 Year To Date Totals: Full Year Totals: Regional Intelligence Group 9 July -2015 July -2014 2015 -YTD 2014 -YTD 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 BURGLARY 104 111 555 683 1,167 1,079 1,030 997 918 713 FORGERY 43 66 345 402 658 693 627 515 341 297 MAL MISCHIEF 129 146 947 934 1,645 1,624 1,763 1,548 1,177 1,129 NON -CRIMINAL 11 16 77 90 151 106 108 160 913 889 PROP OTHER 145 139 904 831 1,449 1,463 1,355 1,114 855 888 RCRVD VEH 33 34 225 285 464 531 438 407 293 186 STLVEH 36 35 267 340 573 596 570 515 478 293 THEFT 289 286 1,790 1,731 3,096 3,105 2,753 2,407 2,358 2,169 VEH OTHER 22 23 123 153 279 268 287 194 3 5 VEH PROWL 85 83 662 693 1,196 1,205 1,160 1,488 1,395 920 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 897 939 5,895 6,142 10,678 10,670 10,091 9,345 8,731 7,489 ASSAULT 96 109 646 601 1,087 902 891 955 888 900 DOA/SUICIDE 26 15 162 138 222 218 250 208 188 209 DV 67 45 368 243 485 386 402 498 1,141 1,145 HOMICIDE 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 KIDNAP 5 5 18 24 41 24 16 14 16 21 MENTAL 34 21 229 170 307 268 270 252 289 310 MP 20 14 107 75 138 156 154 124 128 115 PERS OTHER 295 303 2,042 1,833 3,203 2,976 2,901 2,372 1,603 1,583 ROBBERY 6 8 50 52 94 88 74 59 57 66 TEL -HARASS 15 12 81 84 132 148 212 162 153 159 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 564 532 3,703 3,222 5,712 5,168 5,172 4,647 4,464 4,511 ADULT RAPE 6 2 45 39 70 64 75 62 44 35 CHILD ABUSE 2 3 22 28 42 26 27 56 115 159 CUSTINTFER 32 18 133 144 237 236 190 184 206 157 IND LIBERTY 3 0 13 16 29 20 27 17 8 10 MOLES/CHILD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 47 32 RAPE/CHILD 0 0 9 4 13 13 13 23 28 35 RUNAWAY 26 42 248 233 406 397 530 510 490 440 SEX OTHER 6 4 36 39 69 45 37 56 215 211 SEX REGIS F 1 0 1 0 0 4 8 2 1 2 STALKING 1 2 12 9 24 21 24 19 18 15 SUSP PERSON 52 50 357 323 604 440 423 340 215 174 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 129 121 876 835 1,494 1,266 1,354 1,287 1,387 1,270 DRUG 37 27 212 200 336 314 424 511 534 665 ISU OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 TOTALITF 37 27 212 200 336 314 424 513 536 666 TRAFFIC 275 279 1,973 1,884 3,216 3,525 3,957 3,569 3,081 3,183 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 275 279 1,973 1,884 3,216 3,525 3,957 3,569 3,081 3,183 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1,902 1,898 12,659 12,283 21,436 20,943 20,998 19,361 18,199 17,119 Printed 8/10/2015 2:49:16 PM Rpt011 Page 1 of 1 CAD Incidents by Cities (Only incidents handled by Spokane County Sheriffs Office) Date Range: 7/1/2015 to 7/31/2015 Regional Intelligence Group 9 AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV TOTALS CAD Incidents Self Initiated Incidents Drug Self Int (Patrol) Traffic Stops Traffic Stops (ARST/CIT/IN) TS (Warrants) Calls for Service Alarms Accidents Accidents (ARREST/CIT) Drug Calls DV DUI DUI (Arrest) Pursuits Suspicious Activity Vehicle Recovered 911 Abandon Line Shoplifting All Arrests (ARREST/CIT/IN) Crime Check Reports 25 147 232 23 5 3 38 199 105 22 4,326 7 782 6,001 1 24 10 65 8 2 0 28 116 27 0 1,251 2 668 2,073 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 20 0 2 0 13 37 8 0 520 1 262 1,225 0 1 0 9 0 1 0 3 8 1 0 212 0 100 550 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7 23 0 1 137 167 15 3 3 10 83 78 22 3,075 5 114 3,928 1 O 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 119 0 1 118 0 O 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 173 0 15 221 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 O 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 14 0 0 50 0 69 12 0 5 0 0 0 4 6 2 1 140 1 10 226 0 407 O 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 106 0 7 82 0 212 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 22 0 26 11,916 4,274 2 2,094 885 35 7,642 246 419 10 0 3 7 26 0 0 0 2 28 22 3 512 0 36 692 0 1,331 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 2 18 0 45 O 60 13 10 1 0 0 8 3 3 324 0 23 435 0 880 O 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 46 0 48 1 0 19 5 1 0 3 16 5 1 319 1 129 810 0 1,310 O 0 21 0 1 1 0 14 15 3 443 1 5 612 0 1,116 Printed 8/10/2015 12:54:01 PM Rptool Page 1 of 1 RMS Crimes by Cities (Only incidents handled by Spokane County Sheriff's Office) Date Range: 7/1/2015 to 7/31/2015 Regional Intelligence Group 9 AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV TOTALS BURGLARY FORGERY MAL MISCHIEF NON -CRIMINAL PROP OTHER RCRVD VEH STL VEH THEFT VEH OTHER VEH PROWL TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 7 0 4 0 0 0 5 4 1 0 66 0 1 104 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 46 0 0 43 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 87 2 3 129 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 0 11 0 39 0 8 3 0 1 13 9 2 0 82 1 20 145 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 21 0 1 33 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 26 0 0 36 0 36 0 13 0 0 0 6 5 6 2 124 0 4 289 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 22 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 62 0 1 85 0 98 0 41 3 1 1 41 20 17 5 526 3 30 897 0 192 100 236 27 323 60 71 485 29 160 1,683 ASSAULT 4 0 7 0 0 0 1 12 0 1 60 0 2 96 0 183 DOA/SUICIDE 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 31 0 1 26 0 62 DV 11 0 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 39 0 2 67 0 129 HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 KIDNAP 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7 MENTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 1 34 0 59 MP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 1 20 0 44 PERS OTHER 15 0 7 0 0 0 16 10 6 0 207 0 37 295 0 593 ROBBERY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 11 TEL -HARASS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 17 0 0 15 0 34 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 35 0 18 0 0 0 21 26 8 1 406 0 44 564 0 1,123 ADULT RAPE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 6 0 16 CHILD ABUSE 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 6 COST INTFER 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 16 0 0 32 0 51 IND LIBERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 RAPE/CHILD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 RUNAWAY 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 25 0 0 26 0 55 SEX OTHER 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 11 SEX REGIS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 STALKING 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 SUSP PERSON 9 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 31 0 4 52 0 102 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 13 0 4 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 90 0 6 129 0 251 DRUG 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 7 0 5 37 0 57 TOTAL ITF 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 7 0 5 37 0 57 TRAFFIC 17 0 3 0 0 0 14 5 3 0 145 0 70 275 0 532 TOTAL TRAFFIC 17 0 3 0 0 0 14 5 3 0 145 0 70 275 0 532 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 168 0 66 3 1 1 83 54 30 6 1,174 3 155 1,902 0 3,646 Printed 8/10/2015 12:54:29 PM Rpt003 Page 1 of 1 Trai/s c Olympic Broad Princet 2ich Spo alley, Lake 47°^Q Pit Old Missi mufti ix..C..'ryh — OINR[91uJ I Pignmil wamimorm !LL7M !MUM= I 'ea= e 0 Ua ie �IwISL'J�Cd �L - 1 0 e Residential Burglaries Low ▪ Medium ▪ High 0 0.5 I Miles I i I 2015 July Residential Burglary Hotspots Map Produced: I0 Aug 2015 li.0 .� CMOS- •.--- MI 1- ow rammam iffffral o � . 4 i_ •L1 0 A , IME L *) IEi 111111 1141■ -i' i:W -!Ili IIhIIllI�: IJMiF 1�■■111 /__ pima micia- MEOW =MI I pwrizi =MI �► 2015 June & July Stolen Vehicle Hotspots :IMO EIRE -:■■- s--- tittra■—NU c = WI Olympic Broad Wel lesle Princeton iich Spokane Trai/s 1!Q4i• Ma`,i�� Mhos ail g_�1 .,ml1g113E --M- - minium 1n�� 6,11111■ NurAti Ppor Lake Ifitum MI; ��FJ�F'J�iCiii��■■.■RAIL] WM? PIM......fa ■ m e'qn® A �°i orkery (5 • o Moh o A St�� Sana 'F sago Plerce A.o u s e 0 ua Vehicle Prowling Low ▪ Medium ▪ High e 0 0.5 1 Miles I i I 2015 July Vehicle Prowling Hotspots Map Produced: I0 Aug 2015 §e Sanson mapj 111 ■ ■��3■LJ sraN�•Z�- a � t� ©_'. EIMM 1.1•0 Pnn� Broadw I Qui .. ©.11'��■1 i■■■1. Fr��ont i; iII� L�i Lake Avg' att. Birc�� Ca�Einf_Iiii igm v' key • vm _ is, u 0wvie 9 Traffic Collisions 6P >- 0 Sand' Low Medium Low ▪ Medium ▪ High 0 0.5 I Miles I I I 2015 July Traffic Collision Hotspots Map Produced: I0 Aug 2015 Trail's c Olympic Broad Welles 2ichPrincet Spo iWW_. Al U I - 1 ��IJ■1�'��Y—�i 11111■ �__ri row -- Lake W ima=ffi masm7o,1 IMMEN =NM= l EE IMMEMMie �. . OINIMIEF3 :: =MSM• —�'�11:.C-1— =—Erd— !MUM= miimmtim W:sil= r.=MU== --- lid: ■:SIC S�=■ i.' ==•1111/==4,1* MMICKI■11lIS 1 ar. ■lraimilitabLA ragiEssmatipm•hvfniElp Vitaimgclo,Tir 'ger view 1-'1■ ' Is e 0 u 0 1 h 5 Commercial Burglaries Low Medium High sse 0 0.5 I Miles I 1 I 2015 my Commercial Burglary Hotspots Map Produced: I0 Aug 2015 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 4000 3000 2000 1000 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls January February March Apri May .Lune July August September October November December 2012 2013 : 2014 +� 2015 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 2443 2253 2622 2805 2890 2861 3450 3365 3029 2845 2647 2714 2013 2746 2383 2882 2928 3166 3195 3491 3529 3127 3016 2753 2773 2014 2702 2550 2992 2935 3369 3291 3847 3593 3279 3069 2715 2884 2015 2995 2658 3209 2971 3473 3639 3928 Printed 8/10/2015 12:56:19 PM Rpt007 Page 7 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 350 300 -- 250 200 150 — 100 50 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Person Crimes January February April June August October December March May July September November +� 2012 2013 2014 2015 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 213 207 260 235 266 252 293 269 251 248 206 248 2013 223 180 213 256 248 255 278 278 249 243 251 243 2014 270 225 265 273 280 274 335 331 323 286 290 279 2015 301 248 285 261 316 330 348 Printed 8/10/2015 12:56:19 PM Rpt007 Page 16 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 1000 800 - 600 400 200 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Property Crimes January February Apri June August October March May July September November December .� 2012 2013 2014 2015 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 645 498 502 609 671 625 697 775 728 773 681 699 2013 717 599 729 671 634 634 697 710 695 817 710 689 2014 632 578 758 665 717 706 727 665 755 683 671 778 2015 706 675 644 586 633 636 686 Printed 8/10/2015 12:56:19 PM Rpt007 Page 17 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 2500 2000 -- 1500 1000 500 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Self Initiated Incidents February Apri January March June August May July October December September November 2012 % . 2013 : 2014 +� 2015 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 1980 1988 2175 2125 1809 1716 1863 1891 1519 2116 1848 1639 2013 1638 1881 2015 1696 1639 1745 2094 1682 1477 1766 1660 1512 2014 2126 1707 1831 1763 1899 1903 2096 1863 1826 1802 1794 1723 2015 1923 1795 2038 2001 1606 1838 2073 Printed 8/10/2015 12:56:19 PM Rpt007 Page 20 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Crime Sex Crimes Regional Intelligence Group 9 February January March April may June Jut., August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 37 13 21 24 30 34 46 33 35 31 27 33 2013 24 23 26 21 44 41 36 37 32 29 33 38 2014 26 38 41 43 42 25 25 33 34 36 39 33 2015 36 36 26 23 42 27 45 2012 2013 2014 2015 Printed 8/10/2015 12:56:19 PM Rpt007 Page 22 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 140 120 -- 100 -- 80 60- 40 20 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Traffic Collisions February April June August October December January March May July September November — 2012 2013 2014 2015 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 102 82 83 76 98 78 98 90 91 97 94 122 2013 120 69 82 79 90 107 87 98 97 76 114 128 2014 100 105 83 65 103 82 93 90 105 112 116 95 2015 105 76 110 102 106 127 103 Printed 8/10/2015 12:56:19 PM Rpt007 Page 27 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 - 600 - 400 — 200 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Charge Count from Tickets: Spokane Valley January February March Apri May June July August October September November December January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 1059 1143 1297 1400 1181 1202 1239 1199 839 1273 1072 866 2013 901 1086 1136 995 978 1226 1290 970 757 1078 948 827 2014 1216 1000 917 959 1130 1110 1242 998 1054 843 868 881 2015 986 895 1006 1053 764 973 961 2012 2013 2014 2015 Printed 8/10/2015 12:56:19 PM Rpt007 Page 28 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 800 600 400- 200 — 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Crime Check Reports February April June August October December January March May July September November ....2012 2013 2014 2015 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 518 408 444 518 546 506 607 677 594 599 522 552 2013 535 478 552 539 580 543 584 605 572 599 551 539 2014 472 462 544 544 571 574 609 596 615 587 553 608 2015 597 580 558 496 572 565 612 Printed 8/10/2015 12:56:19 PM Rpt007 Page 1 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 4000 3000 2000 1000 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls January February March Apri May .Lune July August September October November December 2012 2013 : 2014 +� 2015 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 2443 2253 2622 2805 2890 2861 3450 3365 3029 2845 2647 2714 2013 2746 2383 2882 2928 3166 3195 3491 3529 3127 3016 2753 2773 2014 2702 2550 2992 2935 3369 3291 3847 3593 3279 3069 2715 2884 2015 2995 2658 3209 2971 3473 3639 3928 Printed 8/10/2015 12:56:19 PM Rpt007 Page 7 of 28 SpUk ine 1 .� Val ley PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT July 2015 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION Contract Name Contractor Contract Total % of Expended as Contract Amount of 7/31/15 Expended Street Maintenance Poe Asphalt $1,366,663.00 $494,951.09 36.22% Street Sweeping AAA Sweeping $490,199.94 $362,855.40 74.02% Storm Drain Cleaning AAA Sweeping $189,990.00 $134,391.99 70.74% Snow Removal Poe Asphalt $40,000.00 $5,792.62 14.48% Landscaping Senske $53,250.00 $19,294.23 0.00% Emergency Traffic Control Senske $10,000.00 $4,433.90 44.34% Litter and Weed Control Geiger Work Crew $60,000.00 $24,954.32 41.59% State Highway Maintenance WSDOT $265,000.00 $84,843.94** 32.02% Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping Spokane County $582,000.00 $276,639.30 47.53% Dead Animal Control Brad Southard $20,000.00* $5,753.00 28.77% * Budget estimates ** Does not include July 2015 — waiting on invoices Citizen Requests 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Citizen Requests for Public Works 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 • Submitted Total Citizen Requests: Public Works 74 Misc Requests Dead Animal Removal Roadway Hazard Pothole Requests Sign & Storm Signal Drainage/ Requests Erosion Traffic Requests 12 12 12 3 16 5 14 • In Progress 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Resolved 74 12 12 12 3 16 5 14 *Information in bold indicates updates 1 WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/spokane/spokane river basin.htm, http://www.spokanecounty.orq/utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works/Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for July 2015: • AAA Sweeping continued arterial maintenance sweeping. • AAA Sweeping continued vactor operations (drywells and catchbasins) • Poe Asphalt Maintenance Contract — Small Asphalt Repairs • The Geiger crew mowed dryland grass locations and disposed of 60801bs. of litter and debris from our rights of way. STORMWATER UTILITY The following is a summary of Stormwater Utility activities in the City of Spokane Valley for July 2015: • Drafted a Stormwater Facilities and Structures Operations and Maintenance Plan Continued work on various capital improvement projects, (see below). Began working on project candidates for the upcoming Ecology FY16 Grant Funding Programs (See the Grants section below for more information). TRAFFIC CIP Proiects Staff continues to coordinate with traffic related design and study items as part of CIP projects. Staff is in the process of finalizing quantities for a portion of the Citywide Safety Project. Specific Studies Staff is coordinating with the consultant to wrap up the University Overpass Study. Staff obtained the final Sullivan Road Corridor Study. Development Projects Reviewing traffic impact studies and letters for several projects and assisting Development Engineering with the Comprehensive Plan Update. *Information in bold indicates updates 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS SOliane Valley. Public Works Projects Monthly Summary - Design & Construction July -2015 Street Projects 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection 0166 Pines Rd. (SR27) &Grace Ave. Int Safety 0201 ITS Infill Project- Phase 1 0206 Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project Street Preservation Projects 0188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 0211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley & Wellesley 0218 Montgomery Ave St Preservation 0224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation Project Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06-3) 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Back Plates Other Projects 0176 Appleway Trail FHWA- BR FHWA-CMAQ HSIP FHWA-CMAQ CDBG FHWA-STP(U) COSY COSY COSY FHWA-CMAQ HSIP HSIP 06/27/14 06/05/15 10/02/15 06/30/15 07/10/15 07/18/14 06/19/15 10/23/15 09/04/15 07/31/15 04/10/15 05/01/15 03/27/15 04/15/15 05/22/15 06/05/15 06/26/15 07/10/15 11/07/14 12/05/14 07/31/15 08/21/15 tbd tbd 100 100 85 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 95 0 11 2 0 0 0 98 75 45 20 98 0 0 09/30/16 10/31/15 05/31/16 12/31/16 09/25/15 10/31/15 07/30/15 10/31/15 10/31/15 08/31/15 12/31/15 03/01/19 $ 15,833,333 $ 2,002,350 $ 722,795 $ 327,562 $ 365,227 $ 1,156,500 $ 628,703 $ 421,000 $ 552,035 $ 1,721,880 $ 503,424 $ 81,000 COSV 08/22/14 09/09/14 100 98 05/30/15 $ 1,605,400 Design & Construction $ 25,921,209 Design Bid Estimated Total Project Proposed Open % Complete Construction Project # Design & Construction Projects Funding Ad Date Date PE I CN Completion Cost Street Projects 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0156 Mansfield Ave Connection 0166 Pines Rd. (SR27) &Grace Ave. Int Safety 0201 ITS Infill Project- Phase 1 0206 Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project Street Preservation Projects 0188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 0211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley & Wellesley 0218 Montgomery Ave St Preservation 0224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation Project Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06-3) 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Back Plates Other Projects 0176 Appleway Trail FHWA- BR FHWA-CMAQ HSIP FHWA-CMAQ CDBG FHWA-STP(U) COSY COSY COSY FHWA-CMAQ HSIP HSIP 06/27/14 06/05/15 10/02/15 06/30/15 07/10/15 07/18/14 06/19/15 10/23/15 09/04/15 07/31/15 04/10/15 05/01/15 03/27/15 04/15/15 05/22/15 06/05/15 06/26/15 07/10/15 11/07/14 12/05/14 07/31/15 08/21/15 tbd tbd 100 100 85 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 95 0 11 2 0 0 0 98 75 45 20 98 0 0 09/30/16 10/31/15 05/31/16 12/31/16 09/25/15 10/31/15 07/30/15 10/31/15 10/31/15 08/31/15 12/31/15 03/01/19 $ 15,833,333 $ 2,002,350 $ 722,795 $ 327,562 $ 365,227 $ 1,156,500 $ 628,703 $ 421,000 $ 552,035 $ 1,721,880 $ 503,424 $ 81,000 COSV 08/22/14 09/09/14 100 98 05/30/15 $ 1,605,400 Design & Construction $ 25,921,209 Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @Argonne/Mullan 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 0207 Indiana & Evergreen Transit Access Imp 0221 McDonald Rd Diet (16th to Mission) 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF &Trent Traffic Projects 0159 University Road Overpass Study 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study Stormwater Projects 0193 Effectiveness Study 0198 Sprague, Park to University LID 0199 Havana -Yale Diversion 0200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) COSY STA - FTA/NF HSIP COSY 08/15/15 12/31/17 09/30/15 12/31/15 07/17/15 06/30/15 tbd FHWA - CMAQ 07/31/15 FHWA-STP(U) 07/31/15 Dept of Ecology 06/30/15 Dept of Ecology 03/01/16 Dept of Ecology 10/31/16 Dept of Ecology 10/31/16 11 90 90 8 0 0 0 98 90 100 30 35 35 $ 517,919 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 51,619 $ 85,000 $ 616,000 $ 10,000 $ 249,711 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Design only $ 2,541,810 *Information in bold indicates updates 3 Design Total Project Complete % Complete Project # Design Only Projects Funding Date PE Cost Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @Argonne/Mullan 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 0207 Indiana & Evergreen Transit Access Imp 0221 McDonald Rd Diet (16th to Mission) 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF &Trent Traffic Projects 0159 University Road Overpass Study 0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study Stormwater Projects 0193 Effectiveness Study 0198 Sprague, Park to University LID 0199 Havana -Yale Diversion 0200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) COSY STA - FTA/NF HSIP COSY 08/15/15 12/31/17 09/30/15 12/31/15 07/17/15 06/30/15 tbd FHWA - CMAQ 07/31/15 FHWA-STP(U) 07/31/15 Dept of Ecology 06/30/15 Dept of Ecology 03/01/16 Dept of Ecology 10/31/16 Dept of Ecology 10/31/16 11 90 90 8 0 0 0 98 90 100 30 35 35 $ 517,919 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 51,619 $ 85,000 $ 616,000 $ 10,000 $ 249,711 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Design only $ 2,541,810 *Information in bold indicates updates 3 PLANNING The Capital Programs group is working with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) to update the 4 -Year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (2016-2019 STIP). GRANTS 2018-2020 CMAQ and TAP Call for Proiects At the July meeting, the SRTC Board authorized approximately $14.4 million in federal CMAQ and TAP funds that will be used to design and construct local transportation projects. The City of Spokane Valley was awarded $3.1 million or 21% of the total funding pool for these projects: CMAQ Grant Funding (Congestion Management and Air Quality) Grant Request City Match & Other Available Funding Total Project Cost Appleway Trail — Evergreen to Sullivan $1,422,925 $222,075 $1,645,000 Appleway Trail — University to Balfour Park (CN Only) $449,800 $70,200 $520,000 Sullivan — Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project $1,085,425 $284,575* $1,370,000 TAP Grant Funding (Transportation Alternatives Program) Grant Request City Match & Other Available Funding Total Project Cost Appleway Trail — University to Balfour Park (PE & ROW Only) $198,950 $31,050 $230,000 TOTAL $3,157,100 $607,900 $3,765,000 The projects will be scheduled for design and construction in the 2018-2020 calendar years. Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) - 2015 Call for Projects Staff worked with the City Council and a motion consideration was passed to pursue the following projects in TIB's 2015 Call for Projects: PROJECT NAME In the 6 -Yr TIP? TIP YEAR ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Urban Arterial Program Pines (SR -27) & Mirabeau Parkway Traffic Signal YES 2016 $350,000 McDonald Rd Pavement Preservation, 8r" to Mission NO N/A $1,300,000 Sullivan/Euclid Concrete Intersection (RW/CN) YES 2017 $2,108,000 Broadway at Argonne/Mullan Concrete Intersections (CN Only) YES 2019 $1,703,000 Urban Sidewalk Program Opportunity Elementary— SRTS (Bowdish Rd) YES 2018 $500,000 TIB - 2015 Call for Projects $5,961,000 Staff is working to complete applications for submittal to TIB by the August 21, 2015, deadline. *Information in bold indicates updates 4 Ecology FY16 Grant Funding Programs On June 24, 2015, Ecology announced the opening of three grant programs to assist the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permitees in improving stormwater quality in Washington State. Council and staff developed a project list and these project applications were submitted to Ecology on July 30th: Ecology FY16 Grant Funding Projects Grant Request 2015-2017 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants $50,000 Appleway Stormwater Improvements, Farr to University (PE Only) $140,000 Chester Creek Diversions (PE Only) $100,000 Eastern Washington Effectiveness Study Development Phases 2 & 3 $300,000 Total Ecology FY16 Grant Funding Programs $590,000 These projects are for Planning and Preliminary Engineering funds and require no City Match. *Information in bold indicates updates 5