The URL can be used to link to this page

2017, 03-07 Study Session MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington March 7,2017 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun,City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor John Hohman,Deputy City Manager Caleb Collier,Councilmember Cary Driskell,City Attorney Pam Haley,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Mike Munch, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Ed Pace, Councilmember Mark Werner,Police Chief Sam Wood, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll;all Councilmembers were present. 1. Solid Waste Collection—Erik Lamb,Morgan Koudelka,Epicenter Services Representative Jeff Brown As a matter of disclosure,Deputy Mayor Woodard said that by happenstance,he spoke briefly with Steve Wolf after church; said they are friends and said that although he made a quick comment about seeing him at the Council meeting, Deputy Mayor Woodard said they did not discuss what was on tonight's agenda; and that the RFP (request for proposal) process has integrity requirements to preclude opponents from attempting to contact Councilmembers; said that meeting was not material to tonight's meeting and would not preclude him from moving forward. Councilmembers had no objections. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said that staff has been working on the solid waste collection RFP over a year;that it is an extensive process which included a public survey, an industry review of the draft RFP and contract, and Council review of the proposed scenarios in the RFP; said that the RFP closed February 6 and resulted in four responses,one of which was deemed to be nonresponsive as the proposal submitted was incomplete. Mr. Lamb said that at the end of tonight's discussion, staff will be seek Council consensus to select a scenario, to talk about alternatives, and to determine whether to proceed with a "best and final" round. Mr. Lamb noted that consultant Jeff Brown is here to assist in tonight's discussion.Mr.Lamb said the rates came in low so staff does not recommend a best and final round;he said that staff will conduct a rate scoring as outlined in the RFP, as well as a qualitative review on how they would conduct business; that after staff conducts interviews,staff will perform an analysis and evaluation and will come to Council with a recommendation and scoring on a selection of one or more contractors;all of which will be presented to Council with all the information,so Council can make a decision at that upcoming Council meeting. Mr. Koudelka explained the contracting scenarios and associated costs as shown in Attachment A; he defined "drop box" service; and said that the highlighted areas are the recommended contract scenarios, which were partly driven by cost and partly by competition,keeping in mind the importance of low rates. Mr.Koudelka went over the contract alternatives,and the range of rate proposals and whether each would reduce or increase the rates, as shown in Attachment B; also noting that the highlighted areas are those recommended by staff. Mr. Koudelka said staff will bring forward another recommendation to Council at a later Council meeting. Council Study Session:03-07-2017 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council:03-14-2017 There was discussion about the appropriateness of making changes later on some aspects of the contract, and Mr.Koudelka said it would depend on which aspect,as some might lend to a delay while others would not. Mr. Brown noted that the individual cart issue would need to be determined at the onset since much hinges on that and cost would need to be amortized over the term of the contract,but household collections extra cost could be added later if desired.Mr.Brown also noted that the extra garbage and bulky item annual pick up doesn't include much latitude for change, as it would be a specific cubic yard amount. Mr. Lamb added that once a selection was made, a strong public education process would follow. The concept of having a"best and final"round was discussed further with both Mr. Lamb and Mr. Brown recommending against it, since the results were very good,there isn't a lot of room for the rates to go down, and there is a good range of things upon which to base the selection. After further discussion about universal carts to reduce the rates; the option of self-hauling or having it picked up;that the survey indicated most people are happy with the service the way it is,although there are a significant amount of people who use their own cans;having multiple haulers or single haulers,there was Council consensus to go with contract scenario 4, not to have a best and final round, and to consider universal carts. Mr. Lamb said that staff will bring all information back to council for a Council decision likely the end of March or early April. 2.2016 Accomplishments Report—Mark Calhoun The report started with an explanation from Mr. Calhoun of the 2016 Council Goals and the work done in association with each goal;he explained the Legislative and Executive departments, including the number of Council meetings and committees Council serve on;and moved into the City Clerk's Office with public record requests and information on records management. Sr. Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained about the contract administration; followed by an explanation of respective departments and areas of expertise from Public Information Officer Branch, Human Resources Manager Whitehead, Finance Director Taylor, City Attorney Driskell, Police Chief Werner, and Parks and Recreation Director Stone. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:43 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:53 p.m., at which time Deputy City Manager Hohman went over the areas of Community and Economic Development and Public Works. Council thanked staff for the presentation and work; and City Manager Calhoun noted the remarkable amount of work accomplished through the joint effort of Council and staff. 3.City Hall Update—Doug Powell,Jenny Nickerson Ms. Nickerson went through the PowerPoint showing the various sections of the city hall building, and noting we are still on schedule. 4.Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins There were no suggestions for the Advance Agenda. 5. Council Check-in—Mayor Higgins Deputy Mayor Woodard passed along a compliment from a citizen about the quick amount of time between reporting a pothole one evening,and having it fixed by the next morning. 6. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun City Manager Calhoun said that with the 2017 legislative session underway, several items have been discussed with Council on particular topics of interest, and tonight, there are four bills staff wishes to discuss,the first of which is the small cell deployment.City Attorney Driskell explained that this issue was explained at the February 14 workshop and apparently is an effort by the industry to get some state-wide regulations that would take away local control; said a letter opposing SB 5711 was sent to the legislators urging them to vote against it;that bill has undergone some amendments but only one was successful,which was proposed by Senator Carlyle,which represents a commonsense approach that balances the needs of the Council Study Session:03-07-2017 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council:03-14-2017 wireless industry with the local control jurisdictions should have. Mr. Driskell explained several other aspects of the bill, and summarized by explaining that the Carlyle amendment is consistent with what Council wanted,which is better for businesses and citizens;and he asked for Council consensus to send the March 6 letter to legislators urging them to consider the Carlyle amendment. Council concurred. Mr. Driskell explained that the SB 1347 dealing with port districts would authorize county-wide port districts, but the change would be that commissioners would not have to be chosen on the same ballot as the port district creation; and it would prohibit port districts from levying taxes until after the election of the port commissioners.Mr.Driskell said this topic has come up before and he is not sure if Council wants to take a position.Mr. Calhoun noted that this topic is currently scheduled for Council's March 21 agenda. There was discussion about the status of this bill now and Mr. Driskell stated that the house passed it by a significant margin; it was also noted that the bill cutoff is tomorrow. Councilmember Pace asked how the 4th District Representatives voted on this,and after researching that,he noted that Representatives McCaslin and Shea voted no on the port district. Councilmember Pace said he feels it is a good to back up the 4th District legislators,and there was no objection to Mr.Driskell drafting a letter for the Mayor's signature. Concerning Senator Padden's water rights bill SB 5005,Mr.Driskell said there is nothing likely to happen this year in the legislature; that the water districts are talking with the Department of Ecology and those discussions will likely continue to hopefully identify near-term as well as long-term solutions that will benefit some jurisdictions; said we are likely to see a piece-meal approach to this very complex issue involving multiple parties; and said there is no need to send a letter on this as it will likely come up again during the 2018 legislative agenda. Council agreed. Deputy City Attorney Lamb noted that copies of SB 5827 have been placed before Council; said this bill concerns the lodging tax and specifically seeks changes to the definition of"tourist"for purposes of local lodging tax reporting,and would require recipients of the local lodging tax to report to the local government and to the local lodging tax advisory committee on the number of tourists generated from their events. Mr. Lamb said that this too would improperly interfere with the authority of local jurisdictions to determine important matters of local concern, and of how to determine where and how to conduct local tourism promotion through the expenditure of those lodging tax revenues;but would fail to take into consideration benefits from local spending at restaurants and retail stores.Mr. Lamb said the draft letter opposes the bill largely due to the removal of local control. Council agreed to have the letter signed and sent to the legislators. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. pa ./r.1b. ATTEST: L.R.Higgins,ire+or Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session:03-07-2017 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council:03-14-2017 March 6, 2017 Members of the Washington State Legislature: The City of Spokane Valley previously provided a letter in opposition to Senate Bill 5711 regarding siting of wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way. This bill, as drafted, would improperly interfere with the authority of local jurisdictions to determine important matters of particularly local concern:what the community looks like,and how those decisions are made. The City has reviewed the proposed amendment from Senator Carlyle and could support that approach. It represents a common-sense approach that balances the needs of the wireless industry with the local control jurisdictions should have. Currently, cities have the ability to adopt land-use regulations and negotiate franchise terms for use of the public rights-of-way that are appropriate to each locale, which is as it should be. We believe we would be able to support SB 5711 if the Legislature adopted the Carlyle amendment into the bill prior to its passage. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, L.R. Higgins, Mayor HOUSE BILL REPORT SHB 1347 As Passed House: March 3, 2017 Title: An act relating to the creation of a countywide port district within a county containing no port districts. Brief Description: Concerning the creation of a countywide port district within a county containing no port districts. Sponsors: House Committee on Local Government(originally sponsored by Representatives Riccelli,Holy and Ormsby). Brief History: Committee Activity: Local Government: 1/25/17, 2/9/17 [DPS]; Finance: 2/21/17, 2/23/17 [DPS(LG)]. Floor Activity: Passed House: 3/3/17, 81-16. Brief Summary of Substitute Bill • Authorizes a county with no port district prior to December 31, 2020, to create a countywide port district by a ballot proposition and elect the initial port commissioners at the next general election instead of at the same election as when the ballot proposition is submitted to voters to form the district, • Prohibits port districts from levying taxes until after the election of port commissioners. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 4 members: Representatives Appleton, Chair; McBride,Vice Chair; Gregerson and Peterson. Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 2 members: Representatives Pike,Assistant Ranking Minority Member;Taylor. This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative stafffor the use of legislative rnentber•s in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. House Bill Report - 1 - SHB 1347 Minority Report: Without recommendation. Signed by 1 member: Representative Griffey, Ranking Minority Member. Staff: Desiree Omli (786-7383). HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Majority Report: The substitute bill by Committee on Local Government be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 9 members: Representatives Lytton, Chair;Frame,Vice Chair; Nealey,Ranking Minority Member; Dolan,Pollet, Springer, Stokesbary,Wilcox and Wylie. Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 2 members: Representatives Orcutt,Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Condotta. Staff: Richelle Geiger(786-7139). Background: Port Districts. Port districts are special purpose districts with the authority to impose property tax levies. Port districts may take up an entire single county, or may be less than countywide. A port district is authorized to acquire, construct, maintain, operate, develop, and regulate harbor improvements, commercial development, and rail, motor vehicle, water, and air transfers and terminal facilities. Formation of Countywide Port Districts. Countywide port districts may be created by a ballot proposition that is submitted directly to county voters for their approval or rejection if either: (1)the county legislative authority adopts a resolution to submit a ballot proposition; or(2) county voters sign a petition allowing for a ballot proposition to be submitted. The number of signatures needed on the petition must be equal to at least 10 percent of the number of county voters who voted in the last general county election. The petition must be filed with the county auditor. Once it is certified, the county auditor returns it to the county legislative authority,who either submits the proposition at the next general election or calls a special election. There are three commissioners in each port district. The initial port commissioners must be elected at the same election as when the ballot proposition is submitted to voters to authorize the creation of the port district. There is no primary election and the individuals with the majority of votes will be the initial port commissioners. Summary of Substitute Bill: Prior to December 31, 2020, a county with no port district may create a countywide port district by a ballot proposition submitted to the voters authorizing the port district to be created. In these elections, all of the procedures to form a countywide port district must be followed, except that the initial port commissioners are not required to be elected at the same election as when the ballot proposition is submitted to voters. Rather,the initial House Bill Report -2- SHB 1347 commissioners may be elected at the next general election. In addition, a countywide port district created by a ballot proposition submitted to voters may not levy taxes until after the election of the port commissioners for that port district. This provision expires on December 31, 2020. Appropriation: None. Fiscal Note: Available. Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the session in which the bill is passed. Staff Summary of Public Testimony(Local Government): (In support)This is a narrowly crafted bill. There are many private companies and local governments in Spokane working together to try to create a port authority within Spokane county. Port authorities support local economies by developing and maintaining industrial properties,transportation facilities, and economic development opportunities. A split election,where voters authorize a port authority in one election and port commissioners in the next,would avoid any distraction in the election of port commissioners. About 30 years ago, Spokane tried to create a port commission under the existing statute only to have the port commissioners vow to eliminate the port authority. In 2014 the Legislature passed the same split election provision for a less-than-countywide port authority election, and this is for a countywide district. (Opposed)None. Staff Summary of Public Testimony(Finance): (In support)The bill would benefit six counties. Spokane County is the only county pursuing the legislation. The bill is narrowly crafted and taxes could only be collected after the commissioners are elected. Thirty years ago, Spokane County put a port authority on the ballot, and the only people who ran for port commissioner were those who didn't want the port authority to be established. Many businesses and local governments are working together to put a port authority on the ballot. Port districts are the best tool the state has to develop industrial properties, transportation facilities, and economic opportunities. (Opposed)None. Persons Testifying (Local Government): Jim Hedrick, Greater Spokane Incorporated. Persons Testifying(Finance): Jim Hedrick, Greater Spokane Incorporated. Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying(Local Government): None. Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying(Finance): None. House Bill Report -3 - SHB 1347 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 19, 2016 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business r] new business ❑ public hearing [' information X4 admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Port District—Strategic Business Plan Overview GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 53.04 Port District Formation PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 8-25-15 Discussion with GSI BACKGROUND: In the State of Washington, port districts were initially 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, rental income, and grants or gifts as revenue sources. Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI) commissioned Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. to prepare a Strategic Business Plan to support the consideration of creating a Port Authority in Spokane County. The draft plan was released in March 2016. Staff will provide an overview of the document and update the Council on the status of the proposal. OPTIONS: Discussion only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community & Economic Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Strategic Business Plan • ttr I i 1 -d l j '+ ,.i LZ 41 l G . 40:,,-,• 7•/.. '....qtah„,_ ..'•'•' 4' J',; , . pl • ..--$- I t; 1 • r .F v�Y'+•i•_ x.;•`-.i"„1••••.1t;• i ;'•F ry '$1' 7 .;._•I .. a 1 I ' - . !lkireco ' • 1 I ' 4 1 t' I ' • I, S r 1 4 I •r • ;a ,� r • ,. -,,,,..,„...!-A.,,,,,—,::. 7/ r. " e • •'1. fnis" • ,e. V • I.. S 11 �{ + '. •. i°ft :L; ,— w J. 1 9i / , ii F • +� t I l r • a r+# .. • .� iM,�+ " - ! r r• ,��• `•,� 1 I l' f•-:1 I fir, --"` _,. , 2 _ ., i '....,',V- i !//+ I ll • :� a 1,fC I� " rt y�:.�■� f�.:., . +r: ri• }.4i +j' it �'.a :ro�1.• ;I �h.",f• r ;r, +~ 1•t- 1, , 1 r` F`F SJ – f^ Pr" :. :71 :.)' r - ,,:.I.,{I:?--;;°I T i ' I' ':, i�' , F ` 9� j' I 4'yiu .4.4,....„. '. _ E I�� 1 i � •r �J' . �. rj,f,- .. teI e '�!9 i1 '..+�T+ill+IIS, �, a 7�,t+4{1 � }, r,&.� ti^rrzzc, %•• ; �• — �. . ( _� • i qI ISS t �•; :1*1 I Tif., I r tij`a '-� �t -71 S . .• 4,4 4 L+- "' v= ':I ••ri1 f + i 5r,. '� 4is 1 �:•, ' •1./ . �r:4 13 •has ••I , --15 7'• t • �1 _ 1_ LF t: \� .�' I ii1,4: .� + .i` re -0+ Shw " 4 w�A(i •rr ` 1 �. a .y !. F., S„ �}.. "0X, i ' '': ... .... . .z.,77.-...' •- ..., ;A 71 • • • .fir 4.\ .}, A j& + .•r'+� R If 5 r ( �Y ` i ��C It M c.'' '� �_ . ,N / 11..�Alstil +F lllnr y Zvi 1t i1 i` rfi�l'•1 ' '` .1Y_ Y `'w t 1,. y . ' L:,111111,1111 N 47, -r: ii :,•;,;31.:: ? i - '� Ili,,i i It' i Nil ISil' 4,1i:i.�'Jt4 '`t..•I ': I r �t i.1. trr r --,...3-,,s,.....,, :V- ,,, ; i., .„- :L' Lt11 �!'( \cL11:-ij •Y c`.,?`I'—.fi y1L ^+F r`�• i'.:-.-7‘,-,.-••c,,-.77,-7..-7‘ .i i r� • �1 ti 'ice :.:.-,a,- I •L.rl�s. ,i . ,\{LJ 11111 +1•-'1 1 it - +4 11r' `. :f:k �v,,ft' :l i•-,•„,L1•••!••••••••,1,0:,•,01:—:iI ,, Jr�} I'I I..,7 .} +ilk' e. 1� .y + {�1, !{�� __.— r +il - iii it .Y$EY ..l.-Z1t,14 Wl'i.. fl10 {,FI•tal - - I4F f. v ,. _ <41 if i-"1�1 SS. L d't.yC, rr, 1 ,. . • _.....---'2-c-;".7' .• - --- ...- • ":•:.r.•••.:....•:...`''.,:;,14.1...:,.7.zz'.• --• , - .. • - - - . - •- ..----..-"--4.--=`1.4",--.. -,- -. .... -,.. . . . •. .--....... ...t.:. - - -. •-,.e..to-1:'... --t•-:-.P.t2.7.1'-'20.--f . 1..-.,.. '1.•-...- -.. 71. . --„ ---.7-',.-- 2'.- -: -_:., - - -::r.:,' . t.',,- - - 4'.4/.1.,,,%- .. --./"; • _, ‘--"44.1-,.''-'.,, .i.irrj::47.4,..'„,-..", -4,1=- ' .2. ,,.,..Z,, .4-"1.1747..-...-'.,.C.,.\-..Z2--,t.-',`:Hr... -:1“:77'''.... ..x ,...r''' --.-.• ..-.-.... .-..-- 7.•••.....o..:,...,.. : '- .e 2'7'0•A ,t .., '....,' .: ::.,4 .41.,...111, ..,.4 s:: :,LL: ";:.' , , . ,ITt ,: ''..."::. '''....'......11..i...,.......... 1,.... .....4..tk-.-7.-::tt.:'....:,...‘k.,:::•-77+":"-i.N yl....L.....';-....-,-..:...."7,..=:..-'TA.''N".-.' - ' :4:7:47.r.;-LZ:',Z:::::.;;"",...0--ft7r:S.As.:S-,....." .-- --•'.1...V.'' .A ',* ,...., .•- - ...%.„t -,...r. __.,.....„,,,,,..,............-___,.....e...t..4.4. 0,,,,,,,-..:-.41--,t-sr;-.-41...•'-‘,.-____*:-:--,.. ...... .. ..--- - _ .- -.... -,.....,`.--.- :..---•--..--44--.--te.....t.‘:‘,,-."' -- . • II I . I J.; _„;.7.f.......-k- 4•74.'".!-- --- - -....",V ° TA -1-' -- - --;--=-------,--z--------.--73-.7-----'..--•-' - .` '-: -..,-...---*„. , fr'l:g ''' ''.xf -- .-:-.--r:177- 1- l•-I.-- vr.. . •,_....-,.... I. •i- ",;,..:.....'••' ••.4 • t 1 r;...i,,,....,t,";.:_",-:-",...;:...... ..;1 A 111 ; •t.,;_.:..-,:4------:,. --.7f, ,77.771..'"..•%;„ .„, --.- i tgig i4 "; 1,41 li . ittlA I- ;E`..7'. • - • - .' 1 1 15t.loitif:.-- .. ...'7,10 `rt ,* ••_. *-;11 r . . ita! ' .,,,, ,,.,:....,,,z ,„. .. '' I.• t ...4 ........1.:. ,,,,•• '',..41r..°"!...'''', 'tr.- •,Vt" -+1,..... s -.-1,0-..--,,,,,-.. ,4'...) 1.St... -' ,s , r •'.t ' ... - - '..--°.:77 ••-•...,,,,_*Ii-AY.r7Lit.l' A' -,--....4 .!›,i,";-:-, 11'1 ,g '1‘--'' 4/ ... - ; 131. , -. -.- -._,I,Z,-. ...4•;.* ....ge.s.,:„..,v,„%...r.Z,, _,..*OcOIN *44;4. -4**'...4„131 r.;„. ..„ • ,c.,00..,"4,1,-'1........,,,..:44„,,......1--..,„,,,..k....t-i ...E....!--,,, ..,L.4.... ..740.ck---- - -.,, - , .. i • i -------, ------...--7-r.. --.-1---•-•--........;--,-- --- -,------.4 1 - 1 .,•‘. ! . 'Ca' - i's,t.:1..„„ .., --.L.r._,,,,;"'-u• .. ,1-- -;ill-.-...1. Fr-.0.52.*-.1 6.4k.--t.zm 7...;.---4:3:= -=-1-z----.)-- -.--• - e: I A: ..•1 " 1'1 •-„,..... 0„„,•00,9=.,„ ... „,• _.„.A....• .701.-:•04.4:4,- L`l ...Pill..„......,. • •,...r..,',.:11„,,,, .•,,...•[..r113.1•,..,,„ r..1,•:•It t .;."--IL ,,-. ..,-,04 „.•0'•.0.0 - ..", 1, '. ' - P" 0 Ell -...4.•,-o VI 1 -:v...,...i4jr;,;,;....\ ' N.7.5"7. 7..."..--..,ZrealS2."'''""••,....."..... ' "i".' _..,, ....4.... 0 .-...Ve* 11.... • 4;.7...-""' :c1r. eire '-`' .-..--.7. .1 • - 4 1 t . I-- -h.i-- %...-- --?:-•-..."..'..,' , '- '... --- -- .'v."--- .. ro •"...-"` -„Plik-vIL----74...;1-7 - r•. - 1.4'..,4415.,r.C...-....• -•73•''Pr.*....."-02:-,••• r•-:•- • :;•,-,. ; , ....•'''.' 5-.14 t• * ''' : 'V Ar - -.7 • APD -- . 'A ,at,r. - i .,.....k..f ir).:.. ..,. t ,...,. •?!....4 0 ••• ''71.0.7.%" • "tr • '' • ..4$L.r.., .terf••'Sea ,,,,k4. • . .0.1,."0 ' ,%Is- .t-it i ... .,„. ••••• -...-• ,„..3f . ,-.11 „„ „,,,,. •• Ili,,m,„;;FI. ....1 , •.1-.-._ 441,.... ..--0.. hst ... ::-.0:, 'A •r I...•-‘1.E.Az• , . ...4 ! 1 ... :;........ . .'AP.*, '' .% 1 - .:- - •: ,.. r • .. - .....77;7.1 ., -, _,..-p:•-,r,. r04....x.%..:;,-..- - .... r.,'. .11...--r--a."' . :,,- , .., : .....,:r-1,. ....._,, . -Jo... .; .... N, . . „, t7..A -' '1''''-'-'•t'e'1'''''• ''''' Si t`' i'..r... - , • ...- „.., . ., . '--bY-c.i, , 4,..*• "•' , 'r,--• ni-71'1---- --?: 4,1.2;1•.,.0.."1-: 'Zi 0,• 'A27,.. •,..:Z".4. ''' 7, ..-• ,..n•••.• 7 r!..; ••,",''.f•,,,.•...,;I - "___.• F-..__ 1 - - .- roi• .,.-,. -.-1,--,..-- ,.. --t.:.-,-...-:_,,.-. -g...: ,, FA'. -,,::.••,;,'•?;,:,, i,-..-- . :t', _ ,_----- -:„..,_....-, - --i--4--• • ,&t$, L ..,----.-.•.7-...--•-•- 7,„.....,.---- ,,,,,...--1 .. , •,,,,__if,"-4,v, ...5-.' -.:---i . i 1,,,,,11,,..A...c. gp.... I,. .....-•'.5 . . .. 4...&./.1..:24 • •,.... .-- -°- -- . • %SI. ,- ' - , ---- ------, ., r. 144.4,...-k-,4,..1„„h.z•-• _m___......z...,,,:, , ,i.,..,,..2...._;;;;, 4.s...,i r ,,,:l..„..-,..:.,.; .r : „• 4.2.0:,;;ji 4•,•,:,,!•',.. h •f• . f 1-.1I,-- -,-v_;..•ys.,,..,,z._5: ..-45.". . ,.*"..:. ''''-' ' r .. . , ...• 6, ' . • -... .. ..'}; ..1:.'eg z,. ,-,., -. ... i -,,,: ..t - . ,,),-.. •,;•„, •-,z,'?...- 1. .:.:`...- , ., • -Nu 1-t. _ -I.‘.._ - ,, . •, .. _ t tt.V. qz...4., 4 ..'''''.4 telk: •,:;;;; - .- . .cit .."''' ''''"•ki:0 ,t.' ,'-. j i-•,..- ,-- 1, il- - .1 3 ..* WI t • '1'41:;:-::enfolklitMtimjr°11'''' 1 --''''' - W ...-.--- --...--.7.:$:7'-'-: -• ''' t ...'.3 ihijr.r3.,.Y„ok « •OINZ:V. -,..cr,,,,-..e.'ir-, .. * ...------ ...r-.-....;---rflz.::- • 4 . • ' ,,,,--7.:'lee.,4'11-4.y,-,c-,-;*;.•:'.tga..e. :tf....1.$ 00.3t1:1_ . --.....„,,-....--......„,....,...,..._....„.._ .e, ' uk. :.,:-: = -...,.,--,.._-;,-,--. L. . ir-0.. • ' • .0. •••4''",'''i r 1'-'tir ' ''''..-''' •"."14.'' ' ...i."-.. • ' r,_. -..": - _ .,..- -fle-...,-. ,-- • '4:4-, . •'. ir:----.v_IT'q,s.,...-,:..;:----: 4 ,,,,,e", .-. .r..,V%,.." A..„L'.. -:'"1.,. .. "-,"!::::1"7• .--"_*r2” MO.. , Fici,..11-e-r ., _ -,.46r, *4.-- *,,,,,L,...."."' . - .V.` •"'''',.. '''' .410EIN a.''.... .•:`",".. .. i .-,hi-"1, I all .s. -,,'"...,....:.....11: '.:'i_A.' ' ! - , • .3.„-• *bor. , * - . ,......-:.- , -•=e1...•=f 7-'4 ''...1f; „, - fl,,,,-.,`,1,.-,....".444P-...''.::,' - ii.:" - I ;;.-:: '''Irt '..4?"-,,M1 ... ..... .-." rf.;."-411,f‘'•-t-9e - -.-.-:.... ''S P:•.°P.01;' - ,'.."- '., ''''.-.4' ' 's•,‘,._..,_ ....,..... '.... ..z ,„..... _ - „,... ,.... _,.. -. .-,--,,, ...„.„, - ,,,-- •,. - i:a, 5 ';,i,.... -#'-.N4,,.,,,,„ etVernitivIzi• .-' e.,,,,3:..- ,, '„ :,-,,• _ ji ,,,„_,.... ......4„;.,..7...t..„.... .....f. . 7., .. -...., ....- . , ._, •7.- ,- rP .., „.A. 1 . "I . 4.1.n...-Vigle _,t' ...•••-'1.•-• . ...t.44,4.-..:..0.::,".. ...2.,,,,•,...- .-.0"...,, .. ' , I. - 'Mt !•- •%•' * r--7'. • .•-%*-eP,'14*,.......1•A - _ 1". - •."1.,`,---4. -...... Is_....1,..*Nieto .47,...fft ...,,,,,,42.4.r1: "t, ' 2:7'' . .. . ._ .'i + . nl. - ' .....4.1, -;;;41+. ''''• • "'' - ...k......7.12`+" ' :',;:fe-' ,q1.41:r'':1.,..,5:...,;:..-r4t.'"' A..., :•Tetrz-..Tc",... . " - .. ...-:`" '..&.' '-':C.eir lir : se"...--'..."••• -7-1 '" .04bigt. ' . Z ---11. ..- ..- -",-;..-- -Pr '-'4...-- - --; _ --Ver--71.. .--z-.•..... -re'*-- - .-....- ...... - . ,,,,. - ....-;.....2..t..... ...•-. -. ;0'00,n'. 0 , -..,,,,› .:,,, ...„. L.......,,...-. „.„,,,,0,!•".' .„--., '..:• - .••••.:0 P r,..,r, . -- - . 0... 1••F•40r rr'',,,,..e.r. , .--.1. ,,-,.-- -, 3.3, , .... ''Z-,. ..,;', ...:Z.L.-- -'7,4',IN..,.... ...."':Z" "..:".43 ,-„^ ""' -. '. Z:- ''.. -.• -1, •--4 J.. k-e-f"- _:,.-.• - z...-....----, .- -- •.7 - -......."-,, ..9t •.;,........,C,-•.•.....,.''''''': ' - -r ...,..p:. o• .y.--,5 --t :-`'....7--Srfellf5-:.;---75*------ -----,. .'- ..,,,.....- ' ••,. ......1.,-;_t---..- .. -:•-., : .-• 7'....:-.. .........r.,,.., .-- .-• '.-...a ..Y ,..0"` ----: ,•'-'-:,-. - - " ..- -...a..',.. . -3. AU - ....• ,.."0.. "1.' - -"- .11' , i'" ' ''..4 LI",, " *P., : .• - `: % -, ... ......-..;4.- ='..,7""-7--..L;. -..r.....- , . 3 -.....- -.4.1.• ..‘e..•:::,Ati 11.,/,i"...il'-''' ,-4-.: i':'';-al& ..-' ,717,17-77. ' ...,t1. ' .•-: -' ft. .....t00' '1 !'n ve, U41;110..- ‘1.• IIT;rg-' 4. ..i ..."14..,P.A2 4,6' . 4.'3.° ''''W '-'”‘'."......t''''''' 144.1ipeell 1.:...Imo' .1-,„...1-. t•-"'. ' -".''.' i C'-''::::;,`''.:.',1-7.,,iV,-p3.7 *gv.ce.,.- ts:-...,,, ,i,..--e... .....__. .7.%-- , , ... , 4 •, ... J.. •Zit - i'''-'47:.A•,-?"1--0.1fcif., -...'''-.,'- „, 1,2.1,-... -".--'''.1 - 7-zzl:L.'-`z.0 .. At ... .....4,'......, ;... - t.. . .z.." . 4,.. talitr, . ., . t- ..,.. ...-... -14;:-4.-A ' V_ * Zi..,j'^r -•'--- _ '"There is absolutely no inevitability •s long as tnerels wi ingifesS o tiiiijk.."').----;:_ • ,,,,, : • ,,- i J.-vr. ....,...z--,:,. --, -- rl 04,..N-- , - . , - ., .4„.z -,r..-. , ...,...J. =-•*----••-- ---A. -• - •• .. .• .4 .., - . _....;,--im,:. ..7.-:• ••., -- .._ -1•1- 1.,.. i . - ...., ,..„...0. • ort. - • po -.'- • -- .4,.. , t....„.„,„....4.,--4,-,------..-.,-;.-1 -.--1,..------.- .hacknbnesf' nim o ,• _ 1 417".• I „ .. ..1 -..44:1--.T;13,-4- ,-,-1;+7V'-.12-1- .,,,,pir.,....-'..,• ,..T.„. - . • _ , ...-A-A. - ,.. •-.•• ---...=.6%.• ' - --er...1-444.r.,..:...--r,i,-.4.-...- - - , ..-, .....,.-:.a... -• ,e• 4.„, ..001.e...... .. .... +0 . -r'",,.01". ry ' Or"' - •ro.,,, - -., ..: - -., - - , .1---)",g1.• '124• ,,,,,V411.. %It'16''"''“" b • • A .i .‘-'1" '% '' ' 'W:*';',,t0',71,4, Sugar Beet Mill in Waverly, Washington :..3, .,<:',..-v-,,• -TiVliktgba..,4*.:14. - .,...4`i,.. - , .,,-.1.,., , •,. , -..c.. ..,-............%-rs.-.W.,.. . _L., - - _.,•,-$.74-,:2.-.... - -.. - • • TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 1 SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY 5 IMPACTS OF A PORT AUTHORITY 14 ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS 19 West Airport Multi-Modal Industrial Park Associated Painters Hangar 3 Project Kaiser Mead Deer Park Industrial Center The Yard Liberty Lake Smart Tech Campus Centennial Park Cheney Incubator Project Cheney Industrial Park Airway Heights Industrial Corridor Spokane Port Authority I STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN 2016 1- PREAMBLE Private companies and local governments serving the greater • Spokane region have partnered to reformulate the area's approach : As early as 1982 Spokane County considered the • to achieving more robust economic conditions and increasing livable creation of a port authority to fund facilities for wage job availability. industrial development and encourage private This effort has focused on exploring the creation of a newly formed • investment. The driving vision at that time was • economic development agency under Washington law: a voter- : job creation and the belief that a port district with • approved public port authority. Creating the Spokane Port Authority* • • would provide the community with a publicly owned agency that : its arsenal of economic development tools would would be empowered with the primary mission of promoting : substantially improve the competitiveness ofSpokane • economic development and associated increases in job creation and • County in the regional and national economy. private business development_ ` Ports in Washington, as special purpose local units of government, have unique powers and authorities that are complimentary to the existing powers and authorities of other local agencies including cities and counties. History indicates that Washington ports primarily focus on community building to support their local economies through the development and operation of industrial property, transportation facilities and economic development programs. This Strategic Business Plan (Plan) was developed to articulate both the need for, and the specific role of, a new voter-approved port authority. It was crafted through a collaborative regional effort organized within Greater Spokane Incorporated and guided by an advisory group of private interests and local governments. • The Strategic Business Plan defines the planned priorities and intentions of the proposed Port authority. As a practical matter, it articulates, in understandable terms, what is reflected in the forecasted budget and financial plan. "Subject to further Spokane County determination on name. BACKGROUND SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY IMPACTS ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS 5 WASHINGTON PUBLIC PORTS . The Port District Act of 1911 allowed Washington communities to • . establish port districts (authorities) with voter approval and elect Washington State Port Facts commissioners to administer the district and oversee its development . and operation. Washington public ports were originally authorized ; to provide maritime and rail facilities, but since then many additional • 75 PORTS authorities have been approved by the State legislature. Most : ; notably, in 1941, these public ports were granted the authority to • build and operate airports. In 1955 they were granted the authority . 25% OF THE NATION'S PORTS . to establish industrial development districts and, in the 1980s, they ; • were granted the authority to undertake a broad range of economic . development activities, including tourism. ALMOST lO� �0 INVEST IN REAL ESTATE ; : : . 31 OPERATE AIRPORTS Powers of Ports Include but Are Not Limited To: :: • • Levy property taxes to fund capital and operating costs IN 4 JOBS IN THE STATE ARE RELATED TO TRADE • Fund promotional hosting activities to support the port : OUT OF 39 COUNTIES HAVE A PORT • Acquire property through eminent domain .; • Partner through intergovernmental agreements with • 15 ARE COUNTY-WIDE local municipalities . ; • Buy, lease and sell personal property • 11. ARE DEEP WATER PORTS - • Operate transportation facilities • WASHINGTON STATE HAS THE LARGEST LOCALLY- • - Develop lands for industrial and commercial purposes ;CCONTROLLED PORT SYSTEM IN THE WORLD . (IDD) • Operate trade centers, foreign trade zones, and export trading companies • Provide tourism facilities and promotion • Build infrastructure and facilities 6 BACKGROUND SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY IMPACTS ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND :; �, SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY IMPACTS._ .-_ ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS 7 WHY A PORT AUTHORITY? Spokane County serves as the region's economic center providing Currently Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI) provides economic critical medical and education services. While the local economy development services to the County including recruitment of has seen growth in recent years in the warehousing, advanced inbound investment and the facilitation of local business growth. manufacturing, healthcare and finance sectors there is a growing They are funded by voluntary contributions from local governments sense that the region is not reaching its full industrial manufacturing and periodic small grants from the State. Local government funding potential. That has had an impact on the availability of higher wage puts a burden on those agencies that have other critical demands jobs and the spin off economic benefits of a sustainable workforce. for their limited resources. GIS does not have the funding or charge Unemployment has generally mirrored that of the state average, and to invest in real property and infrastructure, the absence of which is currently 5.5%. The average annual wage was $42,600 in 2014, creates a real economic disadvantage to the area. compared. to the state average of $55,000 ($44,300 without King County). The proposed Spokane Port Authority offers a sustainable revenue stream to continue the important work of GSI without A major obstacle to the County's ability to attract businesses is the local government resources and the opportunity for equity based competitive advantages offered by Idaho.Washington's tax structure investments on the community's behalf in infrastructure development is far less attractive than that of its neighbor to the east.Idaho offers that supports industrial development, as well as in joint public - property,sales,and use tax breaks to manufacturing firms that might private partnerships.The Spokane Port Authority would put Spokane otherwise be attracted to Spokane's strong manufacturing sector. In County on a level playing field with other successful communities 2014, Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI) acknowledged the loss throughout the State and region. of several major employers to Idaho including [to be provided by GSI]. - No Water...... Wby a Port?rt . --�`'y�_ `�-- There are 7 5 public - • p b is port authorities in Washington State, 1:1[Li''-=.',7';' I -,----„,,p,„ _ ;„, .. 4 , : and of those 75% do not operate marine cargo facilities. iti___::l , _ _ . ; Virtually ail ports have earned revenue from real-estate II e _ - investments from either ground leases or port-owned - .�; nT i t� - buildings. - MIi t - - 1,--- ..-,..2 - Ports report that their practices and policies encourage -; ' - , joint ventures with the private sector /int • Port of Grays Harbor Satsop Business Park. . - . BACKGROUND _ ' ... ti,SPOKANE PORT.AUTHORITY IMPACTS -. ` . ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS- - SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY Spokane Port Authority I STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN 2016 MISSION The proposed Port's Mission statement The Spokane Port Authority will create economic demes at its core WHY the Port would growth and prosperity in all of greater Spokane exist. County through the attraction of private sector market investment, which drives the creation of livable wage jobs. 10 BACKGROUND SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY IMPACTS ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS `-"%tfs P ,',pr .`: +?''l5,wr" z 0A,---,.,-- wr •,-A, �, NACU E -' y !1 � r .7.„, ::.,:.,2 r 7.`y4 Th prop :Porz :vale ;aefirie ,. • The Port demonstrates leadership in service to greater t�eliefs-ar d ideals thatit{107 Port Wouli R__ ,, x Spokane to advance the economic prosperity of the subscribe to as it delhvers omits Missfo'' '�'�n'esserrce llO the Pai-t'wi11 db its v_fo�k_` r. region. 4 .-„,,,,,,,,,...e.,......,,,,„,,,...,...,„...4.., ,.....4.,.. . ,, ' .• y 4 b � ' ° The Port, its Commission and staff, pledge to operate r � � - _ 41- , �Ve � ., in an open, collaborative and decisive manner, with 4 Atv = 41 -' • `r ` �_ ' full transparency of decision making. ,e:oc,, ,......$*,,.i., -.00,,44,,kts,o, ..,-,, i'7.,.. , '''. ‘ 't ti r. 1� �.;. The Port places a premium on collaborating with the .. r ,i . ,.G •4. ` ;: L ,-, private sector and other public agencies to advance ,, t. . . ,,; . "-,,,.`4.,. the community's aspirations while treating its unique :-. �riz`r '% � . " community role and public trust resp responsibilities with '� the upmost importance. Stn mo �� . r = , _ The Port maintains its assets and facilities in a safe and q�ttyy, �`(4,�p.P h a�`Y t'ii�'�•149:h�]S�i7�4'yj4 45�3,�'`^��^�i,.• \� 1 =,r •7.y,.. iii� � =`w .. �� environmentally sustainable condition that protects �.. `; ,k.,v ,Ti 4} r �v 1. the community's investment. • The Port values a respectful relationship with its vendors, contractors and suppliers as well asits staff. i_...,.,.._.S.,... ., ......,..., ,._.... ,.rte_._- . . - �..ti,4:,•rf Fj r�„ �4P . • w,.w+/ 4i" �. 'F'''''' +'w • rYi rtTYL "IY. f.4" '4'R'rM'F:.�` Ora: =ACG ws, ," `.xar..4'',„..k,e .�:,°.r�.. '#! . 'OM .. . `�Q ' "�g `"v= ' �� OJ C a ;c �. STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN I ARCHITECTURE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING TACTICS 0 - 1 YEAR Mfr. 7'."-----"-. .- - I PLANNED STRATEGIES 1.....) EGIZ ET (POLICY, OPERATIONAL, FINANCIAL) a - YEARS • OVERALL GOALS 3 - 5 YEARS la C_, 2 Le VALUES 10 -20 YEARS 0 MISSION 10 -20 YEARS - _ - ^•_ IMM _ Strategic business plans for ports include the overriding It's operational and capital (investment) budget, including a "goal's" that the port seeks to achieve, in that sense, a plan of finance, allocates the financial resources to support destination it strives to reach, employing specific `planned the ports undertakings. strategies'. The combination of `goals' and' values' the port embraces are based on its underlying `mission' that defines WHY the port exists. 12 1 BACKGROUND SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY IMPACTS ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS INITIAL GOALS AND PLANNED STRATEGIES t.Attract inbound investment and support local business 3. Place a high priority on realizing economic growth and industry expansion to create a stable and growing throughpatientindustrialdeveiopmentandinfrastructure availability of family wage jobs. investment with a particular focus on incubating startup • Strategy I A: Launch a focused "recruitment and retention and expanding business. response program" for both inbound and local investment ° Strategy 3A: Conduct an initial industrial property (marginal • Strategy IB: Create a "certified sites" program to identify and lands) inventory and assessment to inform a 5-10 year "early promote "shovel-ready" property action" investment portfolio, considering the creation of Industrial Development Districts 2. Institutionalize dedicated funding and delivery of ° Strategy 38: Form an advisory group to identify prioritized investment opportunities regional economic development results. • Strategy 2A: Adopt a tax levy to support a dedicated staff, 4. Through partnerships, support the efforts of area necessary facilities, and ancillary resource requirements to municipalities in achieving their vision of community assume strategic responsibility for county-wide economic development economic prosperity. • Strategy 2B: Seek designation as the Associate Development ° Strategy 4A: Develop a funded sustainable "city-partnership Agency from the County program" with area municipalities and the County to identify joint programmatic efforts to support economic development • Strategy 2C: Retain interim assistance to assemble the necessary staff, facilities, and institutional structure to support • Strategy 43: Launch a "circuit-rider" program to local the new agency's vision and strategies municipalities to provide onsite technical support for economic development, including grant writing _ ' . . 7111-1r. Y' • ,.;� � � r'k 4a7f.,s9� �1 � � .{i'n-rte`- ...o� �i°6 - �! r- i•!'5�'*r� "�1�•' �.e v�•-�.• ' icle rr- _ i ` `M ;.' t , mow. ; ��1r1/4ti, Early development in Spokane Volley. ,:: t 4 Ci{G f}I T ailitt '`.` � P1"t " 1L 1ST RAIN g.[?R gg 45: HOW IS A PORT AUTHORITY CREATED` Washington's ports are municipal corporations of the State and are classified as special purpose districts. All ports operate under the What are the steps in creating a port authority in same state Iaws in RCW Title 53, but each is locally controlled and Washington State? managed_ The elected port commission is a quasi-legislative body that establishes polices to guide its operations and investments. 1.The County Council places the issue on a ballot or Typically most ports retain a manager (executive director) and alternatively a voter petition can accomplish the same. professional staff to undertake its work. Critical to the smooth and compliant operation of a port several 2. At the enabling election candidates run for office to fill required* and recommended** 'keystone' documents are created the 3 seats on the Port Commission board and adopted: 3. Commissioner representative districts are usually the • Strategic Plan** defining WHY the port exists same as County districts, but they can be designated • Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor Improvements* that differently articulates WHAT a port will invest in (Title is an historic 4.The newly formed port authority reimburses the County carryover) for its election costs • Delegation of Powers* in which the elected Commission delegates responsibility to a lead manager ▪ Operating and Capital Budget • Annual Tax Levy* • Organizational Chart** '� �"' - - ..s�„ �, ; . .. • Financial Guidelines** • �" _ ;s -n1 '" .. .-..., .�.-. Port of Kennewick industrial area. 14 • BACKGROUND • '-SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY VIENIELIAMMESNEERIELEAUlfiglaaakijkla, ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE NEW PORT The Port is governed by a three-person elected Commission that, in turn, will select and appoint a professional manager to serve as the executive director of the agency. The executive director will select and appoint the operating and project staff as well as undertake all other port operations and actions delegated by the Commission in a formal Delegation of Powers. Pori:Com_ mission_ ?:;?-16?");, Y r" ri �!®tS; + L� � , '• 8 71(9 1^caYp3K,7g�� t��, : � + � Executive Director i - ; Adr iinistrative Assistant:. Business Expansion Assistant for Economic Business Receptionist • Officer ' Development Recruitment Officer Contract Accounting Contract Engineers & Planners ik TgC R.O-U DVa) f":" OR 4 E.PORT Al1fl•1dRI11 , �.;`::` �„� ' :��II.M..-.Paip. '- ��-�.*�.w,yam, x�e#rw•' `-'n-1'-�C tiS,�fI�� ' i�lE HOW ARE PORTS FINANCED? Ports have both operating costs and capital investments that are Industrial Development Specific Capital Improvements Levy funded from a variety of sources: (Commission Approved): There is a new Industrial Development Earned Revenues (Commission Approved): Ports earn revenue Levy authority enacted into law in 2015. It expands and provides more flexibility to port districts for levying taxes for industrial from leases and fees for port owned and operated assets. These funds are used for operating costs as well as pay as you go capital development capital improvement purposes The amount of the levy is based on a maximum collection of total tax dollars received over improvements and maintenance. twenty twenty year period, but cannot exceed $.45/$1,000 assessed Grants (Commission Approved): As a municipal corporation ports value in any given year, which is in addition to the general levy for are eligible for a host of state and federal grant programs that fund operations. The maximum collection is $2.72 per each $1,000 of specified capital improvements and focused studies. assessed value plus any new construction. General Levy (Commission Approved): A port commission can Dredging Levy (Voter Approved): Port districts may annually levy levy a general tax levy to finance day to day port operations as taxes for dredging, canal construction, or land leveling or filling well as make cash capital improvement expenditures. That levy is purposes,and the proceeds of any such levy must be used exclusively approved annually, after a public hearing, and the maximum rate is for these purposes. This levy cannot exceed $.45 per $1,000 of $.45/$1,000 of assessed value. assessed value of the port district. (Unlikely use for an inland port authority). Bond Levy for General Capital Improvements (Commission Approved): Ports can levy general obligation bonds to cover principal Revenue Bonds: Ports can issue revenue-based bonds that are and interest for capital improvements without voter approval up to a based on the credit worthiness of the project to be funded and the limit of 0.25% of the district's assessed value. port's overall debt coverage ratio. y S.10/$ 1,000 $3,840,000 $ 17 Ports operate on earned income and $.20/$ 1,000 $7,680,000 $34 �— ' tax proceeds. Initially the Spokane port Authority will rely on property tax proceeds $ '301$ I'000 $ 11,520,000 $ 52 Earned .7 but over time will depend largely on earned $.40/$ 1,000 $ 15,360,000 $ 69 revenue from its investments. Typically Revenue-- ..._ $.45/$ 1,000 $ 17,100,000 $77 Washington Ports rely on earned revenues for 75 to 8O% of their operating and The Spokane Port Authority has the ability to levy a property tax on all property capita! costs. In some instances ports have within its jurisdiction (Spokane County as proposed).This levy can be utilized eliminated their property tax levy, for operating expenses, capital outlay for projects and retiring debt service. In addition it can levy an Industrial Tax Levy.The impact on the average value home for the maximum rate is $77 per year. 16 BACKGROUND SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY IMPACTS ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS PROJECTED BUDGET For modeling purposes: • The forecast anticipates that the Port of Spokane would have a • The total110-year projected investment in industrial development deceasing tax requirement on property throughout the County is approximately $313M. as the county wide assessed value increases.Taxes on a $170k • The Port would maintain a debt coverage rate which would home would decrease from $77 to $59 per year. allow for additional project based revenue bond financing • Half of its investments would have an expected return of 7%, • The Port would invest some $5M in Partnership efforts with that return ($45M) is re-invested in industrial development local governments; an additional $3M in special efforts focused on the economy and $1.7M in promotion over 10 years. L�-y .� �."" r..�--'. 7!� �`�:J"� �s^^... ti�yG-�'r•.�4�.�� ic.- �-`:..c +..77f'�':i' J'T-�P� .�i �cr.;�a b.2:-ya c ��y�"' .r s AS:ei. . s`'i�dr.. c V.;a1,`y. e• 747, eW.p.�7` y e., x„L 'M ':Z7 -[A;Z-; "•t's .�,X. - ? � �h'E fi+�3 :11 W ,2-'6 yy.:'`.,t_;:7441,.. 4� .,f„4 ...}+;:7 - .Y.' .. `. .;' :.' 4'•'-,r.�j,� ...!'. ?< <z,.,+j r" v'�''y. • "'ti-a.�4.Y_xr: 4 ��."I 4`147 Y- tiy "r:4, ''+ ear.. 4�",4'0, x;, t-Tii-.,:Y�'�t r x;�r.`r .�Ir. ,Y, ? ? •I4, ,r• ,4 i-'; '-, .7.1!": , �.`r �`�^ .J�'*wA'+• K`.�. f'�". +' �:t'i:��°.;"''rr'ri•%� '�''`�'"'cr'�aar':.�y.��;:c •'._;�"�•�.� �'•h�t�.x�:zi� �47�`�;1'`��'s�;` ,. '''"'.�r�x�� t BC' r t��'-.ati+4��#s:t��rs�r .��5'*::�Y�7,�«..•{'�-s�'� 'c=L-!'::..:.,'� ::••tit'��r{�$'. t1�' �•'%'a4.'�:;r�•s :ia�?�i� 71 � irS"_ x'._F'•.`e''i� V--' `' . Earned $0 $444 $2'020 $2,545 $4,303 $5,017 $6,788 $7,518 $9,194 $9,943 Revenues* Taxes* $17,100 $17,100 $17,100 $17,100 $17,100 $17,100 $17,100 $17,100 $17,100 $17,100 Operating $2,507 $2,194 $2,282 $2,321 $2,393 $2,435 $2,477 $2,546 $2,592 $2,639 Expenses* Capital $12,712 $45,020 $15,006 $50,210 $20,394 $50,616 $20'844 $47,902 $21,392 $29,140 Investment* Tax $77 $75 $72 $70 $68 $66 $64 $62 $61 $59 ($170k) Tax Rate .45 .44 .42 .41 .40 .39 .38 .37 .36 .34 " s 1,000 -: BAGKGRQ[1N ;' -_y;`. '•:-.Z.'.:SPOKANE:P ?RTAKtiORMX-;7.1 5...->,7,-,.. +4114*TS _:`_1(,.. 1:r,.1LLUSTRATIUE.PRQ.SCIS - --'17• i'.iiPACTS OF A PORT AUTHORITY Spokane Port Authority I STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN 2016 IMPACTS OFA PORT AUTHORITY Ports have considerable beneficial impacts on their community's These direct, indirect, and induced impacts also all create tax economy. Those impacts include 'direct impacts' directly related to revenues for state and local governments. New businesses yield port activity; 'indirect impacts' resulting from economic activity of business and operations taxes (B&0), increased economic activity port tenants and businesses; and 'induced impacts' from purchases creates sales tax revenues, and property acquisitions encouraged by and investments of employees working on or related to port property. infrastructure provided by the port induces property tax revenues. As an example, in 2011, the Port of Whitman County reported 2,414 In 2011 the Port of Whitman generated more than $18 million in jobs directly related to the port and estimated an additional 1,700 indirect business taxes alone. The impacts of other ports, in terms indirect and induced jobs. of jabs, income, and tax revenues are listed below. r.*.••* s. � 1" . =,dic .......-„ `r � 4; rip w ' ` - ^ �1L . ,+° � r ana a , i! a � -} -- h ' r !- '-- l .�`1.�Q - .- e', + Ia .. ,M ":a - ti. Are_ S . 4y4— - a ??6.,,,ver.,.:2::;43....,,,,. ,?,A.i.t...475 zti-%D,We:. : • e ° r- _.4JAis ppp��aY! L" ;'c%- "l ° '*�{ ,.r, 4° - ;„„1:,,F '- - 4%„1, .35 ° �.ffilL _ sit#�.0 �yLQ ; i a [. ��i *'"'''fi 44- S. , },, . Il r+..`. z4 (4 ". ;p2.. ,t ,. lirg .,,� �'li a..J_. � _ ' 'i l.e t „1t 7 e.a rt.t ti” _ ,) '' ^'�'K �fjs-:n.��r fit-•..ti/e,}� .�. ��G _ � "4�a., 'iA r w• •fo l �" , rr; . � --}} r.riZ n.+, y% ° :v..�1_ t-C , ' 1 y '�1Att. �' 31' ..•c t. a , i2. •, 7' :'IGF,,,�0!+� ..Yi14 !i�}+,r. - >f •.,Nr,•+'' i� 14., .i�r: t-1 `` � �2 ,�,}rsr'. td�y;4!.!., .. :.. .K;. l� .�* 3T- a say .e.:, _' .r w .. -tic. �f , w p;� A � f � isJLlfi,i�lL,v�1L '�F Port of Olympia 3,043 4,206 $112,500,000 $238,200,000 $1 ,062,200,000 $439,700,000 $31,200,000 (2009) Port of , Bellingham 5,539 3,241 $233,300,000 $173,000,000 $1,351,200,000 $144,400,000 $37,700,000 (2013) Port of Grays 2,727 2,976 $118,900,000 $222,500,000 $564,000,000 $136,200,000 $32,100,000 Harbor (2013) Port of Longview 817 2,203 $52,500,000 $166,300,000 $315,900,000 $56,900,000 $20,700,000 (2013) Port of Everett 13,813 21,316 $1,197,600,000 $2,773,000,000 $4,331,300,000 $583,400,000 $373,200,000 (2014) Port of Vancouver 2,337 3,770 $116,300,000 $333,300,000 $551,000,000 $160,700,000 $42,200,000 (2010) ; ' BAGKG.ROUND :: s ,siVI ANEP©liTgl1THDRtT1`. w-. .._ .,:,'.,. =1MP_AGXB:-:_,� ___ -. ithis BA1TIVi_PROJECTS- i9--- FINANCIAL CAPACITY (GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPACITY) p,,,tr w,-:of s a , �'� r, g r 1°3•P`'' ;ie yew,.,,' •-`1:4,e,w Aca'` r44*-;•t PA•;,S: • .r i G x,....4,1 ' r i+ td is '+ , e.. �=+ '. ,AgArnoun asGene' ted , { VCornmen't. ,..� "�; �� a I e�w, -1 `. A M. ..-4.4 _,. . .`,t n�1 z 4R .,te a c Atz F>-:r,.W reF, .,.'4Sa,Wt7�SY 4n. + `�-�3, r'+. $ .45 / $ 1,000 Operating Levy a $ .45 / $ 1,000 AV $ 17,100,000 / Year Maximum Maximum Limit .r = y ,, ,y ,: 20 Years at a coverage t..,.‘ � w .1 $ 95,000,000 ��Capitalirrkprovementsw rate of 1.35 and an Tax revenues used to pay interest rate of 5% is debt service are within 1 ebteap city 4 .0025 of the AV The total debt capacity l` .`Liriitatiarn:' -," for any non--voted $106,320 per year in the Operating Levy of General Obligation Debt bond payment for every $0.45/$1,000 $1M borrowed , , ;..LL 'Li`,,,,-.--i..t.:-..: �`fin �.„, �� ..7,-,,,,,,,w'- �. ' „;,s� ., - -V.. Funds can be used for -". capital uses or debt . _ S M �;, ti:,� ''`� ?F �r�.,� �S -� $103,350,000 p •."7 �1; a retirement. This does not Y„, ", <Y •" ,' , N $2.72/51 ,000 AV Maximum accumulated give the Port additional ,;,, g $ 22,26$,000 4 a ... ` ...` '•• 4 W. total that can be levied statutorycapacity DDr20 earN5aeel I .':4 At the time of calculation p y �<,, ..; ; is limit of additional 20- t,-.... for 20 year period or beyond the $95M, but it Annual tax levy maximum le. ` rA, ' �= `; year accumulated tax rn+..„ � $5,168,000 per year does provide additional ($17,100,000 plus (."fB dyyru�'' .�b7 . 7d < SRA �� -� f. r.�f; additional tax levy if tax revenues to make $5,168,000) "` '"`' r:: e .`e z:01:4 levy a } calculated when the ,, _ u, F'''�h<AT4 debt service payments or ' - "'', , ;••,•A�.. �� District is formed Ir .i jog fund capital projects on a -C pay-as-you-go basis v4- :. " Based on a $38B county-wide assessment. The Port would have the ability to levy property taxes across its jurisdiction, but that levy authority has som limitations by law. 20 BACKGROUND _ SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY IMPACTS ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS WHAT OTHER PORTS HAVE DONE Port of Grays Harbor Port of Kalama t Through an Innovation Partnership Zone, PD rt N.. The Port attracted a Wallet and crate the Port attracted an armor-manufacturing Qt manufacturing firm to relocate from Oregon firm that supplies law-enforcement agencies Ka. 1anC� L _ _ g Port ofGrays Harbor pp g to Port-owned manufacturing space. x:.,..,...,....,..r.... across North America with protective armor. Port of Bellingham Port of Benton Port of Bellingham Small Cities Partnership: The Port and the City of Richland .6-I The Port has matched more than $400,000 partnered in successfully bonding over in fundingfor small cities to help them n PORT OF,BELLZNGHAM POET ti BENTON Ofl 1 1 M for telecommunications extensions, 6,'�00E--?X - move forward in the early phases of needed road construction, and industrial park engineering, study, and preliminary design improvements for the Tri-Cities Research of economic development projects. District Innovation Partnership Zone. o*NIanco4,, Port of Vancouver Port of Walla Walla , The Port recently cut the ribbon on a $30M The Port partnered with a national archery "0..� • ; '7 in rail project help support -�` d rr.' -37 equipment firm to save and retain jobs �`�� i` rail freight movement in the region. The " " - associated with bow manufacturing in the �- WALLA WA1`.LA Port also recently renegotiated its lease for Walla r�rnr. WallaWalla valley.ThePortalso collaborated t,=t''�f , a fruit-processing operation that employs with the local community college to design some 500 employees_ and launch a winery incubator program to jump-start new wineries. ' � r-<+x�r.. ... n .rna,SC y, a 4 ,.v ,.,:z F:' r r , 4hitKGtiOEI I t;; , , ,a= SPOKA 1=•::ORT l'�T =IT :5? , ': r T IMPACTS . ILEUSTRATIVEACilEC T S _ '..211. REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL INITIATIVE The proposed Spokane Port Authority is designed to allocate its resources and activities to benefit all Spokane County communities and citizens, in essence,to reach all Four Corners of the County.The "Illustrative Projects"that follow are intended to represent the depth \\\NI\:\:\)\\ • and range of potential Port involvement and investment throughout the County. They represent the types of priority projects the Port would pursue if it is allocated sufficient resources. Illustrative Projects 1.West Airport Multi-Modal Industrial Park 2. Associated Painters Hangar 3 3. Kaiser Mead 4. Deer Park Industrial Center • S.The Yard Spokane •�okane ; Vaey 6. Liberty Lake Smart Tech Campus 7. Centennial Park 1 _2 8. Cheney Incubator Project 9. Cheney Industrial ParkCheney 1 Q. Airway Heights Industrial Cooridor 00 Spangle ()Rockford BACKGROUND SPOKANE PORTAUTHORITY IMPACTS • ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS.. Spokane Port Authority I STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN 2016 WEST AIRPORT MULTI-MODAL INDUSTRIAL PARK Illustrative Project Story � ' � slllatao IiORTFIWEsrtA MAMMA. ... AER43P,%CI CONSORTIUM -�°""4'^� n The Spokane International Airport is at the nexus for all air, rail and IR[iLYf1.ROM= mer,• A WA overland freight in the inland northwest.The Airport has aeronautical ,,,_, "A ` e•, O* 5kW Iae aWA / e.,INA 'a--� • °"' and non-aeronautical land that is available for development but does ,^ � a WA. \ _ mow• not possess all the right tools and capacity for industrial property ""'�' 4... =WAD �� y LMyfMr.WA economic development The Spokane Port Authority could facilitate x �4 / ;,`,�.�—� IC0.TIL ell..'.1 OO!hrtsCI911 f �,,11t�'- w.•W.1 MLIILLP attracting new business by working with the Airport to create a West °"""" °d` - \��__ _ w Airport Multi-Modal Industrial Park. 'r"m'" of :Actwarra�..W °`."• .I Ibn..n c u.0 wa ...Turn Mee.ar•AAG.nen .0-..G I Suess.,, � vx . Existing Barriers u»'.w �.,.w=�� P. ,' ` 1:0 Lire AnrostaAre L' LI WA rwAa s .M1�4 A WARM The Spokane International Airport has struggled to garner interest . . . wHanwgu.for industrial development in the non-aeronautical portion of Airport 7f "'"""',."'wA n" rzc'mow^ 4.w,WAW. A rpdra wA •OMlwvvwfw[Ia�h.�MIv+N ra property. It is difficult for the airport to develop and market the non- lAAINAAARC �.CNC --..°^ —...*- aeronautical property in a competitive manner as it is appropriatively Spokane. SW��Irmena^IdNSA:r3€art � Sp E focused on aviation matters.Competitor locations also have the ability to strategically suppress lease rates or provide other incentives that are not possible within the financial and legal framework the Airport operates within. In addition, the property that is best situated for = = industrial development does notyet have the infrastructure backbone T'� - =- necessary to serve new development. Funding for the infrastructure t ' ,y,;- • 1 -- -...---3.- �,� ___ - - --- — and any speculative vertical construction will be very difficult for the R- -' ---x L.� T -�_ tl;'F3 ,rt Airport to plan,fund and manage under its current legal, operational, y "L=`'-'-i ..:-.:1-_-_-___:___ _ - T ..-t.„"--4"---....- - - and financial constraints. �` '.'k`i+ : •Y '" 1.y = Lei ,_ - _ _ _ ti _ ilk _- _ 24 BACKGROUND ;_�rma ,y SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY , •:IMPACTS :. ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Strengths and Opportunities Anticipated Outcome • City of Spokane Fast Track Permitting Creation and build out of a West Airport Industrial Park by the • City-provided sanitary sewer and water service proposed port is expected to contribute to the regional economy by adding: • Redundant electrical service and high capacity natural gas available • A Master Planned 1,500-acre (non-aeronautical) industrial • Served by four (4) 1-90 Interchanges and BNSF Rail Service development:for lease or purchase • 4.5 hour drive time to Renton and Everett—important factor • --- Jobs/FTEs/SF for the existing 11-hour driver rule • ----Taxable Revenue • Significant trucking, logistics,and aerospace manufacturing industry clusters • ---- SF of Class/Type/Zone Industrial buildings • 6 major education institutions in the region with over 90,000 • ----Leasing Revenue students enrolled. • Business and living costs well below national average. r^--" s ;"--7-- ,7 7374?7-7 .9 Port Role , .., ?+ , a�v,i.�. wr./r r: i>''>r/r/ od • %'� i‘,7":-.;;;:73 } The proposed port can operate in a legal framework that is capable x .r ;" ti 4. T capable of accomplishing exactly the kindnof development the - ,* , ; .:�.� '`'^ ,� ; -a:. - ,/ - Airport needs to compete in the market lace. The Port could �. � '��► �� • . r ,r��.� ,�.� . support the West Airport Multi-Modal Industrial Development by: z+� ,� •�"• 1 ,•.`,, °` ';�''�' ;,K., '.'• ``` , 4. 0,,, I,`.•y $ A "? re, �,._ ,..-/...z- -:-,ti ,te. ;TM`s 4 .. • Creating an industrial development district (IDD) and tax to v -, rim -r support build out of the industrial park + 7 `„, , "i v i`� `� -1�, 4 n �is .� 'x•,1..3 ,,, .Y.X1. -r, c ,' -I • Acquiring property or entering into a long-term lease with , rN Af - `4 >; �5.1 � �'` , r{ , , ":t , p • • :MI • f --... .,.r... a i r ort ~f. .� '`1::+, y t ry'i`+, �Yw 'ti r�.,, ,.� eA rr K • =3d ,r i. r oe Sr'f , •!.a?,* t T.L „!-,-.4,,A-- kti • Designing, financing, and building critical infrastructure ”' r • 't.'=��.' .*_. ,j 1.a. ' • Building and leasing speculative industrial real estate in the ' r_Je,.}� .. „ t•-5•: ; '' t+-,µ'- =, - .4`••.� g industrial development :1,4- �;�=r.. ". k#.}. ?" �i5fz� •' "eA .., `";� ;-; ,Y • Supporting Airport staff Co obtain additional funding for 1,,fi,. or , • ;_1 �,r iz; 4�,•; ASSOCIATED PAINTERS HANGAR 3 Illustrative Project Story -.-- --- ..rte----- ---- -_ :a":"4 u - 1u "1;5 _.. Associated Painters'(AP)has a long history of success atthe Spokane r,-.1-_-_-:-..----•, .,,bt. �+ 'l...ei1 ti x, J.1.... -•• � _ _ ot4International Airport due to the proximity of Boeing production :- � - -a te,,facilities located in Renton and high quality work being produced ---,_„• by AP in Spokane. The Airport has land adjacent to the existing AP — ' -�—�:^ ' _ ��_ ; hangars available for development but does not possess the capacity �"' �-` _ for industrial property economic development The proposed port ., �--- L_ - �--- �/ could facilitate an attractive leasing scenario and encourage AP to , � C ��ii T � continue expansion of its business line in Spokane. L W �� L -' „�:�� ' ` .9.47,-----.., - ' ▪ f_. -11 t, - - u,... .1L�. ,. � ' `'�-._yam 0,\,<\41. kN Existing Barriers ;;.,t - ;:- • � \i_T - ''=r'_ The single largest barrier to success for this long term Airport - -' tenant is the ability to accommodate additional capacity from existing clients. AP currently services Boeing and Southwest airlines in their AP1 and AP2 hangars at SIA. Boeing is increasing the number of 737s completed each month and are pressing AP to ramp up production to match the increased volume. The current hangar space is insufficient to take on the additional capacity without either shifting Southwest airlines work to another facility or expanding hangar space enough to take on the added capacity. The vertical construction may be difficult for the Airport to plan, and fund under current legal, operational, and financial constraints particularly as it relates to market competitive lease rates. -.,.,,, Yi,_ ,'' . 5'i� rS' �fhZ i cam-;'S. ^gat -� •. '- ,r-�f y¢ — �t'ror. „ � -o. •?'.d - „ r -'••=w,,......••• •••-* • ^' •�� 'f 'srt , r 'SPS -' „:S t^ 41�,r. To , +ac .-. ,,et.::-c•-.,''''71''''" fii 1„' 4 lr _ r " ' . • .: +' .;E Y� �ri •.•-••••7•.--,:s.---::::,---.:-.4:•$,41-••= z;t _.t...-^. .."-Is`?+,1:-.._ < Y.^,'.._-_›. f - 26 .BACKGROUND . `:•SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY IMPACTS •: .• ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS. Strengths and Opportunities Anticipated Outcome • City of Spokane Fast Track Permitting Design and build to suit the AP Hangar 3. The coordination and funding driven by the proposed port is expected to contribute to • City-provided sanitary sewer and water service the regional economy by adding: • Redundant electrical service and high capacity natural gas • A large hangar structure (aeronautical) for industrial lease available (10-year term) • Works into the test flight plans for new aircraft out of Renton • ----Jobs/FTEs/SF • Significant support available from trucking, logistics, and • $30,000 - $60,000 Annual Leasehold Tax Revenue aerospace manufacturing - 42,000 SF of Industrial/Aeronautical buildings • Business and living costs well below national average. • $25,000 - $45,000 new monthly Leasing Revenue Port Role • Secondary industrial development and service businesses The proposed port operates in a legal framework capable of • Larger building footprint will accommodate modern Boeing supporting the expansion of existing tenants and to facilitate 737-300 with winglets. market competitive lease rates that will help retain and grow business. The proposed port could support the AP Hangar 3 t. - development by: r....... ..,T.,4 • Entering into a long-term ground lease with the airport • Building and leasing the hangar space required for expansion .•...,W.... ....of the AP business line at SIA 2E I P--rt, . , I .....1%S i yonnp.nrIM4:T.R1a' i t wnq, t f I\i it ',: ; ._BACKGROUND _;:';_t.- '''.4.._.,..tSFQKANt:l t3itTAUTklOR1TY ....._ . ' _,. ::zligt1, 0):'::...:,.._.-. r,_ LUSTRATiVE_FR©;d CC'S... .. :27:e. KAISER MEAD Illustrative Project Story The Kaiser Mead smelter was constructed as part of the nation's �`` war effort during World War II. The smelter was sited in Spokane as a means of protecting industrial production far from the coast and safe from potential attack. The smelter had its heyday following the l war but over time labor disputes, competition and policy changes _ , resulted in the plant closing its doors for good.The smelter propertyf was sold to a commercial development company and subsequently ' I_ ,,..--7--- `'Yei. resold to a company specializing in industrial redevelopment. The - 55: - & ---,i''-:-,',--,- 1_ T proposed port could be a strong development partner with the ‘.� ,�,,_' , , - 7 -; ---E,-;y- �` i OUt..; new owner and could help develop necessary infrastructure and R:i_ -- •.- ultimately invest in early phase speculative vertical construction. ""-``" _ + .• ' '"'•;7- , ' `';'&:.::::" -n'-' .�z � +� v .r Existing Barriers Much of the financial burden is the cleanup cost for handling and removing tons of hazardous materials from the site - asbestos- and ' " ' .�'' Ir - ' " ' PCB-coated galvanized steel walls and thousands of square feet of building surfaces covered in lead paint. Still needed at the site are .. updated utility services, such as electricity, water and sewer. Less f•-" `� .„y-.. urgent but also important is the eventual completion of the North � • - -`' -'`� . !ter -:y .. Spokane Corridor to provide a direct connection to Interstate 90. -f - ' py� �”" = r�K - a er r a z +"z We-170:.4. 5', ....:y, 4t' - . ..'' ;� � x 28 BACKGROUND ; - SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY . ,>Pg',,,R'°-:IMPACTS. ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Strengths and Opportunities Anticipated Outcome • City of Spokane Fast Track Permitting Design and build underground utilities that are scalable for the • Extensive rail service from BNSF phased development of the Kaiser Mead Site. Contributions by the port may contribute to the regional economy by adding: • Significant space available in a single location - A large hangar structure (aeronautical) for industrial lease • Proximity to the north-south corridor (10-year term) • Business and living costs well below national average. • ----Jobs/FTEs/SF • ---- Annual Tax Revenue Added Port Role • --- SF of Speculative Industrial buildings The proposed port would be a valuable development partner for - ---- New Monthly Leasing Revenue the Kaiser Mead site and could help coordinate infrastructure expansion and inter-local agreements to provide basic utilities. • Secondary industrial development and service businesses The port could support the Kaiser Mead Development by: • Creating an IDD and tax to support build-out of the property er .:. ;•, . ,;e,,, .„. .. wuu wn M:•:n - Considering acquisition of the property :� • Building and leasing speculative vertical construction on r:1,‘.-_-;-.5.v. - ` site ,'.�Y ' ' •• r--• ...1—s...-. 4!r1 1 Cii w,.Y . - Providing initial funding to construct infrastructure ,.,4,s _f:'-'• - �� improvements to jump-start the development i .•," •�ti , r.._ . �,; `� ''`.'" • Seek environmental clean upgrants ) • ` • _ » , � i, , _J T — t LLYyy 5�'/ .R �i 1I till',.. W Vr' ._I .f.Y}. Fv ,' w.t. •z•... s.�.:.Y. r.x I — I _ ., .s 11 hM'T •Ax:an R �ti + rau+r<liceimw •� h4 r - _ _ ;, w s .z K '., ..-,..6.•,$x i 441ST ATIVE aige S w2s. ___SACKGtQU{►1D r._ y<_._., >SpOKA�f1P�lAU�HOft1TY�.. . .� ,� {3,,._ 1'A .. .. �.._..� _.� ...u _ �_,' DEER PARK BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CENTER Illustrative Project Story : ,. . . , ' mo• i The first phase (Phase 1) of the Deer Park Business and Industria[ . Center (B&I Center) is currently under construction and upon - .i completion the property will be one of the newest industrial parks in `' • Spokane County. The 144 acre site will feature "all weather" roads, - _. sidewalks, water and sewer, pedestrian lighting and will offer full utilities. The project has been in the works for some time but Phase .. ;i. - 7 1 has recently moved forward with funding assistance for backbone f _ - d infrastructure provided by a USEDA grant_ The City has had several - J - businesses interested in the B&I Center, but only lacked the funding _ -_ �...� i,,;1 -.- 1` to prepare the lots for final development. The Port could facilitate ..r - .. - , ' 7,,.-�. -*.:-=--- development of early phase infrastructure in partnership with the - " "":5,,,t5 '` a� �,. ti ., y P _-, �`ti - wit -.1 ��.. ; Cit and also invertins speculative vertical facilities at the S&I Center. ��'.•� ��ur�r T ELrtriordAvt „''...r� �-;,r !,a~' 41J ` fi.'...r r .' . s 1, .a .: ! SJR. _: .: L Existing Barriers , ', ., �; I Businesses interested in expanding operations in the Deer Park community have sent inquiries to the City of Deer Park every year, ,4�« _= >~, ....1: . r.C.d;.,id but the Zack of infrastructure at the B&I Center has precluded rt business expansion or investment in the property. The City of Deer ,_ 3 E. Park has struggled to fund the backbone infrastructure necessary :" --f s �' �' $ . to prepare the B&I Center for business entry and final development 4 • 'r' of individual lots. The USEDA grant has allowed the City to advance �_: 4..f . - - - I _ :lam the first phase but subsequent phases will face the same funding „�,• _ ;; 1 R challenges.In addition, the City has very limited resources to market -'' --- l - *-1 '', ,;,a the B&I Center orprovide anycatalyzing agent. ' ' `_'' y 9 9 V r '.'fir ....„,-1,,,...0 ' �. . $, .rqy >.. - , "'i''4�."0': [ R1Y '*.- i na..,.. .,- � [,nwr,rd.:e— ...-.- . .. ..nn�K1.d....r..c:r ( C, et+2 V. >' 30 " BACKGROUND: SPOKANE PORTAUTHORiTY IMPACTS - - -: ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS - Strengths and Opportunities Anticipated Outcome • City-provided sanitary sewer and water service Direct investment in infrastructure and vertical facilities by the proposed port at the Deer Park Business and Industrial Center is • Approximately 2 miles from US-395 NAFTA corridor expected to contribute to the regional economy by adding: • Adjacent to the Deer Park Airport • A master planned 144-acre business and industrial • Opportunities for aerospace manufacturing industry clusters development • Business and living costs well below national average. • An incubator space where small industrial or manufacturing businesses can lease a space configured to their specific • Located adjacent to an existing cluster of successful light needs industrial businesses including steel fabrication, timber supply, and truss manufacturing. • ---- Jobs/FTEs/SF • ----Taxable Revenue Port Role • ---- SF of Class/Type/Zone Industrial Buildings The proposed port possesses the tools necessary to design, • ---_ Leasing Revenue fund, market, and execute the vision for the Deer Park Business and Industrial Center. The port could support the City of Deer •.4.� .,:`.;‘,:.2,-;,,,, •_ - ter-.. - =;..-c -s-�� Park project by: ' " ` , :7.„,i i " \ ��` sS' Y•rIr.1 -� • Creating an IDD and tax to support build-out of the business �; ` ' � , L'"" and industrial park E.; ' ' •1 _,,.....„7,.....,' ,• hr. ' ` : ' - _` 1 • Entering into a long-term lease with the City lit s • Designing, financing, and building critical infrastructure �-. '' ..,ii :?-.01 ,-.2L''..,•'.,: ��+ ` 1. `Y �! • Building and leasing speculative light industrial real estatek43 }�+ ,, " =� . �' "fir '- • , • Supporting City staff in obtaining additional funding for _ :` - ,far} \., Y" infrastructure improvements and furnish frontage funding - • 1 as a developer entering the business park _ • Develop an early stage incubator that would help catalyze .o `\� ~ business activity on the projects � Ys _` . .. .:1,,� :_`-__. ., � .� I .. ;�... 1it7 AC'f.^7a �, ', .a, y r 1LL"i<JS'i'E;<AT!!JF1FRb 11~CTS :.:1:-.E.3-*. `�� .:_�_�ACKGROtiIVD:: {� ,k ,�f SFQ1�A��POR�ALiT##!DR TY._ '' � ° ' �°�"`'` THE YARD - COMING SOON 32 BACKGROUND SPOKANE FORT AUTHORITY IMPACTS ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS BACKGROUND ' .`;SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY IMP 4 CTS ._.,.,.tom : y ••ILLUSTRATIVEsPROJEGTS;�AP 33 , LIBERTY LAKE SMART TECH CAMPUS Illustrative Project Story -` - ��P''- '- '`. :w„ . • _ , The Liberty Lake Smart Tech Campus will offer development space - '"i _ ' Y ;, ` syt 11)- catering specifically to high-tech businesses looking more for a �^ ,c F -rra:0000 .*, b T , ti 7 . campus setting and feel. The campus will embody the ideals of a "live, work, play" community with significant green space, trails and outdoor gathering areas. The ideal development within the campus _,v..2-'` • • 406y will demonstrate first-rate curb appeal, dedicated building facades .l _: .s .AC and private parking.Spaces will be fully configurable to each tenants - - needs from light-industrial to high-tech manufacturing with ample -:" /.. • 0- ` room for office space throughout. The City of Liberty Lake currently - �. \- r. has several businesses that may be interested in expanding into the ;" r , do.' • '` campus. The proposed port could facilitate development of early = phase infrastructure in partnership with the City and also invest in f speculative vertical facilities. , f { 1. ,, n,r • -771.17-. 75--F--;--7!"' _ Existing Barriers ��1 e- - 7'. �.. --+_ _ - . 4�r.- 23,� 1t:Er e-` 11-7,-'74' r. f 1/ J 4v"-: .t `.WO %L 1 '. The City has properties available for new industrial and commercial i '- ..f - -' -,-f' y r development but has struggled with increasing congestion, �i _ ��-7...-.7-r_.,.../...,,,s =` ,-• r`_f H challenging roadway geometrics, and limited street access and -r"'" 1/4 4 - connectivity to Interstate-90" The City has been proactive in ' 'i. ► Libar�ty$.L.ak _� .-' outreach with WSDOT and has performed several studies intended to ¶' i ifa-Iv-4.31,,. � - ` � '- =- inform and then catalyze improvements to the existing1-90 access u4 c `%rte ti :`%s'1tr'W. `�� k ,,;., ii? Y pr c smar �. e�aYs - .1' , '_--) �!"''. ,'-.e, ei .-` ;z„d . locations but has met resistance with alternatives proposed.. There -rt ` . '4 S-- ;_- :��)tt :,.1..,r i ;,, , are large tracts of bare land that are not appealing for development --/--3,;:,----4V-z. -4.•-• .. '- } '�." r af_-1, ,r .... _, f r ,,-....;'!-,.4",s. .__::- .l.��f..r; i, U f I }J t until access is improved and congestion is reduced. `- e - ., .j ' ;" :% -•w n.6 rd _ u�4�1.�'•.. per' „L.75 4•, ', -, 7e - t`, /! am'""-4- f.-_•--:•2'4537:: ��r,.+�• r -„�-• -1,- .4.7:-:.:`7`..7--,.. 7'. [ . .. 3A:.- :.BACKGROUND,--::'-:''::-:;_;,-..-•:,::,`.:,-. Y.tlicANEPQFIT,AUTHORITY `':'.'-; ' .. f.;} IMPACTS - _.: - 7,7:17:::ILLUS7RATIVE.PROJEC "S Strengths and Opportunities Anticipated Outcome • Full City services available and adjacent to Interstate-90 The port will have a profound positive effect on the development • Opportunity for high-tech manufacturing and light-industry of a smart-tech campus in Liberty Lake.The campus is expected clusters to contribute to the regional economy by adding: • up-scale area with living costs well below national average • A Master Planned light-industrial and commercial campus and many amenities. catering to an important sector of the market that isn't over-saturated in the inland northwest. • An organized, planned, and managed campus that will • Installation of a new I-90 interchange at Henry Road. preserve integrity of the campus plan. • • A focus on product advancement and innovation with the A technology incubator space where start-ups or small room and setting for a corporate or regional administration companies can lease a space configured for their needs presence. • ---- Jobs/FTEs/SF Port Role • ----Taxable Revenue The proposed port can partner with the City to design and • ---- SF of Class/Type/Zone Industrial Buildings construct portions of the Smart Tech Campus. The port could • —_- Leasing Revenue be an investor in the basic infrastructure, early phase incubator typer° vertical construction, and land acquisition. The port could '� ., Ail•Withm a ZO=Miriute Drivefr`+om Liberty Lake support the City by: � =f'°"'�''. 4:� State?:.r.. • Advancing the Smart Tech Campus by leveraging support wid•53 with WSDOT for improvements to I-90 access -oa_, oR�t'dr`tr" ..-i t51% r • Creating an IDD and tax to support build out of the Smart c " — °Hayden Tech Campus 4 ourtry ernes canon Gwen o C I` •SI • Designing, financing, and building backbone infrastructure ... .-__.-0 _Fairs ¢Trentt;ood { necessary to begin vertical construction ot•fltRcod - Coeur D•Alen 0 ti o _R2kaae .)Dishrrtan Q\kraifale -L., • Considering property acquisition '. u eny Lake • Building and leasing speculative real estate including an - ,',-,13--) .'•ieine early stage incubator that would help catalyze development 95 Lake • Supporting City in funding infrastructure improvements - A. .zBACKGii0if6i : .._-;_'_.j. s SPf3KANE4P'OBT IUT J©RIT Z - ',.._ � . s'}..iii IPACTS:,.R-- : :;��`, ILLUSTRATIVE`P_i3OJECTS ,.. . 25. CENTENNIAL PARK Illustrative Project Story j -! AK LPiv -T.r-.....i-__ The City of Spokane Valley is a community of over 90.000.The Valley 7 %Am f _"_� is a gateway for commerce bracketing Interstate-90 for several miles .l . �, , :° , 7"! ;Y, .� as it parallels the Spokane River. The Valley has a strong retail and • �" "°' ▪"" commercial presence as well as long-term industrial developments :,---A�' #( tea: . ��/�4 ,,� ,. Yu▪ .,ry„ua —".• ',Y.▪ ...,,..,r. but lacks shovel-ready property for any new industrial development. ;�, t�u< E . ,,, i �.,-�.�,.�,��_ it There are large tracts of bare land available in an area referred to _-_---- .- -1,-- , ;',•f '; '5l ,7• ;Zr� ,;,N "Centennial n -."---':.7-L?-,i.-:!"..(i."-7.11:-. ,a7 K 2. %rTa f ari�rlr f,, / r▪.ilr/f as Centennial Park but the backbone infrastructure necessary ___ ...-- r , , �f„ ';',.;*%;,. .',... ;.j , to initiate development efforts is not installed. The City lacks the • . i . i ..-..14"."-;..•-•:-.;•;-.. .:3"7.7'..,•'"=..7:1V". ..'''..".. :;':..;;' • ,r,%; ';"f" • f ., +� �.. ▪ / �� f.,i/ •.'7;/;,-.," resources to design, fund and construct the infrastructure and is LL :-.,:".,;,:::":„..-:.> "' . r r' �v ' rk• / .» ' i• 4rn interested in opportunities to partner with the proposed port. , . 7 ...t• ..,,▪;;;,..:-.:;.•.•:;7;.-:„0.--:4,-;;:,...`_ The port could construct the infrastructure necessary to catalyze - l "-,._ : i _ i development and would be an early investor in the park. ? —''C:' �` !. • ri• _ Existing Barriers The most significant barrier to new industrial development in Spokane rrlfr�aStiVoture Xmti rovemernts 2013 Estimates Valley is the lack of large parcels that are considered shovel ready.The <<<:•- City doesn't have the funding to design and build the infrastructure Roadways (new) $ 2,500,000 to support industrial development at the Centennial Park site. In Domestic Water $ 600,000 addition to the new infrastructure required the connection of Barker Road and Trent Avenue will likely require installation of an overpass Sanitary Sewer $ 4,000,000 with grade adjustment ramps to accommodate an existing rail line Roadways (removal & replacement) $ 3,500,000 parallel to Trent Avenue. The costs for necessary infrastructure improvements may reach $40 million. Barker Road Overpass $ 29,200,000 Total Costs (2013 estimate) $ 39,800,000 36. :•: ..• BACKGROUND '•• SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY �;i1111PACTS -'ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Strengths and Opportunities Anticipated Outcome • City of Spokane Valley Fast Track Permitting Provide outreach to the railroad and WSDOT to accomplish • Adjacent rail service provided by BNSF transportation improvements required for the development. Design and build underground utilities in a stepwise approach • Approximately 500 acres available in a one location with that prepares properties for development in an efficient manner. many contiguous parcels Regional benefits may include: • Located in the center of a major commerce corridor with • New heavy and light industrial zoned property close to two 1-90 to the south and Trent Avenue to the north major regional transportation corridors • Full utilities available (including fiber) • ----Jobs/FTEs/SF • Business and living costs well below national average. ----Annual Taxable Revenue Added Port Role • ---- SF of Speculative Industrial Buildings The general lay of the land is conducive to breaking the proposed • ---- New Monthly Leasing Revenue development into phases. The proposed port is well positioned to help develop a phasing strategy and partner with the City tE.,91 ., .. . - , ;::.:.:-_.q..,,/,...,,,-;:,,,:•-_ .,., k r to conduct stakeholder outreach, design new infrastructure Lt„.7L-----,:4-.•..z..F-c.i.:.--- . x a - , 1•'' . , and forge agreements to provide basic utilities. The port could ',- -- - ;_lif: ,- .- . : ';support the Centennial Park development by: ar `- _ - _.-1,7„...y-,---_-....„4•2_-_••c- � -..74:457..41;,-L-..,-.. ......r.,...'... 6!:i1- .;',..,,_ �'I[., ik+ Fra te-- .-.�...:.�......r .'_ --.:--'S . ti • Creating an IDo and tax to support build out of the industrial �" "� • y t •• ,-.- 2,,,,,,,-::111 park I `' • 1 _ -r . • Providing initial funding to set standards and constructing :-,1,::;§r--T--- --: ;0'N. r te`, `' _ _' 4 $..: " '• infrastructure improvements to jump start the development ', k 1 vY +,z., • Facilitating discussion with WSDOT and BNSF to coordinate -4"--: , improvements to access into and out of the park 2 gc � �s a _ • Considering property acquisition or joint private-public 'A ,,{ �r ; r - =j partnership • `u:r•::. ' ) it""' . y : s,7:; 4i • Building and leasing speculative vertical construction on , y r �" ' �f • �± �, • to b' ' rte. = site ` '> �ji .. .▪ .• SS�An. ..„,35.,-11, -.1 --�Wu_ �'�1 ~ ' , ;-,13ACKGROkiNi3 SPOKANE PORTAUTHORItYf« . ''' rIL RA .- --• _ __ . r �..• _.. - �. s��._ :-:•. _ -.. . � �` �LEJS'!' TIVE PRQJECTS 37 CHENEY INCUBATOR PROJECT Illustrative Project Story The City of Cheney is home to Eastern Washington University and ,_annually enrolls over 13,000 students. With a total of 6 major education institutions and many talented professionals in the region , the City is interested in developing a high-tech incubator space that would provide the ideal eco-system for innovation and development % 11 en ip. A, f of new commerce.An incubator space would be an attractive addition _,;` p to available commercial space in Cheney and would offer a creative \„,,,,,- nexus for students, faculty and design professionals in Spokane 4 fr f County. The proposed port could acquire some of the property, ` pi= design and build the incubator space in concert with the City. The Home of Eastern Washington University Existing Barriers The City has identified that the chief barrier to the citing, design and 9 construction of an incubator is a lack of funding. The City owns a ,- 0 i portion of the industrial lots but lacks the resources for speculative � , vertical Construction_ In addition to the fundingconstraints it is e7 �i . { L - 'i . difficult for the City to effectively market a high-tech incubator �'�, - :L .<;':-..-::& -a 1 across the region. !} , t.° '' 4 f r ^•J i rF la ` C JS! _ w� ,, • ,r r, _ 1 L______.;F.-, .,%--,.•-••.',-.---. 38 . BACKGROUND . .SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY -IMPACTS 4:-. ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Strengths and Opportunities Anticipated Outcome • Available land near the EWU campus Construction of the Cheney Incubator by the port is expected to contribute to the regional economy by adding: • Full services can be provided by the City • A specialty incubator space for lease. • Opportunity to develop the incubator in the Cheney Industrial Park • Significant opportunities for start-ups and small, high-tech commercial enterprises. • Six major education institutions in the region with over 90,000 students enrolled. • Funding opportunities and entrepreneurial resources that accelerate growth and profitability for new businesses • Synergy with aeronautical, transit and medical technology through the Incubator • ----Jobs/FTEs/SF Port Role • ---Taxable Revenue The proposed port can take a lead role in developing a high-tech incubator in Cheney.The port can facilitate the project by: • --- SF of Class/Type/Zone Industrial buildings • Enter into a long-term lease with the City • ---- Leasing Revenue • Speculatively design, finance, and construct the incubator , building in coordination with potential stakeholdersii • Identify incubator partners that may contribute funding . = • ;iir or expertise for the construction or management of the incubator space - �.�r> • Evaluate and determine regional interest areas to target the . 11111 71 1 incubator space towards interested users "" ",i• z; i { r.. BAGKGRPUND_y M_..' :.._.: _:yam SP:10:14 Ol3T: UTiltiki,Y � -- ;'_.:_. ._,JM.'A TS . ,,,;:v_:. .,,._ :: ,ILLUSTRATIVE:PE OJECTS„ 39.:. CHENEY INDUSTRIAL PARK Illustrative Project Story - .--.(.�._ , .,tom y --'.41 r ' WASruNG,�ON 7 ;,, - R The City of Cheney is home to an extraordinarily active rail yard �yi . 1, ` , .---..r- --'` ": served by both UP and BNSF rail lines. The City is located on rail fpr %� ' ,; �? ° i't !DAHO lines and very near to the International Airport and Interstate-90, ?:•` `f `" Speak-ant- SiOka ne which serve the whole inland northwest. The City has land that is oy -,� Fads _ available for development but has some challenges with accessibilityspoKsvo;�' ;, . ,..,, '-•-. :, 6._rirAkri, . �'S�R . Coour due to the several at-grade railroad crossings along SR-904- Trains 4 __ P,g; ' �� ___ that are travelling along the north-south corridor currently block Spokane Sihrar. all access to the City as they transit through Cheney. The City is •W j� zea ---ainT - interested in relocating the north-south rail corridor to improve I �, ' �iiiia freight mobility, decrease congestion and open up an area of vacant r4r y ' z� sod .-.; Cher, land far redevelopment as an industrial park_ The proposed port could partner with the City to construct the necessary infrastructure T to develop the Industrial Park. ToT -, - _ Existing Barriers - — The primary barriers to new industrial development in Cheney relate `- "' = ;- r 'Y► to mobility and a lack of capacity and connectivity.The City is ideally '` -- _ - . located near major overland transportation routes and the regional -_- - R _f— air carrier but lacks the road and rail infrastructure necessary to ".- J �`r �,- • -00- . realize these benefits. The City identified that SR-904 needs to be :.• - - =,_ /f es ',; } widened from the City out to the Interstate and that a realignment of - 4 y -42gi -Qv-Eft - --"'""- -• the PR and CC rail lines would eliminate a major source of congestion � . y �' ' • ., and would open up areas of vacant land for industrial development. The City has been actively seeking funding for transportation ti' infrastructure improvements for some time without success and l �,-r6ear ;r . ----- a may need assistance securing enough funding to invest in the basic �• '" infrastructure that will inspire additional private party investment. - - ---' ` - 1, ' '''; ' ; Allikk - - , -...; 401 BACKGROUND - .:` - SPOKANE PORT AUTHORIT` .. •. >� _1[>1 PACTS ' .. .. ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS .'. Strengths and Opportunities Anticipated Outcome • City of Cheney Fast Track Permitting Creation and build out of the Cheney Industrial Park by the port is expected to contribute to the regional economy by adding: • Served by SR-904, UP and BNSF Rail Service and close to both Interstate-90 and Spokane International Airport • A Master Planned 130-acre industrial development complete with rail spurs from UP or BNSF • Significant opportunities for expansion of existing rail yards including an opportunity for a connection between the UP • Improved freight mobility through the corridor and BNSF on a 68 acre parcel • Contiguous access out of Cheney to Spokane area • 4.5 hour drive time to Renton and Everett—important factor • A reduced level of congestion due to railroad crossing for the existing 11-hour driver rule stoppages • Business and living costs well below national average • ---- .lobs/FTEs/SF • ---Taxable Revenue Port Role • ---- SF of Class/Type/Zone Industrial buildings The proposed port would have the tools and the incentive • ---- Leasing Revenue necessary to prepare the plan for development of the industrial park, aquire the necessary properties, and construct basic infrastructure.The Port could support the City by: `-`'.z { n 0,.. .4, 1 .. •! ,•_ • Creating an IDD and tax to support build out of the industrial I - - park. • Designing, financing, and building critical infrastructure including the relocation of the north-south rail corridor c.. i } CliENET • Considering property acquisition or joint public-private .�.13: 1 ' rel ms.1. partnership f 1 ,..y{ ' i: Y1 • Building and leasing speculative industrial real estate in the f'. -., ..a )^ -, l industrial development °i '" `- � r m� � I n • Supporting City staff to obtain additional funding for .,;� , ., '----,00r-- infrastructure improvements r --- , ;PACKGROOND -..A : SPOKANE PDRTAP IQRITY,t,.� .::,::, _�,..5:- .1114 PACTS- :,.. a .: ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS -,_.'41 AIRWAY HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR Illustrative Project Story Airway Heights is a full-service community located on the West :; Plains at the western edge of the Spokane Metro Area Just six miles from Spokane's city center, Airway Heights provides easy access to 1 a variety of transport networks, has low land prices, a small town .'--- ��_-�- a� feel all culminating in the city being one of the fastest growing in _� -Tr - -r��—�- � Washington State.The City is interested in developing an iundustrial ,. 11 corridor along 21st Ave to open significant areas of industrial zoned a` , property for development. In addition the corridor is aligned such ° r that it will eventually function as an east/west industrial route I e Welcome to ',...:taiiatikr= i- -•. --�_ bypass for Hwy �. - ' - i 1 . , _L'S AIRWAY HEIGHT'. ' 1 Est. 1955 • .._ .tr- Existing Barriers rIr_i,- , .� 4% i i'. ...., ,'. I .,. The City's primary industrial area is located south of Hwy 2 and north of McFarlane Rd, bounded by Craig Rd to the west, and Hayford Rd to the East. Development in the area is hampered by a lack of basic infrastructure, especially due to the lack of connectivity to the City's wastewater collection system. Twenty-first Ave, an unpaved road, is the primary east/west route through the area and is another barrier • ,j ,„ a'' to industrial development. That road is envisioned as a designed • .� "t+4 '=f • - -17,11 ::1:- 'v industrial route that is hardened to accommodate heavy freight and 'i1![ �-~ other industrial traffic for east/west transport. • - 'i •• •ate 6,- -' 7.." ' ' 1' t � r ' dw - ;ate f r , E,fi .4 }4, .51 . TC w tel•,, 4.4,4Y ,,4,%•-•z,,,• -,,• ••„. ft. : `7 ?,-..-, - r U' '-i s � rM1�- tiy� 4ter 3 f ' • 42,; BACKGROUND _. -SPOKANE PORT AUTHORITY : IMPACTS ` . ILLUSTRATIVE PROJECTS Strengths and Opportunities Anticipated Outcome • Full-service city The build out of the Airway Heights industrial corridor by the • Average annual population growth of 1.9% proposed port is expected to contribute to the regional economy by adding: • Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (AWRF) that reclaims wastewater to a Class A standard and can be • New "certified sites"for industrial development reused for irrigation and "greywater" uses • Reducing congestion through the City by development of • Easy access to I-90, air, and rail transport facilities. City the 21st Ave Hwy 2 bypass bounded to south by Geiger Spur • Significant tracts of land for new industrial development • 4.5 hour drive time to Renton and Everett and service businesses • • Well positioned amongst trucking, logistics, and aerospace ---Jobs/FTEs/SF manufacturing industry clusters • ----Taxable Revenue • Land costs below national, state, and regional average with • ---- SF of Class/Type/Zone Industrial buildings large tracts available Port Role . - h • .. 3, w ,�; The proposed port could support development in the Airway „� ,t*rf AV ry * c '-(-�."N� Heights industrial corridor by: • z - • Assisting in expanding the AWRF to full capacity (1.5 mgd to 3.0 mgd) • Consider acquisition or joint venture to have an equity • position in land • • Designing, financing and building critical infrastructure � r •necessary extend full services to available land t r azo ' { �. , ` ti ' 4,r, � s titl3:i aP 01.7.A�lT, �'.j" y 11,4„ ,i � ,> _ >a�� e 11At • Building and leasing speculative industrial real estate - r. • { r,.. , L' X41.1: .f..� M1T C :Fa • Support City staff in obtaining additional funding for „II, Vit, �� + .;.. •- ^�. �' r �,,,►� infrastructure improvements # ,ht:, �, �: ' ..* '• ll. , 1 . ^ il, \.^a.. lt�:F:ti -: 3Adk RDEIND._ , ... SPOKA 1r Ptil�1(A�3THfl �Y `_,.,_._ .. 11*AdTS,;..,�... ... 111.1)1$T'RAtiV !'ROJCO'S 1 •::::,-- ..,%-f.:,./ ' ,A. ;"; ,.....:.r'..--...'.s...--' .1 ' °--' ''.°;_is'.4°.7 . ' i — -: ''''..t i.',.:•:•:_:1;•:,;„' '..°.:-..--' '.- ..: ''. -.......?..,';',„,;,' 1.1 ,„. . 1, ;S,;?..- °'-°.:2-•':°:I.-: '..''.'.;:;•;41,--' °Ilkilivolitt.,.t. .,. • .. , „, 1-'-'-')',..;':',..1'',v.'„--. ' -. '-.1. -;-7,°:°.s.', .,:'.', ,.':-'•-,..';'---•.'- ' :' ,: -.-,.'-r;;;;'10-.. :;:,-. . : . I I II 1 :,- . •.-- ;,,--'',.-.:;' . •:.1-.11":;-1•11i.::11.,::.--"--:.--','-'1:1.1::.:.1...,".•.....1.:..:-.,..4.'..::'''..::;:l.'7;-::' .• -:• ' •..•- • . : 1 ' -.•" - :• • . .. . . . „ " . • "". .. . . 1,- 1 . . *- - . . •. -. . . _ . , . • • . . .. •,. , . • . - ' • --,,,..„ -,. „ . • - _, . ..-• • . . ' ' • '--•.-. ._ - - • -.Z:'-- .,;:1--,),..::";. . • ''',i..-:-, . )1 ;‘, • ' : ::-....- - : ..-4' . ' . '-,..---.,--.. . •..".',.'. • , ,...::,:_..,. . .. .„:..... , -• ._..., , : . .. :.:.. .:: . 4* , , .., ..--..i.A...,- , .. I . ..„:,..,.;,..-........- • :;.7, '.-, .--• - •---- • - - - ti"i +• 1 -+ .:'•- t.-... : :'."•.-• - - - • . • . .--• . . . .. .. . . . • . . . • • , - , l'.1-C.,:',.;1_,-......_-:.i..:,%.:.E:-...,:i . . . . _ • . -.. l.,' . ..„. • ..- . . . . ,- , . -....1, • . , - • "- . . -. .:,,:i.• • . . . . . - • P :. ;' . '.• I • • .. . .. _ . + . -.., ....+.• . . .. •. • • . • ... . . . . . .... . • . . . .•.• • - • • •- - • . -. • • .. .III — .-..- • • : L • ...• ,-.„-•-.. 1-t. . . . -" -.51: • . • '• - • .ei,. / :::a -7 ' ' . -.. ;, , _„. .- • - — . . ..., . - .. • .. . r. - - • . .... . .... •. - r - - .. •..., ,r . .. ..."..0....• 4.71 I • ii ---.. • " . ' - -,•= . I ::, . ... •. . - .- .."--'a. .... . _ . . .,,-. - - . f 1 - . ,...---: ---; --. ::':;-.6,y,,„7.,; . - . . ... . -. ..-- ' -- .. . .- - - - .. -_-...-,:-.,_: ..- . .. - -. -,-7--:.,k-'• , - . . • it... . . _ . / .., ' .. • .--.. '... .. - ./....1 . . .. / '4% , . ... - • , .... ''' Aeronautical equipment at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical - s .---.., • . Ns....„ , .. . .. ..-. i e- ?irc;"Id)4'1-,,,`'..iiiCe:Base.in:S.oka - 1 ne. :-:- . , . • . . \ - . .• N. ‘_,N: N• • March 7, 2017 Members of the Washington State Legislature: The City of Spokane Valley opposes Senate Bill 5827 regarding changes to the definition of "tourist" for purposes of lodging tax collection and distribution, This bill, as drafted, would improperly interfere with the authority of local jurisdictions to determine important matters of particularly local concern: how to determine where and how to conduct local tourism promotion through the expenditure of lodging tax revenues. By limiting the definition of "tourist" to someone who either stays overnight in paid accommodations or who travels at least 50 miles for the day, the Bill improperly limits local legislative decisions on how to best spend local lodging tax revenues to increase tourism locally and ignores other benefits that cities receive from tourism promotion. Cities see benefit from tourism promotion beyond lodging stays, including expenditures at local restaurants and sales tax revenues from expenditures at local retail stores. By limiting the definition to persons coming from 50 miles ignores the tourism benefits from tourists visiting from distances closer than 50 miles. As an example, Spokane Valley borders three cities and will see immediate tourism benefits from tourist visits to Spokane Valley events from any of those cities, yet those would not be included under the proposed Bill. It is also impractical for recipients to report the actual number of tourists, as tracking persons may be very difficult at certain types of events, such as those that are free and no entry tickets are required. Finally, the City believes that local control over local taxes is one of paramount importance for cities, as the benefits and impacts are local and the City should be able to determine how and where local taxes are expended. Again, the City of Spokane Valley opposes Senate Bill 5827, and urges you to vote against it, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, L.R. Higgins, Mayor SENATE BILL REPORT SB 5827 As Reported by Senate Committee On: Ways & Means,February 21, 2017 Title: An act relating to definitions and reporting requirements for municipalities receiving lodging tax revenues. Brief Description: Concerning definitions and reporting requirements for municipalities receiving lodging tax revenues. Sponsors: Senators Braun and Rolfes. Brief History: Committee Activity: Ways & Means: 2/20117, 2/21/17 [DPS, DNP]. Brief Summary of Substitute Bill • Defines tourist for purposes of local lodging tax reporting. • Requires recipients of local lodging tax to report to their local government and local lodging tax advisory committee on the number of tourists generated from their events. SENATE COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5827 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by Senators Braun, Chair; Brown,Vice Chair; Rossi,Vice Chair; Honeyford, Vice Chair, Capital Budget ; Ranker, Ranking Minority Member; Rolfes, Assistant Ranking Minority Member, Operating Budget; Bailey, Becker, Billig, Conway, Darneille, Fain, Hasegawa,Keiser,Miloscia,Pedersen,Rivers, Schoesler, Warnick and Zeiger. Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by Senators Frockt,Assistant Ranking Minority Member, Capital Budget; Carlyle and Padden. Staff: Julie Murray (786-7711) This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. Senate Bill Report - 1 - SB 5827 Background: The local lodging tax, also known as the local hotel-motel tax, applies to charges for lodging at hotels, motels, rooming houses, private campgrounds, recreational vehicle (RV) parks, and similar facilities for continuous periods of less than one month. The maximum tax rate is 2 percent. The local tax is credited against the state retail sales tax of 6.5 percent; therefore, customers do not incur an additional tax. Initially authorized in 1967 to provide King County with a funding source for the construction of the Kingdome,the local lodging tax was incrementally expanded over the years to cover additional cities, counties, and fund uses. In 1997, the Legislature repealed the assortment of multiple uses for the local lodging tax and instead required the future revenues to be used for tourism-related purposes. In 2007, the permissible uses of local lodging tax revenues were expanded to include expenditures for operations related to tourism promotion, including operations relating to special events and festivals. The definition of tourism-related facility was broadened to include property owned by various types of nonprofit organizations. Local jurisdictions using local lodging tax revenues are required to submit an annual economic impact report providing information on the amount and use of local lodging tax revenues and the estimated number of tourist and tourist generated revenues to the Department of Commerce. In addition, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) was required to report to the Legislature by September 1,2012, on the use and economic impact of local lodging tax revenues. All of these changes were set to expire in 2013. In 2013, tourism promotion, including operations relating to special events and festivals, and support for tourism-related facilities were made a permanent permissible use of local lodging tax revenues. The definition of a tourist was removed along with the annual report of the use of local lodging tax revenues to the Department of Commerce. However, recipients of local lodging tax revenues were required to submit a report to their local jurisdiction describing the number of persons traveling for business or pleasure trips. The reports were to be made available to the local legislative body, the public, the local lodging tax advisory committee and the JLARC. Summary of Bill (First Substitute): All recipients of local lodging tax revenues are required to submit a report to their local jurisdiction describing the actual number of tourists generated from the monies received. Tourist is defined as a person who travels for business or pleasure on a trip: • away from the person's place of residence or business and stays overnight in paid accommodations; • to a place 50 miles away or more one way by driving-distance from the person's place of residence or business for the day or stays overnight—island communities without land access are exempt from the mileage requirement under this subsection; or • from another country or state outside of the person's place of residence or business. Any recipient that does not submit the report is ineligible to receive local lodging tax revenue until such report is received. Any applicant who received local lodging tax revenue prior to the effective date of this act is ineligible, as of the effective date of this act, to receive any additional local lodging tax revenue,unless the recipient submits the required reports. Senate Bill Report -2- SB 5827 EFFECT OF CHANGES MADE BY WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE (First Substitute): • Clarifies the definition of tourist. Appropriation: None. Fiscal Note: Available. Creates Committee/Commission/Task Force that includes Legislative members: No. Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed. Staff Summary of Public Testimony on Original Bill: The committee recommended a different version of the bill than what was heard. PRO: This is a tax revenue generated from the lodging industry. These funds are to be reinvested into local programs or projects that will continue to generate lodging revenue and taxes. Overtime, this local money is being used in some communities for things that benefit the quality of life of persons living in the area rather than tourism. This is an attempt to bring this program back to a focus on tourism promotion; this may be the only money a community has for that purpose. Local lodging facilities across the state contribute tax dollars to benefit tourism efforts in local areas. Current law is a bit vague and some communities use these dollars not as intended. These dollars are intended to bring tourists to local communities, which in turn creates jobs, expands the economy, and generates tax dollars. Some funds are used for memorials, floats, hanging baskets, and other general community maintenance. This bill tightens up the law to ensure the taxes are being used as intended to support local tourism efforts. Since 2013, we continue to have issues with how these funds are used. One of the criteria for funding projects is how they replenish the fund. Only way to do that is a head in the bed. We think this is an appropriate way to make sure that happens. CON: I oppose the measure and wish I could hear the reason for it from the proponents of the bill. Was result of a negotiation in 2013 between counties, cities, hoteliers and other lodging interests. Current reports to MARC are detailed and onerous, but it has been a good partnership. Counties have a 98 percent compliance rate with reporting. This bill undoes that agreement, which removed the restriction that those funds be used for persons who are coming from 50 miles away. The 2013 agreement made local lodging tax advisory committees more powerful to the recommendations they made for funding to local elected officials; reporting was changed to a better process; and cities and counties got to count persons from neighboring areas. Unwinds what counties and cities have, but not the hoteliers. Persons Testifying: PRO: Senator Christine Rolfes, Sponsor; Becky Bogard, WA State Destination Marketing Organizations; Morgan Nickel, Washington Hospitality Association/ Government Affairs Manager. CON: Josh Weiss, Washington State Association of Counties; Victoria Lincoln,Association of WA Cities. Senate Bill Report -3 SB 5827 Persons Signed In To Testify But Not Testifying: No one. Senate Bill Report -4- SB 5827 S-1761 . 1 SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5827 State of Washington 65th Legislature 2017 Regular Session By Senate Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Braun and Rolfes) READ FIRST TIME 02/23/17 . 1 AN ACT Relating to definitions and reporting requirements for 2 municipalities receiving lodging tax revenues; and amending RCW 3 67 . 28 . 080 and 67 . 28 . 1816. 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 5 Sec. 1. RCW 67 . 28 . 080 and 2013 c 196 s 2 are each amended to 6 read as follows : 7 The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter 8 unless the context clearly requires otherwise. 9 (1) "Acquisition" includes, but is not limited to, siting, 10 acquisition, design, construction, refurbishing, expansion, repair, 11 and improvement, including paying or securing the payment of all or 12 any portion of general obligation bonds, leases, revenue bonds, or 13 other obligations issued or incurred for such purpose or purposes 14 under this chapter. 15 (2) "Municipality" means any county, city or town of the state of 16 Washington. 17 (3) "Operation" includes, but is not limited to, operation, 18 management, and marketing. 19 (4) "Person" means the federal government or any agency thereof, 20 the state or any agency, subdivision, taxing district or municipal p. 1 SSB 5827 1 corporation thereof other than county, city or town, any private 2 corporation, partnership, association, or individual . 3 (5) "Tourism" means economic activity resulting from tourists, 4 which may include the combination of the sales of overnight lodging, 5 meals, tours, gifts, or souvenirs . 6 (6) "Tourism promotion" means activities, operations, and 7 expenditures designed to increase tourism, including but not limited 8 to advertising, publicizing, or otherwise distributing information 9 for the purpose of attracting and welcoming tourists; developing 10 strategies to expand tourism; operating tourism promotion agencies; 11 and funding the marketing of or the operation of special events and 12 festivals designed to attract tourists . 13 (7) "Tourism-related facility" means real or tangible personal 14 property with a usable life of three or more years, or constructed 15 with volunteer labor that is : (a) (i) Owned by a public entity; (ii) 16 owned by a nonprofit organization described under section 501 (c) (3) 17 of the federal internal revenue code of 1986, as amended; or (iii) 18 owned by a nonprofit organization described under section 501 (c) (6) 19 of the federal internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, a business 20 organization, destination marketing organization, main street 21 organization, lodging association, or chamber of commerce and (b) 22 used to support tourism, performing arts, or to accommodate tourist 23 activities . 24 (8) "Tourist" means a person who travels for business or pleasure 25 on a trip.: 26 (a) Away from the person' s place of residence or business and 27 stays overnight in paid accommodations; or 28 (b) To a place fifty miles away or more one way by driving- 29 distance from the person' s place of residence or business for the day 30 or stays overnight. However, island communities without land access 31 are exempt from the mileage requirement under this subsection (8) (b) ; 32 or 33 (c) From another country or state outside of the person' s place 34 of residence or business . 35 Sec. 2. RCW 67 .28 . 1816 and 2013 c 196 s 1 are each amended to 36 read as follows : 37 (1) Lodging tax revenues under this chapter may be used, directly 38 by any municipality or indirectly through a convention and visitors p. 2 SSB 5827 1 bureau or destination marketing organization in accordance with the 2 process established in subsection (2) (b) of this section for: 3 (a) Tourism marketing; 4 (b) The marketing and operations of special events and festivals 5 designed to attract tourists; 6 (c) Supporting the operations and capital expenditures of 7 tourism-related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or a 8 public facilities district created under chapters 35 . 57 and 36. 100 9 RCW; or 10 (d) Supporting the operations of tourism-related facilities owned 11 or operated by nonprofit organizations described under 26 U.S. C. Sec. 12 501 (c) (3) and 26 U. S. C. Sec. 501 (c) (6) of the internal revenue code 13 of 1986, as amended. 14 (2) (a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, applicants 15 applying for use of revenues in this chapter must provide the 16 municipality to which they are applying estimates of how any moneys 17 received will result in increases in the number of people traveling 18 for business or pleasure on a trip: 19 (i) Away from their place of residence or business and staying 20 overnight in paid accommodations; 21 (ii) To a place fifty miles or more one way by driving-distance 22 from their place of residence or business for the day or staying 23 overnight . However, island communities without land access are exempt 24 from the mileage requirement under this subsection (2) (a) ; or 25 (iii) From another country or state outside of their place of 26 residence or their business . 27 (b) (1) In a municipality with a population of five thousand or 28 more, applicants applying for use of revenues in this chapter must 29 submit their applications and estimates described under (a) of this 30 subsection to the local lodging tax advisory committee . 31 (ii) The local lodging tax advisory committee must select the 32 candidates from amongst the applicants applying for use of revenues 33 in this chapter and provide a list of such candidates and recommended 34 amounts of funding to the municipality for final determination. The 35 municipality may choose only recipients from the list of candidates 36 and recommended amounts provided by the local lodging tax advisory 37 committee. 38 (c) (1) All recipients must submit a report to the municipality 39 describing the actual number of tourists, which details the number of 40 people traveling for business or pleasure on a trip: p. 3 SSB 5827 1 (A) Away from their place of residence or business and staying 2 overnight in paid accommodations; 3 (B) To a place fifty miles or more one way from their place of 4 residence or business for the day or staying overnight; or 5 (C) From another country or state outside of their place of 6 residence or their business . A municipality receiving a report must: 7 Make such report available to the local legislative body and the 8 public; and furnish copies of the report to the joint legislative 9 audit and review committee and members of the local lodging tax 10 advisory committee. 11 (ii) The joint legislative audit and review committee must on a 12 biennial basis report to the economic development committees of the 13 legislature on the use of lodging tax revenues by municipalities . 14 Reporting under this subsection must begin in calendar year 2015 . 15 Liii) Any recipient that does not submit the report required in 16 this subsection (2) (c) is ineligible to receive funds under this 17 chapter until such report is received. Any applicant who received 18 funds under this chapter prior to the effective date of this section 19 is ineligible, as of the effective date of this section, to receive 20 any _ additional funds under this chapter, unless such applicant 21 complies with this subsection and submits the report required herein. 22 (d) This section does not apply to the revenues of any lodging 23 tax authorized under this chapter imposed by a county with a 24 population of one million five hundred thousand or more. --- END --- p. 4 SSB 5827