The URL can be used to link to this page

2013, 04-09 Regular Meeting AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday,April 9, 2013 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Sid Johnson, Spokane Valley Baptist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.)When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a.Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 03/21/2013 4262-4265; 28687 $66,280.93 03/24/2013 28688-28689 $2,640.00 03/29/2013 28690-28753; 326130062 $399,701.60 GRAND TOTAL $468,622.53 b.Approval of Payroll for period ending March 31,2013: $387,458.70 c.Approval of March 19,2013 Council Study Session Meeting Minutes d.Approval of March 26,2013 Council Formal Format Meeting Minutes NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-002 Amending 2.50.060(B)Pre-employment Physicals- John Whitehead [public comment] Council Agenda 04-09-13 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-003 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.120, Townhouses in Neighborhood Commercial— Scott Kuhta [public comment] 4.Motion Consideration: Grant for School Beacons—Inga Note,Eric Guth [public comment] 5. Motion Consideration: Spokane Regional Transportation Council Interlocal Agreement—Eric Guth [public comment] 6.Motion Consideration: Public Safety Contract Addenda—Morgan Koudelka,John Pietro [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.)When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 7. Code Text Amendment for SEPA(State Environmental Protection Act)Regulations—Scott Kuhta, Lori Barlow 8. Sponsoring of Spokane County Library District for AWC(Association of Washington Cities) Membership—John Whitehead 9.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey INFORMATION ONLY(will not be reported or discussed): 10. UGA(Urban Growth Act)Update 11. Decant Facility Update CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meetini Schedule(meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats(the less formal meeting)are generally held the 0,_s and 51 Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items.NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,hearing, or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at (509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 04-09-13 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 9, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: El consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS; TOTAL AMOUNT 03/21/2013 4262-4265; 28687 $66,280.93 03/24/2013 28688-28689 $2,640.00 03/29/2013 28690-28753; 326130062 $399,701.60 GRAND TOTAL 5468,622.53 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 -General Fund Other Funds 001.011.000.511 City Council 101 —Street Fund 001.013.000.513. City Manager 103 —Paths &Trails 001.013.015.515. Legal 105—Hotel/Motel Tax 001.016.000. Public Safety 120—CenterPlace Operating Reserve 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 121 —Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.018.014.514. Finance 122—Winter Weather Reserve 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 123 --Civic Facilities Replacement 001.032.000, Public Works 204—Debt Service 001.058.050.558. Comm. Develop,-Administration 301 —Capital Projects(1'' 'A% REET) 001.058.055,558. Comm. Develop.—Develop.Eng, 302—Special Capital Proj (2' 'A%REET) 001.058.056.558. Community Develop.- Planning 303 --Street Capital Projects 001.058.057.558. Community Develop.- Building 304—Mirabeau Point Project 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 307—Capital Grants 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 309—Parks Capital Grants 001.076.301.571. Parks &Rec-Recreation 310—Civic Bldg Capital Projects 001.076.302.576. Parks &Rec-Aquatics 311 —Pavement Preservation 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 312—Capital Reserve 001.076.305.571. Parks &Rec-CenterPlace 402—Stormwater Management 001.090.000.511. General Gov't-Council related 403 —Aquifer Protection Area 001.090.000.514. General Gov't-Finance related 501 —Equipment Rental &Replacement 001.090.000.517. General Gov't-Employee supply 502—Risk Management 001.090.000.518. General Gov't-Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't-Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't-Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't-Natural &Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't-Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't-Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't-Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun, Finance Director; ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 03/21/2013 3:55:46PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 4262 3/20/2013 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben48467 001.231.14.00 401A:Payment 28,331.02 Total: 28,331.02 4263 3/20/2013 000682 EFTPS Ben48469 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:Payment 30,360.53 Total: 30,360.53 4264 3/20/2013 000145 VANTAGEPOINTTRANSFER AGENTS,457 Pl.} Ben48471 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:Payr 6,430.48 Total: 6,430.48 4265 3/20/2013 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC PL 8en48473 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN:Payment 1,083.90 Total: 1,083.90 28687 3/20/2013 001896 DANIEL H BRUNNER Ben48465 001.231.20.00 BONDURANT.MICHAEL 1203245:Payrr 75.00 Total: 75.00 S Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 66,280.93 5 Vouchers in this report I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Total vouchers: 66,280.93 Page: 1 vchlist 03/25120/3 8:54:40AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 28688 3/25/2013 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD February 2013 101.042.000.542 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL SERVICE: 1,640.00 Total : 1,640.00 28689 3/25/2013 002909 WA DEPT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES 2011-WPC-070 001.090.000.518 AMENDMENT#2 1,000.00 Total : 1,000.00 2 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 2,640.00 2 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 2,640.00 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: 1 vchlist 03129/2013 12:15:28PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : Voucher 28690 28691 28692 28693 28694 28695 28696 28697 28698 28699 28700 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 3/29/2013 000958 AAA SWEEPING, LLC 3/29/2013 001081 ALSCO 3/29/2013 003076 AMSDEN, ERICA 3/29/2013 000030 AVISTA 3/29/2013 001606 BANNER BANK 3/29/2013 000841 BC! CREATIVE INC 3/29/2013 003090 BIG R STORES 3/29/2013 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 3/29/2013 002807 BOUTEN CONSTRUCTION CO. 3/29/2013 000904 BRANCH,CAROLBELLE 3/29/2013 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE 2012 Retainage LSPO1288829 Expenses February 2013 February 2013 0618 0797 1423 4064 4375 8861 11215 047523/3 9417838 2012 Retainage Expenses IN-025510 Fund/Dept 402.223.40.00 001.058.057.558 001.032.000.543 001.076.300.576 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.519 001,058.057.558 001.011.000.511 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 101.000.000.542 001.076305.575 309.223A0.00 001.018.013.513 101.000.000.542 Description/Account RETAINAGE RELEASE:2012 SWEEI Total : FLOOR MATS: BUILDING DEPT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA Total : FEBRUARY 2013:0618 FEBRUARY 2013: 0797 FEBRUARY 2013: 1423 FEBRUARY 2013:4064 FEBRUARY 2013:4375 FEBRUARY 2013:8861 WEB DESIGN Total : Total : SUPPLIES FOR MAINT SHOP Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C Total : RETAINAGE RELEASE:2012 GREE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : PRESSURE WASH-MAINT FAC1LI1 Amount 26,029.47 26,029.47 45.31 45.31 31.68 31.68 7,775.09 26,318.09 34,093.18 1,634.04 74726 2,999.04 4,970.92 216.94 600.34 11,168.54 285.00 285.00 15.84 15.84 119.59 119.59 33,608.83 33,608.83 52.86 52.86 204.39 Page: 1 vchlist 03129/20/3 12:15:28PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : Voucher 28700 28701 28702 28703 28704 28705 28706 28707 28708 28709 28710 28711 28712 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 3/29/2013 000143 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE 3/29/2013 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 3/29/2013 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 3/29/2013 003234 CODE 3, LLC 3/29/2013 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 3/29/2013 003310 CRC DESIGN&CONSTRUCTION 3/29/2013 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 3/29/2013 002889 DOVIA OF THE INLAND NW 3/29/2013 003274 EXCHANGE PUBLISHING (Continued) March 20'13 March 2013 1296 3820:129868 Refund March 2013 March 2013 2013 257629 258455 3/29/2013 003296 FIBERLINK COMMUNICATIONS CORP IN000008905 3/29/2013 002308 FINKE, MELISSA 3/29/2013 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 3/29/2013 002975 FREEDOM SALES AND SUPPLY March 2013 39297 PC001129322:01 Fund/Dept 001.032.000.543 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.058.059.322 001.076.304.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.304.575 001.090.010.513 001.090.010.513 001.090.000.518 001.076.301.571 311.000.174.595 Description/Account Amount Total : PETTY CASH: 8727,29,30,31,32,33,: Total : PETTY CASH:8972,73,74,75 Total : HORNET TACTICAL BODY ARMOR Total : COFFEE SUPPLIES AT CENTERPU Total : REFUND FOR BUILDING PERMIT B Total : ADVERTISING FOR SENIOR CENTE ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : MEMBERSHIP REGIST:2013 CLAR Total ADVERTISING-CITY BIRTHDAY ADVERTISING: CITY BIRTHDAY Total : SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTOR PAYMENTS LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : Total : Total : 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES FOR MAINT SHOP 204.39 74.69 74.69 28.65 28.65 9,297.11 9,297.11 28.80 28.80 55.00 55.00 32.22 166.46 1 98.68 35.00 35.00 7.55 7.55 15.10 1,040.58 1,040.58 1,235.00 1,235.00 121.60 121.60 1,302.44 Page: 2 vchlist 03/2912013 12:15:25 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code: aphank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 28712 3/29/2013 002975 FREEDOM SALES AND SUPPLY 28713 3/29/2013 002568 GRANICUS INC 28714 3/29/2013 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 28715 3/29/2013 000410 GRIFFIN PUBLISHING INC. 28716 3/29/2013 003177 GUTH, ERIC 28717 3/29/2013 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 28718 3/29/2013 002538 HYDRAULICS PLUS, INC 28719 3/29/2013 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE&FITINGS 28720 3/29/2013 000012 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS INC. 28721 3/29/2013 002466 KENWORTH SALES 28722 3/29/2013 001944 LANCER LTD (Continued) PC001129948:01 43690 22496 16327 Expenses 80827 16253 487519 487828 487906 487943 INV002830030 152072 153123 Fund/Dept 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 001.076.305.575 001.076.301,571 001.032.000.543 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.090.000.558 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 0435097 001.018.013.513 Description/Account Amount SUPPLIES FOR MAINT SHOP Total : BROADCASTING SERVICES Total : BUSINESS SHOW BOOTH#43 Total : 2013 SPRING SUMMER GUIDES PE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES FOR MAINT SHOP Total : SUPPLIES FOR PW MAINT SHOP Total : SUPPLIES: PW MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES FOR PW MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES FOR PW MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES FOR PW MAINT SHOP Total : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AID PE Total : SUPPLIES FOR PW MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES FOR MAINT SHOP Total : BUSINESS CARDS:JACKSON Total : 298.91 1,601.35 719.59 719.59 450.00 450.00 2,612.06 2,612.06 51.10 51.10 293.53 293.53 489.15 489.15 194.56 730.17 37.08 87.42 1,049.23 1,200.00 1,200.00 10&16 221.12 329.28 44.02 44.02 Page: 3 vchlist 03!2912013 12:15:28PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: Voucher 28723 28724 28725 28726 28727 28728 28729 28730 28731 28732 28733 28734 apbank Date Vendor Invoice 3/29/2013 002956 LELAND TRAILER AND EQUIPMENT 3/29/2013 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT 3/29/2013 000788 MEDIA JOE, INC. 28612 March 2013 3552 3/29/2013 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC April 2013 3/29/2013 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 3/29/2013 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 3/29/2013 001904 OVERHEAD DOOR, INC 3/29/2013 001084 PAPICH,JENNIFER 3/29/2013 000437 PERIDOT PUBLISHING 3/29/2013 003307 PERIMETER SECURITY GROUP 3/29/2013 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 3/29/2013 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. 1561075251 648344421001 648587508001 648759014001 February 2013 254806 Expenses 2013 0003287-IN 1428301-MR13 43756/43756-a Fund/Dept Description/Account 101.000.000.542 001.076.304.575 001.090.000.594 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.517 001.018.013.513 001.090.000.518 001.013.000.513 Amount SUPPLIES FOR PW OPERATING SUPPLIES Total : Total : COUNCIL CHAMBERS AV ROUTINC Total : CITY HALL RENT Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES:GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR OPS/ADMIT OFFICE SUPPLIES: GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES: OPS AND ADMI Total : 001.016.000.586 STATE REMITTANCE 001.016.000.521 001.076.301.571 001.013.000.513 001.016.000.521 001.090.000.518 Total : MISCELLANEOUS REPAIR PRECIN Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Tota I : SUBSCRIPTION: CITY MGR Total : SERVICE CALLS 2/14 AND 2/15/13 Total : POSTAGE METER RENTAL 101.042.000.542 LIQUID ASPHALT Total : 32.50 32.50 548.86 548.86 24,935.78 24,935.78 33,333.33 33,333.33 4.74 73.17 33.46 4.37 115.74 62,466.10 62,466.10 81.53 81.53 100.89 100.89 12.00 12.00 516.33 516.33 275.00 275.00 15,185.15 Page: 4 vchlist 03/29/2013 12:15:28PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 5 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 28734 3/29/2013 001089 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. (Continued) 28735 3/29/2013 000291 PROJECT ACCESS, INC. 28736 3/2912013 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC_ 28737 3/29/2013 003208 RODDA PAINT CO. 28738 3/29/2013 003014 RON TURLEY ASSOC. 28739 3/29/2013 000415 ROSAUERS 28740 3/29/2013 000235 SECURE SHRED 28741 3/2912013 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 2013-100 30862 9402337 38773 March 21,2013 88505 5-663928 5-664048 28742 3/29/2013 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY February 2013 28743 3/29/2013 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 28744 3/2912013 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 Mar 2013 March 2013 14500454 51501515 28745 3/29/2013 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 50535 Fund/Dept 001.090.000.560 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.518 001.076.305.575 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.016.000.586 001.090.000.566 001.016.000.523 001.076.300.576 101.042.000.542 001.016.000.521 Description/Account Total : 1ST QTR REIMBURSE: OUTSIDE AI Total SHIRTS FOR PARKS AND REC Total : SUPPLIES FOR PW Total : ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AGREEME Total : MEETING SUPPLIES DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION Total : Total : SUPPLIES FOR PW SUPPLIES FOR MAINT SHOP Total : CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F Total : 4TH QTR 2012: LIQUOR TAX FEBRUARY 2013: HOUSING INVOIC Total : WATER IRR CHARGES:APPLEWAA WATER CHARGES: PW Total : FEBRUARY 2013 MONTHLY MAINT: Total : Amount 15,18515 4,592.00 4,592.00 1,146.79 1,146.79 252.05 252.05 904.35 904.35 10.88 10.88 132.96 132.96 10.38 68.35 78.73 950.55 950.55 4,078.64 106,447.00 110,525.64 8.96 35.84 44.80 570.68 570.68 Page: 5 vchlist 03/2912013 12:15:28PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 6 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 28746 3/29/2013 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 61066 28747 3/29/2013 001911 THE GLOVER MANSION CP805 28748 3/29/2013 002576 TUNE TALES MUSIC, INC March 2013 28749 3/29/2013 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 5771 28750 3/29/2013 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE 36117 28751 3/29/2013 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 1748102-2681-4 1748103-2681-2 28752 3/29/2013 003309 WSU, OGRD 28753 3/29/2013 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC March 2013 March 2013 326130062 3/27/2013 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-38 65 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Fund/Dept 001.018.016.518 001.076.305.575 001.076.301.571 105.000.000.557 001.090.010.513 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.058.055.558 101.042.000.542 001.016.000.521 Description/Account Amount PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAI Total : INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT Total : 2013 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMI Total : 10TH ANNIVERSARY PC Total : WASTE MANAGEMENT: CENTERPI WASTE MANAGEMENT: PRECINCT Total : CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: MA Total : DARK FIBER LEASE Total : CRYWOLF CHARGES:JANUARY 2( Total : Bank total : 65 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers 26.00 26.00 152.18 152.18 496.00 496.00 9,262.11 9,262.11 222.53 222.53 775.16 296.88 1,072.04 35.00 35.00 242.39 242.39 4,756.50 4,756.50 399,701.60 399,701.60 Page: 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 04-09-2013 Department Director Approval : ❑ Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information [' admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending March 31, 2013 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 237,532.33 $ 5,475.00 $243,007.33 Benefits: $ 135,427.06 $ 9,024.31 $144,451.37 Total payroll $ 372,959.39 $ 14,499.31 $387,458.70 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington March 19, 2013 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Dean Grafos,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Rod Higgins, Councilmember Mark Calhoun,Finance Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Morgan Koudelka, Sr.Administrative Analyst Art Jenkins, Stormwater Engineer John Whitehead,Human Resources Manager Chief VanLeuven,Police Chief Chris Bainbridge,City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll;all Councilmembers were present. Mayor Towey took a few minutes to publicly thank all the sponsors of the City's Tenth Anniversary/Birthday Party held last Saturday; and he thanked all those who participated and assisted with the event; and he noted the names of those sponsors and people who assisted were shown on the overhead screen. Mayor Towey said that Saturday's event was terrific, was very well attended, and he again expressed his thanks to everyone involved. 1. Public Defender Caseload—Erick Lamb,Morgan Koudelka Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka reported that beginning October 1, 2013, each public defender attorney will be limited on the number of annual cases they can work. He said Spokane Valley is only responsible for misdemeanors and infractions; that we contract with Spokane County to provide those defense services; and that the annual caseload limit for misdemeanor cases is 400 unless a weighted system is adopted; and he explained that tonight staff is not asking anything of Council as this is a report to keep Council informed of the issue and give details on the limitations and standards for case loads, as well as to keep Council advised of some of the strategies to mitigate some of the limits. Deputy City Attorney Lamb spoke to the purpose of the change and the weighed system, adding that we would be looking at Spokane County's weighed system should they choose to adopt one. Continuing through their PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Koudelka went over the financial impact, including the additional approximate $288,000 cost; discussed opportunities to reduce the impact of the limits, especially concerning the Third Degree Driving While License Suspended Charges (DWLS3); said that the City of Spokane has been diverting their cases, which has reduced the impact to their criminal justice system while increasing their revenues; and said we would want to achieve those results as well, and he explained the criteria necessary to have a case go through the diversion process. Mr.Koudelka said that as we make progress, staff will give Council updates; that we currently spend about $900,000 for law enforcement, and said staff is examining that as well; he said the contract renews automatically annually with a six- Council Study Session Minutes 03-19-2013 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT month termination notice; he further explained that if Spokane County has to hire seven new attorneys, that space will also be a factor;he said we want to explore the whole system, and that we will continue to work with other jurisdictions as all jurisdictions are in the same situation and everyone is aware that something needs to happen — hopefully sooner than later. He also stated that staff will be talking with some of the County Commissioners and County Directors to make sure we can implement some of the changes needed,as soon as possible. Mayor Towey said this would have a financial impact; that we used to have a buffer in the public safety fund but he is aware that has been reduced. Mr. Koudelka said that more information on this will be forthcoming as there are still several issues to consider, including a lot of settle and adjust calculations; that staff will have all the information back to Council well before the deadline, and said the goal is to eliminate this impact or find other resources or additional appropriations; and added that he is not prepared at this time to say we would need a budget amendment as staff currently is working within existing appropriations, and said that a budget amendment would be the last step. 2. Stormwater Capital Projects—Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth explained that staff's goal for the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program is to address top priority stormwater problems and concerns based on "public health and welfare" which can be done, he explained via his PowerPoint presentation, by lowering the risk of flooding, lowering maintenance cost, and by protecting the aquifer. Other information covered by Mr. Guth included explanation of the means of project identification and evaluation, followed by some photos of future projects areas; and ending with the list of priority projects. Mayor Towey asked for Council consensus to move forward with the project list,and Council concurred. 3.Appleway Landscaping—Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth gave an overview of and background about the issue of Appleway Landscaping, I-90 to University Avenue; he mentioned different classifications of potential landscape areas as well as estimated cost to improve by area type;he said only 26% of the project is grant eligible,it is primarily a landscape project, that only water quality improvements are needed and that issue was addressed with the couplet project constructed by the County. Mr. Guth said improvement options include (1) market led, (2) combination where the City works with frontage owners to encourage improvements, and(3)City led,where we would find funding,and design and construct the projects. Councilmember Grafos, as noted in his handout, said that we could do all of the above on the projects, and have it split off into three sections (1) Dora to Park; (2) Park to Dishman Mica; and (3) Dishman Mica to University; he said it makes economic sense and is important to start, although he added he would not want to do it all especially with all the other projects we have like Sullivan Bridge. Mayor Towey said he feels there are two different categories; that landscaping is totally different from stormwater, adding that he likes the idea of working with the County and businesses; but said he is hesitant about funding just landscape; and would prefer to work with the owners and find out what they want and to work with those owners rather than just trying to fund the projects ourselves. Councilmember Woodard said perhaps the three sections could be split out over several years, and as we get started, it could provide momentum for owners to assist and get involved. Mayor Towey added that if we were to beautify the whole corridor, Dora to Dishman, we could end up spending from three to five million; that business could come in but who would pay for the maintenance of that beautification. Mr. Guth said typically if the project is within our right-of-way, we would maintain it, but like Enterprise, they put in the project, spent the capital and they maintain it. Councilmember Wick asked about having a plan which might enable us to apply for grants, and Mr. Guth said he would have to research that. City Manager Jackson stated that whether we could use grant funds for such a project would depend on the grant opportunity; but that we are not aware of any grants specifically to fund landscaping, as most grants are for larger plans like sidewalks or road improvements. Councilmember Hafner suggested that since this is Council Study Session Minutes 03-19-2013 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT the first time he has seen Councilmember Grafos' suggestions, that perhaps staff could examine this further and determine what the cost would be for each segment,then compare that with the other projects and added that such a project could take away from other more important projects. Councilmembers appeared to agree with the idea of breaking this project into phases, and no Councilmember voiced an objection to Councilmember Hafner's suggestion. Councilmember Woodard stated that he was not feeling well and asked to be and was excused from the remainder of the meeting. At 8:10 p.m.,Mayor Towey called for a recess;the meeting was reconvened at 8:22 p.m. 4. Economic Development—John Hohman,Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said that this topic was on the Council workshop agenda, but due to time constraints, was not addressed;that the idea was to discuss the continued promotion of the City's success stories, like the Permit Center, and to campaign to help highlight what we're doing with projects such as road preservation. In response to a question about recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee, Mr. Jackson said those have been combined in this topic, and said we want to make sure we are all moving toward the same direction; and said discussion tonight includes some of the short term as well as long term goals, and whether Council wants to give some general direction on how to move toward those top five short term recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee. Mr. Jackson continued with the PowerPoint presentation, which listed several of our economic development partners; he said staff has met with almost all of those and it takes a great deal of time to continue to meet with those partnerships. Community Development Director Hohman added we have identified several partners we feel are key to our continued success and have been working through issues such as what kind of staffing effort does it take to provide a healthy relationship; he said staff will get together and analyze the needs and bring that information to a future council meeting; he said the idea is to have free-flowing ideas and make sure we are participating as much as we should, and said staff is working now to identify specific needs. For example, Mr. Jackson explained, we have been trying to set up a meeting with GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) to develop a recruitment package for our city and include all the important demographics; identifying the needs such as retail,but said we will have to allocate time and resources for this endeavor. Mr. Hohman added that staff is working to put together a cooperative meeting the end of April with the Chamber to discuss bringing development into the community; and that staff is also researching permitting software to open up to the public so that we are ready for the upcoming construction season. Mr. Jackson said that although we have some Council representatives who attend some of these meetings, he is considering assigning specific staff from among our planners, to partner with some of the agencies on a regular basis. Mr. Jackson also pointed out that all the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations are included in tonight's council packet materials. As shown on their PowerPoint slide 4, Mr. Hohman said staff spent many hours analyzing this and coming up with a short list; that several are ongoing activities we currently do, such as participating as a regional tourism partner, although he said we will look to strengthen that area; he said we have moved into promoting our City as a business-friendly community, as noted in the recent ad campaign, and that campaign appeared to have worked well, and he said we want to continue that. He said we also want to promote access to the Spokane River and that the Shoreline Management Program's Access Plan works toward that goal. Director Hohman explained that Certified Site Programs promote "shovel-ready" properties;he said we want to have a rigorous system set up so it won't just be another step to go through, but result in properties being ready for development, which would include not just water and sewer availability,but also consider such things as traffic or stormwater requirements; he said we want to make it so properties can come in and look at structural plans and shorten the timeframe required for a permit, thereby allowing the property owner to really market the property. Councilmember Grafos suggested Council Study Session Minutes 03-19-2013 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT expanding the partners in that regard, to include such entities as the Traders Club and Spokane Home Builders; and Mayor Towey remarked that the key component is in the marketing. Mr. Jackson stated that we are in the process of trying to define the program; and as the 2014 business plan is developed,we will start to initiate at least some of these concepts; he said in 2014 or 2015 we will have to extend our horizons a little and will do that through the business plan process. Mr. Jackson explained that we spent$75,000 last year on those promotion items listed on slide 5; he said there are still a few remaining billboards;that we spent about $15,000 on production and have some other ad ideas that are not yet ready; he said staff is proposing for 2013 initially to take that same $75,000 figure for further ads; he said the agreement with MDI (Marketing Directors, Inc.) ended last year and City Attorney Driskell is preparing a document to extend that agreement; and he estimated a cost of about $200,000 to continue the ads throughout the year; he said we have some funds budgeted, but would return to council for a budget amendment for the remainder. Mr. Jackson asked Council for suggestions or comments on the promotion. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked about the status of the freeway signs and Mr. Jackson said we continue working with WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation), and that Public Works Director Guth will be giving an update later. Director Hohman mentioned that former County Commissioner Mark Richard is now President of the Downtown Spokane Partnership, and said they're looking at putting some personnel on that task so when the wayfinding sign issue starts to progress, they will be involved. Councilmember Wick suggested continuing promotional ads for the permitting center, but also include roads and public safety. Councilmember Grafos agreed with the need to promote public safety as people need to know we live in a safe community, and he said that we spend a lot of our money on public safety. Councilmember Hafner agreed with the need to promote Spokane Valley as a safe city, as well as promote our road preservation and good schools, and mentioned the new Tech Center as an ideal opportunity. Councilmember Higgins asked about the idea of using cable television and Mr. Jackson said he can discuss that with MDI as part of their expertise is in identifying the market. Councilmember Higgins also suggested in addition to having a focus on the Spokane River, to include other amenities such as golf, skiing, fishing, and our abundance of nearby lakes. City Manager Jackson added for those reasons and more, this is a great location in which to live; and said we have to have the program that stands behind the advertising so we need to be selective and careful about what we promote while not diluting our message by overdoing it, and said that is where MDI can assist us. Councilmember Wick also mentioned the residential aspect of our city and Councilmember Hafner added that there are certain basics that a family looks for when considering a move to a new location. At approximately 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting for one hour. 5. Proposed Changes to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 2.50.060 Regarding Physical Exams — John Whitehead Human Resources Manager Whitehead explained that the City has consistently required pre-employment physicals for all prospective employees regardless of duties assigned, and that this change would allow the Human Resources Manager the flexibility to determine if a pre-employment physical would be required, based on the duties of the position. There were no objections to proceeding with a first reading of an ordinance to make the suggested changes. 6. Proposed Resolution Specifying Insurance Plans—John Whitehead Human Resources Manager Whitehead explained that with Council's ratification of the Collective Bargaining Agreement last December which included a description of the benefits provided to regular employees, it became necessary to modify the resolution specifying insurance plans so that the resolution would mirror what was approved in the Bargaining Agreement. Mr. Whitehead said this resolution would Council Study Session Minutes 03-19-2013 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT not change what is currently being used for insurance, but merely updates the resolution to make it consistent with that Bargaining Agreement. Councilmember Wick said that he realizes the benefits afforded to Council and those afforded to staff are different, and that he would like to discuss the idea of having the same benefits for all. City Manager Jackson explained that if Council would like to discuss the plan, the best time would be during the 2014 budget discussions. Mayor Towey asked if there were any Council objections to placing this on the next Consent Agenda, and no objections were raised. 7.Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey: There were no suggestions for changes to the Advance Agenda. 8. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey: There were no comments. 9. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said that the Lodging Tax Bill was passed by the House so it remains under consideration as the Senate moves to vote on the issue. EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss pending litigation, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:11 p.m. At approximately 9:30 p.m., Mayor Towey declared Council out of Executive Session, after which it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session Minutes 03-19-2013 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,March 26,2013 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff: Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mark Calhoun, Finance Director Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Rec Director Ben Wick, Councilmember Eric Guth, Public Works Director Arne Woodard, Councilmember John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Rick Van Leuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, Mayor Towey suggested the audience observe two minutes of silence. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Boy Scouts from Troop 423 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: 1. March Community Recognition Presentation of Key and Certificate Mayor Towey announced that Mike Frucci is this month's recipient of the Community Recognition presentation. Mayor Towey explained that Mr. Ken Otteman nominated Mr. Frucci, who coordinates the Valley Book Bank, which is a book bank for young children where teachers can come in and pick up specific books for their students; adding that last year's distribution was over 16,000 books. Mayor Towey presented Mr. Frucci with a certificate and a key to the City. Mr. Frucci accepted the gifts and recognition with thanks, also thanking the Kiwanis Organization for their assistance, whose goal is to change the world one child and one community at a time. The audience stood and extended applause in honor of Mr. Frucci's works. 2. Heather Comer, Central Valley University High School Graduate, Winner of Special Olympics Medals Mayor Towey gave a few statements about Heather Comer, who won several medals in the 2013 Special Olympics held in South Korea; and then introduced Matt McCoy, her friend and father of one of her teammates, who then introduced Heather and expounded on her athletic feats. Mayor Towey also presented Ms. Comer with a City pin. The audience stood and extended applause in honor of her achievements. Ms. Comer thanked the audience and Council and said her experience was a fun one. COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Woodard reported that he attended a Girl Scout fundraiser luncheon today. Councilmember Wick said he attended last week's Employee Appreciation event and he extolled staff as Council Regular Meeting 03-26-2013 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT being an amazing asset to our city. Councilmember Grafos said he also attended last week's Employee Appreciation event as well as the City's Tenth Anniversary party at CenterPlace. Deputy Mayor Schimmels stated that he attended the City's Anniversary, and said staff did a great job, there were a lot of volunteers, and it was a great celebration; he also attended a Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Board meeting and a Spokane Transit Authority (STA) meeting; and helped serve lunch at the Hillard Senior Center. Councilmember Higgins said he also went to the Girl Scout luncheon, and the City's Tenth Anniversary, which he said was well planned, executed and attended. Councilmember Hafner reported that he attended a Board of Health meeting and mentioned that they are adopting a Washington State Revised Food code, and that the public will be notified of those pending changes; they also discussed regulations concerning service animals; he mentioned their national accreditation process; and said that fluoridation will be an upcoming topic of discussion as well as the coat trains; said the STA Operations Committee reports they are in good financial condition with increased riderships; mentioned an upcoming STA meeting tomorrow at the Valley Mall; said he helped serve lunch at the Hillard Senior Center;also went to a SCOPE Board meeting, as well as a 9-1-1 Emergency Board Meeting. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey reported that in recognition of our City's Tenth Anniversary, he was interviewed by Q6 Radio; he helped serve meals at Pines Presbyterian Church Meals on Wheels location; he met with the neighborhoods regarding the Adams sidewalk project and he extended compliments to City Staff for doing a great job of explaining the project to the community members; had his monthly meeting with School Superintendent Small and Mayor Pederson of Liberty Lake; and also attended the Girl Scout Breakfast this morning. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comment. Mr. Lynn Plaggemeier, 11708 E. 19th: said he had made comments previously about our crime stats and was pleased to get the information, but also found that if our Chief of Police wants to make a media announcement, it must be done through the Sheriff's Office, and said he would like to see that paragraph in the contract amended so as not to include non-criminal announcements; he said other announcements should be the prerogative of the Council to get some positive attention. Regarding ingress and egress to businesses, he said the radius of the curbs are an issue as he can see black tire marks and chunks of concrete taken off curbs as it is difficult to enter the businesses without swinging out into an adjacent lane, and suggested the County have public works study that issue. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 03/08/2013 28505-28563; 305130040 $351,152.53 03/18/2013 28564-28626 $239,890.45 03/20/2013 28633-28686 $94,452.46 GRAND TOTAL $685,495.44 b. Approval of Payroll for period ending February 28, 2013: $375,057.96 c. Approval of Payroll for period ending March 15, 2013: $283,707.89 d. Approval of Resolution 13-002 Specifying Insurance Plans e. Approval of February 26, 2013 Council Workshop Meeting Minutes f. Approval of March 12,2013 Council Formal Format Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Council Regular Meeting 03-26-2013 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT NEW BUSINESS: 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-002 Amending 2.50.060(B) Pre-employment Physicals- John Whitehead After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance Ordinance 13-002, amending SVMC 2.50.060 Pre-employment Physicals, to a second reading. Human Resources Manager Whitehead explained that the City had consistently required pre-employment physicals for all prospective employees and this change would allow the Human Resources Manager to determine if a pre-employment physical would be required, based on the duties of the position. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-003 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.120, Townhouses in Neighborhood Commercial— Scott Kuhta After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to advance Ordinance 13-003, City initiated amendment CTA 01-03, to a second reading. Planning Manager Kuhta explained that this is a minor amendment to re-instate townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, and to clarify the setbacks and height requirements that would apply in the commercial zone. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4. Proposed Resolution 13-003 Adopting Amended 2013 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve Resolution 13-003 adopting the amended 2013 Transportation Improvement Plan as presented. Senior Engineer Worley explained that we amend the TIP each year as projects are removed, completed, carried over, or added, as shown on his Request for Council Action form. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5. SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) Legislation Review Process— Scott Kuhta Planning Manager Kuhta briefly went over the background of SEPA and of the Round 1 and 2 updates, with Round 1 completed December 31, 2012, and Round 2 upcoming completion date of December 31, 2013; he said the purpose of the updates and legislative direction is to streamline the regulatory process, eliminate redundancy while still protecting the environment; he went over Round 1 update and the old thresholds for new construction, and then explained the new thresholds, as well as what is expected to occur during the Round 2 update. 6. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey Councilmember Hafner suggested adding a report concerning the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan as well as section 2.2.1 City Center Plan; and Mr. Jackson responded that could come to council in about three to four weeks. Councilmember Grafos suggested adding a discussion on permitting townhouses in the Garden Office Zone. Mayor Towey mentioned the upcoming meeting April 4 with Representative Cathy McMorris-Rodgers to talk about our City's first ten years, and he invited everyone to that open meeting. INFORMATION ONLY The Department Reports and Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2013 were for information only and were not reported or discussed. Council Regular Meeting 03-26-2013 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager Jackson commented that Council previously received a letter from AWC (Association of Washington Cities) concerning protecting our state shared revenues, such as liquor taxes and streamlined sales taxes, and said some of those revenues for Cities are in jeopardy, and that he would like to send a letter or e-mail from Mayor Towey addressing these concerns. There were no objections. Mr. Jackson also remarked that our Traffic Engineer Note informs us that the AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) should be making a decision early May concerning our business route application, and once a decision is made,we will bring that update to Council. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting 03-26-2013 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 9, 2013 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading, Proposed Ordinance 13-002 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 2.50.060, Pre-Employment Physicals GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 2.50.060 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Staff provided an administrative report on March 19, 2013. Council consensus was to move forward to a First Reading on March 26, 2013. A First Reading of this Ordinance was conducted on March 26, 2013, at which time Council passed a motion to advance the ordinance to a Second Reading. BACKGROUND: The City has consistently required pre-employment physicals for all prospective employees regardless of duties assigned. This change would allow the Human Resources Manager to determine, based on the duties of the positions being filled, if a pre- employment physical will be required. OPTIONS: Adopt Ordinance 13-002 with or without further amendments; or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 13-002, amending SVMC 2.50.060 Pre-employment Physicals." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The budgetary impacts of this ordinance are negligible. STAFF CONTACT: John Whitehead, HR Manager ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinance 13-002 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 13-002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.50.060 RELATING TO DRUG TESTING OF EMPLOYEES, AND PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS FOR PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted regulations relating to drug testing of employees and prospective employee and pre-employment physicals for prospective employees pursuant to SVMC 2.50.060; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley seeks to amend SVMC 2.50.060 to require pre-employment physical exam of prospective employees when the physical nature of the position's essential functions are such that information related to a person's physical abilities is needed to assess their ability to perform those functions,and designate responsibilities for duties contained therein. NOW THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend SVMC 2.50.060, the provisions relating to pre-employment physicals of prospective employees. Section 2.Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 2.50.060 is hereby amended as follows: A. The Human Resources Manager shall require a pre-offer drug screen test for all applicants and employees applying for a position requiring a commercial driver's license (CDL) or involving safety- sensitive job duties. B. The Human Resources Manager shallmay require an appropriate post-conditional offer, pre- employment physical exam of all prospective City employees based upon the safety sensitive nature of the position or the physical requirements of the position's essential functions. C. Employees required to maintain a commercial driver's license (CDL) and employees who are assigned safety-sensitive job duties shall be subject to periodic random drug testing as required by law. D.Upon a finding by an employee's supervisor of reasonable suspicion that the employee's ability to properly perform the job has been lessened by the use of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs, the employee may be required to submit to alcohol or drug testing. In addition, an employee may be required to submit to alcohol or drug testing if the employee is injured or injures another employee during work hours or is involved in a work-related accident and the City reasonably suspects that the employee's actions or failure to act contributed to the injury or accident. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective five days after publication of the ordinance,or a summary thereof,in the official newspaper of the City. Ordinance 13-002,Amending SVMC 2.50.060 Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Adopted this 9th day of April, 2013. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Mayor, Tom Towey Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 13-002,Amending SVMC 2.50.060 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 9, 2013 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ® pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 13-003; CTA-01-13, City Initiated Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone as a permitted use. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council amended Chapter 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses, on September 25, 2012. BACKGROUND: On September 25, 2012, City Council adopted significant changes to Chapter 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses, mainly to the office and mixed use zones. Most of the changes expanded the uses allowed in these zones. One change was to remove Townhouses as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone. The current proposal would once again make Townhouses a permitted use in the NC zone. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on January 24, 2013, followed by a public hearing on February 14, 2013. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the proposed amendment (see Attachments). On February 28, 2013, the Planning Commission approved their written Findings. The Planning Commission's recommendation was presented to Council at the March 5, 2013 study session. At that meeting, staff recommended removing a referenced condition concerning open space standards as it appeared to be unnecessary since Townhouses would be constructed on individual lots, thus providing sufficient open space. City Council conducted a first ordinance reading on March 26, 2013, voting unanimously to move the proposed ordinance to second reading. OPTIONS: Adopt Ordinance with or without further amendments; send back to Planning Commission for further review; or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance 13-003, City Initiated Amendment CTA 01-03. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance B. Staff Report to Planning Commission C. Planning Commission Findings D. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 13-003 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.120, APPENDIX 19-A SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED USES, AND TABLE 19.60-1, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ALLOW TOWNHOUSES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE NEIGHBHORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on September 25, 2007, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)Title 19,pursuant to Ordinance 07-015; and WHEREAS,on October 28,2007, SVMC Title 19 became effective;and WHEREAS, such regulations are authorized by RCW 36.70A; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2013, the Washington State Department of Commerce was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, providing a 60-day notice of intent to adopt amendments to Spokane Valley development regulations; and WHEREAS,on January 24,2013,the Planning Commission held a study session; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2013 and February 8, 2013, notice of the Planning Commission (Commission)public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2013, the Commission held a public hearing, received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report with a recommendation followed by deliberations and provided a recommendation; and WHEREAS,on February 28,2013,the Commission approved the findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS,on March 5,2013,City Council reviewed the proposed amendment;and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2013, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment, and WHEARAS, on April 9, 2013, City Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, SVMC 19.120 and 19.60-1, as amended, bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare and protection of the environment. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Ordinance 13-003 Page 1 of 3 DRAFT Section 1. Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend SVMC 19.120, Appendix 19-A, Schedule of Permitted Uses, and Table 19.60-1, Commercial Development Standards. Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council acknowledges that the Planning Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study, held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and recommends approval of the amendments. The City Council hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission, specifically that: A. Growth Management Act Policies - The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. B. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies - The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP, set forth below. a. Land Use Goal LUG-1 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. b. Land Use Policy LUP-1.3 Review and revise, as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. c. Land Use Goal LUG-2 Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. d. Land Use Goal LUG-4 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. e. Land Use Policy LUP-4.4 Encourage mixed-use residential and commercial and office development in Neighborhood Commercial designations where compatibility with nearby uses can be demonstrated. f. Housing Goal HG-1: Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. g. Housing Policy HP-1.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations on the cost of housing. h. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. i. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. j. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill development. C. Conclusions a. Allowing Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial zones will provide flexibility for property owners to develop property with uses other than office or commercial. b. The amendment will provide increased housing options and more opportunity for infill residential development. c. The public health, safety and welfare, and protection of the environment, are furthered by ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. d. The proposed City initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria in SVMC 17.80.150(F). Ordinance 13-003 Page 2 of 3 DRAFT e. The Growth Management Act states that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Section 3. Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.120,Appendix 19-A, Schedule of Permitted Uses, and Table 19.60-1, Commercial Development Standards, are amended to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial zone as a permitted use,as exhibited in Exhibit A. Section 4. All other provisions of SVMC Title 19 not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of April,2013. Mayor,Thomas E.Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 13-003 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A—CTA-01-13: Proposed Text Amendment to Neighborhood Commercial Zone CTA-01-13 Proposed Changes allowing Townhouse Development in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone SVMC 19.120.010 ce 2 N U- cn U_ Q Z Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19-A Garden Office a) 0 0 0 O N . E Z U ( c L E E U U c (1) Q 0 a) CL U L fG 0- CO 1-2 Heavy Ind. Reference Conditions P P P 814 Dwelling,townhouse P P P Table 19.60-1 —Commercial Development Standards Office Commercial Mixed Use Industrial GO 0 NC** C RC CC* CMU* MUC* I-1 1-2 Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Minimum Flanking Street Setback 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Minimum Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to a Residential Use or Zone 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 35 35 Maximum Building Height(in feet) 45 100 35 35 100 Unlimited 50 60 40 65 * Except as otherwise required ** Townhouse development in the NC zone shall comply with setback and building height standards in the R-4 zone found in Table 19.40-1 ATTACHMENT B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION SjÔkane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-01-13 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 7, 2013 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 14, 2013,beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.120, Permitted Use Matrix, to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone as a permitted use. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment as put forth. STAFF PLANNER: Scott Kuhta,AICP,Planning Manager, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses and Table 19.60-1 —Commercial Development Standards A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Published Notice of Public Hearing: 2/1/2013 and 2/8/2013 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: 1/22/13 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13 2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.120,Permitted Use Matrix, and Table 19.60-1, Commercial Development Standards, to allow Townhouses as a permitted use in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. On September 25,2012, City Council adopted significant changes to the Permitted Use Matrix,mostly by expanding permitted uses in office and mixed use zones. One change was to remove Townhouses as a permitted use in the NC zone. This was the only residential use permitted in any of the commercial zones and it appeared to staff to be a mistake when the original Permitted Use Matrix was adopted. Staff has re-evaluated this change and now recommends adding Townhouses back as a permitted use in the NC zone. The Comprehensive Plan supports mixed use residential and commercial in neighborhood centers and adding Townhouses as a permitted use would allow some flexibility for NC zoned properties to have a residential component. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)defines Townhouses as follows: Dwelling, townhouse:A single-family dwelling unit constructed in groups of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof open on at least two sides. SVMC 19.40.020 establishes the following standards for Townhouse development: 1. a.Attached single-family dwellings, including duplexes and townhouses located on individual lots, shall meet minimum rear,front and side yard requirements (where applicable), minimum area requirements, and maximum lot coverage and building height requirements shown in Table 19.40-1. Townhouses are subject to the following requirements: i. No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group; ii. No townhouse unit shall be constructed above another townhouse unit; iii. There shall be a side yard on each side of a contiguous row or group of dwellings of not less than six feet; iv. Townhouses included in a condominium development may limit the lot to the building footprint;provided that the yard area shared in common with all units is equivalent in area to the yard required by the underlying zone. Proposed Setbacks and Building Height The Neighborhood Commercial zone specifies the following standards for all development: Minimum Front Yard Setback -20 feet Minimum Flanking Street Setback—20 feet Minimum Side and Rear Yard Adjacent to a Residential Use or Zone—20 feet Maximum Building Height(in feet)-35 feet Page 2 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13 Staff proposes using the R-4 development standards for setbacks and building heights for Townhouse developments in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone: Front and Flanking Street Setbacks- 15 feet Garage Setback—20 feet Rear Yard Setback-20 feet Side Yard Setback—5 feet Maximum Building Height-35 feet B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions)of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive plan goals for encouraging a mix of commercial and residential uses in neighborhood centers,maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and preserving and protecting neighborhoods. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Land Use Goal -1 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. Land Use Policy LUP-1.3 Review and revise, as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. Land Use Goal LUG-2 Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. Land Use Goal LUG-4 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. Land Use Policy LUP-4.4 Encourage Mixed-use residential and commercial and office development in Neighborhood Commercial designations where compatibility with nearby uses can be demonstrated. Housing Goal HG-1: Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. Housing Policy HP-1.1: Consider the economic impact of development regulations on the cost of housing. Page 3 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-01-13 Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary,existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill development. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will provide increased housing options and provide flexibility for infill residential development. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Public noticing was conducted as set forth in SVMC 17.80 for a Type IV application and has been deemed sufficient for this proposal. No concerns noted. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): c. Public noticing was conducted as set forth in SVMC 17.80 for a Type IV application and has been deemed sufficient for this proposal. No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria,recommends the proposal to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial zones. Page 4 of 4 Attachment C FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION February 28,2013 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's deciskrn to recommend approval. Background: 1, Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28.,2007. 2. The city-initiated code text amendment proposes to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses and Table l9,60-1-Commercial Development Standards, to allow Townhouses in the Neighborhood Commercial(NC)Zone as a permitted use. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 14, 2013 and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the amendment to City Council, Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.1150F Appruval Criteria a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): 1. Land Use Goal LUG-1 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. ii. Land Use Policy UT-1.3 Review and revise, as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. iii. Land Use Goal LUG-2 Encourage a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences. iv. Land Use Goal LUG-4 Provide neighborhood and community scale retail centers for the City's neighborhoods. v. Land Use Policy LL"P 44 Encourage Mixed-use residential and commercial and office development in Neighborhood Commercial designations where compatibility with nearby uses can be demonstrated, vi. Housing Goal FIG-1: Encourage diversity in design to meet the housing needs of the residents of the community and region. vii. Housing Policy 1-1IP-l.1: Consider the economic. impact of development regulations on the cost of housing. viii. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. IL Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity, consistency and predictability. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Nanning Commiss[DE ,page 1 a 2 Attachment C x, Neighborhood Policy NP-2.2: Review and revise as necessary, existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units, and in-fill development. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, arid protection of the environment, Finding(s): i. Allowing Townhouses in Neighborhood Commercial zones will provide flexibility for property owners to develop their property, with uses other than office or commercial. ii. The amendment will provide increased housing options and more opportunity for infill residential development, iii. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Conchisionis): a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.150F, b. The Growth Management Act (UMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. Recommend atlotts: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed city- initiated code text amendments to SVMC 19.120, Permitted and Accessory Uses and Table 19.60-1- Commercial Development Standards, Approved this 281h day of February,2813 Bill Bates Chairman ATTEST. - Caxi -Hinshaw,Planning Commission Secretary Findings and keeornmenda#inns of the Spokane Valley Fleming Coartoimiga Page 2 of 2 Attachment D Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. January 24, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates-Chair Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Joe Stoy—Vice Chair 1- Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Robert McCaslin Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Rod Higgins Steven Neill Christina Carlsen Kevin Anderson Cari Hinshaw, secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the January 10, 2013 and January 7, 2013 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Scott Kuhta: Reminded the Planning Commission about the sign code update from last year, and stated that our Code enforcement officers have been helping Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 Attachment D businesses understand the new sign code. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that 2 or 3 folks showed up to the City Council meeting Tuesday, January 22, 2013 to express some concerns about sign regulations. He stated that John Hohman will be bringing a report back to the City Council March 5th, if any of the Planning Commission was interested in going. Mr. Hohman will be speaking on the enforcement activity, and how we have been helping the community with the regulations, also the possibility of revisiting the sign code regulations. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: No unfinished business. B. New Business: Public Hearing: Shoreline Master Program Update — Draft Public Access Senior Planner Lori Barlow opened the Public Meeting explaining the purpose of the meeting and further stating the hope for this process is that the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to council for approval. Ms. Barlow introduced Mr. Tadas Kisielius who is the special legal counsel for this project and Mr. John Patrouch who is with URS Corporation. Both were there to answer questions. Ms. Barlow provided the comments from the agencies that responded to the Plan: Department of Ecology, Washington State Parks, Spokane County Parks Department, Spokane Valley Parks and Rec, and Spokane Tribe of Indians. Ms. Barlow stated that with the exception of the Spokane Tribe of Indians the comments were fairly minor in nature. Ms. Barlow reviewed the response e-mail from Randy Abrahamson of the Spokane Indian Tribe. Mr. Abrahamson stated "I can't believe you didn't consider cultural resources etc...." Ms. Barlow stated that Mr. Abrahamson's letter was sent on a misunderstanding. And she further stated that Mr. Abrahamson did not understand that what he was asking for is just one piece to the Shoreline Master Plan. Ms. Barlow stated that they have addressed cultural resources in our goals, policies and they are currently addressing those in our development regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that Mr. Abrahamson comment letter does stay as part of the record, but he doesn't have any issues to this particular element, it was a bit of a misunderstanding in terms of what he was looking at. Ms. Barlow reported that to date there have been no public comment and they did make some changes to the technical review draft. As it became the public review Ms. Barlow stated they issued a public review draft, notices, and made it available for review and received no comments. Ms. Barlow had an open house on January 16, 2013. The turnout was rather low. Ten people attended and there were no real concerns from the persons that did attend. The Public Hearing was addressed. Ms. Barlow made a short recap of the Public Access Plan. Here are the things she went over: • Plan Review Summary • What is Public Access Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 Attachment D • WAC Requirements (173-26-221-4) • What does Public Access look like • Public Access Plan • Section One- Introduction • Section Two- Integration with other Community Plans • Section Three-Public Access and Public Use • Section Four- Shoreline Conditions • Section Five- Proposed Shoreline Access and User Improvements • Section Six- Implementation Strategy • Draft Public Access Plan Development and Review Process Ms Barlow closed her presentation and asked if there were any questions. Chair Bates and Planning Commissioner Neill still had concerns about the e-mail comments from Randy Abramsom. Mr. Tadas Kisielius reiterated that the Public Access document is not intended to address what Mr. Abramsom comments were about. Mr. Kisielius stated that Mr. Abramsom concerns are for development regulations which will be addressed later at the appropriate date and time. After a brief discussion and no public comment Chair Bates closed the public meeting at 6:45 PM. Mr. Kisielius was open for questions, he discussed protecting public access and went thru and highlighted the benefits of the Public Access Plan. Which are as stated below: • Allows us to capture the nature and beauty. Also gives the recognition for great public access • Helps to protect the natural surroundings of the river corridor, long stretches of the centennial trail • Another benefit is to coordinate so you preserve that amenity. This also gives flexibility or relief for development and property owners. Mr. Kisielius also touched up on implementation on section 6. This was handed out in the PowerPoint presentation by Planner Ms. Barlow. Mr. Kisielius closed with asking if there were any questions. Chair Bates stated that a motion on the floor needed to be made prior to the discussion. So the motion was put on the table. Commissioner Stoy moved to accept the Shoreline Master Program Public Access Plan as presented by staff. A second was made. Chair Bates asked if there were any discussion. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 Attachment D Commissioner Anderson proposed three amendments to the main motion for the proposed Shoreline Master Program Update Public Access Plan. • To remove from page 8 the sentence: including an estimated 2 million uses in 2008 on the SRCT • To add the word existing to the top of table on page 10, table 3-2 • To add the word float boats for boat ramps on page 18, table 5-2 • To add motorized boats for Myrtle Point since this is intended for a true boat ramp John Patrouch informed Commissioner Anderson that Myrtle Point is a non motorized access. Commissioner Stoy moved to amend the main motion previously on the table for the Shoreline Master Program Public Access Plan to incorporate the three modifications that were discussed: 1. To remove from page 8 the sentence: (including an estimated 2 million uses in 2008 on the SRCT). 2. To add the word existing to the top of table on page 10, table 3-2. 3. To add the word non-motorized boats for boat ramps on page 18, table 5-2 for Sullivan Park and Myrtle Point. This was passed unanimously. Chair Bates asked if there was any discussion on the amended motion and asked for all in favor for the amended motion. This was passed unanimously. Chair Bates asked if there was any discussion on the main motion. There was none and this was passed unanimously. Study Session: Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code CTA-01-13 Planning Manager Scott Kuhta opened by saying; the amendment is proposing to add townhouses back into the Permitted Use Matrix for the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that the Permitted Use Matrix was amended last year. One of the changes was to remove townhouses from the Neighborhood Commercial Zones. Mr. Kuhta talked to a gentleman who expressed interest in developing townhouses on property zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Prior to purchasing the property, the individual saw that townhouses were a permitted use in the zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that he reevaluated it and believes that townhouses fit ok in the neighborhood commercial zone. Mr. Kuhta stated that the Comprehensive Plan includes policies that support townhouses, specifically that there is a policy that talks about mixed uses in the neighborhood centers. Mr. Kuhta explained a townhouse is a single family unit with at least three units attached, up to six Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 Attachment D total, in each block and developed on individual lots. This is a specific development type. Commissioner Anderson needed some explanation about the lots. Mr. Kuhta explained that six units would be on their own lot and would have their own front and back yard. Town houses are different than duplexes. They are 3-6 units attached, all on their own platted lots. They are connected with a zero lot line. Chair Bates wanted to know if they have the same regulations as far as height and setbacks. Mr. Kuhta informed Chair Bates that they are the same regulations that you would find for all residential development in the zone that they are in. Mr. Kuhta discussed how there is a provision in the Code that says townhouses are developed and separate platting process for town houses. Commissioner Carlsen asked if the lot was big enough to split into lots to have town houses built. Mr. Kuhta stated that this property is small that and that it would be limited. The Neighborhood Commercial zones are meant to be smaller areas. This proposal allows the market to work a little bit if retail isn't working. It allows flexibility in such a way that it wouldn't be sitting vacant. Mr. Kuhta proceeded to say that the proposal is to put the P back under Neighborhood Commercial and to add the reference condition. Commissioner Stoy mentioned the residential requirements and asked if the minimum would be met on that particular property. Mr. Kuhta stated that if they can't they will have to look at something else. But they still need to meet the required setbacks. Mr. Kuhta explained that a Neighborhood Commercial zone does not specify minimum lot size because there are no other residential uses that are allowed there. There are no residential standards, so Mr. Kuhta stated he will look into this and bring back some information to the public hearing to see if that is something of concern. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson Cari Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 9, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: School Zone Flashing Beacons GOVERNING LEGISLATION: n/a PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: An informational memo was sent to Council on Feb. 19, 2013 and a discussion occurred on April 2, 2013 regarding the 2013 call for funding. BACKGROUND: The Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) School Zone Flashing Beacon program only applies to school zones for elementary and middle schools and it provides funds up to $7,500 per school zone. A school zone contains two (2) flashers. The total project cost in 2011 (the most recent purchase) to install a pair of flashers, or one school zone, is approximately $14,300 (see Table 1). The cost to the City after the WTSC grant is $6,800. In addition to installation there are ongoing maintenance costs to deal with low battery issues, snow blocking the solar panels, damage from collisions, etc. The City also incurs costs in staff time to program the beacons once a year, make adjustments for snow days or school requests, and coordinate the resolution of maintenance issues with the County. Table 1: Installation Cost per School Zone (Two Beacons) Item Description Cost Equipment (2 Units) $9,300 Installation by Spokane County Signal Shop $2,500 Survey/ ROW Research/ staff time $2,500 Total Project Cost $14,300 WTSC Grant ($7,500) Total City Funds $6,800 At the April 2nd meeting staff recommended a short list of schools for further analysis. These are shown in Table 2. The characteristics of each school are discussed below. Table 2: Schools Recommended for Further Analysis School Street Lanes Speed Limit Daily Traffic Volumes* Adams Elem Adams 2 25 2,200 McDonald Elem McDonald 2 35 4,100 Sunrise Elem 24m 2 25 2,400 Horizon Middle S. Pines 2 35 2,000 "These are likely summer counts and will be updated before submitting the grant. Adams Elementary This school has one uncontrolled crosswalk on Adams and additional crosswalks at the 4-way stop controlled intersection of 8th/Adams. The school zone overlaps with St. Mary's School to the north, making it rather long and possibly not well-observed by motorists. There is sufficient right-of-way to place beacons on the shoulder of Adams in both directions. This zone has been requested for beacons several times in the past. McDonald Elementary McDonald Elementary only has marked crosswalks at the 4-way stop controlled intersection of 16th/McDonald. 16th Avenue already has flashing school beacons. The McDonald 20 mph zone overlaps with the Baptist Church to the north, making it extremely long for motorists. A southbound beacon would be placed right at the school property line, shortening the overall zone considerably and likely increasing the motorist compliance. There is sufficient right-of-way behind the sidewalk to place beacons in both directions. Sunrise Elementary Sunrise Elementary has an uncontrolled crosswalk at 24th/Calvin and additional crosswalks at the 4-way stop controlled intersection of 24th/Adams. It also has an uncontrolled crosswalk on Adams north of 24th. The 24th Avenue school zone is somewhat long. This school zone would likely require a survey of the right-of-way at the west end. Horizon Middle Horizon Middle has two uncontrolled crosswalks at 38th/Pines and Eagle Lane/Pines. The existing school zone is back-to-back with the Chester Elementary zone. The northbound beacon would be placed on the school property but the southbound beacon would likely require a survey and an easement from a neighboring property owner. Within the next few weeks, staff will do additional research by conducting speed studies and talking with the schools to determine walk routes and pedestrian volumes. Based on the information available so far, we see the Adams Elementary and McDonald Elementary school zones as the highest priorities. OPTIONS: Move forward with applications for 2 or 3 school zones on May 3rd RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize staff to determine from the list in Table 2 above, a maximum of three locations to submit for grants for school zone beacons. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Past projects have been funded out of the street fund and we recommend that practice continue. STAFF CONTACT: Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: None CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 9, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: SRTC Interlocal Agreement Renewal GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: July 8, 2003 Council approved original Interlocal; August 24, 2010 Council approved updated Interlocal agreement; Admin Report April 2, 2013. BACKGROUND: In an effort to address board participation and equality in voting, the new Executive Director has worked with the SRTC Board to update the Interlocal agreement. This updated agreement addresses changes to board membership, voting structure and policy changes. The change in membership is intended to address the lack of participation by some of the smaller communities. In this new updated agreement the cities of Liberty Lake, Cheney and Airway Heights will now be included as voting members, and will for the first time be assessed dues. Also, other existing members were restructured: 1. Spokane Airport Board (SAB) — Previously was represented by an ex officio member, and now is a full voting member. 2. Spokane Transit Authority (STA) — Previously was represented by one voting member and the CEO was an ex officio member, and now the CEO will serve as the one voting member. 3. Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) Chairperson — Previously was a voting member, and will now be an ex officio member. With the addition of the new members the Executive Director suggested a change in the voting structure to address the size of the jurisdictions represented on the board. This update creates a new weighted voting structure whereby larger communities (City of Spokane, Spokane County, and City of Spokane Valley) will have the ability to call for a weighted vote. This weighted vote structure provides for a measure of proportionate representation within a jurisdiction. Another change to the agreement was changing the vote requirements to appoint or discharge the Executive Director. In the past this could be achieved by a simple majority vote. The Board felt that this should require a super majority or an affirmative vote by at least 10 board members. On December 13, 2012 the SRTC Board approved an updated Interlocal Agreement, which was distributed to the member agencies for review and ratification. On January 28, 2013, the Spokane City Council proposed revisions to the agreement and the SRTC Board on February 14, 2013 considered and approved these revisions, and by a unanimous vote approved this updated Interlocal Agreement. OPTIONS: 1) Approve the Updated Interlocal Agreement with SRTC or 2) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I Move to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute, the updated Interlocal Agreement with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are no proposed changes to the current dues structure. There are sufficient funds appropriated in the 2013 adopted budget to pay for current dues. STAFF CONTACT: Eric P. Guth, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Updated SRTC Interlocal Agreement; Redlined version of Updated SRTC Interlocal Agreement; Letter to Mayor Towey from Kevin Wallace, SRTC Executive Director Return To: Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Avenue, Suite 310 Spokane, WA 99201 AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG SPOKANE COUNTY, CITY OF SPOKANE, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, SPOKANE AIRPORT BOARD AND OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS WITHIN SPOKANE COUNTY, TO FORM THE SPOKANE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, DEFINE ITS ORGANIZATION AND POWERS, AND ITS JURISDICTIONAL AREA. THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into among the County of Spokane, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County," the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, the City of Spokane Valley, a non-charter code city of the State of Washington, the Washington State Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "WSDOT," the Washington State Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as "WSTC", the Spokane Transit Authority, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "STA," Spokane Airport Board, a joint operation of the County and City of Spokane, hereinafter referred to as "SAB" and other incorporated towns and cities located within Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as "Other Members,"jointly, along with the County, City of Spokane, STA, SAB, and WSDOT are collectively referred to as the "Members." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more public entities may jointly cooperate to perform functions which each may individually perform; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2012, the President of the United States signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which provided authorization for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation and enunciated a policy "[t]o develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provide the Page 1 of IS ' ' i • foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner;" and WHEREAS, in 1962, Federal transportation legislation required the establishment, by agreement between the Governor of the State of Washington and units of general purpose local government, of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which in cooperation with the State of Washington, shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of Washington State; and WHEREAS, Chapter 47.80 RCW authorizes the formation of a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) by voluntary association of local governments within a county; provided each RTPO shall have as members the county and at least sixty percent of the cities and towns within the RTPO's boundaries, representing a minimum of seventy-five percent of the cities' and towns' population; and WHEREAS, each RTPO formed by local governments shall create a transportation policy board to provide policy advice to the RTPO and shall allow representatives of major employers within the region, the department of transportation, transit districts, port districts, and member cities, towns, and counties within the region to participate in policy making; and WHEREAS, among other duties, each RTPO shall: (i) develop and periodically update a regional transportation plan in cooperation with the State Department of Transportation, providers of public transportation and high capacity transportation, ports, and local governments within the region and shall (ii) designate a lead planning agency to coordinate preparation of said regional transportation plan and carry out the other responsibilities of the organization; and WHEREAS, RCW 47.80.020 provides that the RTPO in an urbanized area shall be the same as the MPO designated for federal transportation planning purposes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced state and federal laws, the Members are desirous of establishing a regional transportation council ("Council") to carry out the responsibilities of the MPO as provided in Federal Transportation legislation as well as other responsibilities determined by the Council. Page 2 of 18 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following terms and conditions, to include the above recitals, which are incorporated herein as a part of this Agreement, it is agreed among the Members: Section 1: NAME/ORGANIZATION A voluntary association and joint board, comprising representatives of the County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC), Spokane Transit Authority (STA), Spokane Airport Board (SAB) and Other Members is hereby created and shall be known as the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, referred to hereinafter as the "Council." Section 2: PURPOSE Recognizing that coordinated transportation planning of the County, Cities and Towns, WSDOT, WSTC, STA, SAB and Other Members are necessarily interwoven and interdependent and that the interests of all citizens will best be served by coordinated, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning, this Council is established to facilitate such appropriate coordination and cooperation and provide for continuing area wide transportation planning in accordance with Section 3, herein. The Council Is not authorized to in any way supersede the authority vested in the County, Cities and Towns, WSDOT, WSTC, STA, SAB or Other Members, but is intended to meet the prerequisites of United States Code Titles 23 and 49, and RCW Chapter 47.80. Section 3: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS The functions, responsibilities, and powers of Council shall be as follows: (a) To perform the functions of a Transportation Management Area (TMA) for The metropolitan area, which includes those functions set forth in the MAP- 21 legislation of July 6, 2012, and related rules, as amended to implement SAFETEA-LU as well as those functions, which may be required hereinafter by subsequent Federal Transportation legislation. (b)To perform the functions of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as set forth in Title 23 United States Code and Title 49 United States Code as currently adopted or as amended, and 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 and 40 CFR Part 613, as currently adopted or as amended. Page 3 of 18 (c) To perform the functions of a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) as set forth in Ch. 47.80 RCW and Ch. 468-86 WAC, as currently adopted or as amended. (d) To prepare and update a Metropolitan Transportation Plan pursuant to 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 and 49 CFR Part 613. (e) To engage in regional transportation planning. (f) To administer regional transportation funding programs and consider those projects which have been approved by the governing bodies of the Members and which are incorporated within the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan. (g) To participate in the development and maintenance of transportation related information necessary to support the functions and responsibilities of the Council, (h) To promote the regional transportation interests, plans and projects to local, state and federal public and private entities. (i) To contract with the WSDOT or other appropriate entities in order to meet requirements of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. (j) To create committees as necessary, to advise the Board on regional transportation related matters. At a minimum this shall include: a. the Transportation Advisory Council (TAC) whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by the Board. b. the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by the Board. (k) To comply with the Transportation Planning requirements set forth in the Washington State Growth Management Act, and Ch. 47.80 RCW, consistent with Spokane County County-wide Planning Policies. (I) To perform such other transportation planning and program related functions as the Board may hereinafter determine to be in the best interests of the Council and the members thereof, which are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and related federal and state law. Section 4: JURISDICTIONAL AND METROPOLITAN AREA DEFINED Page 4 of 18 The Council's jurisdictional area shall consist of all incorporated and - unincorporated areas of Spokane County, Washington, and may include contiguous areas across county or state boundaries as deemed appropriate and which meet the criteria of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. Section 5: GOVERNING BODY AND OFFICERS The governing body (the "Board") of the Council, presently consisting of fourteen (14) voting persons, shall be established by the following thresholds: (a) Jurisdictions under 5,000 people — One (1) person jointly selected by jurisdictions with populations fewer than 5,000 people. The person selected shall be an elected official from a small town/city; (b) Jurisdictions between 5,001 and 50,000 people Three (3) persons separately selected by the City of Airway Heights, City of Cheney, and City of Liberty lake. The persons selected shall be elected officials; (c) Jurisdictions between 50,001 to 100,000 people -- one (1) person appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be an elected official; (d) Jurisdictions over 100,001 people — two (2) persons appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be elected officials; (The population of Spokane County includes the population of its cities and towns); (e) One (1) person from STA, who shall be the STA Chief Executive Officer or his or her designee; (f) Two (2) State Transportation representatives, one (1) from the Washington State Department of Transportation and appointed by the Secretary of Transportation, and one (1) from the Washington State Transportation Commission appointed by the Chair of the Commission; (g) One (1) person who represents a major employer, with preference for a provider of private sector transportation services within the region who shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Board; and (h) One (1) person representing SAB, who shall be the Chief Executive Officer or his or her designee. (i) There shall be three (3) ex officio, non-voting members serving on the Board representing different modes of transportation, which shall include: Page 5 of 18 (1) One (1) person representing Rail; who shall be appointed by the Members; and 2 The Chair of the TTC (3) The Chair of the TAC (j) Pursuant to RCW 47.80.040, ali legislators whose districts are wholly or partially within the designated boundaries of the Council, are considered ex officio (non-voting) members of the Board. (k) All Board appointments shall be for a term of three (3) years or the tenure of office of the representative in his/her respective jurisdiction, whichever is the lesser time. Alternate Board representatives may serve in the absence of the designated representative so long as the alternate representative is an elected or appointed official of the appointing Member's parent agency (or governing body, as appropriate) and whose name has been placed on record with the Council. All alternate Board representatives must serve in the same capacity as the regularly designated representative as defined hereinabove. (I) The Board shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair ("Officers") by majority vote of the Board. Only representatives who are elected officials may be Officers. To be eligible for the Chair position, the Board Member shall have served on the Board for at least one (1) year. The term for Officers may be up to two (2) years in each office. Ex officio members may not serve as Officers. (m) A Board Member who, during a calendar year, has three (3) unexcused absences from regular Board meetings shall be automatically removed from the Board, without further action. Section 6: MEETINGS AND VOTING The Council shall hold regular monthly Board meetings. The Chair may call a special meeting or executive session or shall call a special meeting at the request of a majority of the Board. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public as required by chapter 42.30 RCW. A quorum for the purpose of transacting business shall consist of a simple majority of the Board. The Board shall adopt rules for the conduct of its business consistent with this Agreement and such rules shall prescribe the place of meetings, the method of providing reasonable notice to Members, the form of the agenda, the regular meeting date and such other matters that relate to the conduct of the Council's business. Such rules shall be adopted and may be amended by a seventy-five percent (75%) positive vote of the Board, or by amendment to this Agreement as provided herein. Page 6 of 18 All recommendations, motions, or other actions of the Board shall be adopted by a favorable vote of a majority of those present. Voting Board members shall be entitled to one vote. Provided, however, that the following enumerated actions shall be approved either through an affirmative vote of a majority of the voting membership or through a weighted vote of the Board: (a) Approval of the annual budget expenditure division among the Members; (b) Purchase, sale or disposition of real property; and (c) Addition of new members. The appointment or discharge of the Executive Director shall require the affirmative vote of ten (10) Board members. To provide for a measure of proportionate representation within a jurisdiction, the Council adopts a weighted voting process. A weighted vote may be requested by any two Board members. A weighted vote shall be requested either prior to the vote on the proposed motion or after the vote but prior to the Board taking action on a subsequent agenda item. Following the request for weighted voting, the Chair shall thereafter conduct a weighted vote on the matter with the weight of each vote calculated according to the percentages set forth on Table 1, attached hereto. If the weighted vote achieves greater than fifty percent (50%) of the vote, the weighted vote shall take precedence over a prior non-weighted vote. To approve items (a)-(c) above through a weighted vote the weighted calculation must equal or exceed 8. Section 7: STAFF AND SUPPORT The Board shall determine the positions, duties and working conditions of employees as necessary to conduct the work programs of the Council consistent with this Agreement. An Executive Director shall be appointed by and serve solely at the pleasure of the Board. The Board shall adopt policies and procedures to establish the duties and authority of the Executive Director, including authority to make financial expenditures on behalf of the Board. The Board shall approve application(s) for or acceptance of any grants to carry out those functions set forth in Section 3 hereinabove. Provided, however, in instances where a grant application must be submitted prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board so that timely Board approval cannot Page')of 18 Table I SRTC Board Majority Vote and Weighted Vote Calculations % of Majority Weighted Weighted Jurisdiction Vote % of Vote Vote (1.286)2 Vote Airway Heights 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Cheney 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Cities and towns under 5,000 ' 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Liberty Lake 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Private Sector Transportation 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Spokane- Member 1 1 7.14% 1.286 8.33% Spokane- Member 2 1 7.14% 1.286 8.33% Spokane County- Member 1 1 7.14% 1.286 8.33% Spokane County-Member 2 1 7.14% 1.286 8.33% Spokane Airport Board 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Spokane Transit Authority 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Spokane Valley 1 7.14% 1.286 8.33% State Transportation Board 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% WSDOT 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% 14 100.00% 15.430 100.00% 1 Small cities and towns under 5,000 in population share a single vote on the SRTC Board. These jurisdictions include Deer Park, Fairfield, Latah, Medical Lake, Millwood, Rockford, Spangle, and Waverly. 2 When a weighted vote is called, each vote for representatives from the City of Spokane,the City of Spokane Valley, and Spokane County are weighted by 1.286.This weighted vote formula was established to preserve the voting weight for these three agencies from the 2010 Interlocal Agreement. Page 8 of 18 be obtained, the grant application may still be submitted with mutual approval of the Chair and Vice-Chair. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, employees are at-will and shall be hired and discharged by, and work under the direction of, the Executive Director. The Board may arrange for support services such as requisitioning and purchasing, payment of expenditures, accounting, payroll, computer processing, legal counsel, and others as deemed necessary. Pay schedules shall be set by the Board consistent with responsibilities performed and the demand for such personnel in public and private industry, with due consideration to pay schedules for like positions in Member agencies. Section 8: WORK PROGRAM AND ANNUAL BUDGET The Board shall prepare and adopt a proposed work program and budget for each calendar year. The detailed annual work program shall list specific work projects to be undertaken by the Council. The Executive Director or designee shall confer with and inform Members concerning the preparation of and progress on the technical areas of work programs and projects. The proposed annual budget shall set forth the methodology for determining the allocation of costs, appropriations and expenditures to each member. The Board shall submit the proposed work program and budget to the Members by September 30 of the preceding year. Approval or rejection of such budget by each Member shall be submitted to the Council by November 1 of each year. Members from jurisdictions identified in Section 5(a) that have not previously been required to contribute funds toward the annual budget and Members who have annual assessments increased by more than fifteen percent (15%) shall be given written notice one (1) year in advance of a proposed budget assessment. Following a request from a Member to perform services on a specific project, not identified in the work program, the Board may impose a special assessment on the requesting Member. The special assessment shall be: (a) reasonably determined by the Board and (b) reimburse the costs and expenses associated with the specific project. The annual budget and/or work program of the Council may be amended by vote of the Board, provided such amendment does not require additional budget appropriation in excess of the amounts established in the second Page 9 of 18 paragraph of this Section 8, by the Members. After approval of the Council budget, no Member may terminate or withhold its share during the year for which it was allocated. Section 9: ALLOCATION OF COSTS, APPROPRIATIONS, EXPENDITURES It is anticipated that most projects and programs of the Council will involve mutual benefit to its Members. Costs of the annual budget expenditures shall be divided among the Members as recommended by the Board and approved by the Members in the budget approval process. Any additional agency joining the Council as a Member, shall contribute as agreed with the Board. Additional contributions to the Council budget may be made to accomplish projects and programs deemed to be of particular pertinence or benefit to one or more of the Member agencies. Each funding Member after approval of the proposed Council budget shall submit its payment on or before January 20 of the budget year. The funds of such joint operation shall be deposited in the public treasury of the City of Spokane or the public treasury of any other Member as so agreed upon by the Members; and such deposit shall be subject to the same audit and fiscal controls as the public treasury where the funds are so deposited. The funds shall be used in accordance with the adopted budget and work plan. The Executive Director may make expenditures in accordance with the approved Council budget, work plan and approved policies and procedures, and shall maintain records of expenditures and report monthly to the Board on budget activity. Payment of all claims shall be signed by the Executive Director or designee, and approved monthly by the Board. Such claims, with proper affidavits required by law, shall then be certified for payment by the City of Spokane or as arranged by the Board. Section 10: REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY The Council may, through gift, devise, purchase, lease or other form of conveyance, acquire, hold, manage, use and dispose of real and personal property necessary for the joint undertaking set forth herein with such pro perty acquisition upon such terms and conditions as agreed by the Board. It is recognized that any public or private entity may appropriate funds and may sell, lease, give or otherwise supply real and personal property, personnel and services to the Council or other legal or administrative entity for the purpose of operating the joint or cooperative undertaking. Page 10 of 18 The Council may not acquire or use real property to operate a transportation system. Section 11: INSURANCE The Council shall obtain property and liability insurance for the matters set forth in this Agreement with coverages and limits reasonably determined by the Council, provided, insurance coverage for comprehensive general liability, auto liability, employment practices liability, public officials errors and omissions liability, shall not be less than $10,000,000 in the aggregate. Section 12: INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNCIL, CITIES AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Cities and County Planning Commissions shall continue their respective functions as provided by charter and/or State law, including preparation of Cities' and County Comprehensive Plans, to which the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan shall be coordinated, and administering the zoning, subdivision and similar implementing controls as may be assigned them by their respective legislative bodies. The successful execution of Council duties and responsibilities in preparing a Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, in coordination with state and local plans, requires comprehensive plans be prepared and kept up-to-date by the City, County, and Other Members for their respective jurisdictions. Section 13: AMENDMENTS AND NEW MEMBERS This Agreement may be amended by unanimous consent of the Members' governing bodies, except WSDOT may take action through its Secretary. Upon majority consent of the voting Members, new members may join the Council upon written acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. Section 14: TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP The Cities, County, STA, SAB, WSDOT, WSTC, or Other Members of the Council may terminate membership in the Council by giving written notice to the Council prior to August 1 of any year for the following year. Page 11 of 18 Section 15: PRIOR WRITTEN AGREEMENTS This Agreement shall supersede the following Agreements: Agreement creating the Spokane Regional Planning Conference, Spokane, Washington, dated December 15, 1966. An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and City of Spokane, Washington, to form a Spokane Regional Planning Conference, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish its Regional Planning District, dated August 31, 1972. An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and the City of Spokane, Washington, and other municipalities, to form Spokane Regional Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish Regional Council Jurisdiction Area, dated August 15, 1984. An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and Other Cities and Towns within Spokane County, to form a Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated October 12, 1993. An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and other Cities and Towns within Spokane County to form a Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated April 28, 2003. An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority and other Cities and Towns within Spokane County, to form the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, define its organization and powers, and its jurisdictional area last dated October 23, 2010. Section 16: EFFECTIVE DATE and Binding Agreement The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon ratification of this Agreement by the County and, at least, sixty percent (60%) of the cities and towns within the Council area that represent seventy-five percent (75%) of the cities' and towns' population. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Members who have executed this Agreement, their successors and assigns. Page 12 of 18 Section 17: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) DESIGNATION The execution of this Agreement by the Members is not intended to act as a revocation of the MPO or constitute a substantial change in authority or responsibility of the MPO and shall not be interpreted to require the redesignation of the MPO under 23 CFR§ 450.310. Section 18: SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST The Council, as provided for herein, shall be the successor in interest to all grants, contracts, and other documents entered into by the Council's predecessor, the Spokane Regional Council. Section 19: DEFAULT Failure by any Member to perform, observe or comply with the covenants, agreements or conditions on its part contained in this Agreement where that failure continues for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice from the Council to the defaulting Member shall constitute an "Event of Default," Section 20: REMEDIES In the event of any Event of Default, the Council may at any time, without waiving or limiting any other right or remedy, pursue any remedy allowed by law including, by way of example and without limitation, specific performance, declaratory judgment and other equitable remedies, and recovery of attorney's fees and other costs for such enforcement action. Section 21: GENERAL TERMS This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the Members. The Members agree that there are not other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. In the event any portion of this Agreement should become invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Washington State. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding regarding this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. Page 13 of 18 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to give, or shall give, whether directly or indirectly, any benefit or right, greater than that enjoyed by the general public, to third persons. The section headings in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to and shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. Section 22: RCW CHAPTER 39.34 REQUIRED CLAUSES A. PURPOSE See Section No. 2 above. B. DURATION This Agreement is perpetual until the joint and comprehensive undertaking is either voluntarily dissolved or discontinued pursuant to RCW 47,80.020. C. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS The Board shall administer the joint and cooperative undertakings set forth herein. D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES See provisions above. E. AGREEMENT TO BE FILED This Agreement may be filed with the County Auditor or published on the Members' websites, as available. F. FINANCING See Section Nos. 8 and 9 above. The Council, or any of the Members hereto, may receive grants-in-aid from the State or Federal Government or any other department or agency and may Pap 14 of 18 accept gifts from public or private entities for the purposes authorized in this Agreement. G. TERMINATION See Section No. 14 above. H. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION Any Member terminating its membership in the Council as provided for in Section 14 hereinabove shall forfeit any ownership interest in any personal or real property owned or held by the Council. Personal property acquired by the Council in the performance of this Agreement shall be disposed of by the Council upon termination of the Agreement. Unless otherwise required by law or agreement, cash and cash proceeds from sale of personal property shall be disbursed to the Members according to the contribution made by the Member as set forth in this Agreement. Real property shall be conveyed or disposed of as set forth in this Agreement in the same manner as personal property except where a separate instrument or deed reservation exists with regard to any real property in which instance it shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members hereto have entered into this Agreement on the day and year of their respective signature. ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington this day of , 2013. Shelly O'Quinn, Chair ATTEST: DANIELA ERICKSON Al French, Vice-Chair Page 15 of 18 CLERK OF THE BOARD By: Daniela Erickson Todd Mielke, Commissioner Clerk of the Board ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE City Clerk By Date: Approved as to form: • Assistant City Attorney WASHINGTON STATE SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Secretary of Transportation By Date: Date: WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By Date: CITY OF AIRWAY HIS., CITY OF CHENEY, WASHINGTON WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: Page 16 of 18 CITY OF DEER PARK, WASHINGTON CITY OF FAIRFIELD, WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: CITY OF LATAH, WASHINGTON CITY OF LIBERTY LK., WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE, CITY OF MILLWOOD, WASHINGTON WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: CITY OF ROCKFORD, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPANGLE, WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: CITY OF WAVERLY, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: Page 17 018 SPOKANE AIRPORT BOARD By Date: 1 Page 18 of 18 Return To: Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Avenue, Suite 310 Spokane, WA 99201 AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG SPOKANE COUNTY, CITY OF SPOKANE, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, SPOKANE AIRPORT BOARD AND OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS WITHIN SPOKANE COUNTY, TO FORM THE SPOKANE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, DEFINE ITS ORGANIZATION AND POWERS, AND ITS JURISDICTIONAL AREA. THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into among the County of Spokane, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County," the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, the City of Spokane Valley, a non-charter code city of the State of Washington, the Washington State Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "WSDOT," the Washington State Transportation Commission, hereinafter referred to as IIWSTCII, the Spokane Transit Authority, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "STA," Spokane Airport Board, a joint operation of the County and City of Spokane, hereinafter referred to as "SAB" and other incorporated towns and cities located within Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as "Other Members,"jointly, along with the County, City of Spokane, STA /'d 3. and WSDOT are collectively referred to as the "Members." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more public entities may jointly cooperate to perform functions which each may individually perform; and WHEREAS, on August 1-0, 2-696JuIy 6, 2012, the President of the United States signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Effici- •- A • : • - • • - - -AFETEA LU)Movinq Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which provided authorization for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation and enunciated a policy 'IPtlo develop a highway J6A11.a6�, and mass transportation LGLIVIE GIIIA enunciated a policy LL,V develop Q {5463339]-- Page 1 of National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provide the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner;" and WHEREAS, in 1962, Federal transportation legislation required the establishment, by agreement between the Governor of the State of Washington and units of general purpose local government, of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which in cooperation with the State of Washington, shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of Washington State; and WHEREAS, Chapter 47.80 ROW authorizes the formation of a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) by voluntary association of local governments within a county; provided each RTPO shall have as members the county and at least sixty percent of the cities and towns within the RTPO's boundaries, representing a minimum of seventy-five percent of the cities' and towns' population; and WHEREAS, each RTPO formed by local governments shall create a transportation policy board to provide policy advice to the RTPO and shall allow representatives of major employers within the region, the department of transportation, transit districts, port districts, and member cities, towns, and counties within the region to participate in policy making; and WHEREAS, among other duties, each RTPO shall: (i) develop and periodically update a regional transportation plan in cooperation with the State • dDepartment of :I:ransportation, providers of public transportation and high capacity transportation, ports, and local governments within the region and shall (ii) designate a lead planning agency to coordinate preparation of said regional transportation plan and carry out the other responsibilities of the organization; and WHEREAS, RCW 47.80.020 provides that the RTPO in an urbanized area shall be the same as the MPO designated for federal transportation planning purposes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced state and federal laws, the Members are desirous of establishing a regional transportation council ("Council") to carry out the responsibilities of the MPO as provided in Federal Transportation legislation as well as other responsibilities determined by the Council. I -(8063-3599,-14 Page 2 of i;; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following terms and conditions, to include the above recitals, which are incorporated herein as a part of this Agreement, it is agreed among the Members: Section 1: NAIVME/ORGANIZATION A voluntary association and joint board, comprising representatives of the County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC), Spokane Transit Authority (STA), Spokane Airport Board (`7/\ 1)_,and Other Members is hereby created and shall be known as the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, referred to hereinafter as the "Council." Section 2: PURPOSE Recognizing that coordinated transportation planning of the County, Cities and Towns, WSDOT, WSTC, STA. SAB and Other Members are necessarily interwoven and interdependent and that the interests of all citizens will best be served by coordinated, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning, this Council is established to facilitate such appropriate coordination and cooperation and provide for continuing area wide transportation planning in accordance with Section 3, herein. The Council is not authorized to in any way supersede the authority vested in the County, Cities and Towns, WSDOT, WSTC, STA, >l111 or Other Members, but is intended to meet the prerequisites of United States Code Titles 23 and 49, and RCW Chapter 47.80. Section 3: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS The functions, responsibilities, and powers of Council shall be as follows: (a) To perform the functions of a Transportation Management Area (TMA) for the metropolitan area, which includes those functions set forth in the SAFETE 'o-LUMAP-21 legislation of Aug st=1-{ [ July 6, 2012, and related rules, as amended to implement SAFETEA-LU as well as those functions, which may be required hereinafter by subsequent Federal Transportation legislation. (b) To perform the functions of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as set forth in Title 23 United States Code and Title 49 United States Code as Page3 of., currently adopted or as amended, and 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 and 40 CFR Part 613, as currently adopted or as amended. (c) To perform the functions of a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) as set forth in Ch. 47.80 RCW and Ch. 468-86 WAC, as currently adopted or as amended. (d) To prepare and update a Metropolitan Transportation Plan pursuant to 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 and 49 CFR Part 613. (e) To engage in regional transportation planning. (f) To administer regional transportation funding programs and consider those projects which have been approved by the governing bodies of the Members and which are incorporated within the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan. (g) To participate in the development and maintenance of transportation related information necessary to support the functions and responsibilities of the Council. (h) To promote the regional transportation interests, plans and projects to local, state and federal public and private entities. (i) To contract with the WSDOT or other appropriate entities in order to meet requirements of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. (j) To create committees as necessary, to advise the Board on regional transportation related matters. At a minimum this shall include: a. the Transportation Advisory Council (TAC) whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by the Board. b. the Transportation Technical Committee (TTC) whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by the Board. (k) To comply with the Transportation Planning requirements set forth in the Washington State Growth Management Act, and Ch. 47.80 RCW, consistent with Spokane County County-wide Planning Policies. (I) To perform such other transportation planning and program related functions as the Board may hereinafter determine to be in the best interests of the Council and the members thereof, which are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and related federal and state law. I { 0633599;-14 Page 4 of.!,`. _ _ ; _ - __ .. . - a _ • - n aid f �F from the State or Federal Goye nmeet-er-,any eter dep #m t-or-agency and may a„.. t gifts from publ-is--of—prvato entities for the-purpo es authorize ter-is-Agreement. Section 4: JURISDICTIONAL AND METROPOLITAN AREA DEFINED The Council's jurisdictional area shall consist of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Spokane County, Washington, and may include contiguous areas across county or state boundaries as deemed appropriate - and which meet the criteria of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. Section 5: GOVERNING BODY AND OFFICERS The governing body (the "Board") of the Council, proseptly_consisting of twel-vefourteen voting-(142) voting persons, shall be established by the following thresholds: (a) Jurisdictions under 5070005 000 people -- One (1) person jointly selected by jurisdictions with populations between-50,000--tar=p l plo--plus,one-(=1 per-son—jeintl-y---selected- by—jurisdictions—with population-s--fewer than 5,000 people. The person selected shall be an elected official from a small town/city; (b) Jurisdictions under-between 5,001 and 50,000 people - Three (3) persons separately selected by the City of Airway I-/eights, City of Cheney, and Cif of Liberty lake. ersons selected shall be elected officials.; (bc) Jurisdictions between 50,001 to 100,000 people — one (1) person appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be an elected official; (cd) Jurisdictions over 100,001 people — two (2) persons appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be elected officials; (The population of Spokane County includes the population of its cities and towns); (de) One (1) Board-Membe--r:person offrom STA, who shall be the STA Chief Executive Officer or his or her designee; (efJ Two (2) State Transportation representatives, one (1) from the Washington State Department of Transportation and appointed by the Secretary of Transportation, and one (1) from the Washington State Transportation Commission appointed by the Chair of the Commission; +806-3-3-599,1 ? Page 5 of 18 (H) One (1) person who represents a major employer, with preference for a provider of private sector transportation services within the region who shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Board; and (g-) One-user-who is Ch-air-of-the Chir- f-tae Transportation Advisory Counc rovide oh perr on-reside-withi' y 1,ttl ai- -ttle-ry -P h One 1 •erson re•resentin• SIASAB who shall be the Chief Executive Officer or his or her designee. (# i) There shall be four-three (43) ex officio, non-voting members serving on the Board representing different modes of transportation, which shall include: (-1-)—ORe-{-1-)-perse re-s r tine c he-shall- e-aiapoint cl e -TA Board; (21) One (1) person representing Rail; who shall be appointed by the Members-; and (a) Ono (1) person-represe to A' :: ; - 11-be=apl `l ted-by #-he-A-i-rpo4-Board; and (42) The Chair of the TTC (3) The Chair of the TAC (ij) Pursuant to RCW 47.80.040,, all legislators whose districts are wholly or partially within the designated boundaries of the Council, are considered ex officio (non-voting) members of the Board. (f ) All Board appointments shall be for a term of three (3) years or the tenure of office of the representative in his/her respective jurisdiction, whichever is the lesser time. Alternate Board representatives may serve in the absence of the designated representative so long as the alternate representative is an elected or appointed official of the appointing Member's parent agency (or governing body, as appropriate) and whose name has been placed on record with the Council. All alternate Board representatives must serve in the same capacity as the regularly designated representative as defined hereinabove. (H) The Board shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair ("Officers") by majority vote of the Board. Only representatives who are elected officials may be Officers. To be eligible for the Chair position, the Board Member shall have served on I the Board for at least one (1) year. The term for Officers may be up to two (2) years in each office. Ex officio members may not serve as Officers. I .-54633599; 1 ) Page 6 of '; (hn_) A Board Member who, during a calendar year, has three (3) unexcused absences from regular Board meetings shall be automatically removed from the Board, without further action. Section 6: MEETINGS AND VOTING The Council shall hold regular monthly Board meetings. The Chair may call a special meeting or executive session or shall call a special meeting at the request of a majority of the Board. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public as required by 42.30 RCW. A quorum for th€_ urpose of transacting business shall consist of a simple majority of the Board. The Board shall adopt rules for the conduct of its business consistent with this Agreement and such rules shall prescribe the place of meetings, the method of providing reasonable notice to Members, the form of the agenda, the regular meeting date and such other matters that relate to the conduct of the Council's business. Such rules shall be adopted and may be amended by a seventy-five percent (75%) positive vote of the Board, or by amendment to this Agreement as provided herein. A-4I-m•eet gs of the- Beard--s 14--be-open- f e--puhl,ic-a-s-regu d--by chaff tcr- -2-30--R f— c}ua rr --fer-the-peruse-of-traR a 44g-besine s-shaif consist-9f a-simple-majority-of-the-aafd---All recommendations, motions, or other actions of the Board shall be adopted by a favorable vote of a majority of those present. Voting Board members shall be entitled to one vote. Provided, however, that the following enumerated actions shall take-anbe approved either through an affirmative vote of a majority of the voting membership or through a weighted vote of the Board: (a) Appointment o 4 smiss l efrvi-ti'v --E-xesutive-D-iFector (b)--Approval of the annual budget expenditure division among the Members; (c-b) Purchase, sale or disposition of real property; and (dc) Addition of new members. The appointment or discharge of the Executive Director shall require the affirmative vote of ten (10) Board members, To provide for a measure of proportionate representation within a jurisdiction, the Council adopts a weighted voting process. A weighted vote maybe regLigsted by a two Board members. A weighted, vote shall be requested either prior to the vote on the proposed motion or after the vote but prior to the Board takincLaction on a subse vent a enda item. I 450633599;1 ) Page 7 of 18 Following the request for werghtecI votlnc , the Chair shall thereafter conduct a weighted vote on the matter with weight of each vote calculated according to the percentages set forth on Table 1, attached hereto. If_the_weighted vote achieves greater than fifty percent (50%) of the vote, the weighted vote shah take precedence over a prior non-weighted vote. A-weighted-vote-ma -not-be request 4erTo approve items (a)-(c) above through a weighted vote the weighted calculation must equal or exceed 8. Section 7: STAFF AND SUPPORT The Board shall determine the positions, duties and working conditions of employees as necessary to conduct the work programs of the Council consistent with this Agreement. An Executive Director shall be appointed by and serve solely at the pleasure of the Board. The Board shall adopt policies and procedures to establish the duties and authority of the Executive Director, including authority to make financial expenditures on behalf of the Board. The Board shall approve application(s) for or acceptance of any grants to carry out those functions set forth in Section 3 hereinabove. Provided, however, in instances where a grant application must be submitted prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board so that timely Board approval cannot Table 1 SRTC Board Majority Vote and Weighted Vote Calculations % of Majority Weighted Weighted Jurisdiction Vote %.of Vote Vote (1.286 Vote Airway Heights 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Cheney 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Cities and towns under 5,0001 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Liberty Lake 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Private Sector Transportation 1 7.14%, 1.000 6.48% Spokane - Member 1 1 7.14% 1.286 8.33% Spokane - Member 2 1 7.14% 1.286 8.33% Spokane County - Member 1 7.14% B.33%o I TS0633599; Z-} Page 8 of 18 1 1.286 Spokane County - Member 2 1 7.14% 1.286 8.33% Spokane Airport Board 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Spokane Transit Authority 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% Spokane Valley 1 7.14% 1.286 8.33% State Transportation Board 1 7.14% 1.000 6.48% WSDOT 1 7.14% 1.000 0t48% 14 100.00% 15.430 100,00% 1 Small cities and towns under 5,000 in population share a single vote on the SRTC Board, These jurisdictions include Deer Park, Fairfield, Latah, Medical Lake, Millwood, Rockford, Spangle, and Waverly., 'When a weighted vote is called, each vote for representatives from the City of Spokane the City of Spokane Valley, and Spokane County are weighted by 1.286, This weighted vote formula was established to preserve the voting weight for these three agencies from the 2010 Interiocal Agreement. be obtained, the grant application may still be submitted with mutual approval of the Chair and Vice-Chair. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, employees are at-will and shall be hired and discharged by and work under the direction of, the Executive Director. The Board may arrange for support services such as requisitioning and purchasing, payment of expenditures, accounting, payroll, computer processing, legal counsel, and others as deemed necessary. Pay schedules shall be set by the Board consistent with responsibilities performed and the demand for such personnel in public and private industry, with due consideration to pay schedules for like positions in Member agencies. Section 8: WORK PROGRAM AND ANNUAL BUDGET The Board shall prepare and adopt a proposed work program and budget for each calendar year. The detailed annual work program shall list specific work projects to be undertaken by the Council. The Executive Director -459633599;1 j Page 9 of 18 or designee shall confer with and inform Members concerning the preparation of and progress on the technical areas of work programs and projects. The proposed annual budget shall set forth the methodology for determining the allocation of costs, appropriations and expenditures to each member. The Board shall submit the proposed work program and budget to the I Members by August-1-September 30 of the preceding year. Approval or rejection of such budget by each Member shall be submitted to the Council by November 1 of each year. Members from jurisdictions identified in Section 5(a) that have not previously been required to contribute funds toward the annual budget and Members who have annual assessments increased by more than fifteen percent (15%) shall be given written notice one (1) year in advance of a proposed budget assessment. Following a request from a Member to perform services on a specific project, not identified in the work program, the Board may impose a special assessment on the requesting Member. The special assessment shall be: (a) reasonably determined by the Board and (b) reimburse the costs and expenses associated with the specific project. The annual budget and/or work program of the Council may be amended by vote of the Board, provided such amendment does not require additional budget appropriation in excess of the amounts established in the second paragraph of this Section 8, by the Members. After approval of the Council budget, no Member may terminate or withhold its share during the year for which it was allocated. Section 9: ALLOCATION OF COSTS, APPROPRIATIONS, EXPENDITURES It is anticipated that most projects and programs of the Council will involve mutual benefit to its Members. Costs of the annual budget expenditures shall be divided among the Members as recommended by the Board and approved by the Members in the budget approval process. Any additional agency joining the Council as a Member, shall contribute as agreed with the Board. Additional contributions to the Council budget may be made to accomplish projects and programs deemed to be of particular pertinence or benefit to one or more of the Member agencies. Each funding Member alter approvaling of the proposed Council budget shall submit its payment on or before January 20 of the budget year-that it has') approved. The funds of such joint operation shall be deposited in the public treasury of the City of Spokane or the public treasury of any other Member as {5063-3393;—t—} Page 10 of; so agreed upon by the Members; and such deposit shall be subject to the same audit and fiscal controls as the public treasury where the funds are so deposited. The funds shall be used in accordance with the adopted budget and work plan. The Executive Director may make expenditures in accordance with the approved Council budget, work plan and approved policies and procedures, and shall maintain records of expenditures and report monthly to the Board on budget activity. Payment of all claims shall be signed by the Executive Director or designee, and approved monthly by the Board. Such claims, with proper affidavits required by law, shall then be certified for payment by the City of Spokane or as arranged by the Board. Section 10: REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY The Council may, through gift, devise, purchase, lease or other form of conveyance, acquire, hold, manage, use and dispose of real and personal property necessary for the joint undertaking set forth herein with such property acquisition upon such terms and conditions as agreed by the Board. It is recognized that any public or private entity may appropriate funds and may sell, lease, give or otherwise supply real and personal property, personnel and services to the Council or other legal or administrative entity for the purpose of operating the joint or cooperative undertaking. The Council may not acquire or use real property to operate a transportation system. Section 11: INSURANCE The Council shall obtain property and liability insurance for the matters set forth in this Agreement with coverages and limits reasonably determined by the Council, provided, insurance coverage for comprehensive general liability, auto liability, employment practices liability, public officials errors and omissions liability, shall not be less than $10,000,000 in the aggregate. Section 12: INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNCIL, CITIES AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Cities and County Planning Commissions shall continue their respective functions as provided by charter and/or State law, including preparation of Cities' and County Comprehensive Plans, to which the Metropolitan I 130633599;1 ) Page 11 of 18 Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan shall be coordinated, and administering the zoning, subdivision and similar implementing controls as may be assigned them by their respective legislative bodies. The successful execution of Council duties and responsibilities in preparing a Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, in coordination with state and local plans, requires comprehensive plans be prepared and kept up-to-date by the City, County, and Other Members for their respective jurisdictions. Section 13: AMENDMENTS AND NEW MEMBERS This Agreement may be amended by unanimous consent of the Members' governing bodies, except WSDOT may take action through its Secretary. Upon majority consent of the voting Members, new members may join the Council upon written acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. Section 14: TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP The Cities, County, STA, �A 3 WSDOT, WSTC, or Other Members of the Council may terminate membership in the Council by giving written notice to the Council prior to August 1 of any year for the following year. Section 15: PRIOR WRITTEN AGREEMENTS This Agreement shall supersede the following Agreements: Agreement creating the Spokane Regional Planning Conference, Spokane, Washington, dated December 15, 1966. An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and City, of Spokane, Washington, to form a Spokane Regional Planning Conference, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish its Regional Planning District, dated August 31, 1972. An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and the City of Spokane, Washington, and other municipalities, to form Spokane Regional Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish Regional Council Jurisdiction Area, dated August 15, 1984. An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, I {S0633DJ } Page 12 of and Other Cities and Towns within Spokane County, to form a Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated October 12, 1993. An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and other Cities and Towns within Spokane County to form a Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated April 28, 2003. An lnterlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority and other Cities and Towns within Spokane County, to form the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, define its organization and powers, and its jurisdictional area last dated October 23, 2010. Section 16: EFFECTIVE DATE and Binding Agreement The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon ratification of this Agreement by the County and, at least, sixty percent (60%) of the cities and towns within the oCouncil area that represent seventy—five percent (75%) of the cities' and towns' population. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Members who have executed this Agreement, their successors and assigns. Section 17: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) DESIGNATION The execution of this Agreement by the Members is not intended to act as a revocation of the MPO or constitute a substantial change in authority or responsibility of the MPO and shall not be interpreted to require the redesignation of the MPO under 23 CFR § 450.310. Section 18: SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST The Council, as provided for herein, shall be the successor in interest to all grants, contracts, and other documents entered into by the Council's predecessor, the Spokane Regional Council. Section 19: DEFAULT Failure by any Member to perform, observe or comply with the covenants, agreements or conditions on its part contained in this Agreement 1-S063-3-599 r14- Page 13 of 1 , where that failure continues for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice from the Council to the defaulting Member shall constitute an "Event of Default." Section 20: REMEDIES In the event of any Event of Default, the Council may at any time, without waiving or limiting any other right or remedy, pursue any remedy allowed by law including, by way of example and without limitation, specific performance, declaratory judgment and other equitable remedies, and recovery of attorney's fees and other costs for such enforcement action. Section 21: GENERAL TERMS This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the Members. The Members agree that there are not other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. In the event any portion of this Agreement should become invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Washington State. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding regarding this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to give, or shall give, whether directly or indirectly, any benefit or right, greater than that enjoyed by the general public, to third persons. The section headings in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to and shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. Section 22: RCUU CHAPTER 39.34 REQUIRED CLAUSES A. PURPOSE See Section No. 2 above. X59633599;1 } Page 14 of B. DURATION This Agreement is perpetual until the joint and comprehensive undertaking is either voluntarily dissolved or discontinued pursuant to RCW 47.80.020. C. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS The Board shall administer the joint and cooperative undertakings set forth herein. D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES See provisions above. E. AGREEMENT TO BE FILED This Agreement may be filed with the County Auditor or published on the Members' websites, as available. F. FINANCING See Section Nos. 8 and 9 above._ The Council, or any of the Members hereto, may receive grants-in-aid from the State or Federal Government or any other department or agency and may accept gifts from public or private entities for the purposes authorized in this Agreement. G. TERMINATION See Section No. 14 above. H. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION Any Member terminating its membership in the Council as provided for in Section 14 hereinabove shall forfeit any ownership interest in any personal or real property owned or held by the Council. Personal property acquired by the Council in the performance of this Agreement shall be disposed of by the Council upon termination of the Agreement. Unless otherwise required by law or agreement, cash and cash proceeds from sale of personal {*S063-1599;-1—f Page 15 of 1"• property shall be disbursed to the Members according to the contribution made by the Member as set forth in this Agreement. Real property shall be conveyed or disposed of as set forth in this Agreement in the same manner as personal property except where a separate instrument or deed reservation exists with regard to any real property in which instance it shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members hereto have entered into this Agreement on the day and year of their respective signature. ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington this day of , 201103. Marisla-aShelly O'Quinn, Chair ATTEST: DANIELA ERICKSON Mark-RiclardAl FrenchBer ,ie-M-ager-, Vice-Chair CLERK OF THE BOARD By: Daniefa Erickson Todd Mielke, Commissioner Clerk of the Board I ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE City Clerk By Date: Approved as to form: {x0633599; 14 Page 16 of Assistant City Attorney WASHINGTON STATE SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Secretary of Transportation By Date: Date: WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By Date: CITY OF AIRWAY HTS., CITY OF CHENEY, WASHINGTON WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: CITY OF DEER PARK, WASHINGTON CITY OF FAIRFIELD, WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: CITY OF LATAH, WASHINGTON CITY OF LIBERTY LK., WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: I {50633599;-1—} Page 17 ofl CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE, CITY OF MILLWOOD, WASHINGTON WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: CITY OF ROCKFORD, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPANGLE, WASHINGTON By _ By Date: Date: CITY OF WAVERLY, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON By By Date: Date: SPOKANE AIRPORT BOARD Date: {SQE3-3599; 1 ) Page 18 cif 1S ) � ) Spokane 'jion (7ransportaiIon Council 221 W. First Ave., Suite 310 • Spokane, WA 99201-3613 • (509) 343-6370 • FAX (509) 343-6400 February 27,2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2013 Mayor Tom Towey City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave. City of Spokane valley Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Revised Spokane Regional Transportation Council Interlocal Agreement Dear Mayor Towey: On December 13, 2012, the SRTC Board approved an updated Interlocal Agreement, which was distributed to our member agencies for ratification on January 11, 2013. On January 28, 2013, the Spokane City Council delayed action on the revised agreement and asked for the SRTC Board to consider changes in Section 6: Meetings and Voting related to the use of the new weighted voting provisions and the voting requirements for the appointment or discharge of the Executive Director. On February 14, 2013, the SRTC Board considered revised language that would address these issues. By a unanimous vote, the Board approved changes that would allow for a weighted vote on items (a)-(c) in Section 6. Also by a unanimous vote, the Board elected to retain the language as originally presented that requires an affirmative vote of 10 of 14 members for the appointment or discharge of the Executive Director. Please feel free to contact me by telephone at(509) 343-6370 or by email at kwallace @srtc.org if you have any questions about the Board's deliberations on these issues. Enclosed is an updated Interlocal Agreement and redline version of all of the proposed changes to the original 2010 Interlocal Agreement. In addition,I have enclosed a single page document that includes all of the changes that have been made since the previous version of the agreement was sent to you on January 11, 2013. With this letter, I am asking that you take the new Interlocal Agreement to your governing body for consideration and approval. Thank you again for your continued support and participation in the regional transportation planning process. At your earliest convenience, please schedule the new Interlocal Agreement for consideration by your governing body. Once approved, please contact Jennifer Wash, Administrative Assistant with SRTC and she will arrange a time for someone to come out to obtain a signature on the original agreement. You can contact Jennifer by telephone at (509) 343-6370 or by email at jwash @srtc.org. If you anticipate there will be questions from your governing body about the content of the new agreement,please feel free to contact me directly. Si rely, 414vt. jkt_e_ Kevin Wallace Executive Director Enclosures City ofAirway Heights • City of Cheney • City of Deer Park• Town of Fairfield • Town of Latah • City of Liberty Lake City of Medical Lake • Town of Millwood • Town of Rockford • Town of Spangle • Spokane County • City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley • Town of Waverly • Spokane international Airport •Spokane Transit Authority Washington State Department of Transportation • Washington State Transportation Commission CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 9th, 2013 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information [' admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Public Safety Contract Addenda GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act), counties and cities may contract with each other to perform certain functions that each may legally perform. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council authorized the City Manager to execute the following agreements; C06-0193 Interlocal Agreement for Pretrial Services, signed March 14th, 2006, C05-105 Amended Emergency Management Services Agreement, signed September 29th, 2005, C06-0189 Interlocal Agreement for Animal Control Services, signed March 1st 2006, C06-091 Interlocal Agreement for Hearing Examiner Services, signed March 1st, 2006, and C06- 012 Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to the Adjudication of Misdemeanor and Gross Misdemeanor Offenses, signed March 1st, 2006. BACKGROUND: 1) Spokane County and Spokane Valley are proposing a modification to the cost methodology used to determine City's share of indirect costs paid through contract. Affected Contracts are Animal Control, District Court, Department of Emergency Management, Hearing Examiner, and Pretrial. The base used to determine the indirect rate would change from salaries and benefits (as specified in contract exhibits) to total expenditures. Note: Council recently authorized execution of new Animal Control Services and Emergency Management Services Agreements which supersede previous agreements; however, proposed changes would apply to the previous Agreements allowing the City to proceed with the cost reconciliation process for years outstanding. The proposed change would be effective beginning 2010. 2) The Spokane County District Court has developed a new cost methodology and billing structure for determining City costs. The proposed methodology would be made effective beginning with the 2012 contract year. OPTIONS: Authorize the City Manager to execute contract amendments, maintain existing cost methodologies, or request more information. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute Master Addendum, and Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for District Court Services. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: 1) Estimated annual savings of $33,081.15 under the proposed indirect methodology and 2) estimated annual savings of $168,358.47 under the proposed District Court methodology. Combined $201,439.62 savings likely offset by anticipated increase to Public Defender costs as a result of caseload standards. STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst; John Pietro, Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: Master Addendum (indirect rate change), District Court Amendment (including new cost exhibits) 2013 MASTER ADDENDUM TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES,EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES,AND PRE-TRIAL SERVICES, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO THIS MASTER ADDENDUM, is made and entered into by and between the City of Spokane Valley, hereafter referred to as "City", and Spokane County, hereafter referred to as "County",jointly hereinafter referred to as "Parties". RECITALS: WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW chapter 39.34 (Interlocal Cooperation Act), the Parties have entered into numerous interlocal agreements whereby County has agreed to provide services to City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the interlocal agreements subject to this Master Addendum are the "Interlocal Agreement for Animal Control Services in the City of Spokane Valley", "Interlocal Agreement for Hearing Examiner Services in the City of Spokane Valley", "Interlocal Agreement for Pre-trial Services in the City of Spokane Valley", and "Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Management Services"; and WHEREAS, there are various components of the full cost of providing services by County, including the "indirect cost rate", which takes into account the cost of services provided by what is commonly referred to as County service departments, which includes, but is not limited to, such components as facilities maintenance, administrative services, and insurance; and WHEREAS, in past years, the "indirect cost rate" has been calculated based on salaries attributable to the provision of each service. The Parties now agree that it is acceptable to base the "indirect cost rate" on total expenditures in calculating the full cost of providing each service; and NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth hereinafter and the above recitals which are incorporated herein by reference, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: SECTION ONE: SCOPE OF CHANGE The scope and purpose of this Master Addendum is to change the way the indirect costs County charges City are calculated, which is a component cost in determining the total actual cost for the provision of services. Previously, the Parties calculated the indirect cost rate based on salaries only, as adopted in the methodology set forth in the exhibit to each interlocal agreement for every service Page 1 of 3 covered by this Master Addendum. But now, the Parties agree that it is acceptable to calculate the indirect cost rate based on total expenditures. SECTION TWO: DURATION This Master Addendum shall be in full force and effect as to each of the interlocal agreements enumerated in SECTION THREE for the remaining term of each listed agreement, or any extension of such an agreement. For the purpose of this Master Addendum, the remaining term of the agreement shall mean commencing with the 2010 adjust and settle. It is the intent of the Parties that this change be prospective in nature commencing with the 2010 adjust and settle, and not have any retroactive application prior to this time frame. SECTION THREE: AFFECTED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS This Master Addendum shall apply to the following interlocal agreements between the Parties,jointly referred to as "INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS": 1. "Interlocal Agreement for Animal Control Services in the City of Spokane Valley (January 1, 2005-December 31, 2005)" executed under Spokane County Resolution No. 06-0189 and signed by the City on March 1, 2006, 2. "2005 Amended Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Management Services" executed under Spokane County Resolution No. 05-0781 and signed by the City on September 29, 2005, 3. "Interlocal Agreement for Hearing Examiner Services in the City of Spokane Valley (January 1, 2005-December 31, 2005)" executed under Resolution No. 06-0191 and signed by the City on March 1, 2006, as modified by that document entitled "Addendum to Agreement for Hearing Examiner Services between City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County" executed under Resolution No. 06-0426 and approved by the City on May 23, 2006, and 4. "Interlocal Agreement for Pre-Trial Services in the City of Spokane Valley (April 1, 2003-December 31, 2004)" executed under Spokane County Resolution 06-0193 and signed by the City on March 14, 2006. SECTION FOUR: REMAINDER OF AFFECTED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS REMAIN THE SAME The remaining provisions of the affected INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS identified in Section Three will remain unchanged by this Master Addendum. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Master Addendum to be executed on the date immediately above their respective signature blocks. Page 2 of 3 Dated this day of , 2013. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON Shelly O'Quinn, Chair Attest: CLERK OF BOARD Al French, Vice Chair Daniela Erickson Todd Mielke, Commissioner Clerk of Board Dated this day of , 2013. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY By: Mike Jackson, City Manager Attest: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form only: Office of the City Attorney Page 3 of 3 Return to Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Ionrd Board of County Commissioners 1116 W.Broadway Spokane,Washington 99260 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COSTS INCIDENT TO ADJUDICATION OF MISDEMEANOR AND GROSS MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES IN THE CITY 01?SPOKANE VALLEY THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and among the Spokane County District Court, haying offices for the transaction of business at 1100 West Mallon, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COURT," Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,having of€ices for the transaction of brsiness at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," end the City of Spttictine Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as"CITY,"jointly hereinafter referral to as the"PARTIES, Yf I T Aw #4 S S E T H WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 3632.120(6 , the Donni of County Commissioners of Spokane~ County, Washington, has the care of County property and the management of County funds mid liminess,: and WHEREAS,pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW(Interlope! Cooperation Act), counties and cities may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform;and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 39.39.180, the City of Spr krrne Valley is ]'esponisiblc for the costs incident to investigation, prosecution, adjudicatitni and incarceration of misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses that occur within its jurisdiction and that are cometiitted by adults;and WHEREAS,AS, Spokane Cranny has established a District Court under the provisions of chapter 3.38 RCW for the judicial administration of the laws of the State of Washington and the ordinances of Spokane County, The District Court consists of one district encompassing all of Spokane County}end WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced recitals, Spokane County under Spokane County Resolution No, 200641190, the Spokane County District Court under signature dated March 27, 2006, and City of Spokane Valley under sigoature elated Mani. I, NO(tlie"Parties")executetl a document entitled "liitcrlocal Agreement for Costs incident to Adjudication of Misdemeanor and Gross Misdemeanor Offenses in the City of Spokane Valley(Annoy i,2005—INceinber 31,2005)"(the"Agreement")pursuant to which under certain terms and conditions the Spokane County District Court agreed to provide certain judicial services identified within the Agreement in Exhibit"1"to the City of Spokane Valley;and Pile cif WHEREAS,the Agreement includes Section No 14(Modification) wherein the Parties agreed that the Agreement could be modified by iiiiitual written agreement of the Parties;and WHEREAS, the Patties, as provided for in Section No, 14 (Modification), desire to modify the Agreement. NOW,THEREFORE,for and inconsideration of the mutual promises set fbilh herein after, and the above recitals which are incorporated herein by reference, the Parties do hereby mutually agree that that doeunteltt executed by Spokane County tinder Spokane Cotirity Resohtliott No. 2096-0190, the Spakarte County District Court under signature dated March 27,2006,and City of Spokane Valley under signature dated March 1,2006,entitled"Interim.] Agreement for Costs Incident to Adjudication of Misdemeanor and Gross Misdemeanor Offenses in the City of Spokane Wiley {dainiar)? I, 2005 .- December 31, 2045)'°(the "Agreement")be and is hereby mocldfed ns follows: I. Effective with the 2010 adjust mud settle, Exhibit 2 within the Agreement is modified as follows: The scope and purpose of this modification is to change the way the indirect costs the COUNTY charges the CITY are cateculated, which is a component cost in determining the total actual cost for the provision of Services. Previously, the PARTIES calculated the indirect cost rate; based on"salaries only"as adopted in the methodology set forth in the Exhibit 2 of the Agreement. But now the PARTIES agree that it is acceptable to edentate the indirect cost rate based on "total expetiditines". 2. Effective as of midnight Jaltllary 1,2014 Section No.2(Definitions)within the Agreement is modified in(g) and(f}only as follows: (Underlined highlighted language added,lined out highlighted language deleted.) (g) Capital improvement: "Capital Improvement" shall mean any expenditure in excess of$47999:99$4,999.99 or such higher figure ns net by the COUNTY as the capitalization threshold during the term of the Agreement. The COUNTY shall give the CITY advance notice of any increase in the capitalization threshold. The PARTIES agree to meet mid discuss the impacts of any change in the capitalization threshold which will cause an increase of costs to the CITY in excess of $50,000.00. Any such expenditure will be ceded as provided for Iii the BARS-manual adopted by the Slate of Washington under RCW 43.88. (f) Compensation: "Compensation" ntcaus that methodology set forth in Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D used to establish the amount of money whir h the CITY will pay the COUNTY for providing Services. 3. Effective as of midnight January 1, 2012, Section Na,'l (DuratiorilWitlidiawal) within the Agreement is modified as follows: (Uiiderlhied highlighted language added,lined out highlighted language deleted). SECTION NO.4: DURATION/WITHDRAWAL Pnge2or8 This Agreement shrill commence on January I, 2005, artd ono through December 31,20®5. At the conclusion of the initial term,this Agreement shall automatically be rencwet# from year to year thereafter effective January 1" to December 31"- Ali renewals shall be subject to all terms and conditions within ibis Agreement set-forth-herein. exeept-fopaxinbi 21 I lie-PARTI ivet nlze--it-hi hly-until ly-tliet-1 liibit ett-ing-fortsa-the-slow billing-rotes-f each-year en .g ill-ha--rw rilable-;at-the-start- Pin) .reriewoI time-f route:--Aeeei+di" ntil-u--new Exhibit-2-h eon-prop it -fin l-ra, d-te between-tlie-PAr-i T1ES,the-PM T 1ES rag la-iixat ie 31 PlT gill-lint-the-G-TY am(l-the-EIT-Y-wi11aay-tlae k 9TY-atehosaRie-billing rtes-paid-tat-tha-p revioll-9 yea inm-1}iiiP AR- l€sS-ti intent-an-ta-n+e obit file-CIT rata ONTY will-moniesle- resits-to-€-rite-assailew-tkie iaviritrs-year lataiirigi lea-with-llto-tlew bit ling tates,Anyini lefpaymeiit-foFon erviees l- tEa-iii-I e-fit t-pay,riant dire-follow ng-noteFicailiiatima-A11y-t Via rp aynaent-foke'ty SoPil - 1ipNia-ett Elite d40 tires Hirstraieiithly--paiyy a-faliowittg-the-reeolieiliatian=-The- T-I rive titan--rte---interost ll-I ---owing-by---eitli.ei—la sty--rode �Q #he;L-1 t -f'eP--a liy overpaymentom liter intyineut-deteI'niir st11t-of tlio-rt mieill tiom Any Party mai)+ withdraw at any time from this Agreement for any reason rvlaatsuover upon a snitiinium of 180 days written riot ice as provided for in Section 7 to the other Potty. 4. Effective its of 1159 pm. December 31, 2011, Section No 5 (Costs of Services and f'ay nelals),to include all exhibits referenced in Section No, 5, is deleted from ilia Agreement in its eaTardy. 5. Effective as of midnight drtnuriry 1,2012, n new Section No. 5 is added to the Agrcenrerit to provide as follows: (Note: Exhibits 2A,2B,2C and 213 referenced irr Section.No. 5 are attached hereto as Exhibits 2A,2B,2C and 2D respectively and not Metaled in the body of Section No.5) CTXQN NO. S: COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENTS 5.1 Basis. Cost for Services shall be bossed on cost-per-case(i1CPC"). 5.2 Methodology. CPC shall be calculated utilizing the Cost Calculation Model ("CC1vf") as shown in Exhibit "2A" whicl1i is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit "2A" computes the cost-per-case for 2012. Tim CCM inchides three Components. 5,2.1 Componenit flue. Component one of the CCM identified in Exhibit "2A"is entitled "Workload Analysis". The Workload Analysis classifies all full, lime and pelt time judicial officers and court staff by selected "case type" and computes the percentage of total full time eanpLoyces ("I"TE") for each major ''case type". The CCM will use the 2011 Workload Analysis. A copy of the 2011 Workload Analysis is shDwIi in Exhibit"213" Watch is attached hereto and I'agc 3 oft¢ incorporated herein by reference. The 2011 Worland Analysis shell remain the same acrid Shall be used by the Parties to calculate CPC for calendar years 2012, 2013, and 2014. The Workload Analysis component of the CCM will be reviewed and updated by the Parties in September 2014 for use in conjunction with the 20 l5 CCM. It will be reviewed and updated in September of every third year thereafter for Lase iii conjunction with the CCI 1 for The following three years. In the event the Mental Health Court is disbanded,the Workload Analysis will be reviewed and updated to be effective as of hammy lsT of the following year in conjunction with the CCM. This review and uptiiite will restart the three year Workload Analysis review and update cycle. Any anticipated cliatig,e to the nrunbet•of case types will be uommoineeted to the City with explanations for the change and associated cost impacts. The same Workload Analysis FTB percentage used to calculate the yearly estimate will also be used on that year's settle rind adjust. The Woirkload Analysis review will use the sanity methodology as set forth in Exhibit"2fi"as well as the following • Classify all frill-time and part-time judicial officers end court staff by the selected case types, Compote the percentage of total FTE for each of the selected ease types_ All administrative staff' FIE will be applied proportionately across all vase types. • Single Assignment -Judicial Officers end emit stiiffwith formal caseetype-specifre assignment are classified and c uarsted by case type. • Multiple Assignments - When Judicial Officers and court staff work across several case types on a replier basis, the COURT will e.stltnato (rising FTE) the proportion of each staff and judicial officer's time devoted to the different ease types. This category also mutinies regular court staff working in areas such as administration or court interpretation. 5.2.2 Component Two Component two of the CCM Identified ht Exhibit "2A" is "Total Expenditures", Total Expenditures inoludes expetiditnres by the COURT (oche year prior) and actual OMB A-87 indirect costs (two years prior). For example, the Total Expenditures for calendar year 2012 will be the actual COURT expenditures for calendar year 2011 plus the netted 2010 OMB A-87 indirect costs. Expenditures related to Services provided to entities which do not direct file in the COURT will be subtracted from "Total Expenditures" identified in Exhibit 2A. Mental Health Court expenditures for 2012 and 2013 will be funded by the Mental Health Sales fns and f t COUNTY eeineral fund identified in Exhibit 2A. Starting in 2014, the COURT will charge for costs related to Mental Health Court cases not funded by the Mental Health Sales Tax as calculated in Exhibit"24", 5.2.3 Component Three. Component three of the CCM identified in Exhibit "2A" is "Total Filings/Cases". Total FilingeoCases arc identified in the District Court Judicial Iuformetion System(".FIS")which tracks all cases filed in Spokane County District Court by case type, The methodology uses the 2011 Total FiliegstCases as the basis for determining the 2012 estimated CPC as identified iii the report in Exhibit 2.D. i'ingo 4 of!i 5.2.4 Caalcili ation of Cost-Per-Cast(Case Type) The cot-per-case for calendar year 2012 as shown in Exhibit"2A" is calculated by multiplying the Workload Analysis percentage for each identified case type tunes the nil "Total Expenditures" and dividing the resulting number by the 2011 Total Filings/Cases for that identified case type. For example,with respect to the case type "Infraction"the 2012 cost per case is $24.16. This figure is arrived at by multiplying the Workload Analysis for the case type identified as "itrf'rectioras" (2151%) by the 2011 "Total Expenditures" ($5,337,0215) And dividing the restlltiiag number by the 2011 Filings for Infractions (47,523). [21.51% x $5,337,826 $1,147,979.39 41,502 $24.16]. ' l lye costlier-case for calendar year 2013, Will be calculated by multiplying the Workload Analysis percentage for each identified case type limes the 2012 "Tot,I Expenditures" mid dividing the resulting number by the 2012 total filings for that identified ease type. The cost-per•case for subsequent calendar years will be calculated in time same manner as set forth for 20 12 and 2013 herein above. Provided, however,as stated in paragraph 5.2.1, the Workload Analysis will be reviewed and upalaated, if necessary, every third year the Agreement is in effect and applied to the CCM in the fourth year. S.3 Billing Procedure. The COURT will bill the CITY for Services on a monthly basis on,or before, the date identified la Exhibit "2C' which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Each billing will use the cost-per-ease as determined in paragraph 5.2.4 and the ecttrnl number of case typos handled by the COURT for the CITY. The CITY shall pay the COURT for each billing on or before the date identified in Exhibit"2C". The time frames for the COURT to bill and the CITY to pay as identified in pxlailjit"2C"shall apply to all subsequent years or portions thereof during which the Agreement is in effect. If for any reason the COURT is unable to bill the CITY for nily monthly paytttent, the bill will be included in a subsequent monthly billing. In such instance, no penalty, as provided for in paragraph 5.4 Irer-eillafler, will apply to the CITY's payment ofthis Inonthlybilling. 5.4 Penalty. At the sole option of the COUNTY, a peunity may be assessed eta any late pnymelnt in arm amount equal to lost interest earnings had the paynlemit!emu timely paid and invested in the Spokane County Ti eastu is Investment Fool. 5.5 Adjust and Settle. On or before February 2014 each year this Agreement is In effect, the COURT shall advise the CITY in writing of the acl,}usl and nettle calcuulationm Oe or 1'nee S oI'8 before Mnrcli Sr" afi each year this Agreement is in effect,the CITY shall edvise the COURT in writing of any concerns with regard to the adjust and settle calculations, Any disagreement between the CITY rind COURT regard to the adjust and settle ealeuletioiis shall be subject to the Section No. 17 (DISPUTE; RESOLUTION). Pending resotation on any disagreement udder Section No. 17(DISPUTE RESOLUTION), the objecting parity agrees to pay the other party hint portion of the adjust and settle that is undisputed.The adjust and settle calculation will be applied to the March 20`r' billing as provided for in Exhibit 2C, The settle and adjust amount shall be determined by comparing the total amount which the COURT billed the CITY for Services for the settle and adjust year to what the billing would have been tisiilg the actual Total Expenditures and actual Total filings/Cases for the settle and adjust year. For example, the settle and adjust for calendar year 2012 Services would compare the 2012 COURT billing to a frilling calculated by using the 2012 actual Expenditures, 2011 actual indirect costs, rind the 2012 actual tonal filiugeicases, In the event the CITY overpaid, it will receive a credit(s)applied to subsequent billing(s) as set foiilr in Exhibit "2C", In the event the CITY underpaid, it will be billed stich underpayment in conjunction with the subsequent billing as set forth its Exhibit"2C". 5,6 Capital Costs. The COUNTY CEO shill advise the CITY MANAGER as soon as possible of any anticipated or unanticipated capital improvement costs that arise under the contract period. The CITY shall pay capital improvement costs under the Cost Aldoerition Plan as an indirect cost amortized over the useful life of the improvement using streight-line depreciation. Any lrortien of a capital improvement that was paid for or +acquired through separate agreement or with grand proceeds, voted bond proceeds, user fees, donations, or any other acquisition method that reflects a contribution on behalf orthe CITY shall not be included in the depmeiatiort schedule applied to the CITY. Any capital improvement for which the COUNTY seeks reimbursenieet from the CITY must be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Agreement. 5.7 Conflict between language in Section No. 5 and Exhibits identified In Section No.5+ In the event of a conflict between the language within Section Nc. 5 and the Exhibits identified in Section No. 5, the language or Exhibit which more specifically dwells tllc CCM and CPC methodology shall dictate. 6. Effective as of'Airtight Jrtntrttlry 1,2912,Section No. S (Retorting)within rite Agreement is modified as follows: (Underlined highlighted Inegiinge eked, lined oat highlighted!MOW deleted), Page(poi err SECTION NO,81 REPORTING Reports- The COURT shall provide the CITY with rc11D1'ts documenting actual usage cud revenue udder ibis Agreement_ The Parties agree that the terminology "reports doer-meriting rretnet usage" means rlociiirtents entitled (I) "Cases Filed- Contracting Jurisdictions Report-SPV E VALE Y" f21"Cases piled-Contraciiazg Jurisdictiotrs Repoli-SPOKANE COU I?'Y MIRK COURT". 131 "BILLING INVOICE°,e and_O) `DISTRICT COURT FILING 1 REVENUE REPORT"the--9istrieI-Overt-Re vertu eF in el aN irieb-i lerrtifies 04-Y-fitiAga--bye-easetype-ar! "T-etnl-All JruiisdietieHs li ri a--by-erase-type, An rtUlxlated reports shill be paovided quarterly monthly unless otherwise mutually agreed by the Parties. Such reports shall be in a format as mutually agreed to between the Parties. The content andior format for such reports may be changed from time-to-tulle by written agreement between CITY and COURT staff. Records Review -The CITY shall be allowed to conduct random reviei.vs of the recants generated by the COURT in performance of this Agreement. The CITY will provide the COURT with reasonable advance notice of the recants reviews. The Parties agree that they will make best efforts to achieve a resolntion of any potential rccorxis coilfrdetltiality issues, including entering into confidentiality agreements or other similar mechanisms that will allow disclosure of the necessary information to accurately conduct a records review. lithe CITY will-be riallowed to view only those records directly relating to Services provided within CITY's corporate boundaries, then tutor request of the CITY I the COURT 0.11.Rimy do the necessary souse documents. nrrrst keelr-i-leg et odgiuel-doeun ents-rrsed-te elraFge the -T-Y;-and-these--t1act lilorlt gust-have-identiI`yir rrun1bail-ter:--letters-s the original-se uma ilments-eon-tea:asily-reb4eved. 7. Effective its of midnight January 1, 2012, Section No. 17 (Dispute Resolution) witliiti the Agreement is modified as follows: (Underlined highlighted language added, lined out highlighted language deleted). SECTION NO. 17: DISPUTE RESOLUTION Any dispute between the COUNTY and CiTY including brit not limited to cost of Services which cannot be resolved between the COUNTY and CITY shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to wilting. If the COUNTY CEO and the CITY Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of chapter 7.4AA RCW shall be applicable to any arbilraation proceeding, The COUNTY and the CITY shall have the right to desigatate oleo person each to act as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the PARTIES and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7,04A RCW. 't`he costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the PARTIES. The PARTIES aoknotiwledge that the provrisions of this section are not applicable to the COURT.GR 2.9 precludes Ilie COURT From delegating any of its administrative Par 7ot8 duties addressed in that lido to the legislative or executive brancli s of government. The COURT agrees,however, in the evert of a dispute with the CITY to mica and in good faith attempt to resolve,the dispute. This prangraph would riot preclude the PARTIES from using this Section to resolve disputes over the calculation ofcests of Services provided under this Agreement.. DE IT FURTHER AGREED,by the Parties hereto,that but for the modifications to the Agreement As provided for herein to include their effective time/date, all other terms and conditions within the Agceutent shall remain in 1`111 force and effect without any change or modification whatsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: ' /17 f BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PO , Co T2Y - HING mC1 41 AL. i - LLY O'Q t N,Chair 1 k JJFF{{ff, � }f}fy fjJ ��J j-f{yp� '11 SUL ATTEST: z cc / Alf PRENCI-I,Vice-Chair tiler of the Board x'``� �4- Daniels Erickson o ' TOOK 1E LKE,Cominis iota DATED: SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT 1/04 t 111. D. t A R.HAYES,Presiq ng edge DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: Mike Jackson, City Mie lager Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: Office of City Attorney Page 8 of 8 EXHIBf 2A. COST CALCULATION MODEL(CCaMMd) 2012 ES ,fly!u ED COST-PER-CASE 3175113 COMPONENT 41 COMPONENT T=2 COMPONENT 43 WORKLOAD ANALYSIS TOTAL Sq,ENDITURES FILINGS/CASES SINGLE ASSIGN CENT_ CASE TYPE ,Shared Responsibily IMF AC'+ioNS DUI CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR DV CIRINIINAL NON-TRAFFIC MENTAL HEALTH COURT ExperrSeS k%F c Persenne! 55,337228 FTE MI SL T 1PLE ASSIGNMENT PER oNNEL /TOTAL EXPEND>TURES- / .JUDICIAL FTE / TOTAL COST BY STAFF STAFF OFFICER TOTAL 74/r CASE 17(PEE Less 2012 RI iC Funding Filings- ExpenritureS ALL JUrR!SCICTIOHS TOTAL 2011 FILINGSICASES 0 12.11 0.94 13.05 21.81% 51.147,979.39 0 7.55 1.67 9.23 '15.20% 8511,353.41 0 7.55 1.04 8.59 14.15% 8755,542'21 0 3.79 0.70 4.49 729% $394,585.77 0 4.83 034 5.68 9.355% 5499.115.53 47.523 1,605 5,674 906 2,305 4.5 1.4E 0.50 6:45 10.67% $069,541.66 ass COST ER CASE $24.16 $5505.62 S133.16 5435.53 $216.54 $219.:1 County Responsibility CIVIL SMALL CLAIMS V(Civil r. esinot Criminal) 0 4.28 0.73 5.01 8.26% 0 3.31 0.50 3.81 6.28% 1 2.90 0.47 4.36 7619% $440,5666.19 5.35,140.60 $383,799.73 8.177 1,1-97 871 553.89 $279.98 $440.64 5-50 4720 7.40 60.70__ 100.00% 55237,823.65 Dish ice'Court 2011 Expenses Actu 11;rri+irec Cass for 2010 S;:b i o: 1 Acton 2011 Cheney Cost Court Cost Analysis $4,502,53 5872.059 55,374,602 SS-337226 EXHIBIT 2B WORKLOAD ANALYSIS- SUIVIIVIANY SUMMARY 2011 Irlloasu111I/12 '3!26{2012 3607,EACH DAY VIE __ WNrocllons Mlscl-DV I411st1•CN CI!I 13111 C!1ns AH11DV MHC ADMINISTRATION 11% 11% 1136 11% 11% 11% 11% v 11% 11% 104% ._ . 5, 0% o° , Fi95 0% 1003E CLERK'S OFFICE 34Sp 1,r% 17 Ja. 1`i`�i fl°i6 JUDICIAL ASSTS 6% 21% 16%, 10% 14% 10% 7% 6% 7% 1{1016 JUDGES 13% 23% 14% 0% 11%, 10%! 7% 6% 7%, 100% 03%--737113 68°!0 3a°!a 45 39% 31%, 20V,r 116°15 406 AVG PERCENTAGE 15.71% 113.27% von M9% 11.26% 9.74% 7.1+7% 7.00%, 0,13% 100.00% MHC 0%NEM 0% 39% 60% 0% 0% 0% I 10096 ,OF l&r ?OYrr_rsS _ I FIE Inlr.7ctloua DUI 01IscI CT r 1se1•DV MIaa•CN Civ1I Sul CYna AIIJDV MHC ADMINISTRATION 0.08 0.98 0..90 0,80 00 9.00 ; 0.$ 0.08 0.09 0 90 C4,ERICSOFFICE 10.75 4,76 5.35 1,9$ 2,84 2.5? 1.dp 1.15 31.60 JIJDICIA1ASST3 0.38 1.02 1.22 0.03 1,02 0,73 0.53 0.17 0.50 V.50 STAFF I 12.19 7.65 7.65 3.70 4.83 4.29 3.31 2,00 1,40 'JUDICIAL OFFICER 0.04 1.017 9.04 0.70 1 0.64 0.13 0,60 0,47 0,60 mzu rdlN j 0.00 i 0.52 1 0.00 1.7_11_ 2.25 (_ 0.00 I o.00 0.00 1__1 r MO/1014 cosesiital CrliwxWaalJ I I I I I I I 440 K' I TOTAL I 13.06 I 0,23 F 8.58 I 419 I 5.80 I 5.01 I 2.01 I 3.213 I 1.138 I I I QOM I MOH Tolal 0.130 0.62 0.00 1.13 7 26, 0.00 0.00 111.00 1,92 6.40 Tolls!V1r0I11CH 13.1161 8.71 0.M 2.7,E :143 6.01 3.81 3,32 000 4.?2 PeMrac9ar3a OUI Misd•CT Mis+J-DV MIsd-CN CI,II So;01413 AI-IlOY MCH 1ldfnIn 0938 0.613 4.110 0,03 0,911 0,08 0.98 0.98 0.437`116 010 0,00 Clerk 10.75 436 5.35 1.93 2.0+1 2,57 1.60 1.15 31,60 21.50 Judlcs&Assist 0.39 1,82 1,22 0,03 1.02 0,73 0.513 0A7 0.50 7,50 7.50 Judges I 0.94 1.67 1.04 0,70 0.04 0.73 0.50 9A7 0.50 7.40 7.40 MIIC 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.00 AIPrD (OIvilaaeasirrol0rIinhinl) 1 1 1,00 rails 13.05 0.23 6.60 4.4€9 &G0 6.01 3.01 3.30 6.48 1.00 60,70 69,70 E)CI-I IT B-1 WORKLOAD f4NALYS!S tii r1n1sti4 1ori l iE Infractions DOI MIs(I.C1 MIsr1•oU Ik9i�tl•iCft Civil 1910 Ciro All/DV DU TOT F°rfhert,Sand AT2 0,83 0.83 0.63 0.03 0.63 0.83 0,83 0.03 0.03 7.60 Inirarn Ronda OM 0,93 0.03 0.33 0.83 0.63 0.83 083 0,03 083 7.60 Gray.13eat Sect 0.83 0,83 0.83 083 0.83 0.63 0,83 0.03 0.63 7.60 Miller,Wa no CAA 0.83 0,83 0.83 0,03 0.83 0.83 0,83 0.03 0.83 7.60 Sesrl,Shred AT3 0153 0,83 0.83 0.03 0,83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 7.60 Show Donn JOM 0.83 0.83 0113 0,03 0.83 6.83 0.83 0.63 0.83 7.60 Willer,John DOO 0.03 0.43 0.03 0.03 013 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 7.60 ,11.4.15 0 ;i,if:i 11 {J.4 [1.42 X1.42 0.42 0.12 u.42 I].4J 0A2 I].+4! 1.th JA.:3- 3.75 oceentr, 0,42: 11,d'l. 0 42 0.42 0A2 n.V2 11,42 0,42 0,47 2.7% {.[purl r4[1ltitir1i41r`,rler 0.(3"/ 6.7 4).1)'i 0,13? 0,c;? 0,67 0,(5f .L1t1 TOTA1. 7,33 7,33 7.33 7.33 7,33 W. 00.00 Infractions Dlii MIad-CT Mlsd-f3V MIsd-Chi C10 Ern Clrns AI-I/DV MCH %of eacli 1 )/ _ 11% 11% 11%' 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 100% of E n 310 ass 0.00 0,08 0.40 0.91. 0,00 0.00 0.08 0.40 0.911 D.00 Staffing and Wor4loedMierrra tf sn is Effective 94.2011 EXHIBIT 2B-2 WORKLOAD ANALYSIS - Clerk's Office FTE fnfraotione D01 MMlstl-CT [Ole i-DV IV1lsci-CINI Mil Sian Ohm A1I1DV TOT Haselar,AT2 1.00 1.7'5 2.50 0.75 1.50 7.60 4lertitly,AT2 3.00 1.60 1.Ili 0.25 1.00 7.60 Enfjan, AT2 6.25 0.60 1.00 0,20 0.60 7.60 Gray,AT2 3,60 1.00 1.60 0.7.5 1.25 7.60 Harris,AT2 4,25 0.75 1.25, 0.25 1.00 7.60 LaraLAT2 4,250.T 1,25 0.25 1.00 - 7,60 Schoonover,AT2 7.50 7.60 Was,ar,AT2 7,60 7.60 Wentz,AT2 6.00 2,00 0.50 7.50 Clark OA4 2.00 M2 1.82 1 37 0.49 7.6U Countryrrrall.OM I 6.00 1'30 ��. 7.60 Dorman, OM 190 2.16 2.16 0.10 1.06 0.10 7.50 Mori0,OA4 5.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.36 -" 7.60 Morris,.OM 1.50 6.00 7.60 Carro4, 0A3 3.36 1,00 1.00 0,12 1.00 0.10 7,601 Castillo, OA3 - 4.50 1,20 1.00 0.40' 0..20 0.20 7.601 Co la,0/1;3 - x.75 0.5.7 0.64 0.22 0,22 _ 7.60 ECR OA 4.00 3.60 7.60 Falrrno,CMS 2.00 1.00 4.00 0,10 0.40 7.60 Pea,CMS - 1.60 2.00 100 2,00 1.00 7.60 Holmes, AT3 7.50 ._ __.__- . __ ' 7.60 Maffia AT3 0,50 2,00 2.60 1.00 1,50 i 7,50 Anderson,CO 1.00 4.00 1,25 1.25 7.60 B all, QC f,5 FTE grant). 0.10 an 0,75 0.75 1.40 3.76 Drav1and, GC 1.00, 0.25 5.00 0.25 1.00 7.60 Galla5her,CC 075 4.50 1,00 0,25 0.75 0,25 1.. 7.60 G erke,CC 7.50 7.60 IKrctova, CC 0.550 0.75, 1.00 4.25 1.00 7.60 Suplta,CC 0.75 4.00 1.00 1.00 D.75_2_1.60 Albano, OS 3.76 0,76 2.43 018 0.39 7.610 Cameron,OS 0.50 1,50 1.50 1 60 1.50 1.00 7.60 Hansen, OS 1.001 1,00 1.00 025 0.60 2,75 0.50 0,50 7.60 Jurjm/ich, OS Vi soy - TOTAL, 80.63 35.601 40.97 14.02 21.30 19.25 13.50 10.90 233.26 Infractions _DUI MIsd-CT Mlsd-DV Misd-CN Civil Sm coils 11114?V,_. %of each day 34% 15% 17% 6% 9% 8% 6% 5% 100% #of Einoloyoee 10.76 4.70 0.36 1.99 2.81 2.67 1.00 1.46 31.60 Starring and Workload Infomatlou Is ElfacII'o 0-7.2011 EXHIBIT 213.,3 1 6 WORKLOAD AIALYSIS -Judicial Assistants I=TE~ Infractions I)UI Mlnd•CT IVhIsc1.1DV MIsrI-011 Elul1 am Clain AIIJDV t I-I TOT Neber aII,JA-RAE3 0.60 1.00 150 1.00 1 G 7.0 Arrllsloso,JA-.10C - 0.26 0.25 _ 5.00 2.00 7.50 130;rov ,,311-;i:' D.,'!, 4.25 1.25 1.711 7.50 {3ekcl,elll JA,DREI 0.25 0.75 1.00 0 75 1.00 _ 3,7t'r &stole,JA-VWP(che) 1,001 -T.25 1 GO 1.25 0.64 0.25 _ 7.60' Hansen,JA-GJT 0.50' 3.75 1.50 1.75 7,60 Plewrrran,JA-PCW _-1 4.00 3.60 7.60 Goirclis JA-DW 0,25 3.25 1.00 1.25 1.76 7,60 10I10 3,75 3.75 Must for aclnii0 4.13 -2.13 .0 03 0,001 -0.84 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 .3.75 TOTAL - 2.1370 1.3.625 M25 0,250 7.026 5.GOO 4.000 3.000 3.760 55.2 60 Ft- InFradllona DUI Mfsd CT Mimi-DV Mid-GIW CI�II Sin elms Al IfDV Ra1GH %of ouch day 5% 24% 1 11% 14% 10% 7% G% 7% 100% I?o Ioy_ees 0.36 1 02 1,22 0,03 1 02 0,7'3 0.63 0.47 0.50 7,50 Sto!!+'r1Q anti Workload frrfarroirrforr Is EffaclIva 04-20111 I EXHIBIT 2B-4 WORKLOAD ANALYSIS • Mental Health Court PTIE Infractloos DUI rlllscl-4'f i llscl-DV Mlsd-014 Civil Sin Clem R1•1laY TOT I�@l1 Sto hark .5 FTE 0.88 1 1.88 3.70 Bendor,Soo 2 0.76 3.00 3 7 7.60, Foldon, Nlhl Eva1 0.75 3.40; 3,75= 7.60 Hamnrinnd MH Ga M,r 0.75 3.0[ 3-75 7.60, Manfred, Manager 0.75 3,00 3.75 IN TOTAL 0.00 3.69 0.00 13.00 14.00 O. O 0.00 0,00 33.75 Infraclicn3 DUI Misd-CT find-DV I lied-CN Chili Srn Clms AHIU' %ofoacltida Duo 11% 0% 39% 60% 0% 0% 0% 100% of rrrapla oes 0.00 0.62 0.00 1.73 2.26 0.70 0.00 0.00‘21.50 Slafflra and We rirlaadInformatlori is t f(ei lve 0-1-2011 EXI°1IBIT 2B-5 WORKLOAD ANALYS IS.Judges ri oc#iorik$ DUI P,Alerl-CT Mi tl.DV MIlsil.CN CNNII Sol Clint: AHIDV MHC TOT Brandll,Judge 0.60 1.00 3.$0 1,00, 1.50 7.50 Cooney,Jelgie 0.25 0.26 - &00 2.00 7.50 Darr,Jerclga 0.25 4.26 1.25' 1.75 7.60 Hoyesy Jute 0.00 0.00 0.001 0,00 0.00 3.75 316 Peterson,Jtrdge(cbc) _ 5.50 _ 0.150 0.50 0.25 MU 0.50 7.6D Tripp,Judae 0.32 3.50 1.31 1.55 0.76 Walker,Judfle _ 4.00 3 M0 w 7,50 'Wilsping fudge 0.25 3.25 1.00 1.26 1.76 7.60 TOTAL 7.07 12,60 7,01 5.26 0.3i 13.50, 3.76 3.50 9.761 65.60 Inirncllons r Ul Mlsd CT I Isd DV hrilad CN Clvll Sin Cinis Al Ui7V MHC %of cach day 13% 23% 14% 9% 11% 10% 7% 6%, 7% 100% #I Eii ployeas 0.04 1.07. 1.0+1 0.70 0,04 0,73 0.00 0,47. 0.60 7.40 ,lrrcige Playas UM of taerposition is as a!'7HC Mtge&50%is ttlrnln as presiding Staling arrrr!Worlrio.+rt r41 rrrlaIFt,rr IS ElThortve 9.1-2011 Nebr.! Judge Tripp spends Up to 15 h s a rnvrrth in Cheney(2 nays). 162.6lrrshao k 16 his 4-W.0%.7.6 hrs x 10% equals.76. 7.50-.76 n 6.75 Wo*weak for Judge Tripp Instead of 7.5, gust bock out rho Cheney wont. Wr± subtracted.1Q sad;(4D x 4 vi.76)hurl Irrfraclioras,DM,1Wlsrl G7;, Mist!,Ch"and Strand',CfaJlras. • l!J G W.- W ■, 0 LL ro Q e M C Y C li R H quj p .0 2 0 rf en n7 a s , K to U ry •, o a `03 2 •S a lc n1 _ ... .DA 2134-. 0 hR E F- 0 ry N N O C t3 @ Q U {� A � �' Ql p 4.l 3 " V - 1 a~ y8q {``1 m (QAl.�yi e7 d, vi S + [E' 'a o O �Z I U al 0 14 O N t a Q O Lo A O c z n CO• N (., 6 9 lA ry ❑• b 01 V O m N o Ru O Z ❑ x © th �y N 0 2 i P O N U d til N (1) cs N y a N V { � a . N IA pp `j 2 a wi 2 ryu Ill !st r. 7 a d ti EM r‘r N r a Q U <r a N N Or i 0. N a Ru h N t N Q ., a N f0 U O N i f o c _a % . 8.-a g •C i co. 8 A. 5 c-.4 C g C 2 C o C ▪ ,• 9 v- 0 C 3 c▪ 2 a7 1p I d. m U' .L1 ). yy 2 Q i G 3 p Z.A i EXHIBIT 2D 2011 Filings by Category &r Jurisdiction Spokane County District Cowl 3e10113 13.20 AM Cnses Riled Conlraotin Roporl O @soSII fired 2a11 IJiuil t II ilt 1rillrllld ll,F+lrtr6, �11.1I Iii OP1t CITY OP DEER PARK 1'FD CITY CF FA1RFIE LD LLK CITY CF LIBERTY LAKE MIL CITY OF MILLWOOD ROC CITY OF ROCKFORD SPL CITY OF SPANIGLE SPO COUNTY Cr SPOKANE SPV CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT Year>> 21111 2011 25111 24111 2011 2011 all 701 JLII sdIC11oI1 >> ;'It diFD LW MIL ROC SPL Spt]' SPV Total Crkmiilal No0—Trrrfrlc 115 41 1 1415 703 2655 Crirnirol Trafldc X400 116 f 3507 1564 56 6 DVr,1ladamDaror6,, I 34 21 466 425 SAG omelbow' I 36 27 1309 169 1623 Irirracilorls daC 5 415 20 44 7 32605 7243 41514 ParraIn i lrrrractiuits A 3 5670 333 0'010 Total's 1576 5 022 39 44 7 46132 14610 50144 • EXHIBIT 2D-1 2011 Mental `-H alth Court Cases inconlingJnew assl$ried Mental 110011'Corrrt cases,based on MCO tusking In115 sysler%, slala n50101111113 I.1.1br:I1 Aririllir'•II, TOIL!1,J(jafr1L'__ __ DrK DITYOF DEER PARK LUC CITYOF LIBERTY LAKE ROC CITY OF ROCKFORD 5F'L` L:IIYU1 Sf"CIFFANE • SFa COUNTY OF SPOT ME - fir,V CniY tIF ll VN 1•CY IIILIC in Yonr ?[ 10 11 ',;cr,l {i51.t5PCl%of I !..ino9iIGPO%of I -(961 I-ll'V'r',of COUR [1'I MFIC JLIrFS(tictic >>II.1" :mu!. .r.i:+: lalas..r,1i 11:'e� 1{:�i. r.i li'1}" ''9911oi.1. Total I:I'I49 .I... .1 .IinI,.1.,'I,n,49.41-0• I i 29 15 se 1I•I+9 N1., rid ,I:i 9 r Ii. 0 $ 13 L°1+9 I;r•• 1,11,‘''.'.1 ,9•1 9, ,i.9.: 0 17 25 1;1fl.• ,IJ1_ .I.,,i'i: 1 15 10 [SIP�C1 q, 1.i. II,. ' I .ii,. 0 1 9 6 1l , 8PA Il 9 I.1 :1 le P.;11. 1 I e 7 • 50 _ 9,.i;h 9a•1,, I a 7 16 EL PI] YaS I,iY' 1i+.!ir.•JI 4 2 0AI Yen I. iii...•119,'1.7.,94,Ili„ 194 149 .Ir1r1� Yes kb i Ili, or..Ii• 193 10 8 .1 Yes fB.4_1, I,,I.2:91:,I. 00 60 i .N1 Yntz Mir' (Nil. i 2 • 1i 2 1 259 061 1Y 20VI. li I 131 38E Dale ham.ILuIsdICtIo Billinp!eO.1 I query,CAMS where case review Costa oJ'MCO"waa sal during paned "DIII MHL."value h determined by a i9'rniula,III MCO Imposed date month=case file date month then 13111 MHC a Yes,It Is asstlrned the case shouldn't have already been billed'to Plc Jurisdiction at an eatller Me,as a regular on MI-IC caselype.IF the case file date was I earlier#t assumes ilia case Ilea already been balled asp regur it non M HC casetype.Ias Iona!double WM the Jurisdiction.) I ■ 1 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 9, 2013 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply:❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ® admin. report ❑ information ❑ executive .session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report - CTA-2013-0002 — City Initiated Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, (SVMC) 21.20.040.SEPA Categorical Exemptions, to adopt the maximum exemption levels allowed by WAC 197-11-800(1)(d). GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106, WAC 197-11-800(1) ( c ); SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: The Washington State Department of Ecology was directed by the 2012 Legislature to complete two rounds of updates to the SEPA rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC). The Legislature directed Ecology to modernize the rules that guide state and local agencies in conducting SEPA reviews, in light of the increased environmental protections in place under Growth Management Laws (RCW 36.70A), the Shoreline Management Act ( RCW 90.58) and other laws. The legislation set up two rounds of rule updates: A narrowly-focused initial round (targeted to be complete by December 31, 2012) and a broader round of SEPA rule updates during 2013. The initial rule making considered two specific topics: • Increasing the thresholds for SEPA review of minor construction projects under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800(1) and (23)(c); and • Improving the efficiency of the environmental checklist in WAC 197-11-960. The update became effective January 28, 2013, and allows the city to increase the maximum exemption levels requiring environmental review as described in the attached staff report, thereby reducing permit review times and eliminating redundancy in the review process. This proposal would amend the current SEPA rules to reflect the maximum thresholds allowed by State Law and address one minor housekeeping item for consistency in chapter 24.50.030.C(9). The Planning Commission conducted a study session on February 28, 2013, followed by a public hearing on March 14, 2013. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed amendment (see Attachments). The Planning Commission approved their Findings of Fact on March 28, 2013. OPTIONS: Proceed to first ordinance reading; send back to Planning Commission for further review; or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed to first ordinance reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Text Amendment D. Planning Commission Minutes B. Staff Report dated March 7,2013 E. Presentation C. Planning Commission Findings CTA-2013-0002 Proposed Changes increasing the Flexible Thresholds in the Categorical Exemptions Section of SVMC 21.20.040 consistent with WAC 197-11-800 21.20.040 Categorical exemptions. Categorical exemptions are set forth in WAC 197-11-800. A. Application. If a proposal fits within any of the exemptions set forth in this section, the proposal shall be categorically exempt from the threshold determination requirements of WAC 197-11-720, except as follows: 1. The proposal includes an activity that is not exempt under WAC 197-11-908, Critical areas; or 2. The proposal is a segment of a proposal that includes a series of actions, physically or functionally related to each other, some of which are categorically exempt and some of which are not; or 3. The proposal includes, or is a part of, a series of exempt actions that are physically or functionally related to each other and that together may have a probable significant adverse impact in the judgment of an agency with jurisdiction. B. Flexible Thresholds. The City adopts the following exempt levels for new construction pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(c): 1. For single family residential dwelling units, up to 30 dwelling units. 2. For multifamily residential dwelling units, up to 60 units 23. For agricultural structures, up to 30,000 square feet. For barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage, produce storage or packing structure buildings up to 40,000 square feet 44. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings, up to 12,000 30,000 square feet of • • • • • •_ ilities designed for up to 40- 90 parking spa•- . This exemption includes stand alone parking lots. • 5. For landfills and excavations, up to 5-08 1,000 cubic yards. C. Procedure. The agency or applicant may proceed with the exempt aspects of roposal prior to conducting environmental review of the nonexempt aspects of a proposal; provide that the requirements of WAC 197-11-070 are met. D. Written Findings. The lead agency is not required to document that a proposal is cat orically exempt; however, the lead agency may note on an application that a proposal is categorically exe pt or place such a determination in the agency's files. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). Note: New sentence added to amendment to clarify the intent to be consistent with the WAC. The language replicates the text in the WAC. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION March 28,2013 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval. Background: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. Pursuant to RCW 43.210.110, the 2012 Washington Legislature directed the Department of Ecology to increase the flexible thresholds for categorical exemption of SEPA review for minor construction projects under Washington Administrative Code(WAC) 197-11-500(1). 1 The Department of Ecology adopted amendments to WAC 197-11-800(1) on December 8, 2012, effective January 28,2011 4. The amendments authorize local jurisdictions which: (1) document that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation for impacts to elements of the environment, as listed in WAC 197-1.1-444) have been adequately addressed in other specific adopted development regulations of the local jurisdiction; and (2) describe the locally established project-level public comment opportunities that are provided for proposals included in the increased exemption levels to increase the flexible thresholds under which the local jurisdiction can exempt certain minor construction projects from SEPA review. 5. The city-initiated code text amendment proposes to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 21.20.040 SEPA Categorical Exemptions, to adopt the maximum flexible threshold exemption levels allowable under WAC 197-11-800(10(4), 6, The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 14, 2013, and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the amendment to City Council. Planning Commission Findings! 1. Compliance with SVNIC 17.80.150F Approval Criteria a. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Finding(s): i_ The Staff Report submitted by the Planning Division staff sets forth relevant goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and found the proposal to substantially be in conformance with such goals and policies. The goal most relevant to the proposal is Goal G-l,which states, "Create a government that places a premium on providing effective customer service." b, The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. rindings and Rcoomnnetxtationsof the Spokane Vaneyplanning Cum]missiun CTA-2013-0Dtl2 Page 1 of Finding(s): i. SEPA review is conducted on minor new construction, nonexempt projects to identify environmental impacts that would not be addressed by city regulations. IL The City has specified development regulations and utilizes regional, state, and federal regulations and entities to address environmental analysis, protection and mitigation for impacts for each element of the environmental review addressed and required by SEPA authority for exempt minor new construction projects. These regulations and entities are identified in Attachment"A", iii. The City is required by the Growth Management Act to adopt critical areas regulations to protect wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas and floodplains areas. The City adopted critical areas regulations on September 25,2007,as set forth in SVMC Chapter 21.40 Critical Areas. iv. The Shoreline Management Act requires the City to adopt a Shoreline Master Program with development regulations for the protection of shoreline ecological functions within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark. The City adapted a Shoreline Master Pmgi°am ion September 25, 2007, as set forth in SVMC Chapter 21.50 Shoreline Management and Restoration Program. The City is currently in the process of updating its Shoreline Master Program. v. The primary purpose of critical areas regulations and the Shoreline Master Program is protection of the environment. vi. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring that the City's development regulations are consistent with goals and policies in the adapted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Compliance with requirements set forth in WAC 197-11-S00. a. The City has specified development regulations and utilizes regional, state, and federal regulations and entities to address each element of the environmental review addressed and required by SEPA authority, These regulations are identified in Attachment "A" b. Locally established project-level public comment opportunities are provided for proposals within the increased exemption levels throagh the City's specified development regulations as identified in SVMC Chapter 17.80 Local Project Permit Procedures for proposals involving the division of land,a shoreline substantial development permit, a conditional use permit, variance,zone change, wireless communication facilities, planned residential development, plat alteration and/or plat vacation. e. WAC 197-11-800 (1)( c )(ii) and (iii) requires public notice and comment periods be provided and documented a minirnurn of 21 days prior to adoption. Notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald on February 2.2, 2013 and routed to agencies with jurisdiction on March 7, 2013. Adoption is anticipated enter after May 14, 2013. Affected tribes, agencies with expertise, affected jurisdictions, the Department of Ecology, and the public were given an opportunity to comment on the proposed code text amendments at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on February 28. Additional opportunities for public comment will be available prior to adoption by the City Council. Find l rigs and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CrA-20 13_C d©2 Page 2 of 6 Planning Commission Conclusion(s); 1. The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17,80.150F. 2. The proposal meets all regulately and statutory requirements as noted in chapter 197-11 W .C. 3. The growth Management Act (CtMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City, Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed city- in itiated code text amendments to SVMC 21.20.040, SEPA Categorical Exemptions, Approved this 286 day of March,2013 ct.S. l3i l Bates,Chairman ATTEST: Can Hinshaw,Planning Commission Secretary Ftndfngs and Recommendations of the Spokane Willey Planning Commission CTA•2UY3.4942 Page 3 of Attachment "A" Summary of environmental protections in other codes/rules compared to a mt lete list of topics addressed by environmental review pursuant to the SEE, : SEPA Authority by Element of the How Addressed by Other�Cadeslrfu4es* Environment from 25.05.675 Air Quality • Regional air quality oversight is the responsibility of Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCA), SRCA regulates businesses that have potentially significant air emissions. Additional authority provided by Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Act, and the state Department of Ecology, Construction Impacts -Air Quality • Building code contains provisions for the removal of hazardous and combustible materials (Section 3303). • SRCA (Spokane Regional Clean Air) regulates constructionfdemolition for air quality. Construction Impacts—Noise • Noise impacts are regulated by City nuisance code (SVlu1C 7,05.040), which refers to VAC 173-60-040 and criminal code (SVMC 825.060). Construction noise is specifically exempt from noise standards _ between lam and fpm. Construction Impacts—Parkingfraffic/Streeta? Spokane Valley Street standards address traffic Pedestrian Safety analysis and construction impacts in the public right-of- way (SVMC 22.130 Development Transportation improvements). Off-street parking and loading impacts are addressed in SVMC 22.50 Off-Street Parkin• and Loadins Standards. Earth/Environmentally Critical Areas !dater • Critical Area regulations (SVII1C 21.40) address gee Quality/Drainage/Plants and Animals hazards, aquifer recharge, water plants and animals, Code includes mitigation for landslide hazards, steep slopes, unstable soils, wetlands, flood prone and fishlwildlife habitat areas. • In addition, the Stormwater, Grading & Drainage ordinances (SVMC 21.50 and 24,50), Floodplain regulations (SVMC 21,30) and Shoreline regulations (SVMC 21 ,50) include environmental &water quality protections. Energy • Energy Codes required by the City and the State mandate high levels of energy efficiency. Washington State Energy Codes are adopted by the City (SVMC 24.40.020J. Environmental Health • Critical Materials regulations address toxic materials handling and storage (21 40). • Regulations for telecommunications facilities in the Land Use Code also apply within this category (SVMC 22,120 Wireless Communication Facilities . Housing • City's zoning regulations provide wide range of housing options and regulations for such housing (SVMC 19.40.020 — 19.40.710)._ FfndingsandRecommendationsoftheSpokaneVa1J eyP1annngCommssIanCTA=2Q13.0002 Page 4 of 6 - — SPA Authority by Element of the How Addressed by Other Codes/Rules* Environment (from 25.05.675 City zoning regulations provide options and regulations for manufactured homes. (SVMC 19.40.120 and 1 9.40.130) Historic Preservation/Archaeological Sites • The Shoreline Master Program, Policy 13, Archaeological Areas and Historical Sites requires that all Shoreline Substantial Permits contain a condition such that the City and the State Parks and Recreation Commission must be notified immediately if artifacts are uncovered during any excavation. SMP regulations 13.1 and 2 require no development he allowed in the shoreline area that destroys archaeological significant sites, and that all development must be designed to preserve the environment and visual quality of its surroundings. Federal and state regulations address protection of cultural/archaeological resources (including chapters 27,34, 27.53, 27.44, 79.01 and _ 79,90 RCW; and chapter 25.48 WAC) Land Use/Height, Bulk &Scale/Shadows on • Zoning regulations address bulk and scale to ensure Open Spaces compatibility between adjacent land uses (SVMC 19.40 Residential Zones, 19.60 Commercial, Office and Mixed Use Zones, and 19.70 Industrial Zones). Light and Glare • Municipal code prohibits excessive and nuisance lightinr (SVMC 22.60 Outdoor Lighting Standards). Noise • Noise impacts regulated by nuisance code (SVMC 7.05.040), which refers to WAC 173-60-040 and in SVMC 8.25.060, Construction noise is specifically exempt from noise standards between lam and 10pm. Parking • Parking regulations address minimum parking requirements for uses (SVMC 22.50 Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards). Public Services and Facilities • Authority for requiring utility improvements is identified in rules, codas and policies and is applied during permitting reviews and/or platting processes. This includes water, sewer, storm drain and fire protection improvements (SVMC Title 20, Subdivision Regulations). • Public service and utility impact analyses to address growth impacts are most appropriately addressed through area planning initiatives in conjunction with supporting area-wide SEPA reviews, as is done for subarea rezones. Public View Protection" • The Shoreline Management Act requires local SMP's to limit height within shoreline jurisdiction to 35' unless *" Applies to public views from designated i otherwise specified. public viewpoints, parks, scenic routes and The City has identified aesthetic corridors where only view corridors to features such as monument signs are allowed (S/MC 22,110.080, mountains, skyline & water. Does not apply to views from private property. Findings and Ream ndations of the Spokane Ira l.ey Planning Cffmmissian CTA•2O13-OOOa Page`S o[6 SEPA Authority loy Element of the How Addressed by Other Codes/Rules* - Environment (from 25.05.675) Traffic and Transportation ■ Adequate traffic facilities are determined by the Concurrency Ordinance (SVMC 22.20). Concurrency review is required for all projects that will generate more than 10 •eak hour vehicular this 'All citations of from the Spokane Varney Municipal Code (SVMC), unless otherwise indicated. RCW Revised Code of Washington. VVAC= Washington Administrative Code. Findings and Reiornmendatons of the Spokane Valley Planning Cemmi55aon C'F#1-20/3.ctoo2 Page 6 s)16 ATTACHMENT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF p0 ne STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ■L�l�� PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2013-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: March 7,2013 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: March 14, 2013, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 21.20.040 SEPA Categorical Exemptions,to adopt the maximum exemption levels allowed by WAC 197- 11-800(1)(d). PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment as put forth. STAFF PLANNER:LORI BARLOw,AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 21.20.040 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Published Notice of Public Hearing: 2/22/2013 and 3/8/2013 2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 21.20 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)to increase the thresholds for specific land use categories that would trigger environmental review under SEPA. SEPA is a Washington State law that requires the majority of land use decisions made by every state and local agency to Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2013-0002 be reviewed for environmental impacts. The Department of Ecology is the state agency responsible for SEPA oversight. Ecology was directed by the 2012 legislature to complete two rounds of updates to the SEPA rules(Chapter 197-11 WAC). The legislature directed Ecology to modernize the rules that guide state and local agencies in conducting SEPA reviews,in light of the increased environmental protections in place under Growth Management Laws(RCW 36.70A),the Shoreline Management Act(RCW 90.58) and other laws.The legislation set up two rounds of rule updates: A narrowly-focused initial round(targeted to be complete by December 31,2012 and a broader round of SEPA rule updates during 2013. The initial rule making considered two specific topics: • Increasing the thresholds for SEPA review of minor construction projects under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800(1) and(23)(c); and • Improving the efficiency of the environmental checklist in WAC 197-11-960. Senate Bill 6406 directed Ecology to convene a SEPA Advisory Committee to assist Ecology in updating the SEPA exemption thresholds and the environmental checklist. Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager,participated in the Advisory Committee representing the only jurisdiction from the east side of the state. The reason to increase the thresholds for SEPA review is to make the process more efficient and reduce redundancy. Each SEPA review process requires agency and public notice, followed by subsequent comment and appeal periods. The purpose of the review is to identify impacts that would not be addressed by city regulations. If impacts are identified,jurisdictions can "condition"projects with special requirements,or mitigation. Traffic impacts generated by new development are commonly mitigated through the SEPA process. However,with the resulting code requirements associated with GMA, SMA,and other laws protecting the environment,most jurisdictions have the codes in place to ensure impacts are addressed and/or prevented. As this is the case with Spokane Valley,the SEPA review for minor construction projects is an exercise in redundancy and does not result in any meaningful project modifications or mitigation. The resulting impact of the review is an increase in the time period necessary to complete project review and issue permits by 4—6 weeks. Reducing the amount of review time is advantageous to the development community in many ways,including financing, facilitating construction windows,maintaining project schedules,etc.. SEPA rules identify default thresholds for"Minor New Construction"that exempt a project from SEPA review. If the project is equal to,or smaller than the exempt level,environmental review is not required. The default thresholds are identified in the table below. The rules,even prior to the recent legislative update, allowed jurisdictions to adopt flexible thresholds and increase the applicable project threshold that would exempt a project from SEPA review. These are the thresholds being modified by the legislative update, as well as the city's code text amendment. The City adopted the flexible thresholds in the 2007 Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The current"Minor New Construction-Flexible Thresholds" adopted by the City and identified in SVMC section 21.20.040 Categorical exemptions are identified in the table below. Minor New Construction— Minor New Construction -Default Thresholds Flexible Thresholds(Current City Regulations) (i)The construction or location of four detached single family residential (i)20 dwelling units. units. Page 2 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2013-0002 (ii)The construction or location of four multifamily residential units. (ii) 30,000 square feet. (iii)The construction of a barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage (iii) 12,000 square feet; 40 building, produce storage or packing structure, or similar agricultural automobiles. structure, covering 10,000 square feet, and to be used only by the property owner or his or her agent in the conduct of farming the property. This exemption shall not apply to feed lots. (iv)The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with 4,000 square feet of gross floor area, (iv) 40 automobiles. and with associated parking facilities designed for twenty automobiles. This exemption includes stand-alone parking lots. (v)Any landfill or excavation of 100 cubic yards throughout the total (v) 500 cubic yards. lifetime of the fill or excavation not associated with an exempt project in subsection (b)(i), (ii), (iii), or(iv); and any fill or excavation classified as a Class I, II, or III forest practice under RCW 76.09.050 or regulations thereunder. The legislative update to the rules revised and clarified language relating to the "residential", "parking lot" and"landfill and excavation" categories of minor new construction by separating thresholds for single family projects from multi-family projects, and eliminating the differentiation between stand alone parking lots and parking lots associated with primary uses. As a result of the new categorization, the changes to the flexible thresholds are not just an increase to the units, area, automobiles, etc. The update became effective January 28, 2013, and allows the city to increase the maximum exemption levels requiring environmental review as indicated in the table below. These are the new thresholds proposed for adoption by this amendment. Fully planning GMA counties All other counties Other Incorporated and unincorporated Incorporated and Project types unincorporated UGA areas unincorporated areas Single family residential 30 units 20 units 20 units Multifamily residential 60 units 25 units 25 units Barn, loafing shed, farm 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet equipment storage, produce storage or packing structure Office, school, 30,000 square feet and 12,000 square feet 12,000 square feet commercial, recreational, 90 parking spaces and 40 parking and 40 parking service, storage building, spaces spaces parking facilities Landfill or excavation 1,000 cubic yards 1,000 cubic yards 1,000 cubic yards B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria Page 3 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2013-0002 i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan which direct the city to provide effective,predictable,and clear customer service. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Introduction Goal G-1: Create a government that places a premium on providing effective customer service. Introduction Policy IP-1: The City should periodically evaluate programs, procedures,processes and other opportunities of reaching the customer service goal. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will provide efficient, predictable, and clear customer service while meeting the requirements for environmental review contained in WAC 197-11-800-(1)(d). b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division,after review and consideration of the applicable approval criteria,recommends the proposal to adopt the maximum to adopt the maximum exemption levels allowed by WAC 197-11-800- (1)(3). Page 4 of 4 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 28, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates-Chair IJ John Nohmait,Community Development Director Joe Stoy—Vice Chair iv r Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Steven Neill I i Lori Barlow,Senior Planner Kevin Anderson 1 Christina Carlsen i- Robert fkCuslin fiJ I . Cari Hinshaw, secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Comrrrissiarrer Slay made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This ma/ian w1?OS passed unanimously, V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Stay made a motion to approve the February 14, 2013 minutes as presaged This motion was passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS There was no Commission Reports. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Commission Minutes Page l of 4 Community Development Director John Hohman explained that City Hall at the Mall went well with a huge influx of people. 1-le stated it was a good environment. In addition, Mr. Hohman explained that on Tuesday March 5, 2013 he will be doing a report to city Council on the sign code, with an update of the process the City went thru to adopt the new sign regulations. Also, Mr. Holman will be updating Council on the educational efforts on the new sign regulations& code enforcement process that the city just recently completed. Mr, Holunan stated that the City Council had a workshop on Tuesday, February 26, 2(713 and that there were two items that Community Development was involved in: 1. A discussion on manufactured home park zoning. Some residents spoke to Council several times in the fail, looking for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to provide a specific mobile home park zone that would provide protection for them, They are concerned about cases where a property owner would want to do a different type of development on the property. Right now there is a one year notice that the state requires before they can change the use of a mobile home park. 2. Staff is conducting an ongoing study for City Hall, taking a look at how much space City Hall operations require. Mr. Holzman stated they are looking at different options, both on the Sprague/Appleway corridor and elsewhere within the city, to see what's available. This will be brought back to City Council within the next few months, 1.X. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: Commissioner Sloy made Motion to approve the findings of fact for CTA-01-1,3. This moiican was passed unanimously. B. New Business: Lori I:larlow presented a brief overview of C'I'A-02-13, a proposed amendment to increase the Categorial Exemptions as authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA.), lbs. Barlow covered the following items: 1. Description of the Code Text Amendment, 2. Backgound for the proposed amendment, 3. Purpose of of SEPA: A tool that identifies the impacts that may result from government decisions permits regulations policies or plans. Information provided allows agencies, applicants and public to understand environmental impacts and to identify mitigation that wood lessen the impacts. 4. State and local agencies conduct SEPA reviews, 5. SEPA review process. 6. Environmental Checklist SEPA isused in the decision making process by utilizing information provided on the Environmental Checklist to identify if the project should be conditioned or denied.. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 7. A Categorical Exemption is a Statutory provision that exempts certain projects from SEPA review(RCW 43.2I C). 8. Flexible Thresholds. 9. Proposed Amendment: Ms. Barlow stated that in item number four there will be a slight deviation in the language: to 30,000 square feet of gross floor area and parking facilities designed for up to 90 a kin spaces will be exempt from the environmental review. A sentence will be added that: a standalone rk pain uto 90 facility p parking spaces will also be exempt from environmental review. This is consistent with the WAC. There will be no additional public notice requirements since this revision is just clarifying the intent and not making any substantive changes. Mr. 1-lohrnan added that the City has a lot of regulations on the books and SEPA duplicates a lot of efforts. The SEPA process takes six weeks and raising the categorical exemptions will streamline the process by eliminating an unnecessary review step, Increasing the thresholds results in more exempt projects, and reduces staff workload. Commissioner Anderson needed some explanation regarding the SEPA rule and adoption Ms. Barlow explained that the City is not mandated to increase its thresholds. Ms, Barlow stated that Spokane County, Airway Heights, City of Spokane and Liberty Lake are not going through an amendment process at this time, The other jurisdictions will be waiting for the end of this coming year (2013) to see what other changes may result from the review of the SEPA rules. The City of Spokane Valley may be the first jurisdiction in the State of Washington io increase its flexible thresholds. Commissioner Anderson asked if there would ever be any jurisdictions that would not adopt the miles, lbs. Barlow responded that each jurisdiction has different regulations in place and as part of the process one must establish findings that show they have addressed all of the elements which were noted in the presentation, Ms. Barlow noted that many jurisdictions adopt the minimums. Mr. Heilman explained that Planning Manager Scott Kuhta is participating in a lot of discussions and that there may still be a lot of changes coming in the future. If there are changes, staff will come back and revise them at that time, Commissioner Stoy wanted to know when the new flexible thresholds became available, and if the checklist will be changed. Ms. Barlow stated the new rules were adopted January 28, 2013 and that the checklist will not be changed. Commissioner Stay asked if all the flexible requirements have been looked at. Ms. Barlow stated yes all of the possible maximum thresholds are being proposed to be increased. .Commissioner NleCaslini asked if the thresholds were being loosened because of complaints. Mr. Holman explained it was not complaints that prompted them; it was a standpoint of some movement in the legislature and would we like to participate. Mr. Hohman further stated that when you look at the economy and fostering economic development the city really wants to be on the forefront of that to eliminate redundancy. Commissioner Stay stated that in his 30 years doing SEPA's, the biggest complaint was the fees and that there is no standardization. Commissioner Bates asked how the developers will know that new exemptions are in effect, Ms. Barlow stated that with this comes a public hearing, which means publication and noticing would take place Planning Commission Minutes Hoge 3 of and developers will be alerted to the status thru the pre-app meetings and notification through the Department's email list, Mr. Hahman also discussed that this is specific to the development code and once adopted by ordinance it is what they will be working with. He noted that the SEPA checklist can be found on the website under: Community Development/Planning and Zoning/Applications and Forms/State Environmental Policy Act (SE.PA) Checklist, Commissioner Bates asked if there was any way that flexible thresholds can he construed as a developer's agreement like there are with other regulations. Mr. Hohman stated no. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT r`'The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.Rm. y Y ' Bill Bates, Chairperson T Carl Hinshaw,PC Secretary Date signed -J« 7 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 af4 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. March 14, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL IMIMISSIUNERS on' STAFF BILL BATS-CHAIR SCOTT KI.H['A,PLAN INci MGR,AICP JOE STOP—VICE CHAIR LORI BARLOW, SENIOR PLANNER STEVEN NEILL CARY DRISKELL, CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL PHILLIPS KEVEN ANDERSON CHRISTINA CARLSEN ROBERTMCCASLIA1 CARL HINSHAW,SECRETARY Chair Bates welcomed and congratulated Mike Phillips for being appointed to the Planning Commission, IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Colnmtssioner Stay made a MO/ion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was. passed unctninmusly, V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the February 28, 2013 minutes as presented. This mat ion as passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION.REPORTS Commissioner Carlsen was invited up to Mead High Schools Medical Program. Ms,C.arlson stated that she invited the students to come and check out a Planning Commission meeting in the future. On March 6, 2013 Chair Bates attended the Mayors State of the City presentation out at the mall. Commissioner Bates also attended the Open House on Monday March 11, 2013 for the proposed Appleway Trail. Chair Bates stated that the turnout was standing room only and it seems that people are really interested in the project, Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Scott Kuhta shared that the city is looking at doing a shared use path between University and Evergreen. Ideas from the community were such things like: linear type parks, community gardens, rocks and benches for kids, and dog parks.. Mr. Kuhta reminded the Commission about the City's ten year anniversary which is March 31, 2013. The celebration would be on Saturday March 16, 2013. 1X. COMMISSION BUSINESS Chair Bates called the Public Hearing at 6:12 p.m. Public Hearing: The Public 1-Tearing was addressed by Senior Planner Lori Barlow. Ms. Barlow did a highlight and overview of CTA-2013-0002, an amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, to update SEPA Categorical Exemptions. Proposed changes include increasing the flexible threshold for minor new construction in the Categorical Exemptions Section of SVNIC 21.20.040, consistent with WAC 197-11-800. Ms. Barlow shared that thru the course of the review, there were some carry over effects in Chapter 24.50, some minor housekeeping changes and that on April 11, 2013 there will be a separate public hearing for those proposed changes. Chair Bates asked if there were any questions: Commissioner Neill asked if there has been any negative feedback. Senior Planner Lori Barlow and Planning Manager Scott Kuhta stated that there have been no negative feedbacks here, Mr. Kuhta explained that through the committee he was involved in over in Olympia at the Department of Ecology Head Quarters there were some groups that had concerns about increasing the thresholds. This is fairly straightforward for Spokane Valley. Mr. Kuhta stated that Spokane County and the City of Spokane did not attend the meeting in Olympia, Mr. Kuhta discussed that the Department of Ecology appointed the committee members and the Association of Washington Cities provided the names. If someone from the cities wanted to go they could have contacted the AWC. Mr. Kuhta was the lone city representative from eastern Washington. Mr. Kuhta has attended three meetings in Olympia. Commissioner McCaslin was wondering if any past projects have been denied due to SEPA. Ms. Barlow stated she did not think historically there has ever been a project denied, but shared that we are over the aquifer and potentially as a single source aquifer. Should a project be proposed that would have negative impacts too our aquifer than a jurisdiction could use the SEPA tool as the authority to deny that project. Mr. Kuhta explained that transportation concurrency requires the City to look at impacts of a development on intersections which have an established level of service, specifically how much delay there is at an intersection. If the level of service at an intersection drops below the City's standards as a result of a development and there is no fix for that intersection then legally the City cannot approve that development, Ms, Barlow reiterated that the Chapter 24.50 will come as a separate item on April 11, 2013 and it will be merged together in the council review process. Chair Bates closed the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission lvtinutes Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Stoy moved to recommend M-2013-0002 to the City COMCil for approval. This motion was passed unanimously, X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Chair Bates handed out a booklet to the Planning Commission titled Suggestions for Successful Municipal Leadership from the Association of Washington Cities, Mr. Bates stated that there are some good suggestions in the booklet and thought the Planning Commission might enjoy taking a look at it. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. N: • or / Bill Bates, Chairperson 1 Can Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 1 File # CTA 02 - 13 City Council Administrative Report April 9t" ,2013 Text Amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 21.20 sook-s"."1/4*--ane 1 Department of Community Development •_�__ Description of A city initiated text amendment to amend SVMC 21 .20.040 SEPA Categorical Exemptions, to adopt the maximum exemption levels allowed by WAC 197- 1 1 -800( 1 )(d) for new construction which would trigger SEPA review.. at Increase the # of SF residential units from 20 up to 30; Consider multifamily residential units separate from SF and establish 60 units as the threshold; Increase the square footage for agricultural structures from 30,000 up to 40,000; Increase the sq. ft. for office, schools, commercial, recreational, service or storage bldgs from 12,000 up to 30,000; o Increase the number of parking stalls from 40 up to 90 and include stand alone parking facilities as well as associated parking; Increase landfills and excavations from 500 CY up to 1,000 C Y s f-ITYH AL Le S Pt ne Department of Community Development 'NAJI l 1Cy 3 BCiCkgrour — � � , - � • in this? Legislative Direction Purpose 2012 Legislature directed DOE to update SEPA rules to consider other laws, i.e. GMA SMA Streamline the regulatory processes (Environmental Review) and Eliminate Redundancy while maintaining environment protection Siiekane Department of Community Development 4 SEPA Stafe Stafb—Einv11—=417: 11c c What is SEPA? Who does SEPA review? Washington State Law ( 1971 ) • Tool to identify environmental impacts that MAY result from government decisions i.e. permits, regulations, policies or plans Information provided allows agencies, applicants and public to understand environmental impacts State and local agencies (Counties, cities, ports, special districts) Applies to all decisions Lead Agency identified for each proposal Typically the City or County for private projects; Public projects — lead agency typically agency proposing the project Lead Agency Responsibilities Identify and evaluate potential adverse impacts Routed to other agencies and public for review and comment f-ITYH AL Le 5 Pf?':i-+ i kane Department of Community Development Mil INN l 1Cv How is SE DdSE6n makln ? Environmental, Checklist Provides Project Info Information Used to Condition or Deny Project Provides information to agencies that must approve proposal Info considered relative to existing regulations Agency may condition proposal to mitigate adverse impacts Agency can use substantive authority to DENY a proposal if impacts can not be reduced to acceptable level — Rarely happens Fka ne Department of Community Development 6 Review Process Lead Agency Review ( 1 -2 weeks) Agency and Public Review Peiii iT April e-nrien L reoiieri 01 A g e n c ., - ! 'krill it d t i �•i; 3-01. w'�.iiafilclim [S+r•let3mnioa • SIPA Lead Akteric) 1 valim at e Envtfilrinieretri Cht ldls! CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT ? No - Review ins `, rite tssc± railrl�.:re ratnWinn 1 re .4 t c inr i pact-L-likrhr'ti /..- 13,e Scopt n Ya Cat LC E- t 1 L il'I r tot% w e t,it,tk lossra Ewa IS I CI L LI 4 e t•' i t'L- I F .` . l inl'• :711 l CLe,e•ri:+,• Dec-1.. .c.c. Yes Is!1eNS Palmy h v t 1=F iik1y ICeview ti If DNS ram:meat plea 'aiwit aq#rr iithlfk [retain_Medi IY'. ,F %W ithd tw DNS R s Re ncy IDeciiicon 1 ifit 4rAlrild U . i Post, 14 day Comment Period Stkae Department of Community Development Vallammiiiir 7 Statutory Exemptions Projects exempted from SEPA by the Legislature (name in RCW 43.21 C) i.e. Forest Practice Applications, Air Operating Permits, Water right applications. . . ion? o Projects must be equal to or smaller than the exempt level, unless the jurisdiction has established an exempt level under WAC 197- 11 -800( c ); Construction of 4 detached SF homes onstruction of 4 MF units Construction of Ag buildings < 10,000 sf. Construction of office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage bldg up to 4,000 sf. and 20 parking spaces Landfill or excavation up to 100 cubic yards the lifetime of the project. VITYHAL Le 5 PCP -+ i kane �".. Department of Community Development Cate orica I xem p s - ex l resholds WAC Exemption Single family residential 4 units Multifamily residential Agricultural Structures Office, school, commercial, recreational, service, storage building, parking facilities 4 MF 10,000 SF Flexible Thresholds Maximum Flexible Thres 4,000 SF and 20 parking spaces Landfill or excavation 100 CY's 20 units 4 MF units 10,000 SF 12,000 SF and 40 parking spaces 500 CY's 30 units 60 units 40,000 square feet 30,000 square feet and 90 parking spaces 1 ,000 cubic yards Department of Community Development Va 1-11 -----'-- -- T11__1 proposed AmdmentT in 'Z V iv 1 as as 21 .20.040. B. Flexible Thresholds. The City adopts the following exempt levels for new construction pursuant to WAC 197-11 -800(1 )(c): 1 . For single family residential dwelling units, up to 20 30 dwelling units. 2. For multifamily residential dwelling units, up to 60 units 23. For agricultural structures, up to 30,000 square feet. For barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage, produce storage or packing structure buildings up to 40,000 square feet . For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings, up to 12,000 30,000 square feet of gross floor area and with associated parking facilities designed for up to 40- 90 parking spaces. This exemption includes stand alone parking lots. 4. For parking lots, up to 40 parking spaces. 5. For landfills and excavations, up to x-0-0 1 ,000 cubic yards. Department of Community Development !____ T1!__• _ SEPA Not Triggered Regular Grading Application Requirements 1/Ict rurbina Activities Grading Permits Engineered Grading L SEPA IS Triggered Application Requirements: SEPA Checklist f IT-HALL,r,spo'i-+ Department of Community Development motaidi all chavterz�o LancT $i°sturbinq Activities e � - Chapter 24 . 50 LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES 24 . 50.030 Engineered grading permits 24.50.030.C. Engineered Grading Permit SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. The minimum documents required for permit application are as follows: L 9. SEPA checklist , if required . r1______!____ r!__! _ CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 9, 2013 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business ® new business [' public hearing [' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution sponsoring the Spokane County Library District for membership in the Association of Washington Cities Benefit Trust. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: The City has been contacted by the Spokane County Library District asking to be sponsored to become a member of the Association of Washington Cities, Benefit Trust. The Association of Washington Cities Benefit Trust is a member only organization serving as a third party administrator providing employee health care and related benefits to city organizations and special interest districts in Washington State. Although Cities are eligible to become members of the Trust, special service districts, such as Spokane County Library District are required to be sponsored by a member City. OPTIONS: Place Resolution 13-XXX on a future Council Meeting agenda for Consideration, or provide additional direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place Resolution 13-XXX, sponsoring the Spokane County Library District for membership in the AWC Benefits Trust, on a future Council meeting agenda. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: John Whitehead, HR Manager ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution 13-XXX DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SPONSORING THE SPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TRUST. WHEREAS, the City is located within the service area of the Spokane County Library District; and WHEREAS, the Spokane County Library District provides services to citizens of Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, the Spokane County Library District desires to participate in the Association of Washington Cities(AWC)Employee Benefit Trust benefits program as a quasi-municipal entity; and WHEREAS, Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Employee Benefit Trust requires that a city member of the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Employee Benefit Trust sponsor a non-city entity's request before the non-city entity can participate in the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Employee Benefit Trust benefit programs. NOW,THEREFORE,be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington,as follows: Section 1. The City of Spokane Valley, with this resolution, sponsors the Spokane County Library District for membership in the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) Employee Benefit Trust as a non-city entity. Section 2. The City of Spokane Valley requests that the Spokane County Library District be allowed membership into the Association of Washington(AWC)Employee Benefit Trust. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution will take effect upon adoption. Adopted this day of April, 2013. City of Spokane Valley Mayor Thomas E.Towey ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 13- Sponsoring Spokane County Library District for application to AWC Benefits Trust DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of April 4,2013; 10:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings April 16,2013, Study Session Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 8] 1.Motion Consideration: Decant Facility—Eric Guth (15 minutes) 2. Community Development Monthly Report—John Hohman (20 minutes) 3. Lodging Tax Funding Process—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 4. Park/Library Update—Mike Stone (15 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Governance Manual Review—Chris Bainbridge (15 minutes) 6.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 90 minutes] April 23,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 15] Proclamations: Workers'Memorial Day;Drug Endangered Awareness Day 1.April Community Recognition,Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3.First Reading, Ordinance, SEPA Regulations—Lori Barlow (15 minutes) 4. Resolution Sponsoring Library District for AWC Membership—John Whitehead (10 minutes) 5. Resolution Amending Governance Manual—Chris Bainbridge (10 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Code Revision re Dangerous Dogs—Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 7.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 8. Information Only: Dept Reports;Planning Commission Minutes [*estimated meeting: 65 minutes] April 30,2013, Study Session Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 22] 1.Advance Agenda [*estimated meeting: minutes] May 7,2013, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,April 29] 1.Farmer's Market Update—Mike Stone (20 minutes) 2.Budget Amendment,2013 Review—Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 3. Draft 2014-2019 TIP—Steve Worley (20 minutes) 4. Bridging the Valley—Steve Worley (30 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 95 minutes] May 14,2013,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 6]] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2013 Amended Budget—Mark Calhoun 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading,Ordinance, SEPA Regulations—Lori Barlow (10 minutes) 4.First Reading,Proposed Ordinance,Dangerous Dog—Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 5.First Reading,Proposed Ordinance Amending 2013 Budget—Mark Calhoun (15 minutes) 6.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] May 21,2013, Study Session Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 13] 1. Comp Plan Amendments—Mike Basinger (45 minutes) 2.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 4/4/2013 10:54:20 AM Page 1 of 2 May 28 2013,Formal Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 20] 1.May Community Recognition,Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2014-2019 TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 3. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 4. Second Reading,Proposed Ordinance,Dangerous Dog—Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 5. Second Reading,Proposed Ordinance Amending 2013 Budget—Marl Calhoun (10 minutes) 6.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 7. Information Only: Dept Reports;Planning Commission Minutes [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] June 4,2013, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 27 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) June 11,2013,Formal Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,June 3] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2.First Reading Proposed Ordinance Comp Plan—Mike Basinger (20 minutes) 3.First Reading Proposed Ordinance,Zoning Map—Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2014-2019 TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 5.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] June 18,2013, Special Mtg:Budget Workshop, 9:30a.m.—4:30 p.m. (no evening meeting) [due Mon,June 10] City Hall Council Chambers June 25,2013,Formal Meetin2 Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 13] 1.June Community Recognition,Presentation of Key and Certificate—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Comp Plan—Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance,Zoning Map—Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) 6. Information Only: Dept Reports; Planning Commission Minutes [*estimated meeting: 35 minutes] July 2,2013, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,June 24] 1.Advance Agenda (5 minutes) OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: ADA Transition Plan Public Safety Contract,Proposed Amendment Appleway Landscaping Revenue Policy, Cost Recovery Arts Council Sign Code Bidding Contracts(SVMC 3.—bidding exceptions) Solid Waste Analysis Budget,2013 amendment Speed Limits(overall system) CDBG Spokane Valley Day at the Fair(Sept 10,2013) Coal Train EIS Sprague Avenue Parking Comprehensive Plan Updates(chapters 2& 5) Regional Transportation Issues Economic Development(long term goals) TIP(June,for six yr 2014-2019) Future Acquisition Areas Townhouses in Garden Office Gateway,Regional MOU Land Quantity Inventories: Industrial&Residential *time for public or Council comments not included Manufactured Home Zoning PEG Funds(Education) Draft Advance Agenda 4/4/2013 10:54:20 AM Page 2 of 2 Siolane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: Mike Basinger, Senior Planner CC: John Hohman, Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Date: March 27, 2013 Re: Spokane County Urban Growth Area Update The Urban Growth Area (UGA) is land designated to accommodate projected urban growth and development for twenty years. UGAs include all incorporated cities and towns plus unincorporated land adjacent to cities suitable for urban development. Spokane County and its cities and towns have been working collectively on a regional review and update of the UGA since 2006. The purpose of the regional review is to determine the capacity of existing UGA's to accommodate growth and the potential for expansion or contraction of the existing UGA. Through this regional review it was determined that Spokane County could accommodate the projected urban growth and development within the existing UGA. The UGA update process included several opportunities for public input, including a workshop at the City of Spokane Valley, as well as public hearings by the Spokane County Planning Commission and the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) for Spokane County. The SCEO serves as a regional forum for urban growth issues and growth management planning. The City of Spokane Valley has two voting members serving on the committee. On October 24, 2011, an open house was held at City Hall focusing on the impacts of the projected growth on the natural environment and services and facilities needed, including transportation, police, fire, parks, schools, water and sewer. On October 25, 2011, March 25, 2011, May 12, 2011, and January 31, 2012 City Council was briefed on the progress of the UGA update. The City's designated SCEO members met with staff on a couple of occasions to review analysis relating to the region's ability to accommodate the projected population growth in the existing UGA. The SCEO and the Spokane County Planning Commission considered various alternatives, including an alternative for no expansion of the UGA. The SCEO and Spokane County Planning Commission considered the alternatives and recommended an expansion of the UGA. On February 27, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) held a public hearing to consider testimony related to the update of UGA. On March 11, 2013, the BoCC deliberated on the UGAs, voting unanimously to expand the UGA by nearly 6,000 acres, including several properties adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley's municipal boundary (see attached map). The BoCC will adopt a resolution with supporting findings within the next month. Currently, the County is working on its Capital Facilities Plan to describe how they will build, operate and maintain infrastructure and urban services for the newly expanded UGAs. Unincorporated UGA n City - Include Study Area in UGA ® Remove from UGA Urban Growth Area Update Board of County Commissioners Preliminary Approval-March 11,2013 2.5 COULEE HITE RD Medical Lake -Subject to`kLUS Ordinance Adoption n Fairchilc set Central Premix (Removal) Center-Rd Mead-Mt.Spokane AN:RD OPLII 5 Miles RUTTER PARKWAY North Metro PEONS RD SCI STONEMAN RD 4JI.1i MAGNESI n s i1anLYo City of MIN Spokane BIGELO ULCH RD Bigelow Gulch Northeast Valley OIUMBIAD OWAN AV O WELLESLEY AV DENO RD Palisades GREENW City of Airway Heights Pillar Rock 24 stA City of EUCLID Millwood Ceti Offsieram INDIANA Spokane liaall177prell Valley • MUM= 'poi Geiger Spur West Plains Thorpe Remove from UGA South Glenrose 1iiiU! Nati A I Ponderosa 'ANN Moran Prairie -Sum ai:,En- 48thA� EDICAL L4 OG P oposed Jail Site tm„, Sniall Site Option Cond tionally Put in UGA Subject to Financing for EPF -Victoria Logsdon Leimgruber PALOUSE Hy Belle Terre, City of Liberty Lake • Southeast Valley La7 Ruddell/Tupper Berry Subject to Developer Agreement -Connectivity Between Hwy 27&Painted Hills -Maximum Density =1 unit/acre 0 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 9, 2013 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information [' admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Decant Facility Project, Engineering Services Agreements GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 90.48, Chapter 173-200 WAC, Title 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376; Storm and Surface Water Utility: SVMC 3.80; Interlocal Agreement GCB 1358 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council concurrence to proceed to Final Design, December 18, 2012; and Council approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the WSDOT, January 29, 2013. BACKGROUND: City staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in August 2012 for the feasibility, design, and construction phases of a Decant Facility at the WSDOT Pines/Montgomery Road Maintenance Yard. The City received proposals from four interested firms. The City and the WSDOT staff followed a selection process that included interviews and chose KPFF Consulting Engineers as the most qualified firm to perform the work. A consulting services agreement for the feasibility phase was negotiated and executed with KPFF in October 2012 for a not to exceed fee of$50,862.24, which was paid for from the Stormwater Utility Fund 402. The feasibility study was finalized in early 2013 and WSDOT and the City have decided to proceed with the project. The City recently received the final executed Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT and also a State Department of Ecology Grant Agreement to fund the project. The consultant and the City have negotiated the level of effort to produce the final design and bid documents to construct the facility, and it is estimated not to exceed (NTE) $146,504.54. Additional support services during construction will be negotiated prior to construction and are estimated NTE $25,000. The NTE total for all engineering and construction support services on this project with KPFF Consulting Engineers is estimated to be $222,366.78. Staff plans to bring an item to the April 16, 2013 Council meeting requesting authorization for the City Manager to finalize and execute supplemental agreements with KPFF Consulting Engineers for the final design and construction support phases. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total estimated Decant Facility cost in the grant application is $980,000. The Ecology grant is for up to $735,000 (75%). The required local match is $245,000 (25%), which will consist of APA funds ($95,000) and WSDOT funds ($150,000). WSDOT is also providing additional funds of up to $60,000 to the project if expended prior to June 30, 2013. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, Public Works Director Art Jenkins, Stormwater Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Scope and Fee Proposal — Design Phase, KPFF Consulting Engineers EN;El Consulting Engineers March 30, 2013 Mr. Art Jenkins City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 304 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Subject: Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility Scope and Fee Proposal — Design Phase Dear Mr. Jenkins: KPFF Consulting Engineers is pleased to submit this Scope and Fee proposal to provide engineering services for design of a eductor decant facility at the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Pines Road Maintenance Yard (Yard) on E. Montgomery Avenue in Spokane Valley, Washington. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING It is our understanding that the City of Spokane Valley (City) intends to construct a decant facility for eductor trucks and street sweepers on the east side of the existing Yard. The vactor decant facility will be used by the City and WSDOT to cost effectively manage, process, and dispose liquids, sediments and other wastes generated from storm drainage cleaning activities. The design of the decant facility will be generally based on the Preferred Concept Plan developed during the recent Type, Size, and Location Study completed by KPFF in collaboration with the City and WSDOT staff and personnel, however several elements of the preferred concept will be eliminated from the design or revised to conform to budget constraints: • The enclosed winter decant feature will be eliminated. • The facility will be reduced from 10 bays to 8 bays. • The limits of pavement will be expanded to include all areas where eductor trucks will circulate. • The block wall surrounding the bioretention area will be eliminated, additional grading surrounding the bioretention area will be included. Based on the information gathered to date, we propose the following Scope of Work for engineering services. SCOPE OF WORK KPFF will work with you to accomplish these specific tasks: 240/ North 31st Street, Suite 100, Tacoma, WA 9840/ (262) 396 0160 Fax (263) 3966 0162 Seattle Tacoma Portland Eugene San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Irvine San Diego Phoenix St.Louis New York Mr. Art Jenkins March 30, 2013 Page 2 1 . Coordination and Consultation: We will provide coordination, documentation and correspondence with the City's staff to support project progress and communications, including: 1.1 . Bi-weekly project coordination conference calls, to be held approximately every other week during the anticipated 2 month design duration. 1.2. Design review meeting at 50% level of completion, to be held at the City of Spokane Valley offices. 1.3. Participate in permit pre-application meetings with the City of Spokane Valley. 1.4. Regular telephone and email correspondence. 1.5. Tracking and review of action items, status updates, due dates. 1.6. General project guidance and facilitation of decision making. 1.7. General design coordination among members of the design team. 1 .8. Attendance at pre-application meeting with City of Spokane Valley Planning Division. 2. Information Collection and Field Work: We will collect available information related to the project site and perform field work necessary to support the design, including: 2.1 . Coordinate and facilitate a design kick-off meetings and site visit with design team, City staff and WSDOT staff. 2.2. Complete topographic survey update of the site (described in detail in the attached scope and fee proposal by Taylor Engineers, dated January 8, 2013) 2.3. Complete geotechnical investigations (described in detail in the attached scope and fee proposal by GeoEngineers dated January 10, 2013) 3. Design of the Vactor Decant Facility: During the design phase, the design team will prepare design documents for the facility. In addition to KPFF, the design team will include AEI who will be responsible for design of electrical systems, and TCF Architecture who will be responsible for the design of the canopy and winter decant facility. Detailed scope and fee proposals from AEI and X are attached. Documents will be developed to a level of detail to adequately describe the work and guide completion of the construction. Documents will be submitted for review and comment by City staff at the 50%, 80% and 100% level of design completion. Design documents are expected to include: 3.1 . Plans showing the layout, type, size and location of the proposed improvements; enlarged plans, sections and details as appropriate to depict Mr. Art Jenkins January 22, 2013 Page 3 the configuration, materials and features of the proposed improvements. Plans are anticipated to include: a. Cover sheet, general notes and abbreviations b. Site Plan c. Demolition and erosion control plan and details d. Site grading plan. e. Discharge pad and settling pool grading plan. f. Drainage plan, profiles and details. g. Plan, sections and details for stormwater quality and flow control features. h. Utility plan, profiles and details. i. Paving plan and details. j. Striping and signage plan and details. k. Details for truck fill area, fencing and other miscellaneous site features. I. Building floor plans, roof plan, cross sections and elevations suitable to convey design intent for final design and fabrication to be completed by pre- engineered building manufacturer. m. Foundation plan and details. n. Typical structural sections. o. Electrical site plan. p. Plans, sections and details for gate access control/card readers, heat trace, heated concrete discharge pad, and under-canopy lighting. 3.2. Technical specifications for the proposed improvements. 3.3. Order of magnitude estimate of probable construction cost for the proposed improvements prepared at each milestone design stage (50%, 80%, 100%). 3.4. Drainage Submittal according to requirements of the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual. 4. Preparation of Advance Bid Packages: KPFF will prepare and packages plans and specifications for two bid packages that will be bid in advance of the main construction contract: Swale and Utility Contract: Plans and specifications for for installation of storm and decanted water lines across E. Montgomery Dr, install manholes, drywells, a pre-treatment structure, applicable connecting piping, and stub-out for future connection to the Existing Sanitary Sewer; and excavation, final grading, landscaping and construction of the bio-infiltration treatment system. Mr. Art Jenkins March 30, 2013 Page 4 Pre-Engineered Steel Building Contract: Plans and specifications for fabrication and delivery of the Canopy Structure to the WSDOT site. Contract will include liquidated damages to the fabricator if delivery is not met by a date specified and required to allow the main construction contract to proceed. 5. Permitting Assistance: KPFF will assist in project permitting by revising design documents if required in response to permit review comments. A total of 40 hours has been included in the budget for this task. It is our understanding that preparation of permit applications, coordinating permit submittal and responding to questions and comments from permit review agencies will be completed by the City. 6. Bidding Support: During project bidding, the design team will respond to questions from interested contractors, prepare any necessary addenda to the bid documents to address issues that arise during the bid process; and assist the City in evaluation of bid's received. ASSUMPTIONS We have made the following assumptions in writing this proposal: 1. Design documents will be provided for review by City staff at the 50%, 80% and 100% levels of design completion. 2. Design documents at the initial 50% level of design completion will be based on the Concept Design developed as a result of the TS&L study completed by KPFF, except as indicated in the Project Understanding explanation above. An analysis of facility type, size, and location alternatives will not be included in design. 3. Value engineering or development or evaluation of design alternatives for the purposes of reducing construction cost will not be required. 4. Improvement of adjacent public streets will not be required as a part of the project, modifications within the public streets will be limited to restoration of areas disturbed by utility and storm drain crossings. 5. Preparation of bid documents including bid forms, general conditions, special conditions, instruction to bidders and invitation to bid will be prepared by the City of Spokane Valley. 6. Advertisement of bids and distribution of bid packages will be performed by the City of Spokane Valley. 7. Construction support and construction management is not included in this proposal, however construction support services to be provided by KPFF will be negotiated in the future when the scope of construction and necessary support services has been better defined. Mr. Art Jenkins January 22, 2013 Page 5 8. All available record drawings for the Yard have been provided to KPFF by WSDOT as a part of the original TS&L Study. No further investigation is required for design. 9. Wetland delineation, mapping and consultation will not be required. 10. LEED documentation will not be completed. 11. Hazardous materials investigation or mitigation will not be required. 12. Permit or agency review fees will be paid by the City of Spokane Valley. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional services include all services that are not part of the Scope of Work as described above. This includes those services that arise as a result of unforeseen circumstances during the design or construction of the project and will require additional fee or adjustment to the schedule. Prior to the commencement of additional services, KPFF will consult with City staff to agree upon the scope and associated fees for additional services. Typical items considered Additional Services include, but are not limited to, the following: 1 . Services resulting from changes in scope or magnitude of the project as described above. 2. Redesign to reduce construction cost where the reason for the excessive cost is outside the control of KPFF, or the potential cost savings associated with the design change is less than 5% of the estimated cost of construction (exclusive of contingency, taxes, design and administration) 3. Redesign requested to accommodate particular construction materials, methods, or sequences as alternatives to those indicated on the Contract Documents. 4. Services resulting from corrections or revisions required because of deviations from the Contract Documents during construction. 5. Services required to accommodate site conditions discovered during demolition, excavation, or foundation construction that could not have been reasonably anticipated to occur at the time this letter was written. FEES We propose to perform the above Scope of Work described in this proposal on a time and materials basis not to exceed the fees noted below, at the hourly rates shown on the attached schedule of hourly rates. A breakdown of anticipated tasks and fees is attached. Mr. Art Jenkins March 30, 2013 Page 6 Description Fee Coordination and Consultation $13,119.88 Information Gathering and Field Work $13,802.92 Design $87,578.97 Preparation of Advance Bid Packages $11,306.61 Permitting Assistance $7,762.65 Bidding Support $7,273.69 Subtotal Services $140,844.72 Markup on Subconsultant Services (8%) $1,530.99 Reimburseable Expenses $4,128.83 Total $146,504.54 Reimbursable expenses for items such as plans reproduction, mileage, and delivery services are separate from our fees and will be billed at cost, without mark-up. All KPFF work will be subject to a mutually agreeable contract between KPFF and Spokane Valley. Art, we look forward to continuing our work with you on this project. Thank you, and please contact me at 253.396.0150 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, NI *ike Steve Kingsley, P.E. Principal/Project Manager SWK:swk Enclosures 112264.10