The URL can be used to link to this page

2016, 01-26 Amended Regular Meeting AMENDED AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday,January 26,2016 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: Pastor Mike Graef,Valley United Methodist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on Jan 26,2016 Request for Council Action Form,Totaling: $1,562,107.57 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending January 15,2016: $429,411.59 c. Motion Confirmation of HCDAC Committee Appointment Correction d. Approval of January 5,2016 Formal Council Meeting Minutes e. Approval of January 12,2016 Council Formal Meeting Minutes NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-001 Vacating a Portion of Third Avenue—Karen Kendall [public comment] 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-002 Mining Moratorium Findings of Fact—Erik Lamb [public comment] 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-003 Extending Mining Moratorium—Erik Lamb [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 Council Agenda 01-26-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 5. Federal Transit Authority Sidewalk Grant—Eric Guth 5a. Discussion on Proposed Resolution Regarding Gender-Segregated Facilities—Councilmember Wood 6. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY 7. Department Monthly Reports 8. Draft Amended 2016 Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP) CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 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 1st, 3rd and 5th 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 01-26-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 01/06/2016 5310, 5360, 5371, 5372, 5374-5376; 5386; 37335-37336 $343,730.13 01/07/2016 37337-37344 $600.00 01/11/2016 37345-37393 (-37374, 37379, 37393); 105160027 $543,010.81 01/12/2016 37394-37414 $69,577.02 01/14/2016 6503-6509 $765.00 01/15/2016 37415-37433 $117,779.00 01/15/2016 37434-37476 $486,645.61 GRAND TOTAL: $1,562,107.57 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 106—Solid Waste 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 120-CenterPlace Operating Reserve 001.018.014.514. Finance 121—Service Level Stabilization Reserve 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 122—Winter Weather Reserve 001.032.000. Public Works 123 —Civil Facilities Replacement 001.058.050.558. CED-Administration 204—Debt Service 001.058.051.558. CED—Economic Development 301 —REET 1 Capital Projects 001.058.055.558. CED—Development Services-Engineering 302 - REET 2 Capital Projects 001.058.056.558. CED—Development Services-Planning 303 —Street Capital Projects 001.058.057.558 CED—Building 309—Parks Capital Grants 001.076.000.576. Parks&Rec—Administration 310—Civic Bldg Capital Projects 001.076.300.576. Parks& Rec-Maintenance 311 —Pavement Preservation 001.076.301.571. Parks&Rec-Recreation 312—Capital Reserve 001.076.302.576. Parks &Rec-Aquatics 402—Stormwater Management 001.076.304.575. Parks&Rec- Senior Center 403 —Aquifer Protection Area 001.076.305.571. Parks &Rec-CenterPlace 501 —Equipment Rental &Replacement 001.090.000.511. General Gov't-Council related 502—Risk Management 001.090.000.514. General Gov't-Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't-Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't-Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't-Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't-Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't-Natural &Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't-Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't-Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't-Pavement Preservation RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 01/06/2016 4:03:00PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5310 1/5/2016 000164 LABOR&INDUSTRIES Ben64981 001.231.17.00 LABOR&INDUSTRIES:PAYMENT 18,600.67 Total: 18,600.67 5360 1/5/2016 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben64983 001.231.15.00 PERS:PAYMENT 97,353.81 Total: 97,353.81 5371 1/5/2016 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben64985 303.231.14.00 401A:PAYMENT 35,154.32 Total: 35,154.32 5372 1/5/2016 000682 EFTPS Ben64987 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES:PAYMENT 42,021.40 Total: 42,021.40 5374 1/5/2016 000164 LABOR&INDUSTRIES Ben64995 001.231.17.00 LABOR&INDUSTRIES:PAYMENT 4,708.94 Total: 4,708.94 5375 1/5/2016 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PU Ben64989 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:PAYI 7,342.79 Total: 7,342.79 5376 1/5/2016 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC P1 Ben64991 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN:PAYMENT 1,552.39 Total: 1,552.39 5386 1/5/2016 000682 EFTPS Ben64997 001.231.12.00 FEDERAL TAXES:PAYMENT 1,232.50 Total: 1,232.50 37335 1/5/2016 000120 AWC Ben64977 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS:PAYMENT 124,103.28 Ben64993 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS(COUNCIL):PAYMENT 9,203.73 Total: 133,307.01 37336 1/5/2016 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben64979 309.231.21.00 UNION DUES:PAYMENT 2,456.30 Total: 2,456.30 10 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 343,730.13 10 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 343,730.13 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: --1"-"' 01/07/2016 2:07:52PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37337 1/7/2016 000743 CROWN MOVING CO INC CRY WOLF REFUND 001.016.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VL 75.00 Total : 75.00 37338 1/7/2016 004858 GIES,JIM CRY WOLF REFUND 001.016.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT Vf. 25.00 Total : 25.00 37339 1/7/2016 004860 HARTMAN, LAWRENCE CRY WOLF REFUND 001.016.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT VE 50.00 Total : 50.00 37340 1/7/2016 004859 LYON,TARA CRY WOLF REFUND 001.016.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT V' 100.00 Total : 100.00 37341 1/7/2016 003598 MILLER, HAROLD CRY WOLF REFUND 001.016.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND FOR PERK 85.00 Total : 85.00 37342 1/7/2016 004861 QDOBA MEXICAN GRILL CRY WOLF REFUND 001.016.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT Vf. 175.00 Total : 175.00 37343 1/7/2016 004857 SHAWN MCGUIRE AGENT CRY WOLF REFUND 001.016.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT V: 65.00 Total : 65.00 37344 1/7/2016 001660 TITAN TRUCK EQUIP CO INC CRY WOLF REFUND 001.016.000.342 FALSE ALARM REFUND PERMIT V: 25.00 Total : 25.00 8 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 600.00 8 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 600.00 Page: .,.-4^''•- 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: -4---- 01/11/2016 9:31:39AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37345 1/11/2016 003078 ALLWEST TESTING &ENGINEERING 79283 303.303.167.595 0167-MATERIALS TESTING 2,621.50 Total : 2,621.50 37346 1/11/2016 004278 ARCHITECTS WEST INC 8368 313.000.215.594 0215-CITY HALL DESIGN&CN ADN 51,577.75 Total : 51,577.75 37347 1/11/2016 000234 ARLT, SHANE EXPENSE 101.042.000.542 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 59.76 Total : 59.76 37348 1/11/2016 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOCIATES INC M14310-8 303.303.155.595 0155-SULLIVAN BRIDGE MATERIAL 7,219.54 Total : 7,219.54 37349 1/11/2016 004110 BURKES KLEINS DKI 15-278-E 001.058.056.524 ABATEMENT SERVICES 575.81 Total : 575.81 37350 1/11/2016 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 606162513 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 112.42 606162678 101.042.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 255.95 606163766 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 125.85 606164991 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 112.42 606165157 101.042.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 219.84 606166230 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 112.42 Total : 938.90 37351 1/11/2016 003319 CO-ENERGY,CONNEL OIL 0134804-IN 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES MAINTENANCE 747.98 Total : 747.98 37352 1/11/2016 001137 COLLIER, BRANT EXPENSE 402.402.000.531 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 415.53 Total : 415.53 37353 1/11/2016 004437 COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES INC 1534 001.090.000.558 RETAIL STRATEGY 3,087.29 Total : 3,087.29 37354 1/11/2016 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 43541852 402.402.000.531 DECEMBER 2015 FLEET BILL 1,098.83 Total : 1,098.83 37355 1/11/2016 001157 COUNTRY HOMES POWER EQUIP 122215 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 218.35 122273 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 26.63 Page: ,.,x"".-- vchlist Voucher List Page: r' 01/11/2016 9:31:39AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37355 1/11/2016 001157 COUNTRY HOMES POWER EQUIP (Continued) 122274 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 23.81 122439 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 71.97 540240 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 35.31 Total : 376.07 37356 1/11/2016 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 575662 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENTAL 206.07 Total : 206.07 37357 1/11/2016 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE 46 JG6362 L017 303.303.155.595 ITS SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 268.75 RE 46 JG6446 L001 303.303.167.595 SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 268.75 RE-313-ATB51214047 101.042.000.542 REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS MAINZ 5,684.60 RE-313-ATB51214053 101.042.000.542 REIMB ROADWAY MAINT OFF SYS' 7,188.37 RE-313-ATB51214115 311.000.188.595 SULLIVAN RD PRESERVATION 58.84 Total : 13,469.31 37358 1/11/2016 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-46 JG6436 L003 402.402.000.531 PROJECT COSTS REGIONAL DEC/ 194.60 Total : 194.60 37359 1/11/2016 000278 DRISKELL,CARY EXPENSES 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 100.35 Total : 100.35 37360 1/11/2016 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC INC 97523 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45.00 97527 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45.00 97550 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 55.00 Total : 145.00 37361 1/11/2016 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 4245591 101.000.000.542 FUEL FOR MAINTENANCE SHOP& 5,871.64 Total : 5,871.64 37362 1/11/2016 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 1115-0577 303.303.142.595 0142-RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES 562.50 1115-0592 303.000.201.595 0201-ACQUISITION/APPRAISAL SE 185.00 Total : 747.50 37363 1/11/2016 001926 FARR,SARAH EXPENSE 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 46.00 Total : 46.00 37364 1/11/2016 001232 FASTENALCO IDLEW108778 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 20.16 Page: ,.2-'--~ vchlist Voucher List Page..- 01/11/2016 9:31:39AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37364 1/11/2016 001232 001232 FASTENAL CO (Continued) Total : 20.16 37365 1/11/2016 000106 FEDEX 5-259-75785 101.000.000.542 FED EX 12-11-15 36.91 Total : 36.91 37366 1/11/2016 003261 FEHR& PEERS 104627 001.058.099.558 MIRABEAU SUBAREA TRAFFIC STl 3,470.40 Total : 3,470.40 37367 1/11/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 44816 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 56.95 44817 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 52.70 44818 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 48.45 44819 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 44.20 44820 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 101.15 44851 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 186.00 Total : 489.45 37368 1/11/2016 000007 GRAINGER 9917700677 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 276.50 9917700685 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 11.38 Total : 287.88 37369 1/11/2016 002682 HAFNER,CHARLES EXPENSE 001.011.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Q4-1; 221.37 Total : 221.37 37370 1/11/2016 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY SPORO1645731 101.000.000.542 SERVICE ON '96 INT'L 2574 135.57 Total : 135.57 37371 1/11/2016 004273 KITSAP COUNTY KC-093-15-3 402.402.000.531 REMOTE QUANTUM LIDAR SERVIC 4,295.58 Total : 4,295.58 37372 1/11/2016 001944 LANCER LTD 0456696 001.058.050.558 Business cards for Chaz Bates 54.07 Total : 54.07 37373 1/11/2016 003251 MDI MARKETING 10404 001.090.000.558 ADVERTISING 32,133.69 Total : 32,133.69 37374 1/11/2016 0023;8 MJM GRAND INC , 11010 7034 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 13,617.3-.? Total : Page: -3"`"_ vchlist Voucher List Page: 01/11/2016 9:31:39AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37375 1/11/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 811985104001 001.032.000.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 12.22 814229659001 001.032.000.543 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 115.07 814805397001 001.018.013.513 OFFICE SUPPLIES 17.54 Total : 144.83 37376 1/11/2016 002616 ROADWISE INC 55847 101.000.000.542 FEEZGARD ZERO 5,826.80 55848 101.000.000.542 FEEZGARD ZERO 5,833.55 55884 101.000.000.542 FEEZGARD ZERO 5,830.17 55885 101.000.000.542 FEEZGARD ZERO 5,840.30 55886 101.000.000.542 FEEZGARD ZERO 5,838.61 55887 101.000.000.542 FEEZGARD ZERO 5,838.61 55944 101.000.000.542 FEEZGARD ZERO 5,870.69 55945 101.000.000.542 FEEZGARD ZERO 5,884.20 55946 101.000.000.542 FEEZGARD ZERO 5,831.86 Total : 52,594.79 37377 1/11/2016 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS IN36399 001.058.057.558 DECEMBER 2015 COPIER COSTS 1,248.94 Total : 1,248.94 37378 1/11/2016 002288 SARGENT ENGINEERS INC. 30224 101.042.000.542 Contract 15-133 Fancher Rd Bridge/ 395.00 J Total : 395.00 37379 1/11/2016 004862 (-------CARSELLA BROS INC `� DECEMBER 2015 101.000.000.542 ON-CALL SNOW REMOVAL 9,130.8 Total : 9,130.80 37380 1/11/2016 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 287978 402.402.000.531 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 530.46 6531265 402.402.000.531 2015 ROADWAY LANDSCAPING SE 6,562.34 7014316 402.402.000.531 FLAGGING SERVICES 339.14 7023808 001.090.000.518 SNOW REMOVAL AT CITY HALL 97.83 7026865 001.090.000.518 SNOW REMOVAL CITY HALL 391.32 Total : 7,921.09 37381 1/11/2016 000994 SIMPSON ENGINEERS INC. 16341-01 311.000.211.595 0211-ON CALL SURVEYING SERVI( 1,257.10 16348-01 303.303.156.595 0156-ON CALL SURVEYING SERVI( 1,587.57 16348-02 303.303.156.595 0156-ON CALL SURVEYING SERVI( 3,927.20 16348-03 303.303.156.595 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 713.63 16366-01 311.000.224.595 0224-MULLAN RD STREET PRES P 1,734.68 Page: ,-,4--..'' vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 3- 01/11/2016 9:31:39AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37381 1/11/2016 000994 SIMPSON ENGINEERS INC. (Continued) 16390-01 402.402.000.531 ON-CALL SURVEYING TASK I 5,981.30 16392-01 303.000.205.595 0205-SPRAGUE/BARKER INTERSE 6,461.09 16393-01 303.000.201.595 0201-TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 6,163.55 Total : 27,826.12 37382 1/11/2016 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 5-752910 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 180.79 Total : 180.79 37383 1/11/2016 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 3550.07 001.143.70.00 FILE MOTION TO EXTEND JUDGME 200.00 Total : 200.00 37384 1/11/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 51502967 001.016.000.523 NOVEMBER 2015 HOUSING INVOI( 117,234.00 Total : 117,234.00 37385 1/11/2016 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW,THE 443404 001.013.000.513 ADVERTISING ACCT 42365 1,947.92 Total : 1,947.92 37386 1/11/2016 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 956858 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION-WINDSTORM 1,641.40 Total : 1,641.40 37387 1/11/2016 002110 TARGET MEDIA NORTHWEST 49685 001.018.013.513 HOT TOPIC WINTER 2015 2,900.59 Total : 2,900.59 37388 1/11/2016 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC #4 15-402 303.303.156.595 0156-ON CALL INSPECTION SER\ 190.22 Total : 190.22 37389 1/11/2016 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8080040651 001.058.056.524 SERVICE 40211D 162.69 8080040652 001.032.000.543 SERVICE 35518D 25.35 8080040688 001.076.000.576 SERVICE 38910 D 36.90 Total : 224.94 37390 1/11/2016 003458 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO 105478 303.303.167.595 0167-TRAFFIC SINAGE 35,216.49 Total : 35,216.49 37391 1/11/2016 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 9757433976 101.042.000.542 DEC 2015 VERIZON CELL PHONES 1,428.62 Total : 1,428.62 Page: --S vchlist Voucher List Page �6 01/11/2016 9:31:39AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37392 1/11/2016 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0237342-2681-6 402.402.000.531 WASTE MGMT MAINT SHOP 173.27 Total : 173.27 37393 1/11/2016 000842 M WINKLER COMP'► 15908-01 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 12-2015 6,782.88 Total : , 105160027 1/5/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER DECEMBER 2015 001.016.000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 160,897.29 Total : 160,897.29 50 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 372;541:88 50 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : _57541788-- I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist Voucher ListPage. ---1.- 01/12/2016 '(01/12/2016 3:16:48PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37394 1/12/2016 000150 ALLIED FIRE&SECURITY JCI018951 001.016.000.594 CCTV SYSTEM UPGRADE PRECINI 22,232.00 Total : 22,232.00 37395 1/12/2016 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC INV012960 001.016.000.521 JANITORIAL SVCS: DEC 2015 2,501.87 Total : 2,501.87 37396 1/12/2016 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9710269 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 45.97 S0126285 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 36.47 Total : 82A4 37397 1/12/2016 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY December 2015 001.058.056.558 PETTY CASH: 13654,55,57,59,60 10.23 Total : 10.23 37398 1/12/2016 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 Dec 2015 001.076.305.575 UTILITIES: CP 65.69 Total : 65.69 37399 1/12/2016 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST#1 Dec 2015 001.076.300.576 WATER CHARGES FOR EDGECLIF 4,179.88 Total : 4,179.88 37400 1/12/2016 001939 EXTREME SCIENCE 12222015-1 001.076.301.571 FIELD TRIP FOR COOL CAMP 125.00 Total : 125.00 37401 1/12/2016 002308 FINKE, MELISSA Dec 2015 001.076.301.571 INSTRUCTOR PMT 132.00 Total : 132.00 37402 1/12/2016 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 3rd Qtr 2015 001.090.000.550 2015 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI 5,821.50 Total : 5,821.50 37403 1/12/2016 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY Dec 2015 001.090.000.550 2015 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI 1,200.00 Total : 1,200.00 37404 1/12/2016 000070 INLAND POWER&LIGHT CO 2301 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES:DEC PW 417.93 Total : 417.93 37405 1/12/2016 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 978914 001.076.305.575 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 158.03 980752 001.076.305.575 EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLAt 131.69 Page: .--'r"-- /dam vchlist Voucher List Page: 01/12/2016 3:16:48PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37405 1/12/2016 001635 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES (Continued) Total : 289.72 37406 1/12/2016 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO Dec 2015 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES: DEC 2015 PW 8,897.51 Dec 2015 001.076.302.576 UTILITIES: DEC 2015 PARKS 2,989.34 Total : 11,886.85 37407 1/12/2016 000153 ROLLER VALLEY 3953 001.076.301.571 COOL CAMP FIELD TRIP ADMISSIC 130.00 Total : 130.00 37408 1/12/2016 000709 SENSKE LAWN &TREE CARE INC. 7023854 001.016.000.521 MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC- 706.56 7024057 001.016.000.521 MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC- 81.47 7025336 001.016.000.521 MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC- 190.23 7026925 001.016.000.521 MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC 2,527.31 Total : 3,505.57 37409 1/12/2016 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 Dec 2015 101.042.000.542 WATER CHARGES: PW 131.17 Total : 131.17 37410 1/12/2016 000470 SPOKANE CO, FAIR AND EXPO CENTER 2015 105.000.000.557 2015 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 6,000.00 2015 105.000.000.557 2015 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 5,876.00 Total : 11,876.00 37411 1/12/2016 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM Dec 2015 105.000.000.557 2015 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 2,195.00 Dec 2015 105.000.000.557 2015 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB 845.29 Total : 3,040.29 37412 1/12/2016 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 53913 001.016.000.521 DEC 2015 MONTHLY MAINT: PRECI 605.46 Total : 605.46 37413 1/12/2016 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 2461 309.000.232.594 0232-DISCOVERY SHADE STRUCT 1,294.50 Total : 1,294.50 37414 1/12/2016 004856 UNCLE SAM'S FLAG &GIFT 15113001 001.016.000.521 FLAG ARRANGEMENT FOR PRECII 48.92 Total : 48.92 21 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 69,577.02 21 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 69,577.02 Page: ,,,2-"'"` vchlist Voucher List Page:/I/ ..V/ 01/14/2016 9:55:46AM Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6503 1/14/2016 004863 CLAUSEN, LISA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 89.00 Total : 89.00 6504 1/14/2016 004864 DOI, KAYCE PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOUT 210.00 Total : 210.00 6505 1/14/2016 004865 GUNNING, MEGAN PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM#109 52.00 Total : 52.00 6506 1/14/2016 004866 LAW OFFICE OF MARK KNAPP PLLC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:ROOM#110 100.00 Total : 100.00 6507 1/14/2016 004867 OLSON,TYLER PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM#109 52.00 Total : 52.00 6508 1/14/2016 004868 SAFE LLC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND:AUDITORIUM 52.00 Total : 52.00 6509 1/14/2016 004869 USTIMENKO, SLAVIC PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 7 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 765.00 7 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 765.00 Page: ..•T vchlist Voucher List Page: a --1--- 01/15/2016 tom01/15/2016 10:22:05AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37415 1/15/2016 000150 ALLIED FIRE&SECURITY IVC1035156 001.076.305.575 KEYS FOR CENTERPLACE 82.07 RCB1192643 001.076.305.575 SECURITY MONITORING AT CENTE 115.50 SVC1114649 001.076.305.575 SPRINKLER HEAD REPAIR:ORDEF 132.07 Total : 329.64 37416 1/15/2016 001081 ALSCO LSPO1713150 001.016.000.521 FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC 20.39 Total : 20.39 37417 1/15/2016 000277 AWC 39925 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE VALLEY MEMBERSHIP F 64,724.00 Total : 64,724.00 37418 1/15/2016 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9712352 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 299.11 9714326 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY ATC 341.30 S0126361 001.076.305.575 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C 33.65 Total : 674.06 37419 1/15/2016 000572 CARTER,CAROL Expenses 001.076.305.575 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 50.07 Total : 50.07 37420 1/15/2016 002963 INLAND EMPIRE GARDENERS,THE 10053 001.076.305.575 ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE 632.50 Total : 632.50 37421 1/15/2016 003277 INLAND NW BUSINESS ALLIANCE 22027 001.076.305.575 2016 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES 150.00 Total : 150.00 37422 1/15/2016 003316 INLAND NW BUSINESS,TRAVEL ASSOC 2016 001.076.305.575 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES&8 A 390.00 Total : 390.00 37423 1/15/2016 001002 M&L SUPPLY CO INC S100239204.001 001.016.000.521 SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT 16.57 Total : 16.57 37424 1/15/2016 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW CP M-1-4-16 001.076.305.575 MEDIA AND PURCHASES EXPENSE 3,505.57 CP P 1-4-2016 001.076.305.575 AGENCY PRODUCTION AND PLANT 1,265.00 Total : 4,770.57 37425 1/15/2016 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC Feb 2016 001.090.000.518 CITY HALL RENT:FEB 2016 35,511.52 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 7— ---c 01/15/2016 10:22:05AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37425 1/15/2016 000193 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL I (Continued) Total : 35,511.52 37426 1/15/2016 002534 PEAK SOFTWARE SYSTEMS 016749 001.076.305.575 SPORTSMAN SQL SOFTWARE 201. 2,813.00 Total : 2,813.00 37427 1/15/2016 001066 SHARP-LINE INDUSTRIES INC. M114850-IN 001.076.300.576 SIGNS FOR PARKS 125.01 M114853-IN 001.076.300.576 SIGNS FOR DOG PARK 111.97 Total : 236.98 37428 1/15/2016 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES Jan 2016 001.076.302.576 SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS:JAI 1,715.50 Total : 1,715.50 37429 1/15/2016 001992 SPOKANE HOTEL MOTEL ASSOC 1452 001.076.305.575 MEETING FEES FOR JAN-DEC 2011 90.00 Total : 90.00 37430 1/15/2016 000731 SPOKANE RESTAURANT EQUIP INC 66559 001.076.305.575 KITCHEN ITEMS FOR CENTERPLAI 133.97 Total : 133.97 37431 1/15/2016 000167 VERA WATER&POWER January 2016 101.042.000.542 UTILITIES:JAN 2016 3,258.90 Total : 3,258.90 37432 1/15/2016 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 9383994 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 1,014.93 9383995 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 217.40 Total : 1,232.33 37433 1/15/2016 000129 WRPA 1/4/2016 001.076.300.576 MEMBERSHIP RENEWALS:2016 491.00 729 001.076.302.576 CONFERENCE: PAPICH/CARTER 538.00 Total : 1,029.00 19 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 117,779.00 19 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 117,779.00 Page: ---2- vchlist Voucher List Page:/91 --1" 01/15/2016 3:35:23PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37434 1/15/2016 000197 ACRANET 1512622 101.000.000.542 NEW HIRE BACKGROUND CHECK; 76.00 Total : 76.00 37435 1/15/2016 002603 B&H PHOTO VIDEO 105319111 107.000.000.594 LAVALIER MIC'S FOR COUNCIL CR 1,315.88 105531755 001.090.000.518 UPS'FOR CENTERPLACE AND CIT 3,787.20 Total : 5,103.08 37436 1/15/2016 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 15385 001.058.055.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,117.50 Total : 2,117.50 37437 1/15/2016 000173 BINGAMAN,GREG EXPENSES 001.018.014.514 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 3.45 Total : 3.45 37438 1/15/2016 004439 BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS INC 20312237 001.076.305.575 PHONE SERVICE AT CENTERPLAC 214.13 Total : 214.13 37439 1/15/2016 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOCIATES INC M14310-5 303.303.155.595 0155-SULLIVAN BRIDGE MATERIAL 390.28 M14310-9 303.303.155.595 0155-SULLIVAN BRIDGE MATERIAL 4,169.76 Total : 4,560.04 37440 1/15/2016 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 606167438 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 112.42 606167600 101.042.000.543 SUPPLIES: PW 255.95 Total : 368.37 37441 1/15/2016 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 51886 001.013.000.513 WEB HOSTING 2,641.41 Total : 2,641.41 37442 1/15/2016 000683 DAVID EVANS &ASSOCIATES 368969 101.042.000.542 SPV TRAFFIC SERVICES 2015 11,934.00 Total : 11,934.00 37443 1/15/2016 003256 DISCOVERY BENEFITS INC, HRA PLAN 0000602700-IN 001.018.016.518 DECEMBER HRA SERVICE FEE 436.50 Total : 436.50 37444 1/15/2016 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 1215-0592 303.000.201.595 0201-ACQUISITION/APPRAISAL SE 3,280.00 Total : 3,280.00 37445 1/15/2016 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC 0138453 311.000.000.544 TASK 0'00 PAVEMENT EVALUATIOP 15,218.40 Page: a---- vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 01/15/2016 3:35:23PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37445 1/15/2016 001003 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC (Continued) Total : 15,218.40 37446 1/15/2016 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL Dec15 1042 001.011.000.511 GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 3,751.21 Total : 3,751.21 37447 1/15/2016 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 Dec 2015 001.076.300.576 UTILITIES: PARKS 166.00 Total : 166.00 37448 1/15/2016 002955 JEWELL EXCAVATING &CONST 10254 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 7,590.00 Total : 7,590.00 37449 1/15/2016 003251 MDI MARKETING 10379 106.000.230.537 ADVERTISING 8,130.00 Total : 8,130.00 37450 1/15/2016 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 439 SPOK VALLEY/DIRK 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 39.00 492-EDEN PIT 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,559.79 496 CENTENNIAL TRAIL 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 530.40 Total : 3,129.19 37451 1/15/2016 002388 MJM GRAND INC 7034-1 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 12,527.50 Total : 12,527.50 37452 1/15/2016 002203 NAPAAUTO PARTS 710150 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES FOR MAINTENANCE SH 216.07 712143 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES FOR MAINTENANCE SH 5.20 712721 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES FOR MAINTENANCE SH 32.58 712859 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES FOR MAINTENANCE SH 31.18 713943 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES FOR MAINTENANCE SH 173.20 Total : 458.23 37453 1/15/2016 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER DECEMBER 2015 001.016.000.586 STATE REMITTANCE DEC 2015 46,522.15 Total : 46,522.15 37454 1/15/2016 000058 OMA A500163 101.000.000.542 NEW HIRE PHYSICALS DECEMBEF 375.00 Total : 375.00 37455 1/15/2016 000881 OXARC INC R387515 101.042.000.542 CYLINDER RENTAL 106.06 Total : 106.06 Page: c-2-"-- vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 -3--- 01/15/2016 3:35:23PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37456 1/15/2016 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 44820 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 14,162.95 44820-1 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 15,990.00 Total : 30,152.95 37457 1/15/2016 002520 RWC GROUP 162169 101.000.000.542 SERVICE'97 INT'L 2574#207 1,653.59 Total : 1,653.59 37458 1/15/2016 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 6935144 402.402.000.531 LANDSCAPING 1,975.00 7023808 001.090.000.518 SNOW REMOVAL CITY HALL 141.31 7023852 001.090.000.518 SNOW REMOVAL CITY HALL 97.83 7023853 001.090.000.518 SNOW REMOVAL FUTURE CITY HP 92.40 7026923 001.090.000.518 SNOW REMOVAL CITY HALL 391.32 Total : 2,697.86 37459 1/15/2016 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 58969 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 48.92 Total : 48.92 37460 1/15/2016 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD DECEMBER 2015 101.042.000.542 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 2,220.00 Total : 2,220.00 37461 1/15/2016 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE DECEMBER 2015 001.058.055.558 RECORDING FEES 1,218.00 Total : 1,218.00 37462 1/15/2016 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 50313805 001.058.050.558 GIS SERVICES FROM SPOKANE Ct 10,865.00 Total : 10,865.00 37463 1/15/2016 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY DECEMBER 2015 001.016.000.586 CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F 673.38 Total : 673.38 37464 1/15/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 110100116 101.042.000.542 ENGINEERING 38,016.54 50313278 402.402.000.531 STORMBILL APPLICATION USAGE: 1,200.00 51503051 101.042.000.542 11-2015 WORK CREW: PW 4,614.00 51503067 101.042.000.542 12-2015 WORK CREW: PW 4,635.25 51503082 001.016.000.523 DECEMBER 2015 HOUSING INVOIC 117,234.00 9020100314 001.090.000.514 2015 GENERAL ELECTION 16,347.46 9020100374 001.090.000.514 2015 VOTER REGISTRATION COST 97,091.46 Total : 279,138.71 Page: /7 vchlist Voucher List Page: —4-- 01/15/2016 3:35:23PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37465 1/15/2016 000391 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DIST.#1 Q4-2015 001.229.45.00 Q4-2015 FIRE FEES 12,838.00 Total : 12,838.00 37466 1/15/2016 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3288847966 001.011.000.511 OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGISLATIVE 42.52 3288847967 001.011.000.511 OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGISLATIVE 33.88 3288847968 001.013.000.513 OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGISLATIVE 79.17 3288847969 001.058.057.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD 98.89 3288847970 001.058.057.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD 225.73 3288847976 001.058.057.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD 42.21 3288847981 001.058.057.558 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD 128.91 Total : 651.31 37467 1/15/2016 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL 967565 101.042.000.542 TRANSFER STATION-WINDSTORM 258.83 Total : 258.83 37468 1/15/2016 004740 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 833228112 001.013.015.515 SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES 766.02 Total : 766.02 37469 1/15/2016 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8080040040 001.058.057.558 SERVICE 2013 ESCAPE 53666D 209.68 Total : 209.68 37470 1/15/2016 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 12312015 001.011.000.511 BROADCASTING COUNCIL MEETIF' 1,404.00 Total : 1,404.00 37471 1/15/2016 000723 US HEALTH WORKS 0646109-WA 001.018.016.518 PE-DOT PHYSICAL 94.00 Total : 94.00 37472 1/15/2016 003206 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP 124369 001.058.056.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,735.20 Total : 1,735.20 37473 1/15/2016 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 9757558221 101.042.000.542 DEC 2015 WIRELESS DATA CARDS 320.08 Total : 320.08 37474 1/15/2016 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 48647 001.018.013.513 POSTAGE SERVICES 2,774.34 48968 303.303.155.595 POSTAGE SERVICES 1,592.94 Total : 4,367.28 37475 1/15/2016 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO MR7601024993 101.042.000.542 FORKLIFT RENTAL-MAINTENANCI 384.58 Page: /2 vchlist Voucher List Page: �- 01/15/2016 3:35:23PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37475 1/15/2016 002363 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO (Continued) Total : 384.58 37476 1/15/2016 000842 WM WINKLER COMPANY 15908-01A 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 12-2015 6,240.00 Total : 6,240.00 43 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 486,645.61 43 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 486,645.61 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: �� CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 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 Pay Period Ending January 15, 2016 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN; BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 287,457.08 $ - $ 287,457.08 Benefits: $ 141,954.51 $ - $ 141,954.51 Total payroll $ 429,411.59 $ - $ 429,411.59 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 26,2016 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business [' public hearing ❑Information ❑ admin. report Spending legislation executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Confirmation: Mayoral Appointment to HCDAC Committee GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At the January 12, 2016 Council meeting, Mayor Higgins recommended, and Council confirmed,numerous appointments of Councilmembers to various boards and committees. Since that appointment, it has been determined that Deputy Mayor Woodard's term on the HCDAC (Housing and Community Development Advisory) Committee was in effect until December 31, 2017. BACKGROUND: Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember Hafner agree with this correction, as does Mayor Higgins. OPTIONS: Move to confirm the Mayoral appointment correction as noted; or take other action as deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to confirm the Mayoral appointment correction to retain Deputy Mayor Woodard on the HCDAC until his term expires December 31, 2017, in place of the January 12,2016 appointment of Councilmember Hafner to said committee. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Mayor Higgins ATTACHMENTS n/a DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,January 5,2016 In the absence of a mayor, City Clerk Bainbridge called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Mark Calhoun,Deputy City Manager Dean Grafos, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Ed Pace, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Sam Wood, Councilmember John Hohman, Community&Econ. Dev Dir. Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director Erik Guth,Public Works Director Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole,Living Hope Community Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Members from Boy Scout Troop 456 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present with Councilmember Gothmann participating via telephone conference call. 1. ELECTION OF COUNCIL OFFICERS: Chris Bainbridge After City Clerk Bainbridge explained the process of electing council officers, as noted in the Council's Governance Manual, Ms. Bainbridge opened the floor for nominations. Councilmember Wood nominated Mr. Higgins. Councilmember Gothmann nominated Mr. Hafner. There were no further nominations and the nominations were closed. Each Councilmember completed a ballot, and the ballots were collected by City Clerk Bainbridge. Once they were collected, Ms. Bainbridge asked Councilmember Gothmann for his vote, and he indicated his vote was for Mr. Hafner, and Ms. Bainbridge completed his ballot. The results of the ballots were those voting for Mr. Higgins included Councilmembers Higgins, Wood, Woodard, and Pace. Those voting for Mr. Hafner included Councilmembers Hafner, Grafos, and Gothmann. Mr. Higgins received the majority of votes and was therefore declared the Mayor. Ms. Bainbridge asked Mayor Higgins if he wished to conduct the voting for Deputy Mayor or if he preferred she do so, and he asked that she continue. Ms. Bainbridge called for nominations for Deputy Mayor. Councilmember Pace nominated Councilmember Woodard for Deputy Mayor. There were no further nominations, and the nominations were closed. Since there was only one nomination, votes were conducted by a show of hands, with all votes being cast for Mr. Woodard; hence, Mr. Woodard was declared the Deputy Mayor. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve the agenda. It was then moved by Councilmember Pace and seconded, to amend the agenda to place a new business item after the Consent Agenda - a resolution declaring that Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. There was discussion about the amendment and whether it was out of order, with Councilmember Gothmann stating that the resolution is something our City already does, and Councilmember Hafner stating that Council has not had an opportunity to discuss this, and that the expectation is to approve this resolution immediately. There was further discussion about the resolution itself, with Council discussion ultimately moving back to the amended motion on the floor. Vote on whether to amend the motion: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Woodard, Mayor Higgins, and Councilmembers Pace, and Wood. Opposed: Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmembers Gothmann, Grafos, and Hafner. Motion passed. Vote on the amended motion to approve the agenda as amended: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Woodard, Mayor Higgins, and Councilmembers Pace, Wood and Gothmann. Opposed: Councilmembers Grafos and Hafner. Motion passed. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Higgins gave special recognition and thanks to Troop 456 for leading tonight's Pledge of Allegiance. COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Hafner reported that he attended former Councilmember Wick's going away reception, which he said was very well attended, and he thanked Mr. Wick again for his service. Councilmember Pace mentioned the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting and their discussion of a proposed sales tax increase, which he said he opposed. Councilmember Grafos said he also attended the reception for Mr. Wick and too expressed his thanks for Mr. Wick's service. Councilmember Gothmann said he attended Mr. Wick's reception, and mentioned that Councilmember Hafner had been chosen Citizen of the Year by the Chamber of Commerce. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he also attended Mr. Wick's reception and that it was well attended. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Higgins also extended his thanks to Mr. Wick; and mentioned attending a regional Eagle Scout gathering where 250 from the region were tapped to be eagle scouts. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comments. Mr. Rob Lee: said he owns a home here in Spokane Valley; spoke about his concerns with policing; he read most of his written statement and stated that "something doesn't seem right with the police department here in the valley;" and asked why for example, the police chief never speaks to the media but only does so through Sheriff Knezovich; said the shade of patrol cars should match the uniforms to make it easier to identify valley officers; and said he would like a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the various public safety contracts so people will know whether public funds are returning actual services, and said he wanted to know more about the cost of doing business with another local government entity now,in the past, and where those costs might land in the future, which he said would mean an in-depth review and cost analysis of the police, prosecutor, and many contracts with Spokane County. Mr. Tony Lazanis: said some decisions don't come from Council but come from staff or the Chief and he hopes future decisions come forward; said he got a bill from the police chief for$25.00 and that he was penalized$10.00 for a false alarm,but he only had one in 20 years; said all taxpayers pay for the police and said the City should look outside the police department for serving alarms. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Mining Moratorium Renewal—Erik Lamb Mayor Higgins opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb went over the background of the mining moratorium as noted on his January 5, 2016 Request for Council Action form; reiterated that this would not impact existing lawful operations that were in operation the day of the moratorium; said staff is aware of several Central Pre-mix owned and operated sites, and one Spokane County site; said there have been no permit applications received to-date regarding mining; said staff continues working through the Comprehensive Plan process, and as part of that process, staff was accepting Citizen Amendment Requests (CARs); one of which was approved by Council for further consideration, which was submitted by CPM Development to include a new chapter creating Mineral Resource Lands goals, policies, and designation criteria and a corresponding map amendment to designate four sites as a Mineral Resource Land Overlay on the City's official comprehensive plan map. Mr. Lamb said that since the City does not anticipate completing the Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23, 2016, when the moratorium expires, staff recommends a six-month renewal. Mr. Lamb mentioned that one of the reasons for the delay with the comp plan, is we have not been provided the population allocation by the County, which number is critical to the City's development of the Plan Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Update as it provides the basis for planning future growth and assessing appropriate land use quantities to meet future growth needs. There was brief Council discussion about the possibility of modifying the moratorium if necessary, and Mr. Lamb said the ordinance and findings should be before Council within two to three weeks and Council could move it forward to modify the moratorium if desired. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Mr. John Pederson, said he is speaking on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and he presented documents to the City Clerk for Council,which reiterates the County's previous testimony; said he supports the Council's actions and desire to modify the moratorium as originally adopted, said it did impact the Eden County Pit Site, and asked that the moratorium be revised to specifically reflect the intent, that if the intent was not to impact any of the existing mining operations that were in existence or had vested rights, they ask that the moratorium be amended to specifically identify which parcels, by parcel number or exhibit or by map, that are exempt from the moratorium, and said he would provide those two parcel numbers tonight that reference the Flora and the Eden Pit Sites; said they have vested rights to operate those sites and it would be advantageous to modify the moratorium to reflect those parcels that are categorically exempt from the moratorium; said they support the designation and the ongoing work of staff and Mr. Hohman, and our coordination with him in assisting in identifying appropriate resource lands, and said they believe the County pit site should be designated accordingly, and asked that they be exempted in a revised moratorium. He handed documents to the City Clerk,which had been submitted previously. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that the Flora site was ongoing and therefore not subject to the moratorium, and Mr. Pederson responded that the County feels it should be enumerated in the moratorium as exempt just for clarity purposes so there is no question about the site; and further in response to Councilmember Gothmann's questions, Mr. Lamb replied that the Flora pit is an active site that was in lawful and continuous operation as of the date of the moratorium and therefore would not be subject to the moratorium. Stacy Bjordahl: said she was speaking on behalf of Central Pre-Mix Development Corp, and she read portions of a January 5, 2016 letter to Spokane Valley Council, signed by John Shogren, Vice President/General Manager of Central Pre-Mix Development Corporation: "Dear Mayor and Council Members: First of all, I would like to apologize for not being present at this evening's hearing to provide oral testimony. We did not receive notice of the hearing and only heard of it through representatives of Spokane County; otherwise, I would have rearranged my travel and work schedule to ensure that I could be present for this important meeting. We are surprised that an extension of the moratorium is under consideration as we were told in previous meetings and in discussions with members of this Council and building trade groups that no such extension would be needed or granted, beyond the year of study since the initial passage of the moratorium that will have occurred by mid-February. It does not seem that the justification for an extension of the moratorium is material to the study, designation and protection of mineral resource lands. Any small percentage change in population projection will not materially change the fact that there are more than 839 acres of Tier One industrial lands within the City of Spokane Valley and that only 158 acres are needed to meet the 2031 planning horizon; this is over 4 times the need of industrial land.' Even if a small percentage of industrial land was needed to accommodate future residential growth, there is still excess capacity of industrial land supply not only in the City of Spokane Valley but Spokane County as a region. We are concerned that Staff continues to make statements that secondary use of mined land is limited, especially given the many examples we have testified to previously, including: high end residential developments, commercial, light and heavy industrial and probable conservation sites. Not only does this fly in the face of the facts of beneficial secondary usage but further discounts the fact that all development for city growth is dependent on an economically viable source of aggregates. While we appreciate that the Staff Report to Council states existing, entitled and vested sites are exempt from the moratorium, we request that if the moratorium is extended, it be modified to include an exhibit specifically listing and formally excluding the existing, entitled or vested sites from this process. We have included that list attached as Exhibit A to this letter which includes our approved aggregate reserves at Tschirley. . . . . In closing, we do not support an extension of a moratorium that has already been in place for almost a year for all of the reasons outlined above as well as Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT those previously testified to orally and in writing at the previously hearings. If the moratorium is extended,we request it be modified as described in Exhibit A. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue." ['City of Spokane Valley Land Quantity Analysis for Urban Growth Update-September 2010,previously submitted on March 24, 2015.] (Copies of the letter and attachments were handed to the City Clerk for distribution to Council.) There were no further comments. Councilmember Grafos stated that as we move forward we should exclude the Eden Pit from the moratorium, as he prefers not to take a chance that we are harming an existing business, and would therefore like to modify the moratorium so Eden and Central Pre-Mix are excluded. Councilmember Hafner and Gothmann agreed. Councilmember Pace said we should keep the moratorium until the comp plan is done,that nothing has changed and there were good reasons for doing the moratorium in the first place. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he wants to study the letter from Ms. Bjordahl and he wants to keep an open mind as to what it is we are trying to do and why; said the biggest concern is we are not finished with the comp plan,which was being delayed due to the needed population allocation. Councilmember Grafos added that if we are going to be business friendly, he sees no reason why they should not be excluded. Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately.Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of vouchers listed on Jan 5,2016 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $1,993,878.75 b. Approval of Payroll for period ending December 15,2015: $334,943.83 c. Approval of December 1,2015 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval of December 8,2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes e. Approval of December 8,2015 Regular Council Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Mayor Higgins called for a ten-minute recess at 7:01 p.m.;he reconvened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. ADDED ITEM: Action Item: Resolution Declaring that Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. It was moved by Councilmember Pace and seconded by Councilmember Wood to adopt a resolution declaring that the City of Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. Councilmember Pace said people confuse the City of Spokane and our city all the time; that the City of Spokane said they are a sanctuary city; said this issue has been brought up three times over the past year and never made it to the agenda; said he is not anti-immigrant or anti-immigration, but this is about honoring and enforcing the existing immigration laws, and said some cities don't do that. Councilmember Pace read the resolution into the record: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON,DECLARING THAT THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY IS NOT A SANCTUARY CITY. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley puts public safety as the number one priority for our City; and WHEREAS, supporting our law enforcement community in their efforts to maintain law and order toward the end of a high level of public safety is a priority of the executive and legislative branches of our City Government; and WHEREAS,cooperating with County, State and Federal law enforcement agencies is an important part of maintaining law and order and public safety; and WHEREAS,it is the policy of the City Council that the City of Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city which means the City Police department will ask for proof of legal residence in the United States when appropriate and City employees are not discouraged from asking for proof of legal residence as appropriate when conducting City business. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington, as follows: 1 —The City of Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. 2—The City of Spokane Valley Police Department is directed to assist other law enforcement agencies in enforcing U.S. immigration laws. 3 — Police officers and Sheriff's deputies, when operating within City limits, and City employees are hereby directed to require proof of legal residence in the U.S. when it is appropriate as part of doing their assigned jobs." Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Pace said in determining what "when appropriate" means, it is appropriate as part of doing their assigned jobs, and that is up to the City Manager, City Attorney and Police Chief to determine what exactly that means. Councilmember Gothmann said he took an oath of office prior to taking his position as a Councilmember, and said this is not needed; said law enforcement also took an oath, and if someone is an illegal immigrant, law enforcement would call the border patrol, so they are already doing this; said he doesn't see a problem we are trying to solve; said we already have clear rules; and as a point of order, said this resolution is out of order. Mayor Higgins ruled that this is not out of order and Councilmember Gothmann challenged his decision. A vote on the challenge resulted in Councilmembers Grafos, Hafner and Gothmann in favor of the challenge, and Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Wood and Pace opposed to the challenge. The challenge was defeated. Councilmember Grafos said that this City is different because we don't have politics in the legislative branch and this brings in politics instead of having a common sense government; said we are profiling people and not everyone in the city agrees with these politics. Deputy Mayor Woodard said resolutions are done to make emphasis and re-clarify what should already be done as common practice and if people don't have documentation,they shouldn't be here, and countered that this is not profiling. Mayor Higgins said this is a simple statement that we are committed to obeying and enforcing our laws as they already exist. Councilmember Hafner said this is not a police state and staff should not have to make a determination about whether to ask about immigration status; said it is the wrong message to the community, is extremist and profiling is against the law and he swore to uphold the laws of the state, nation and city; said this is a disgrace to do this and it doesn't gain anything. Deputy Mayor Woodard said people are screaming that this city take this position, a declaration that we will uphold the law. Councilmember Pace said his wife was a political refugee from Vietnam, and she was a legal immigrant; that this is about illegal immigration, and said his wife doesn't like illegal immigrants and is frustrated with the government for not enforcing immigration laws, and that this will give businesses some sense of security that we are law abiding. Vote by Acclamation in favor of the Resolution: Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Wood and Pace. Opposed to the Resolution: Councilmembers Hafner, Grafos, and Gothmann. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 4. Tesoro Crude Oil Terminal Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Mike Jackson Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Jackson explained that Tesoro Savage Petroleum Terminal, also known as Vancouver Energy, has applied for a Site Certification Agreement to construct and operate a new crude oil terminal capable of receiving an average of 360,000 barrels of crude oil daily; that the crude oil would be unloaded at the proposed facility from trains, stored on site, and loaded into marine vessels at a marine terminal located at the Port of Vancouver in Clark County, Washington; that according to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), an average of four unit trains would arrive and leave for the proposed facility daily for an annual total of 2,290 one-way train trips; and said the trains would pass through Spokane Valley. Mr. Jackson mentioned some of the environmental concerns, such as air quality, transportation, noise, and water resources; said that currently up to fifty trains daily cross Barker Road, and if all potential crude-by-rail facilities are built, the numbers would exceed 57 weekly loaded unit trains by 2020, and 113 weekly loaded trains by 2035. Mr. Jackson noted that the air quality would be impacted, as vehicle idling hours would increase while vehicles waited at the at-grade crossings; he spoke of the increased impact to transportation which could also increase the rate of accidents and fatalities to pedestrians or motorists. Mr. Jackson noted the cost for grade separations, the noise and safety impact, emergency response issues, and the effect and impact of economic development. Councilmember Pace asked if there is any way to regulate rail traffic through our city,by perhaps a utility tax on oil trains; and Mr. Jackson said he is not aware of any as the trains are primarily controlled by the federal government. Councilmember Pace asked if we know about any other, equally dangerous commodities coming across our aquifer and Mr. Jackson said more research would be needed but he did recall hearing something about legislation requiring disclosure of the rail car contents. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Grafos said this should be a majority priority of our city; said we will never be on a federal list to solve these problems, and at some point, we need to "put our money where our mouth is" and look for a way to fund these crossings one at a time; said this would be a major economic impact if there were problems with the oil trains; said our city is cut in half by those train tracks and that we should look at this issue as an economic driver and examine some options. Councilmember Pace said the first priority is public safety so we need to identify the risk and have good plans for dealing with any of the risk; said infrastructure is our second priority and we need to pick which crossing, and figure out how to make it happen, and he mentioned the idea of a ballot measure. 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Councilmember Pace said based on citizen input, he wants to schedule council discussions in study sessions to explore developing a citizen oversight committee for all public safety functions of our city, and all of our public safety contracts including police,jail, public defender, the courts, etc., and have the Mayor appoint a one-year ad-hoc committee with about three to five citizens appointed who have no connection with law enforcement; plus have the City Attorney and a volunteer attorney from the Center for Justice; said they would study all the available information on public safety, including police reports and issues from citizens, employees, police, and councilmembers, and report monthly to the Council in writing and in person, and the Council would decide which items to give to the City Manager as administrative, and which would be legislative policy. Further, Councilmember Pace said the committee members should be given investigative authority over those contracts as there are still incidents where citizens question police behavior, and that this gives the public an opportunity to scrutinize how our government is being run. Councilmember Grafos said as a follow up to these public meetings concerning the trains, he would like to get a list of the people attending those meetings and have public meetings as we did on our parks. Councilmember Hafner said he would like to reevaluate the voting process for bonds as there will be times when Council needs to take a stand, whether it be a County levy lift or other bond issue. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like the historic preservation plan motion brought back for reconsideration rather than distract the efforts of the Planning Commission from the comp plan, and said he wants more time to consider the issue. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Mr. Jackson asked if the Mayor and Deputy Mayor would be available Monday at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the advance agenda, and there were no objections. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:38 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,January 12,2016 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Mark Calhoun,Deputy City Manager Dean Grafos, Councilmember Cary Driskell, City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Ed Pace, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Sam Wood, Councilmember John Hohman, Community&Econ. Dev Dir. Mike Stone,Parks&Recreation Director ABSENT: Erik Guth,Public Works Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem Rick VanLeuven,Police Chief Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Brad Bruszer of Genesis Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Council, staff and audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Gothmann. It was moved by Councilmember Pace, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Gothmann from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS There were no reports. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Higgins reported that he attended a Clean Air meeting where they discussed the November windstorm air quality, and that it exceeded the scale for normal hazardous amounts. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Rob Lee: said he spoke here last week; mentioned that a citizens oversight committee was brought up by Council and said he fully supports that; said Spokane County said they have an oversight committee but it's just an advisory board and not a truly independent committee; thinks the general public needs to be more aware of what's going on with law enforcement; commented again about a lot of unmarked vehicles or vehicles not clearly marked Spokane Valley Police Department, said it's like the valley has no identity; said he lives here part time and elsewhere part time; said most things are contracted out with this city so that takes jobs away from people here. Hearth Homes Director Angela Slabaugh, Past President Cherie Larson, and current Board President Rick Wicks: all expressed thanks for Spokane Valley's support in 2015 and 2016; said last year they housed 19 mothers, 28 children, served over 300 valley residents in identifying resources; said they had over 7,000 volunteer hours which equals about four full-time positions; and said they have almost raised enough to pay their building's mortgage in full. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-12-2016 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Jennie Willardson: concerning the resolution that was passed last week, said she has been a long time resident and is deeply troubled by Ed Pace's anti-sanctuary resolution and the way in which it was passed; said it was added at the last minute so it didn't allow the public to know it was going to be on agenda and hear about it; said the majority Councilmembers were not kind to those with a dissenting opinion; said staff didn't advise on the pros, cons or other issues and it was passed without public comment; she said it was mentioned at that meeting that we are not like the city to the west, but she said that Spokane's resolution was on their agenda and citizens knew it was going to be on and staff was advising and the public was allowed to comment; said she wanted to comment last week but there wasn't any public comment on that resolution; and said she is troubled by the new city council majority not allowing freedom of speech. Marilyn Cline, Spokane Valley: said she is troubled with comments last week about law enforcement; said some of the questions that were asked were asked without contemplating the cost - like marked police cars; said there are marked cars and there are unmarked cars and there are supposed to be unmarked cars; said she is troubled with the police chief being called a ghost; said our police department is accredited thanks to him; said speaking is controlled but she is not sure by whom,but he is available to speak; said she has volunteered with law enforcement for over fifteen years, and the credit that should be given to them is vast; said some were asked if the contract should continue and many said yes; she said that if the S.C.O.P.E. program goes away so does the sheriff's office; said she is the president of S.C.O.P.E. and they save law enforcement$3 million a year by using volunteers. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Tesoro Savage Vancouver Energy Distribution Terminal Facility, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (re Application to construct and operate a new crude oil terminal) — Mike Jackson After Mayor Higgins briefly explained the "ground rules" and purpose of tonight's hearing,he opened the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. City Manager Jackson explained that Tesoro Savage Petroleum Terminal has applied for a Site Certification Agreement to construct and operate a new crude oil terminal capable of receiving an average of 360,000 barrels of crude oil per day, and he mentioned an upcoming hearing scheduled for this Thursday at CenterPlace. Mr. Jackson explained some of the background of the proposed Tesoro facility as shown on his PowerPoint, including some of the impacts that could be experienced through such project, including an increase of train traffic through Spokane Valley, impacts to air quality, transportation, noise, safety emergency response and economic development. Mr. Jackson expressed concern that Spokane Valley's Barker Road was omitted from the Study's Figure 3.14-7 [Volume, Capacity, Utilization and Miles by Segment and Alignment, page 3.14.11] Mr. Jackson suggested he bring Council a draft comment letter at next week's Council meeting so Council can review the letter and consider if and how they would like to respond to the State by the January 22nd deadline. Mr. Jackson suggested as a comment, that information should at least identify the uniqueness of the communities that the trains will travel through as the DEIS is a little too broad. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. 1. Terry Finn, retired director of affairs with BNSF, and now a senior consultant. Said he does a lot of speaking mostly on train safety these days,partly in response to accidents that happened several years ago like in Quebec. He said BNSF takes these accidents very seriously; said that truck traffic was mentioned, but if trucks replaced trains it would mean thousands of truck trips, and said it isn't feasible to handle that bulk commodity; since those accidents the railroad has improved the tracks, and 5,000 state-of-the-art tanker cars have been ordered that have larger valves and wheels that come off in case of a rollover; he said the railroad doesn't own the cars the shipper does, but the railroad wants to make sure there is more control;he mentioned track improvements with infrared devices to detect bad brakes and overheating, and said they are working to see what they can do to prevent any more accidents from occurring; said 135 trains in 2030 seems lot an lawful lot,but it remains a modest percentage of the overall rail traffic, and he acknowledged that Spokane Valley and Spokane are the gateway for rail for much of Washington, so the trains would have to go through here. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-12-2016 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 2. George McGraff, Spokane: regarding the City Manager's report, said he didn't hear anything that was good about this idea of shipping oil to the West Coast; said his primary concern is we have in this area the worst income level for young people and that we're driving our young people out as we don't have work for them; said at least this offers jobs in the northwest and lifts the economy to a degree we wouldn't otherwise have; said realistic thought is needed to decide if we support or oppose this, and that he doesn't know of anything that anybody does that can be guaranteed to be totally safe; said yes, we will want that terminal in Vancouver as it is likely about 60% imported crude oil will no longer be needed as we will be exporting and taking advantage of the natural resources. 3. Lance Fritze, Railroad Union Representative, lives in Coeur d'Alene: said he is a representative of the Pacific NW Regional Councils of Carpenters and is here to support the terminal; said we need a steady reliable supply of oil and have it when and where it is needed; said shipping oil by rail is safer than using a pipeline and more efficient that using trucks and this is a more direct route for use of rail lines; said the company has demonstrated being reasonable by purchasing the newest rail cars, and that they will ensure the facility will be properly built; said we could use the additional 320 construction jobs, 176 direct on- site jobs and 440 off-site jobs this terminal will create, and voting for this means$1.6 billion in income in construction in the first 15 years of operation. 4. Mike Peterson, Lands Council Director: said his Council has over 150 members in Spokane Valley and that some are very concerned about this proposed increase in oil traffic; said he works with the Sheriff's Office and they are very concerned about the safety aspects of this issue; said there is an average of nine derailments a month, or about one every third day and it looks like Spokane Valley would have many major delays; said it is not possible to downplay some of the dangers of the oil; there were twelve major fires and/or explosions since 2013, some of which involved those new rail cars that are supposedly safer; said that BNSF has had a number of violations and they were fined for failure to maintain the railways;he thanked Mr. Jackson for presenting an excellent write up; suggests people take a closer look at Tesoro as they have had over 4,000 air quality violations, and said they are not a safe company to be partnering with and that we won't gain anything except increased traffic. 5. Jace Bylenga, Sierra club: said there are about one hundred members in Spokane Valley; said there are many risks with the project for this area; people are very concerned it would bring a lot of health and safety risks and no benefits except to make some corporations a lot of money by exporting our resources to other countries; said we could experience doubling of rail traffic in Spokane Valley; he mentioned the disaster at Quebec; again said there are too many risks and no benefits, and he hopes Council will send the message to the Governor not to approve this project. 6. Jennie Willardson, Spokane Valley: expressed her concern with oil trains; said as train traffic is now,it is already difficult dealing with delays on North Pines, even without the increased traffic; said she spends a lot of time waiting for trains when she could be meeting with clients; also expressed concern of what would happen should an ambulance need to get across the tracks; said trains do derail and the tracks by the mall, we could have spills into the River; mentioned cost to the fire department; said any jobs would be in Vancouver and that this is not a positive impact for our community,but rather represents a net loss. 7. Matt Gill, Tesoro Anacortes Refinery External Affairs Manager: asked Council to consider that the Vancouver energy project will provide important benefits at the state and national level as it lends to increase Washington state jobs; said access to domestic oil is less carbon-intensive and therefore results in lower carbon emissions; said currently oil must be imported from foreign governments and this could reduce those by about 30% and at $30 a barrel we could keep $10.8 million a day as opposed to sending that to other countries; said a$210 million investment will generate $22 million in payments for state and local taxes, and would provide 320 full-time during construction jobs and 176 direct on site and 400 off site jobs. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-12-2016 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 8. Spokane Valley Fire Chief Bryan Collins: said he agrees with Mr. Jackson that the DEIS is very broad, particularly about life safety and response capabilities; said if a rail accident were to occur, it would require regional and state mobilization; said this study does not address how emergency response companies would take care of ongoing emergency needs while attending to such an accident; said he would like to see more discussion in the report; also mentioned the hazardous materials in the area and said that would be a challenge as emergency response units do not have the training and equipment needed to deal with an emergency of such magnitude; also mentioned there would be significant issues like evacuation of so many people and no plan on how to move the thousands of people, nor where to move them to as we are severely lacking in sheltering capabilities. 9. Patrick Gannon, Spokane Valley: said he sits on the Orchard Avenue Water Board, District 6; said he previously voiced concern about the aquifer that these trains will be travelling over; said we are here because of the clean water; said BNSF has a blatant disregard for that by putting in a fueling station in Idaho; said they have had multiple leaks, and one incident could ruin our water source and hence our livelihood; said we have some of the best water in the country, and putting oil over our aquifer is a threat to our life. 10. Zack Hutzenbiler, Post Falls: said he is part of the Local 242 boilermakers union in Spokane; said he personally knows dozens of people who would get jobs from this facility; said they travel to work but they live in Spokane City and Spokane Valley; said others like pipefitters and ironworkers union members who live in Spokane and Spokane Valley would also gain jobs from this and spend their money here; that this would create a lot of jobs and help the economy; said he never heard anything about leaks in Idaho; said he personally knows that this would help; said rail cars have come a long way and he hasn't heard of any recent safety hazards or train derailments like there was in Quebec and Canada and that personally it would help his life and help him. 11. Laura Ackerman, lives in Spokane County near Cheney: said according to the DEIS, there is a prediction of a derailment of a loaded oil train once every two years in Washington state, which she said is a great risk; the amount of CO2 that is significant on a global scale would be approximately 54 million metric tons per year; said Tesoro put out information in a pamphlet about greenhouse gas emissions, they said they used the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for a reference in that, but she said Carnegie is challenging that reference because they are saying that the pamphlet wrongly implies that the research had analyzed Bakken shale crude to conclude that it had emitted fewer greenhouse gases other than crude and she said this was from an article in the Seattle Times and reported in the Spokesman Review; said the Endowment has not yet analyzed Bakken Shale emissions, and that "early indications are that greenhouse gas emissions are likely to vary greatly depending on whether natural gas is flared in the oil fields." She said you can't make a blanket statement that Bakken will produce less CO2; we also know that the facility is scheduled to receive dillbit; and if you look at the plans you can see that they can't take dillbit; and at least three of the last several accidents were dillbit; it wasn't just Bakken; said she read about an accident in Tesoro Anacortes: "After a deadly fire in Anacortes killed seven workers, state and federal investigators blasted Tesoro calling the company complacent after safety, and issuing 39 citations of willful indifference to hazards to the site;: she asked if we would get any benefits from this facility being built in Vancouver, and answered that no one does; and said that benefits,if any,would stay in the Vancouver area; she encouraged people to attend Thursday's hearing. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned she received two written comments, which she said she distributed to Councilmembers prior to tonight's meeting, one letter from Rick Rienhart discussing oil trains with hazmat "3" signs on them, sitting not too far from Millwood off Trent, and if this continues more trains are likely; and an e-mail received today from Bart Raynjak to Spokane Council to please say "no" to the Country's biggest proposed oil terminal. There were no further comments; Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. and called for a ten-minute recess. The meeting was reconvened at 7:18 p.m. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-12-2016 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of vouchers on Jan. 12,2016 Request for Council Action Form Totaling $2,975,371.58 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending December 31,2015: $494,242.89 c. Approval of December 15,2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval of December 15,2015 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes e. Approval of December 18,2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes f. Approval of December 29,2015 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 3. Proposed Resolution No. 16-002 Declaring Banking Authority—Mark Calhoun It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Resolution #16-002 declaring which qualified public depositories the City is authorized to conduct financial transactions with and declaring which Councilmembers and City officers have signing authority on behalf of the City. Deputy City Manager Calhoun explained that Spokane Valley Municipal Code requires the Council to authorize by resolution, which qualified financial depositories the City may use and who has authority to sign checks for the City; and that periodically this information needs to be updated. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4.Mayoral Appointments: Planning Commissioners—Mayor Higgins Mayor Higgins said that we received applications from many well qualified individuals, and he thanked everyone for taking the time and interest to apply, and then announced his choice of Ken Anderson for the one year position, and Tim Kelly, Suzanne Stathos and James Johnson for the three-year positions. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to confirm the Mayor's nominations for appointment of Tim Kelly, Suzanne Stathos and James Johnson each for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018; and Kevin Anderson to complete the unexpired term of former Commissioner Sam Wood, with a term ending December 31, 2016. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 5.Mayoral Appointments: Councilmembers to Committees/Boards—Mayor Higgins Mayor Higgins mentioned the updated Request for Council Form with proposed changes, and he asked City Clerk Bainbridge to read the committee recommended appointments. After Clerk Bainbridge read the list of recommended appointments, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to confirm the Mayoral appointments of Councilmembers to the committees and boards as listed above. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 6. Street Vacation, 3rd Avenue—Karen Kendall Via her PowerPoint presentation, Planner Kendall explained the proposed street vacation of a portion of 3rd Avenue; she explained the process and the request, showed several photos of the area in question, and explained the conditions that were recommended by the Planning Commission. There were no objections to moving this forward. 7. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins Councilmember Grafos suggested for the January 19 Council meeting, to have the Sheriff come to that meeting and talk about the anti-sanctuary resolution that was passed and what the Spokane Valley Police Department is currently doing with immigration and how they work with the federal government, and to explain what we were doing prior to the resolution; and mentioned he realizes these items would go to the Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 01-12-2016 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Agenda Committee. Deputy Mayor Woodard, as part of the Agenda Committee, said he has no problem with this coming back next week, and other Councilmembers nodded in agreement. Councilmember Grafos also mentioned the problem many people have with trying to get across sidewalks during the winter that are impacted with snow and ice; he suggested the ordinance for clearing sidewalks be examined, and perhaps if a business doesn't clear a sidewalk within twelve hours of the end of a storm, that Spokane Valley would have a crew clean them and send the business owner the bill. Concerning the Council's Governance Manual adopted by Resolution 15-007, Councilmember Hafner suggested there was a disregard of those rules last Tuesday and said this manual would be a good discussion at the upcoming workshop, or if we are not going to follow the rules Council sets, to abandon the manual. Councilmember Pace agreed the manual should be discussed and he requested a meeting of the Governance Manual Committee be scheduled as soon as possible. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Jackson mentioned the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the State's upcoming Thursday public hearing ; said written comments are important and that he would draft some comments for Council's review next week to decide if Council wants to comments, and if so,how. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-12-2016 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 26,2016 Department Director: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ®new business n public hearing n information n admin. report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading of Proposed Ordinance 16-001 —street vacation of 3rd Avenue DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Dan Hultquist has requested the vacation of approximately 14,400 square feet of 3rd Avenue. The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located between Appleway Trail and 4th Avenue,just west of Skipworth Road, and adjacent to six parcels (45212.0703,45212.0719,45212.0720,45212.0721,45212.0722 and 45212.0723). GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 22.140; RCW 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: At the November 10, 2015 City Council meeting a public hearing date was scheduled with the Planning Commission for December 10,2015. BACKGROUND: The City received an application from Dan Hultquist on October 21, 2015 requesting a street vacation of approximately 14,400 square feet of 3rd Avenue. The property owner is making a request for the following reasons: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained; 2. The location of the road, limits the maximum use of abutting properties; 3. All six parcels abutting 3rd Avenue (north/south) are owned by the same property owner; 4. The structures along the east and west property line hinder future right-of-way connection; and 5. No parcels use 3rd Avenue for access. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on November 12, 2015 and a public hearing on December 10,2015. Following public testimony and deliberations,the Planning Commission voted six to zero to recommend approval of the proposed street vacation. The findings and recommendations were approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2015. On January 12, 2016 an administrative report was presented to City Council. SVMC Section 22.140.040 directs City Council to consider the Planning Commission's findings, conditions and/or limitations appropriate to preserve the public use or benefit, the division of the vacated right-of-way among abutting property owners, and lastly whether to require compensation for the right- of-way and when it is to be paid. Council established Resolution 07-009 to provide parameters on requiring compensation. Within the Resolution, Section 1(Policy); states "The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal 50% of the appraised value of the vacated property received". Section 1.1.a allows the property values to be averaged, if value of adjacent properties differs. Based on the average assessed land value of the adjacent properties, $11,732.85 is 50% of the assessed value. The calculation of assessed value for the vacated street is detailed below. Page 1 of 2 Parcel Number Appraised Market Value Lot Size in Square Appraised Value per Feet(ft2) Square Foot(ft2) 45212.0720 $24,000.00 12,600 $1.90 45212.0721 $30,000.00 11,865 $2.53 45212.0703 $54,000.00 34,050 $1.59 45121.0723 $54,000.00 33,301 $1.62 45212.0722 $30,000.00 15,855 $0.53 45212.0719 $24,000.00 15,265.5 $1.57 1. Average appraised value per ft2 $9.74/6= $1.62 2. Square footage of vacation 14,485 ft2 3. Appraised value for the area of street vacation. 14,485 ft2 x$1.62= $23,465.70 4. 50%of appraised value $23,465.70 x 50% = $11,732.85 5. Subtracting amount paid for application processing $11,732.85 - $ 1,365.00=$10,367.85 Estimated value of vacated 3rd Avenue =$10,367.85 Section 1.4 of Resolution 07-009 allows City Council to take an alternative approach if it is determined the public interest is better served. In addition to the standard street vacation conditions, the Planning Commission recommended the property owner provide a 15 foot easement or dedicate public right-of- way for a 10 foot paved non-motorized pathway that will extend from the north end of Skipworth Road to Appleway Trail. At the time of development the property owner will be required to dedicate and construct a public street cul-de-sac at the north end of Skipworth Road. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to advance Ordinance # 16-001 to a second reading at the February 9,2016 Council meeting. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall,Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance 16-001 2. Signed Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation 3. Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission 4. Approved Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 12,2015 5. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 10,2015 6. Resolution 07-009 7. Presentation Page 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 16-001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 14,400 SQUARE FEET OF 3RD AVENUE LOCATED BETWEEN SKIPWORTH AND PARCEL 45212.0711,AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS,on October 21,2015, a completed application for vacation was filed requesting the vacation of approximately 14,400 square feet of 3rd Avenue; and WHEREAS,on November 10, 2015,the City Council by Resolution 15-009 set a public hearing date for December 10,2015 with the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS,on December 10,2015,the Planning Commission held a public hearing; and WHEREAS, following the hearing, the Planning Commission found that the notice and hearing requirements of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)22.140.020 had been met; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission findings and minutes have been filed with the City Clerk as part of the public record supporting the vacation; and WHEREAS, none of the property owners abutting the property to be vacated filed a written objection to the proposed vacation with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 22.140 SVMC, the City shall transfer the vacated property to abutting property owners, the zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street shall attach to the vacated property, a record of survey shall be submitted to the Community and Economic Development Department, and all direct and indirect costs of title transfer to the vacated street shall be paid by the proponent or recipient of the transferred property. In this particular case,the vacated property shall be transferred to parcels 45212.0703, 45212.0719, 45212.0720, 45212.0721, 45212.0722 and 45212.0723; and WHEREAS, the vacated roadway is located adjacent to the above noted parcels and was created pursuant to SP-1170-97 and County Road File No. 1840-39 associated with documents recorded per file numbers 7303230003 and 398328B; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to vacate the above street pursuant to chapter 22.140 SVMC. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The City Council makes the following findings of fact: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved without pavement, curb or gutter. Existing utilities such as electric, gas, sewer and water are located within the current right-of-way at either end. The utility purveyors have requested easements to preserve existing infrastructure and future connections. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use the proposed vacated area for access. When development occurs, the public will be served by a cul-de-sac at the end of Skipworth Road providing a benefit to the surrounding parcels for turnaround capabilities which presently do not exist. Ordinance 16-001 -Street Vacation STV-2015-0001 Page 1 of 5 DRAFT 2. The right-of-way being vacated is currently vacant land not being utilized for public use or access and is not required for current or future public use or access. The City's Arterial Street Plan provides no indication of 3rd Avenue nor proposes a need for future street extension. 3. The proposal includes right-of-way for a future cul-de-sac, to be designed per City of Spokane Valley Street Standards(SVSS),which will allow access and turnaround capabilities for existing residents. The proposal also includes a dedicated 15-foot right-of-way strip (or easement) for a future multiuse/bicycle trail connection to the Appleway Trail. An existing 12-foot access easement currently exists to parcel 45212.0722 and is proposed to remain. 4. No changes are anticipated that provide a greater use or need from current conditions. The City's Arterial Street Plan does not designate 3rd Avenue extending beyond the current established right-of-way. 5. No objections have been received to the proposed vacation from the notice of public hearing and/or routing to staff and agencies. 6. The vacated property is adjacent to the above-described parcels and title shall vest in those parcels. 7. [Pursuant to Resolution 07-009, Policy for Imposing Vacation Charges Pursuant to RCW 35.79.030, Section 1:Policy a. The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal 50%of the appraised value of the vacated property received. i. The appraised value shall be the same as the value of an equivalent portion of property adjacent to the proposed vacation as established by Spokane County Assessor at the time the matter is considered by the City Council. ii. If the value of adjacent properties differs, than the average of the adjacent property values per square foot will be used. Based on the average assessed value of the adjacent properties, $10,367.85 is 50% of the assessed value, less amount paid for application processing.] [Alternatively, the Council shall reserve the right to deviate from this policy upon the adoption of findings of fact that demonstrate the public interest shall be best served by an alternative approach. The following facts are relevant to the Council's determination of an alternative approach: i. The street vacation requires a 15 foot easement or right-of-way dedication for a 10 foot non-motorized pathway to Appleway Trail for public use. ii. At time of future development a public cul-de-sac shall be dedicated and constructed at the north end of Skipworth Road. iii. The public interest will be served by the required dedications of a trail easement and cul-de-sac. Based on the above findings, the City does not seek payment for the vacated right-of-way.] Section 2. Property to be Vacated. Based upon the above findings and in accordance with this Ordinance, the City Council does hereby vacate the street or alley which is incorporated herein by reference,and legally described as follows: That portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., being more particularly described as that portion of Third Avenue West of the West right of way line of Skipworth Road and East of Pierce Road,- Spokane Valley, Washington. Said parcel encompasses approximately 14,400 square feet. Section 3. Division of Property to be Vacated. Pursuant to RCW 35.79.040 and SVMC 22.140.040(C), the vacated portion of the street or alley shall belong to the abutting property owners,one- Ordinance 16-001 -Street Vacation STV-2015-0001 Page 2 of 5 DRAFT half to each, unless factual circumstances otherwise dictate a different division and distribution of the street or alley to be vacated. The property to be vacated shall be divided amongst parcels 45212.0703, 45212.0719, 45212.0720, 45212.0721, 45212.0722, and 45212.0723 as recorded in the record of survey which shall be created and recorded with Spokane County as required pursuant to SVMC 22.140.090. Section 4. Zoning. The zoning designation for the vacated property shall be the designation attached to the adjoining properties as set forth within the respective property or lot lines. The Community and Economic Development Director is authorized to make this notation on the official Zoning Map of the City. Section 5. Conditions of Vacation. The following conditions shall be fully satisfied prior to the transfer of title by the City. 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2015-0001), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (45212.0703, 45212.0719, 45212.0720, 45212.0721, 45212.0722 and 45212.0723) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County pursuant to condition 9. 3. All existing lots shall have access to a public street or existing driveway easement prior to finalization. Applicant shall submit a boundary line adjustment application with proposed lot configuration combined with record of survey vacating 3rd Avenue. 4. A 15-foot easement or right-of-way shall be dedicated for a 10-foot paved non- motorized pathway that will extend from the north end of Skipworth to the Appleway Trail as per SVSS 7.5.11. 5. A 10-foot easement required by Avista running the entire length of the vacated right-of- way shall be retained and located adjacent to the existing sewer easement in order to serve electric and natural gas utilities. The easement shall be prepared and recorded with coordination between the property owner and utility purveyor. The easement with recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of easement submitted to City for verification. 6. The easement required by Modern Electric Water Company along the west side of the 15 foot non-motorized pathway from the north end of Skipworth Road to Appleway Trial shall be prepared and recorded with coordination between the property owner and utility purveyor. The easement with recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of easement submitted to City for verification. 7. The applicant shall coordinate with Modern Electric Water Company the location and width of an easement to preserve the existing water line in the easterly quarter of the vacated right-of-way. The easement shall be prepared and recorded with coordination between the property owner and utility purveyor. The easement with recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of easement submitted to City for verification. 8. All necessary easements required by Spokane County Division of Utilities shall be prepared and recorded with coordination between the property owner and utility Ordinance 16-001 -Street Vacation STV-2015-0001 Page 3 of 5 DRAFT purveyor. The easement with recording number shall be shown on the record of survey and written documentation of easement submitted to City for verification. 9. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated,prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the Community and Economic Development Director,or designee, for review. 10. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the SVSS. 11. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not and does not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 12. [The applicant shall pay the amount of $10,367.85 ($11,732.85 less $1,365.00 previously paid) to the City of Spokane Valley.] [If no payment is required, this condition will be removed.] 13. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 14. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 15. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Section 6. Closing. Following satisfaction of the above conditions, the City Clerk shall record a certified copy of this Ordinance in the office of the County Auditor, and the City Manager is authorized to execute and finalize all necessary documents in order to complete the transfer of the property identified herein. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Ordinance 16-001 -Street Vacation STV-2015-0001 Page 4 of 5 DRAFT PASSED by the City Council this day of February,2016. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 16-001 -Street Vacation STV-2015-0001 Page 5 of 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION December 10,2015 The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval of File No. STV-2015-0001,vacating 3rd Avenue. A. Background: 1. Chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), governing street vacations, was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. The privately-initiated street vacation, STV-2015-0001, proposes to vacate an unimproved section 340 feet in length ranging from 40 to 50 feet in width. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 10, 2015 and to recommend a conditional approval of the street vacation (STV-2014-0001) to City Council. B. Planning Commission Findings: Compliance with SVMC 22.140.030 Planning Commission review and recommendation Finding(s): 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved without pavement, curb or gutter. Existing utilities such as electric, gas, sewer and water are located within current right of way and/or at either end. The utility purveyors have requested easements to preserve existing infrastructure and future connections. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use proposed vacated area for access. The public will be served by a cul-de-sac at the end of Skipworth Road providing a benefit to the surrounding parcels for turnaround capabilities which presently do not exist. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The right-of-way being vacated is currently vacant land not being utilized for public use or access and is not required for current or future public use or access. The City's Arterial Street Plan provides no indication of 3rd Avenue nor proposes a need for future street extension. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? The proposal includes right-of-way for a future cul-de-sac, to be designed per City of Spokane Valley Street Standards, which will allow access and turnaround capabilities for existing residents. The proposal also includes a dedicated 15-foot right-of-way strip (or easement) for a future multiuse/bicycle trail connection to the Appleway Trail. An existing 12-foot access easement currently exists to Parcel 45212.0722 and is proposed to remain. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? No changes are anticipated that provide a greater use or need from current conditions. The City's Arterial Street Plan does not designate 3rd Avenue extending beyond the current established right-of-way. 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment has been received. C. Conclusions: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. D. Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the vacation of an unimproved section 340 feet in length ranging from 40 to 50 feet in width subject to the following: 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation(File No. STV-2015-0001) below shall be submitted to the City for review within ninety(90)days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (45212.0703, 45212.0719, 45212.0720,45212.0721,45212.0722 and 45212.0723). 3. All existing lots shall have access to a public street or existing driveway easement prior to finalization. Submit a boundary line adjustment application with proposed lot configuration combined with record of survey vacating 3rd Avenue. 4. A 15-foot easement or right-of-way dedication with a 10-foot paved non-motorized pathway shall be provided from the north end of Skipworth to the Appleway Trail as per SVSS 7.5.11. 5. The ordinance shall reserve and retain a 10 foot easement for the entire length of vacated right- of-way adjacent to sewer easement to serve electric and natural gas utilities. 6. Coordinate with Modern Electric Water Company to establish an easement located along the west side of the 15 foot future non-motorized pathway from the north end of Skipworth Road to Appleway Trail. 7. Coordinate with Modern Electric Water Company the location and width of easement to preserve existing water line in the easterly quarter of the vacated right-of-way. Easement shall be recorded and reference provided on record of survey. 8. Coordinate directly with Spokane County Division of Utilities the location and required language for a public sanitary sewer easement. Easement shall be recorded and reference provided on record of survey. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 9. Following the City Council's passage of the ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated,prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction,repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee for review. 10. The surveyor shall locate at a monument on the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right- of-way in accordance with the standards established by the City of Spokane Valley Street Standards. 11. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership including but not limited to title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees are to be borne by the proponent. The City will not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 12. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 13. The record of survey and certified copy of the ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 14. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Approved this 10th day of December,2015 2)2'-i'f„ t).77‘4Z-41-2,-- ?-,--' cjZ--(-- ( ///w Je �Chna// A BEST 62,A,t,cy,6.4-,,,,), Dean a Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION "'p(mon _"`�� STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 40000Valley FILE No: STV-2015-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 3, 2015 FILE NO: STV-2015-0001 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Request to vacate 3rd Avenue, an unimproved section 340 feet in length ranging from 40 to 50 feet in width. STAFF PLANNER: Karen Kendall, Planner, Community Development Department PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located between Appleway Trail and 4th Avenue,just west of Skipworth Road and adjacent to six parcels (45212.0703, 45212.0719, 45212.0720, 45212.0721, 45212.0722 and 45212.0723), further located in the NW quarter of Section 21, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley, Washington BACKGROUND: The City received an application from Dan Hultquist on October 21, 2015 requesting a street vacation of approximately 13,600 square feet of 3rd Avenue. The property owner is making a request for the following reasons: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained; 2. Location of road limits maximum use of abutting properties; 3. All six parcels abutting 3rd Avenue (north/south) are owned by the same property owner; 4. The structures along the east and west property line hinder future right of way connection; and 5. No parcels use 3rd Avenue for access. PROPERTY OWNER:Dan Hultquist; 14502 North Freya Road; Spokane, WA 99021 APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. SVMC-Title 22 (Street Vacations) 2. SVMC - Title 21 (Environmental Controls) 3. City of Spokane Valley Street Standards ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Aerial Map Exhibit 3: Application Material Exhibit 4: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 5: Agency Comments Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2015-0001 Page 1 of 5 December 3,2015 I. PROPERTY INFORMATION Size and The area is approximately 16,000 square feet of an Characteristics: unimproved section of 3rd Avenue that is 340 feet in length and ranges from 40 to 50 feet in width. Comprehensive Plan High Density Multifamily Residential District(MF-2) Designation: Zoning of Property: High Density Multifamily Residential District(MF-2) Existing and Vacant. Multifamily development located west, and single Surrounding Land family residential to the south and east and Appleway Trail to Use: the north. II. STAFF ANALYSIS OF STREET VACATION PROPOSAL A. COMPLIANCE WITH SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE(SVMC)TITLE 22.140.030— Findings: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved without pavement, curb or gutter. Existing utilities such as electric, gas, sewer and water are located within current right of way and/or at either end. The utility purveyors have requested easements to preserve existing infrastructure and future connections. The vacation is expected to have no impact on the general public as surrounding parcels currently do not use proposed vacated area for access. The public will be served by a cul-de-sac at the end of Skipworth Road providing a benefit to the surrounding parcels for turnaround capabilities which presently do not exist. 2. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The right-of-way being vacated is currently vacant land not being utilized for public use or access and is not required for current or future public use or access. The City's Arterial Street Plan provides no indication of 3rd Avenue nor proposes a need for future street extension. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? The proposal includes right-of-way for a future cul-de-sac, to be designed per City of Spokane Valley Street Standards, which will allow access and turnaround capabilities for existing residents. The proposal also includes a dedicated 15-foot right-of-way strip (or easement) for a future multiuse/bicycle trail connection to the Appleway Trail. An existing 12-foot access easement currently exists to Parcel 45212.0722 and is proposed to remain. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? No changes are anticipated that provide a greater use or need from current conditions. The City's Arterial Street Plan does not designate 3rd Avenue extending beyond the current established right-of-way. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2015-0001 Page 2 of 5 December 3,2015 5. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? No objections or public comment has been received. Conclusions: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. B. COMPLIANCE WITH SVMC TITLE 21—ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and SVMC 21.20.040 from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: No public comments have been received following the notice of public hearing mailing on November 20, 2015. Conclusion(s): A Notice of Public Hearing sign was posted on the property November 20, 2015 and notices were posted in the Spokane Valley Public Library, City of Spokane Valley Permit Center and main reception area the same day. Public hearing notices were mailed to all petitioners of the Vacation and those abutting 3rd Avenue for a total of eight properties on November 20, 2015. Lastly, the notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald on November 27, 2015 and December 5, 2015. Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted for STV-2015-0001 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS Notice was provided to agencies and service providers. Comments were received from the following agencies and are attached as exhibits to this staff report: Agency Received Comments Dated Comments City of Spokane Valley Public Works Yes 12-2-15 Spokane Valley Fire District No.1 Yes 11-19-15 Spokane County Division of Utilities Yes 12-3-15 Spokane Regional Health District Yes 11-30-15 Avista Utilities Yes 11-20-15 Spokane Transit Authority No City of Spokane Valley Police Department No Century Link No Comcast Yes 11-19-15 Modern Electric Water Company Yes 12-2-15 WA Archaeology and Historic Preservation Yes 11-30-15 V. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2015-0001 Page 3 of 5 December 3,2015 Staff concludes that STV-2015-0001 as proposed is generally consistent, or will be made consistent, through the recommended conditions of approval based on the approval criteria stated herein. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the request to vacate a 340 foot long segment of 3rd Avenue, subject to the following: 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2015-0001)below shall be submitted to the City for review within ninety (90) days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (45212.0703, 45212.0719, 45212.0720, 45212.0721, 45212.0722 and 45212.0723). 3. All existing lots shall have access to a public street or existing driveway easement prior to finalization. Submit a boundary line adjustment application with proposed lot configuration combined with record of survey vacating 3rd Avenue. 4. A 15-foot easement or right-of-way dedication with a 10-foot paved non-motorized pathway shall be provided from the north end of Skipworth to the Appleway Trail as per SVSS 7.5.11. 5. The ordinance shall reserve and retain a 10 foot easement for the entire length of vacated right- of-way adjacent to sewer easement to serve electric and natural gas utilities. 6. Coordinate with Modern Electric Water Company to establish an easement located along the west side of the 15 foot future non-motorized pathway from the north end of Skipworth Road to Appleway Trail. 7. Coordinate with Modern Electric Water Company the location and width of easement to preserve existing water line in the easterly quarter of the vacated right-of-way. Easement shall be recorded and reference provided on record of survey. 8. Coordinate directly with Spokane County Division of Utilities the location and required language for a public sanitary sewer easement. Easement shall be recorded and reference provided on record of survey. 9. Following the City Council's passage of the ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the Director of Community and Economic Development, or designee for review. 10. The surveyor shall locate at a monument on the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right- of-way in accordance with the standards established by the City of Spokane Valley Street Standards. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2015-0001 Page 4 of 5 December 3,2015 11. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership including but not limited to title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees are to be borne by the proponent. The City will not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 12. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 13. The record of survey and certified copy of the ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 14. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2015-0001 Page 5 of 5 December 3,2015 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, November 12,2015 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Heath took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner Mike Phillips Christina Janssen,Planner Susan Scott Karen Kendall,Planner Joe Stoy, absent- excused Sam Wood Elisha Heath, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioner Stoy was excused from the November 12, 2015 meeting. Commissioner Graham moved to approve the amended November 12, 2015 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, the motion passes. Commissioner Wood moved to accept the October 22, 2015 minutes as presented. Commissioner Scott corrected the minutes on page five, line three to add the words and "school districts". Commissioner Graham moved to accept the corrected minutes from October 22, 2015. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, motion passes. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had nothing to report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported that the City Council determined that they would be appointing the new Planning Commissioners at the first regular City Council meeting in January rather than the December meeting. As a result there will not be a Planning Commission meeting January 14, 2016, and the January 28, 2016 meeting will be a training meeting in order to bring the new Planning Commission members up to speed. Ms. Barlow stated that the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle was opened and one amendment request was received. The Docket has been presented to the City Council for approval.The Planning Commission will likely begin its review cycle in February. She also gave an update on the population allocation PTAC process for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Steering Committee of Elected Officials met on November 4th and forwarded the Spokane County Planning Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The recommendation was to use Office of Financial Management's medium range population forecast for the 20-year planning period. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session: STV-2015-0001, street vacation of 3rd Avenue Planner Karen Kendall presented the street vacation request of 3rd Avenue located between Appleway Trail and 4th Avenue just west of Skipworth Road adjacent to six parcels. The request is for an area approximately 340 feet in length and ranging in width from 40 to 50 feet. The northerly three parcels are proposed to be consolidated into one. South of 3rd Avenue the two westerly parcels will be consolidated into one and access will be by an existing easement from 4th Avenue. The final remaining parcel will be unchanged.Ms. Kendall presented five reasons identified by the applicant for the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained 2. Location of road limits maximum use of abutting properties 3. All six parcels abutting 3rd Avenue (north/south)are owned by the same property owner 4. The structures along the west property line hinder future right of way connection 5. No parcels use 3rd Avenue for access. 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 The Public Hearing date is set for December 10,2015. Commissioner Anderson asked if the process for changing the lot lines was already underway, and if they were not then, why the two processes, changing the lot lines and the street vacation, were not conducted simultaneously. Ms.Kendall explained that not knowing how the parcels are going to end up and that this application has six parcels,there is potential for a parcel to become land locked and we do not want that to happen. The property owner has presented how he would orient the parcels so that all of them would have direct access to a public street. Currently, the parcels are not proposed to be consolidated or adjusted. That will be proposed going forward at the time of the street vacation is being finalized. Typically,the lot line adjustment is handled by the record of survey that finalizes the street vacation. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City can produce a viable road on a 12 foot easement. Ms. Kendall replied that it is an existing easement that does provide legal access to an existing home. That easement will not change. Commissioner Phillips stated that it did not make sense to get rid of a street and have one parcel be limited to a 12 foot easement. He asked what the property owner proposed to do with the property. Ms. Kendall stated that the property owner has not disclosed through the application the intended use of the property. In addition she clarified that the easement was established in the past and currently serves as access for a residence. The two parcels will be combined creating a larger parcel still utilizing the 12 foot easement for access. Commissioner Scott asked if the City charges when it vacates right of way. Ms. Kendall stated that the City Council would determine what they would like to do for compensation of the vacation of the street. Commissioner Anderson asked if ROW is not used by the City if it reverts back to the property owner. Mr. Lamb stated,there is a provision for plats,platted before 1905 if the right-of-way did not open then it does revert back to the owner. For all other rights—of-way, the right-of-way remains with the City regardless if it is open or not. Commissioner Graham asked about the access for the three parcels to the north. Ms. Kendall stated that the property owner has spoken with the Development Engineering, and the turnaround would need to be provided for vehicles traveling down Skipworth Road. It is a proposed cul-de-sac with right-of-way dedication for vehicles to turn around,and it would be public. Commissioner Graham asked how emergency vehicles would access the northern parcels if something was developed toward the back half. Ms. Kendall stated that the fire department does weigh in on the process through comment. Commissioner Graham asked for clarification on the letter received from the fire department stating some sort of land action is required to maintain access for emergency response. Ms. Kendall clarified the fire department was concerned about creating land locked parcels without access for emergency vehicles. The comment letters fulfill a requirement for application and they will be asked for comments as the process continues. CTA-2015-0006 Marijuana Regulations Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb began the evening explaining to the Commissioners the current status of marijuana in the City and the state changes in the law. • A moratorium on medical marijuana uses (unlicensed marijuana uses) was established by the City Council on Dec. 9,2014. • A moratorium on new marijuana uses licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board(WSLCB)was established by the City Council on Oct. 6,2015. • Both moratoriums require the City to develop appropriate local regulations giving effect to the 2015 State Legislative amendments. Commissioner Graham asked a clarifying question on the moratorium on new marijuana uses licenses that is to put a hold on those currently licenses recreational marijuana shops and currently licensed medical marijuana shops from applying for a medical marijuana endorsement. Mr. Lamb stated the 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 moratorium will prohibit any new licenses from someone who currently does not have a license. For the current three retail stores, the moratorium will not affect their seeking a medical marijuana endorsement. The WSLCB will not be issuing those endorsements until July of 2016. Mr. Lamb presented the questions posed at the October 22,2015 meeting: Could we require individual qualified patients to license or register with the City?The full legal review has not been completed, however there appears there are several problems presented with this: HIPPA requirements, which requires the City to keep that information confidential and private which goes against our mandate, under the public records act, to be a transparent government. Secondly, there could be some preemption issues given how the state has set out the law for patients to be qualified patients and receive their authorizations. Finally, there are concerns from a Fifth Amendment standpoint,in terms of requiring a patient to register for what is still illegal under federal law. Requiring patients to notify landlords. Again it raises similar issues with the Fifth Amendment. It also would be difficult from an enforcement standpoint. It really is a private issue and the landlord would be able to pursue that though their contract with the tenant. Commissioner Graham asked for clarification on if a cooperative had to have a signed declaration from the landlord. Mr. Lamb clarified that when using the term patients he is referring to individuals. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was an issue with landlords putting stipulations within their contracts to be notified if a tenant will be growing or modifying the residence for growing. Mr. Lamb stated that he is not aware of any,but the landlords are not his clients and he is not able to give them legal advice. Clarification regarding terms used for medical marijuana. Medical collective, medical dispensary, and medical shop all refer to an unlicensed medical facility,under prior RCW 69.51A. A dispensary was originally slated to be a legal use back in 2011, however the state through the Governor's veto eliminated the "dispensary." Medical collectives, are a group of 10 patients coming together and growing the marijuana amongst those 10 patients for the same 10 patients. From a practical standpoint, since there is no enforcement of those collectives, many shops may operate as de facto dispensaries. The City has not regulated them or looked at them and treats them as collectives. Those are the unlicensed medical shops that we had register prior to our moratorium, we do not know how many are in operation now, those are the ones who will be seeking the license from WSLCB to become a retail shop. A cooperative is a group of people taking the place of the collective. They are required to be in a domicile. A cooperative is up to four qualified patients coming together to grow marijuana themselves. Cooperatives are required to be registered with the WSLCB but they do not obtain a license and they are not a retail shop. Only allow medical marijuana? Preemption will prevent the City from breaking this up into medical and retail. The license that is obtained is a retail license, it is solely up to the owner if they wish to seek the medical endorsement. The question was raised can the City require a location only sell recreational or medical marijuana. Mr. Lamb stated that the challenge would be there is no requirement at the state level that a shop be just a medical shop or just a recreational shop. Commissioner Scott asked if the City can be stricter than the State. Mr. Lamb stated that the City can enact laws that are not in conflict with the state laws. From a land use standpoint the City can determine where land uses are appropriate, zoning and buffering requirements for marijuana. From a licensing standpoint and the products a shop is selling is a highly regulated State activity. Mr. Lamb presented that there are other types of uses that the City might want to regulate for example a marijuana club. Currently, there is one considered a 420 friendly lounge where you are able to consume marijuana but not purchase marijuana. Discussion returned to the collective and medial dispensary. Mr. Lamb explained that some operate under the definition of collective since they are taking a donation from a member. Others have expanded and operate as a business. Between 2013 and 2014 fifteen business licenses had listed services for medical marijuana. However, that does not include those who applied under alternative medicine. If they do not get their license by July 2016 it does become an illegal activity. WSLCB 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 stated in a webinar that they will not be in the enforcement business against those unlicensed collectives or dispensaries.It will be up to the local level for notification or policing. Commissioner Graham asked about the consultant required by the WSLCB to be present in a medical endorsed retail shops, that the regulations for them would not be available till July 1, 2016. Mr. Lamb stated that he would have to research that further and that the State is working with the Department of Health on those regulations. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City had banned recreational marijuana where would we be today on the subject of medical marijuana? Mr. Lamb stated that we would be in a similar place in terms of defining terminology,no one would be able to obtain a marijuana license, so there would be no marijuana. Discussion from the Commission turned to the City choosing to move ahead with issuing no new licensing, what issues the City would face with medical marijuana. The existing stores would be the only entities that would be able to apply for the medical endorsement. Under this option medical dispensaries would not be able to obtain a license within the City and would have to relocate to another city or county. Commissioner Graham clarified that the cooperatives would not have to leave, since they are for private patients in a domicile. Mr. Lamb stated that is a distinction that could be made, the cooperatives are called out in the State law in terms of a city zoning and up to prohibiting. Mr. Lamb presented information from the WSLCB on the process they are undertaking to determine the number of retail locations. One of the primary things the WSLCB indicated is they are working with a consultant to determine the appropriate number of retail stores. They felt it was important to get the licensing process going, which is why they opened up the October 12, 2015 deadline. However, similar to how they did before using population numbers they will come up with a hard number for retail stores for the statewide broken down by county and city in the final rules. Hopefully will be determined by December. Based on that number, we've had 19 new applications submitted,however,whatever number the WSLCB set that is the number they will license. Mr. Lamb continued with the presentation on the background on City regulations: • City zoning and buffer restrictions on recreational marijuana o Adopted in July 2014 o Applied to licensed retailers,producers, and processors o Have used for siting of 19 producers,21 processors, and 3 retailers o Note that previously State limited City to 3 retailers—now unknown number of retailers • Marijuana Production: Permitted in heavy and light industrial zones outright (indoor and outdoor);permitted in limited manner(indoor growing only)in RC and C zones. • Marijuana Processing: Permitted in heavy and light industrial zones outright (packaging and extraction); permitted in limited manner (packaging and labeling of useable marijuana only) in RC and C zones. • Local buffers for both marijuana production and processing: cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace,vacant City property(other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, and vacant school property. • Retail sales: permitted in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use,Regional Commercial, and Community Commercial zones. • Local buffers for retail sales: cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, vacant school property,the Appleway Trail,and the Centennial Trail. Christina Janssen,Planner presented the options for moving forward with the regulations Option 1)Maintain existing regulations • Add definitions regarding retail stores with medical endorsement 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 • Allow cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows • Would allow 727 parcels for retail, though not all available due to market and existing other commercial uses Option 2)Additional regulations • Additional buffer, the possibilities could be 1,000 feet from retail store to any other licensed use,this results in 61 allowable parcels • Additional buffer could be 1,000 feet from a residential zone • Limit allowable zones • Overlay,limit areas where allowed,e.g.just along west Sprague area • Limit or prohibit cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows Option 3)Prohibition • All license types or just particular ones e.g.ban retail but allow production or processing • Cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows • Potential issues with challenges, ongoing appellate cases, with no decisions yet, so result is uncertain Option 4)Provided at the October 22,2015 meeting. • Allow minimum number required by law. • Medical sold at retail outlets—existing stores obtain medical endorsement • Maintain current buffers,possibly restrict under age • Allow cooperatives but only in same zones as producers • Allow qualified patients to home grow, assuming approval from the property owner if a rented or leased property • No solvent extraction within any residence/domicile • Require all infused product or concentrate to be purchased from a retail store Discussion on the tax benefits of having a retail store, processing facility and production facility in the City. Mr. Lamb stated that the City does not see much in tax revenue from the processing or production facilities since they are wholesale. The retail store the City receive the standard sales tax, the additional benefit is a portion of the thirty-seven percent tax imposed by the State. Public Comment: Marilyn Miller,2124 S.Harold Road: Ms.Miller stated she was new to Planning Commission meetings, and unless you want to work on this till the end of your lives which you would if you adopt option 1,2,or 3. I think prohibition is the best way to go. I do not believe you are going to be denying any patients the right or ability to get their medical marijuana. There is access in very close localities. I don't think Spokane Valley needs to indulge in this. Tara Harrison, 513 N.Locust Road: Ms. Harrison stated that she is the interim admin for the Collation for Cannabis Standards and Ethics (CCSE). Her involvement with the CCSE began last year when she was working for an unregulated medical marijuana dispensary. She realized there was a lack of communication on this side of the State. Many business owners were unaware of the legislation that was going on. In efforts to close the communication and information gap she sought out the CCSE. One project that they are working on is the Washington Cannabis Commission through the Department of Agriculture.Ms. Harrison stated that while prohibition may sound great,but no amount of prohibition is going to keep drugs out of school. Ms. Harrison stated that she is a mother of a child in a Valley School District. Her child does witness drugs dealing at school each day.The programs that are being utilized in school are ineffective. She has taken the time as a parent to educate her child as to what is medicine and what is not and why.Her child is not interested in partaking, she sees it as a medicine.That is a parent's 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 responsibility and no one else's. Ms. Harrison stated you have to teach your children.When it comes to something like this,the reason Ms. Harrison is involved and why it is so important is the patients. The patients that she has meet in the last two years have touched her life in a way she could never have imagined. She stated that she did not seek out this career. If her father could have had this option she may not have lost him at nine.Tons of her family have died from cancer, she has witnessed people with that, their cancer is gone. There are medical studies that prove this,we know there is a very valid opportunity here. In order to best take care of public health,what is important to the City and how you want to reflect. You want to embrace the health of people.Not everyone has access to transportation,public transit is what they rely on. So having an option for medical here in the Valley is very important. That may be their only option. Luckily with the way legislation happens people do have options. They can choose not to register at all and pay extra taxes,they have the ability to get the products that the Department of Health will not be overlooking.Ms. Harrison stated that you can have a producer that grows medical and recreational in the future,the grower can state that he is only growing one strain,ones deemed medical and ones deemed recreational.The one that is deemed medical under goes more testing and regulations. Being able to have that is very,very important. People are seeking this out in droves,the people that come to us as patients eighty percent are fifty-five plus. That means a lot,this is growing. We need to embrace the fact that this is happening,this is a movement. In my opinion it will be rescheduled in ten years. If we don't look at what's happening in the future and where this is going we are going to be left with moratoriums trying to scramble to put in regulations to keep the dangers away. That's all we want to keep the dangers at bay.It's something that is new and fresh and people are scared. There is also very beautiful things being born out of this and to turn a blind eye on it that you don't want to have anything to do with it is really foolish. We need to take care of our city and our health and our wellbeing. We make guidelines,make sure that everything is pesticide tested. Did you know that right now our laws do not require medicine on the recreational shelves to be tested for pesticides?That is appalling to me. As a City you may be able to require that everything on the shelves within City limits is required to have those kinds of tests. Then you can boast about how healthy and viable your city is because you are taking care of and making sure that your City and the people are getting those medicines,and that it is guaranteed to be healthy medicine. The tax benefits,public education,only three schools,I believe,in Spokane County are receiving any kind of benefits for drug education and prevention.Three in the whole county-that's horrible. One of the tax benefits is to be able to give education and prevention to our youth. It is very important that we do that. On the moratorium, I understand why because of the unregulated businesses, there are a few businesses that have given the Valley a black eye.Ms. Harrison stated that she understood why the moratorium exists.It is important that everyone followed the rules and goes by the book. When an eighty year old woman walks in to get her medicine, she does not walk into something that she may get shot over. She doesn't need to walk in,not for her meds, she does not need to see someone hitting a bong or trimming their product on the table in front of everyone in the lobby. Certain things like that,I would never want my mother in a place like that.We need to have standards.You have recreational stores in the Valley that already have their medical endorsement. So in July they can open their doors and be ready. So we do have options for medical here in the Valley. She stated that having more producers and processors is not going to hurt anything. People work behind the scenes,they bring in income and spending money within the Valley.They are buying their products here they have employees here paying taxes all of that is very viable for our City and our economy. There is a medical research license, allow someone to grow specifically for research purposes,All of their product goes through the same traceability system but its turned over to a school or university that is going to do specific medical tests. We should allow that.It does not hurt anyone or anything. This isn't something that interacts with the public what-so-ever. Blake Alverts, 1801 S. St.Charles: Mr. Alverts stated his problem is the amount of medical shops popping up. We seem to have more of those than we have espresso stands. He state that he did not believe they contribute to the taxes that we collect in Valley,the revenue that could come in. He was embarrassed when he read in the Spokesman Review that Millwood is measuring their revenue from recreational marijuana in the hundreds of thousands,where we are at tens of thousands.With our proximity to Idaho and Liberty Lake,we should be kicking Millwood's butt. Bring in much more revenue than this.Mr. Alvert suggested that decrease the number of purely medical,they should all be retail combined. He asked for a reasonable number of recreational shops,that three is not enough. 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 John Miller,2124 S.Herald: Mr.Miller stated that he is a child of the sixties,he grew up and went to school at Berkley. He knows a little bit about marijuana,not because he uses it but because he's seen it abused. The question came up about the amount of money that is coming into the City of Spokane Valley over and above the sales tax,he believed he read it was above $18,000 and he also read that,that money is used to enforce the laws concerning marijuana. So if we are bringing in money just to enforce the laws, not sure if that is a win-win for anyone. He stated that he did not vote for marijuana in this state, and feels it is a mistake. He asked that the Commission consider Option 3, adopt a policy of prohibition.Medical marijuana is a little different,he asked why if medical marijuana is considered to be a medicine why isn't a prescription written by a doctor,perhaps it is. But why is that prescription not taken to an established drug store?The marijuana delivered to those folks could be tested,certified,safe for the intended use and that would take care of that problem. He stated that recreational marijuana makes no sense to him what so ever. He would like the Commission to consider Option 3 at the least,maintain the moratorium and make it permanent. Commissioner Anderson asked the audience if anyone ran a medical marijuana dispensary. One member of the audience used to work at one. Another audience member stated that they run a recreational shop and would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Kelley asked if the retail owner saw challenges taking the medical endorsement and separating the recreational marijuana that is taxed from the medical marijuana which is untaxed. Doug Peterson, 16404 E.Rocky Top Lane:Mr. Peterson stated that he did not see a problem separating the taxed from the untaxed.He has met with the Department of Health which will be bringing on systems in the spring which his business will help beta test. His business is embracing it. One survey asked if the business would train its people in more of a consulting role for the medical,if they would pay for it. He would like everyone in his store to be trained medically through the state. Revenue questions,he stated that his business has only been open for three months,it's not going to show like some of the bigger stores open on Trent in Millwood. Part of the challenge is that the Valley has a tougher zoning laws. He worked with the City and with Christina Janssen. Originally there were three licenses for the Valley. The Appleway Trail and other trails made it tough to find a location. When the State revamped with 5052,it is challenging as a business owner who just opened, since he just got opened under the old laws. Mr. Peterson stated one of his concerns as a business owner,the restrictions were difficult and the new licenses may have less restrictions. He's heard that the zones are going to drop down to 500 feet from 1000 and that the licenses are not zone specific. You have "x" amount of licenses for the Valley but they can be from anywhere. The original licensing process was you were licensed in the Valley if you had a valid location. As a business owner he embraced the changes and will continue to meet the standards of the state. He invited the Commission to visit his shop,it is professional environment they take very seriously. It is a nice place,he stated that it is not like what you might think it is like. Mr. Peterson stated that he does not go to the medical shops,he understands that the regulation process need to take place. He addressed the earlier comment on pesticides,growers have a state issued list of pesticides that are approved; the marijuana that is going through recreational stores is tested pretty extensively just not specifically pesticide tested. There are labs that will test it. He is in talks with labs to pay growers more if their products that have been tested more. Commissioner Kelley compared business who sell to customers as well as whole sale, nontaxed as a comparison to medical marijuana and retail marijuana will there be any problems? Mr. Peterson stated that it's about building the process in the store and making it logistically make sense. Need to be very clear with patients and regular recreational uses.There would need to be logistics in place,he will work with the WSLCB to see what kind of process would need to be in place.Mr. Peterson stated as a store owner that process is important,the experience of the customer is important,regulation is important. As you know retail marijuana is one of the most regulated processes in the world. There is so much that a store has to do to be open,we gladly accept that challenge. Commissioner Graham asked for clarification on the consultant part required by the medical endorsement. The reference to patients would imply that they are seeking out medical marijuana as a medication, the pharmacy is typically where you think of for where a medication is obtained. What rules, 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 if you know is the Department of Health looking at that would limit the person acting as a consultant from offering medical advice? Mr. Peterson stated it is going to be very strict. He was in a meeting last week that was defining what a consultant means. A person is not going to be able to take a two week course on marijuana medical and become a physician. He believes there will be training on how and what you can tell a patient. It will not be a position of giving medical advice rather explaining the product and what potential the effects are of the product. Commissioners had questions about the concentration levels of medical verses recreation marijuana. Mr. Peterson confirmed that there is not a difference in concentration levels. Discussion continued on packaging and labeling differences for medical and recreation marijuana. It is the same product but regulated and taxed differently. Commissioner Anderson declared a 10 minute break. Commissioners continued with discussion. Commissioner Anderson suggested narrowing down the discussion to four subjects: who should get a retail license with a medical endorsement; should we make regulations beyond the state in regards to home grow; extraction and where it should be allowed; finally should we allow co-ops. Concerns about commercial rentals renting to marijuana retail affecting the surrounding businesses. Mr. Peterson addressed that it is very difficult to find a location as well as higher rates are being charge for this type of business. Additionally marijuana businesses are having issues with banks being willing to accept funds. Mr. Peterson also brought up the fact that since it is federally illegal that the businesses are not allowed to take any tax write-offs for operating their business. Discussion moved to the Options 2 of increasing buffers and the locations of co-ops. Interested in the 1000 foot buffer between stores and the residential zones and to look at how to allow cooperatives. Commissioners asked what happens to a business that becomes legal,nonconforming.Mr. Lamb stated that if a legal,nonconforming use abandons their use for a year they are done. If there is damage up to eighty percent they can continue that use. Ms.Janssen stated that the legal,nonconforming had to resume operations within twelve months.The question was raised as to whether a business may move locations and still be maintain that legal,nonconforming status.Mr. Lamb stated that the nonconforming use allows them to continue operating in that location with that use. If they moved they would be subject to the new rules. Commissioners asked about maintaining the status quo of current retail,producer, and processor would that be considered prohibition. Further they asked if it would be possible to allow the current retail shops the option of moving locations and maintaining license. Mr. Lamb stated he would need to think about this further.The issue was raised that maintaining the three retail locations and that only one of these shops is located on a bus line. This may cause transportation and accessibility for medical marijuana patients. The issue of capacity was raised.Mr. Lamb explained that there will be a three tier structure related to square footage and this will remain the same size,but allow more stores,he will confirm. Discussion turned to the possibility of regulating the concentration of marijuana as well as the packaging. Ms. Harrison returned to further discuss the different compounds within marijuana. Commissioners asked about controlling signage and promotion of the marijuana.Mr. Lamb stated that the State regulates the signage as it relates to the location. The City does not allow off site signage. Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner,presented an update on a proposal before the State Building Code Council to limit the number of plants to 15 in a buildings other than a Moderate Hazard Industrial Occupancy building. If any entity wanted to grow more than 15 plants it would have to be in a Moderate Hazard Industrial Occupancy building, a residential use would typically not be allowed in this zone without a fire sprinkler system. For the most part a large number of our existing buildings that house residential uses would not be appropriate for the growth of any more than 15 plants.The Commission asked why growing marijuana plants is considered to be a fire hazard. Ms.Nickerson stated that it is not necessarily a fire hazard. However a limitation needed to be set to determine if it would be a factory occupancy or a standard garden. A co-op which is able to grow up to 60 plants would need to be an Fl occupancy. She further explained that the types of operation in a building and size of the building would determine when fire sprinkler systems would be required. If an extraction system is in place that include chemicals they can trigger a fire sprinkler system requirement at a much lower threshold. Mr. Lamb 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 followed up with clarification that a co-op would be limited to 15 plants if located in a domicile, unless they were located in an industrial zone. Ms. Barlow reminded the commission that at the next meeting they will be hearing from the police and fire department. Commissioner Anderson asked what a marijuana specialty clinic is.Ms. Harrison explained that a specialty clinic is a rotating clinic that have doctors who do authorizations for medical marijuana. Physicians are allowed to write thirty authorizations a month after that they have to report the number to the State. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Kevin And son,V. e Chairperson Date signed (Wi',' Elisha Heath, Secretary 11-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, December 10,2015 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson John Hohman, Community Development Director Heather Graham Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Tim Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Phillips Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner Susan Scott Christina Janssen,Planner Joe Stoy, absent- excused Karen Kendall, Planner Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Wood moved to excuse Joe Stoy from the meeting. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Graham moved to accept the December 10, 2015 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Scott asked for clarification regarding a sentence in the November 12, 2015 minutes. She said on Page 3, second to last paragraph, the sentence reads "Mr. Lamb presented that there are other types of uses that the City might want to regulate for example a marijuana club. Currently there is one considered, at 420 friendly lounge where you are able to consume marijuana but not purchase marijuana." It was determined the 'at' in front of'420' should be replaced with an 'a.' There were no other corrections to the minutes. Commissioner Wood moved to approve the November 12, 2015 minutes as amended. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelly reported he attended a meeting at CenterPlace regarding marijuana usage. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Community Development Director John Hohman reported the deadline for Planning Commission openings is December 18, 2015. Mr. Hohman thanked the Planning Commissioners who would be leaving at the end of this year, Commissioners Anderson, Scott and Wood. Mr. Hohman also reported the first meeting of the Planning Commission in 2016 would be January 28, 2016. This will allow for the delayed process of choosing the next Planning Commissioners. The January 28 meeting will be training which is required each year for the Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: STV-2015-0001, Street Vacation of portion of 3rd Avenue Karen Kendall presented the street vacation request of 3rd Avenue located between Appleway Trail and 4th Avenue just west of Skipworth Road adjacent to six parcels. The request is for an area approximately 340 feet in length and ranging in width from 40 to 50 feet. The northerly three parcels are proposed to be consolidated into one. South of 3rd Avenue the two westerly parcels will be consolidated into one and access will be by an existing easement from 4th Avenue. The final remaining parcel will be unchanged. Ms.Kendall presented five reasons identified by the applicant for the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained 2. Location of road limits maximum use of abutting properties 3. All six parcels abutting 3rd Avenue (north/south)are owned by the same property owner 4. The structures along the west property line hinder future right-of-way connection,and 5. No parcels use 3rd Avenue for access. Commissioner Scott said the staff report mentioned the abutting property owners along 3rd were notified but was anyone on 4th Avenue notified. Ms. Kendall responded based on the City's noticing 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 requirements, only the property owners who were abutting 3rd Avenue were notified. Commissioner Scott mentioned the person with the easement was not notified. Commissioner Wood asked about the noticing on the property and Ms. Kendall explained the posting requirements for a street vacation and the location of the signs which had been posted on the property. Mr.Wood mentioned the sign hanging on the fence was difficult to see. Commissioner Anderson asked why the southern lots were not combined into one parcel. Ms. Kendall asked for clarification. Mr. Anderson said the northern parcels were proposed to be combined into one parcel. The southern three parcels are being proposed as two parcels instead of one as is being done on the north side of the right-of-way (ROW). Mr. Anderson wanted a reason why the parcels were being configured as proposed. Ms. Kendall stated there are two single family residences on the land and in order for each residence to have its own parcel this is how the configuration was proposed. Mr. Anderson said he thought the goal was to develop the property into multifamily development. Ms. Kendall stated staff was not aware of any future development plans for the property. If in the future,the parcel configuration did not work for the property owner, then steps could be taken at the time of development to realign them. Commissioner Scott stated she was concerned about the size of the easements. One of them is a 12-foot driveway easement which was granted in 2002 to serve as a driveway for one of the homes on the applicant's property and an easement which will be granted to the City for a path to the Appleway Trail which is shown to be 15-feet wide. Ms. Kendall stated as part of the proposal, adjacent parcels with access are not looked at. Ms. Kendall said only during future development would access to the parcels need to be addressed. Ms. Scott was concerned the parcel to the west, with the driveway easement was not notified of the street vacation. Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained the noticing practices to the Commissioners. The noticing requirements for a proposed street vacation are in place to allow people who use the street to comment. Ms. Barlow said the property to which Ms. Scott is referring is not affected by the vacation of the street. Ms. Barlow said the noticing requirements have been met. Any discussion of the need for more access would be taken up if further development was proposed. Commissioner Anderson opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant if he would like to speak, the applicant stated from the audience he did not really have anything to say. Commissioner Anderson asked him to step up to the podium to speak because he wanted to question him. Dan Hultquist, 14502 N. Freya: Mr. Hultquist stated he had no comment. Commissioner Anderson asked to clarify whether the driveway easement, which serves one of the houses on Mr. Hultquist's property, would be an easement as it is. Mr. Hultquist said it was just a driveway to the house on his property. Commissioner Anderson asked if he had to leave it as an easement. Mr.Hultquist stated he did not understand the question. Commissioner Anderson asked if he developed the property in the future, if the easement would change. Mr. Hultquist stated it would be hard to say, he didn't know what else it would be. He had been planning on developing the property for 20+ years now and it still looks the same. He said he could, not at this time, anticipate what would happen to the property. He would not want to give up the easement since it serves his rental property. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Hultquist if the easement was as it is, where it is and would not change. Mr. Hultquist again stated he was not sure what Mr. Anderson was asking, but it was an easement to the rental property. Ms. Barlow clarified that in this process the easement will remain as it is. Mr. Anderson stated he was trying to look out for the property owners not involved in this process. Having no one else who wanted to testify, Commissioner Anderson closed the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Commissioner Wood stated he had no issues with this proposal. Commissioner Kelly said he did not have a problem with it either. Commissioner Phillips was only concerned there would not be a landlocked parcel. Commissioner Anderson said he had no problem with the street vacation, but he was fixated on the easements. He was concerned the easements for the property would not be sufficient for future development. Commissioner Scott asked if the property had been investigated to be one which the ROW would go back to the property owner. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated, although he did not look up to see if this plat was dated previously to 1904, if it had been then the land would have reverted 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 back to the property owner. Ms. Scott wondered if the City would have to buy back the ROW if there was future development. Ms. Barlow stated if there was future development, the ROW would be dedicated to the City. Ms. Scott was concerned the increase in the amount of square footage of the properties would increase the density allowed in the area,if the property was developed. Commissioner Graham moved to approve STV-2015-0001. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Planning Commission Findings: STV-2015-0001, Street Vacation of portion of 3rd Avenue Ms.Kendall stated the City preferred process is to bring the findings back at later meeting after the public hearing. However because of the holidays and the Planning Commission's next available meeting for business would not be until February, staff is bringing the findings forward now. Ms. Barlow stated the proposed findings reflect the decision made at the public hearing. Commissioner Graham moved to approve the Planning Commission findings for STV-2015-0001. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. CTA-2015-0006 Marijuana Regulations Commissioner Anderson asked the Commissioners if they wanted to proceed with the study session or to defer the discussion until new Commissioners are appointed in the New Year. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said this would be up to the Commissioners, but there were people in attendance who came to speak to the subject and there would be a written record of previous actions for the new members to review. There was consensus to continue with the study session and listen to the people who came to share information regarding marijuana in the City and related fire codes. Lt. Khris Thompson, Spokane Valley Police Department(SVPD): Lt. Thompson stated it had been a long process in changing the regulations regarding the legislation of marijuana. Senate Bill 5052 brings together how medical or compliant marijuana will be handled. The City's numbers since the passing of I-502,which is when the police department started tracking marijuana related driving under the influence (DUI). In the first period after the law was enacted the police made 18 arrests, four of which were minors. In 2013, there were 43 arrests with 20 being minors. Lt. Thompson clarified the law reads a `minor' would be anyone 21 years of age or younger. Commissioner Kelley asked if these were just marijuana arrests, or all DUI arrests. Lt. Thompson stated these were all intoxicants, including alcohol, marijuana and other intoxicants. He continued in 2014 there were 62 total incidents, with 22 of them being under age. So far this year there have been 50 DUI arrests with 15 of them being under age. These were DUI, by drug, specifically marijuana. Commissioner Wood asked if there was a blood test associated with the DUI arrests. Lt. Thompson said there are many methods used to confirm the use of drugs. He said there are people trained specifically to determine if someone is using drugs at the time they are pulled over. In 2013/14, when the SVPD started tracking marijuana related calls there were 55 calls related to marijuana. These could be burglary, theft, property crimes and so on. In 2015 there had been 95 incidents so far. He stated about half of the arrests were minors and there was a trend of youth becoming involved in these crimes. Commissioner Graham asked if Lt. Thompson was aware of any increase in funding to support the police departments. Lt. Thompson said he was not aware, but this would be a question for administrative staff. Commissioner Kelley asked how the police department handles cases where plants were involved if the person owning the plants stated they were for medical use. Lt. Thompson stated there were different levels of enforcement between the different police departments and the Washington state Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). A medical patient is required to keep paperwork on site to show if there is ever an issue with plants being grown in a home. Lt. Thompson stated patients who wished to grow their own, would need to be licensed in order to avoid potential prosecution. Commissioners had questions regarding a cooperative grow. Lt. Thompson stated the rules for a cooperative grow have changed, from allowing 10 people to participate to four, it also reduced the number of plants which will be allowed. Registration would assist officers in knowing where authorized growing would happen, but it is voluntary for individuals. However the medical card received from the doctor would state how many plants the patient needs. Commissioner Kelley asked if the increase in crimes could be pin-pointed to occurring around schools, siting the Commission has been tasked to consider new regulations including new possible buffers around certain facilities. Lt. Thompson stated he did not have that detail of information with him, but it might be possible to find the 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 information at a later time. Commissioner Scott asked about enforcement from the WSLCB. Lt. Thompson stated there are different levels of enforcement and the WSLCB enforces the licensing, the police enforce the criminal violations. She also asked if the information regarding an in-home grow was supposed to be posted on the door of the room containing the plants. Lt. Thompson stated the patient is required to have the information readily available, it should be posted but this is not always the case. Commissioner Wood asked if there was a portion of the City getting more criminal incidences than another. Lt. Thompson stated it was all over the City, not in any one place. Commissioner Scott also asked if, in his personal opinion,the officer could see the trend continuing. Lt. Thompson said he could see the trend continuing with the availability of the product. Greg Rogers, Spokane Valley Fire Dept. Fire Marshall: Mr. Rogers stated he did not have the numbers, like the police department does because they do not associate these things with their response with the chemical components which are used. They have seen an increase in call volume, mainly from older adults who are experimenting, based on people thinking they are having symptoms of larger issues such as a possible heart attack. Said he has seen the call volume increase in the last month, of unauthorized burn of harvested plants and feels this is in part due to fewer extraction processors in the county. In these incidents, the fire department is required to turn these incidents over to the Clean Air Agency, and they are responsible for the enforcement. Tracy Harvey, Spokane Valley Fire Dept. Fire Protection Engineer: Ms. Harvey stated she has become involved in the marijuana regulations through the building permit process. She has noted a need for regulations to make sure the growing and processing of the marijuana are done safely. She has been involved with the International Fire Code 2015 amendments. She stated there have been some emergency amendments to address some of the extraction processes. She said she would be participating in a Cannabis Technical Advisory Group for the State Building Code Council next year. She said the fire department is learning from the growers and processers how things work and how to regulate these businesses. Commissioner Graham asked about the extraction processes and the medical facilities which are licensed to do business,but are not licensed to operate as a medical business. Ms. Harvey explained as the new rules take effect and `medical' marijuana gets rolled into the recreational stores the requirements for the recreational will apply. A new permit, which has been adopted by the Fire Code, states any new extraction processes must be reviewed by the local fire department. There will be inspections of the processes, facilities and an annual review will be required. Commissioner Graham asked if the fire department had responded to any calls at one of the City's processor or producers. Mr. Rogers stated they had not. He said the processors and growers have invited the fire department to look at what they are doing so they are more aware of what is going on at the property in case of the need for response. Mr. Rogers said he was glad the medical would have to follow the same regulations as recreational, which means they will not be able to open business unless they have been through the fire department permitting process. Ms. Harvey explained currently there is not a processor in the City which is using a chemical extraction process. Some are using a CO2 system, but not a chemical extraction. Commissioner Anderson asked if harvested plants can be taken to the "clean green" process at the transfer station. Ms. Harvey stated there is a process where the plants must be taken to the Waste-to- Energy Plant for destruction. Mr. Lamb offered there are also state regulations which require the addition of non-edible materials in with the plants so there is no useable material. Commissioner Wood asked if you have a cooperative grow of two to four people, and they can grow up to 60 plants, aren't they using halogen lights to grow the plants, which could be a fire hazard. Ms. Harvey stated many are using LED lights now. Commissioner Wood said he felt this type of operation could cause trouble for the fire department. Ms. Harvey stated a couple of years ago, there was a fire in a garage, which had a grow operation in it. The two minors running the operation had medical cards. But this was seldom. Commissioner Wood asked if using so much energy, changes to amperage systems, those kinds of things, wouldn't this be a concern to the fire department? Ms. Harvey stated a permit would be needed to make any changes to the home. Changes to the electrical systems are governed by Labor and Industries, which the City does not have a hand in. Commissioner Kelley asked if there was not a way to make suggestions requiring these types of changes and these types of growing operations have to meet a certain standard to be safe. Ms. Harvey stated the regulations already require a change of occupancy to an F-1 occupancy, which would require a permit and City review. An F-1 occupancy is a factory/industrial moderate-hazard occupancy. In an F-1 occupancy there is a 12,000 square foot 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 minimum at which the building is required to have sprinklers. Most cooperative grows would not trigger this requirement. Sprinklers are based on the size and square footage of a building, not on how many plants might be growing in a home. Jenny Nickerson, Senior Plans Examiner: Ms. Nickerson responded to a question from Commissioners regarding the ability to require sprinklers in a cooperative. Ms. Nickerson pointed out some of the rules being discussed are proposed, and have not been adopted by the State Building Code Council, and are not currently requirements. She said in theory if an in-home grow had 17 plants, was classified as F-1 occupancy, there would be minimum life safety requirements in place. Sprinkler thresholds are generally at 12,000 square feet for an F-1 occupancy. However an F-1 occupancy of any size is going to be subject to certain fire sensitivity, egress in an emergency situation, including address and posting measures which would allow the fire department to respond adequately in an emergency. Commissioner Kelley asked if a daycare with 7,000 square feet would not require a sprinkler system. Ms. Nickerson stated a daycare is a different occupancy and the requirement would be based on the age of the children, number of exits, and the number of children which would be accommodated in that building. Ms. Nickerson felt a 7,000 square foot daycare would probably be a sprinkled building. Commissioner Kelley asked if the Commission could suggest lowering the limits for a home grow operation. Ms.Nickerson said canopy space could be something which could be considered. She said it could be considered, tighter sprinkler thresholds for those types of uses. Commissioner Graham asked if a co-op has 17 plants, have registered with the state as a co-op, do they need to apply for a change of occupancy. Ms.Nickerson said, assuming the proposed regulations are adopted,which would trigger the F-1 occupancy requirement, a single family dwelling would not be considered an F-1 occupancy classification. She said what had been discussed at the previous meeting was if a grow was housed in a building which has an F-1 occupancy and a person decided to live in the building, that would trigger the fire sprinkler requirement, no matter what the square footage was. Sprinklers are only going to be required if a person is living in the same building. A detached garage would need to maintain at least 20 feet of separation. Then came a question regarding a domicile, which is in the state code as a requirement for a co-op,but Mr. Lamb stated it would not fit the City's regulations for residential zoning. Commissioner Wood stated he did not understand a cooperative very well. He offered a likely suggestion of a person with a medical card for marijuana. That person wanted to grow 15 marijuana plants in their home, a person could do that. Mr. Lamb stated unless that person wanted to modify their home in a way which would trigger a standard building permit, there would be no way anyone would know about the plants. Commissioner Wood confirmed no one in the City would know about the growing plants,if a patient decided to do so. A cooperative is up to four individuals who decide to grow plants together. Mr. Lamb said this would be legal under current local zoning codes. However,there are proposed changes to the building code, where once a person is growing over 15 plants there would be a requirement for a change in occupancy. Currently zoning does not allow for an `industrial' building in a residential zone. A co-op has to register with the state,however there is no mechanism which shares that information with the jurisdiction. Mr. Rogers stated once a permit is applied for a change of occupancy and is approved, then it would trigger annual inspections from the fire department. It would be considered part of a home business and allow for the inspections. Commissioner Kelley asked if the City had the power to require anyone who applies for a medical marijuana card to register with the City. Mr. Lamb stated he did not feel this would be possible based on the need to protect an individual's medical records according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and it could be a possible violation of an individual's rights. Commissioner Wood asked if the suggestion of not allowing cooperatives in the City would be a problem. Mr. Lamb stated it was in the new state law to allow the prohibition of cooperatives if a jurisdiction chose. Mr. Lamb stated the cooperative was allowed for more rural areas, where some patients might not be able to get to a store to purchase what they need. Mr. Lamb said he felt the City could site other stores in the areas in the county as well as a person could grow for themselves. Lt. Thompson added regarding medical authorization charges, patients do not need to enter into a registration, they can purchase marijuana at retail amounts, and pay the extra tax. If a patient does voluntarily register, then they are able to purchase a higher quantity than a regular retail customer and they will not have to pay the taxes. Lt. Thompson said he would try and get more information for the Commissioners regarding property crimes around within a quarter mile around a retail store. 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 Commissioner Graham asked if there were regulations in place where if a person went into a retail location and they appeared to be `intoxicated' does the retail store have the right to refuse service to them, and Lt. Thompson said he did not know. Mr. Lamb then stated he would like to address some of the questions which were raised at the last meeting. • Question: How much money in taxes is the City getting from marijuana? The taxes being received are a 37% excise tax, but also general sales taxes. Producers and processors are considered wholesale and so they generate no taxes. Said we do see secondary benefits of employees who work for these operators who would live or shop in the City. Mr. Lamb said at least one producer/processor employees 108 people. The City's distribution in 2016 of the excise tax is $75,000, based on the 37% tax collected at the point of sale. The retail operations are generating a fairly good business and the sales tax for this year should be in the area of$58,000. The state must use a portion of the revenue generated for education and enforcement. The distribution to the City has not been tied to this. WSLCB reported for their fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 in all of Spokane County, who were allowed 18 retail shops total, from producers was $816,000, $14,000,000 from processors and$37,000,000 in sales from retailers. • Question: Can the City restrict retail outlets to be medical only? Mr. Lamb said after looking at case law there could be significant legal questions from a preemption stand point, primarily based on the way the state has set the licensing of the retail stores. The City would not be looking at it from a land use basis,but how they do their business and that is governed by the licensing scheme. Based on this the City would be trying to step into the state's role. There were questions regarding the Health Department. The Health Department has acknowledged there could be some beneficial properties in marijuana. They can't make it a prescribed medicine so what people are commonly referring to as medical marijuana is not being recognized by the Department of Health as "medical" marijuana. The term used is "compliant" marijuana. There will be three different types of compliant marijuana. There will be "general compliant" marijuana which is safe handling and limits use of pesticides and contains less than 10 milligrams of THC, this will lead to patients having a cleaner product. The next is "high THC compliant" this cannot be in bud form, it must be in capsules or patches. The high THC compliant has a higher THC than is allowed for recreational,the THC will be between 10 and 50 milligrams per serving and is only available to qualified patients. The third type is "high CBD compliant" which is similar to the high THC but the ratio of the CBDs is higher than the THC. This marijuana has more pain relieving affects,but is allowed for purchase by any buyer. Only the high THC compliant will require a medical card for purchase. The Health Department will not be regulating the marijuana more than this at this time. This would be why it would be difficult for the City to separate the two types of stores. Commissioner Wood asked if the City could regulate growing in homes. Mr. Lamb said it would have to come from a health/safety standpoint which would require talking about any gardener and what they want to grow. Commissioner Kelley asked if the City had the right to make a prohibition on medical marijuana home grows. Mr. Lamb corrected saying the City could limit the cooperatives,but the individual patient who wants to grow up to 15 plants, there would be a very difficult time in prohibiting them. If it was done there was a health/safety standpoint which would apply to all plants being grown. Commissioner Anderson said he felt the Health Department supported his theory of it being a public health/safety issue for having segregated facilities. Mr. Lamb said the Department of Health has made different classifications for compliant marijuana. Commissioner Anderson said the only thing common about the two types of stores is the word marijuana. He feels there would be different inventories, there should be a separate wall between the two facilities in order to keep the public safe from the sales of the wrong product to the wrong person. He offered that he would be willing to take the chance in a court room on his idea. Mr. Lamb said he did not know from an enforcement standpoint,how this could be done. Compliant marijuana can be sold to anyone. The only time a sale would need to have a check for a medical card would be if a person wanted to: 1) buy in higher than recreational amounts, 2) buy the high THC compliant marijuana or 3) didn't want to pay the sales tax. Mr. Anderson continued he still felt that medical and recreational should not be in the same building, then there could be more medical shops and we could get away from allowing more recreational shops. Mr. Lamb said the 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 challenge for the City would be trying to enforce the fact that a retail store would not be selling to recreational users as well as a medical store. Commissioner Graham asked Mr. Lamb to explain this. At a retail marijuana store any person can go in and buy any kind of marijuana they would like, EXCEPT for high THC compliant marijuana. Mr. Lamb said if the City were to only allow more medical marijuana stores, anyone over the age of 21 would be able to go in and buy any of the products, except the high THC compliant marijuana. Commissioner Graham asked what would be the problem with this proposal. Mr. Lamb asked what the goal would be in trying to do this. Mr. Anderson asked if medical marijuana wouldn't be more expensive, have to have training, a consultant is required, tighter product regulations, tighter packaging regulations, in general a recreational user would want to go somewhere else and buy their product. Commissioner Kelley said many businesses sell retail/wholesale in the same place. Ms. Janssen asked the Commissioners to clarify why they would want to separate the two businesses. Commissioner Anderson said to keep the number of major retail stores from growing and medical has a legitimate point, and the state is saying we have to have more outlets. The Commissioners said they are frustrated the rules keep changing while we are trying to make the rules. Commissioner Graham said as of July 2016 all of the unlicensed dispensaries will have to be out of business or moved to a retail store. She asked if it was fair to these business owners. She asked if the City adopted something like Commissioner Anderson was proposing, couldn't those businesses apply to be one of those places. It would protect their business,they are used to providing medical marijuana. Mr. Lamb said they could and it would be up to the Commission, but before moving forward he would like to highlight, first although they are going to say they are going to be medical stores, they could sell to anyone who comes in at this time. Second he wanted the Commissioners to know this decision would be subject to a legal challenge. If someone wanted to sell recreationally and did not want to sell medical, it could be subject to challenge. There was a discussion about the current medical dispensaries and wanting to allow them an avenue to continue their business without allowing any more recreational shops in the City. Mr. Lamb stated the state is going to allocate to the City more retail stores based on the need of the community. He said there is no requirement for those to get a medical endorsement. The state created a retail system in which patients can get a tax break. The City is not mandated to have the allowed number of stores. Stores who sell compliant marijuana will need to be able to prove to the state they have the appropriate documentation in order to not be collecting the taxes owed. Commissioner Scott asked if there was a way to prohibit any more new stores in the City until 'the dust settles' and we have better defined rules regarding the selling of marijuana. Mr. Lamb said this would be one option. • If the City prohibited any more new stores could existing stores be termed legal nonconforming uses and be allowed to move around the City. There is a rule for that for billboards. There is no statutory rule which would prohibit it. Mr. Lamb cautioned there is no other business in the City which would be allowed to do that under our non-conforming use provisions. Commissioner Scott wondered if this would not be a problem because we do not allow other businesses to do this. She said these businesses have already said they know this is a high risk business and she did not feel obligated to allow special accommodations. Mr. Lamb said the City's current nonconforming regulations would take care of these concerns. • Signage restrictions: Mr. Lamb said he has concerns about the First Amendment and trying to regulate the content of signs. He said there was a question about comparing it to cigarette advertising. He said this law was written with extensive studies on how long a minor sees that advertisement can directly affect their likelihood of using that product. There was a strong factual basis for those laws. If the City were to develop a factual record, we might be able to develop a regulation along those lines. There was a recent court case (Reed vs. the Town of Gilbert) which has strengthened First Amendment protections and further restricted cities' authority for their sign codes. The state has significant restrictions on signs. The state does not allow more than two signs on site, and signs are limited to 1,600 square inches. The City sign code does not allow any off-site signage. The WSLCB also does not allow the signs to be appealing to children. They have stated, but it is not in the rules, they will not allow signs with cannabis leaves in them. 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Wood said his opinion moving forward would be to allow the three existing retail stores to become licensed medical marijuana stores. He said he felt the three retail outlets were enough, the number of processors and producers was sufficient. He said we should allow a private individual patient the right to grow up to 15 plants, but not to allow cooperatives in the City. The City should maintain all of the current buffers around schools, parks and city land. Commissioner Scott said she agreed with Commissioner Wood and would make the three existing stores a legal nonconforming use. Commissioner Phillips said he agreed with Commissioner Wood, he would like to reduce the ones we already have but did not feel that was possible. Commissioner Anderson said he did not see any reason why the City would change or expand its processing and producing regulations. He is in favor of eliminating cooperatives. He would like to require the home owner be aware when someone is growing plants on their property for medicinal purposes. He feels all the boundaries should remain the same. He did not feel the City should be allowing home extraction. He would allow more stores if they could be medical only, even though he feels it would work, but if not then he would not allow any more stores in the City. Commissioner Kelley said he agrees with the all the guidelines proposed,but he would increase the buffers. Commissioner Wood said some of the retail stores came in and said their landlords were not going to allow them to continue their leases, which would be no fault of their own, and he wanted to allow the nonconforming laws to move with the stores to allow them to continue on if they were a business in good standing. Then there was discussion regarding legal nonconforming uses and of the ultimate goal of the Commissioners. Do you have to make the three retail shops nonconforming? Commissioner Anderson said no more than the three outlets without making them legal nonconforming uses,which would prohibit any more marijuana uses. Because of the state licensing system, there isn't a way to just restrict three to our City, so we have to prohibit and use the nonconforming regulations. Mr. Lamb summarized the Commission's desired direction for the regulations to be drafted: • No more marijuana retailers,producers or processors • No clubs • No cooperatives • Allow home grows,but look at the possibility of requiring the grower be the home owner • No home extraction Commissioner Scott asked if it was possible to restrict chemical extraction in the City. Mr. Lamb said he would allow the fire department to speak to the subject, but to keep in mind there are other processes which uses chemicals which are not related to marijuana. Ms. Harvey said the permit has a reasonable amount allowable which would allow the process in most any room in order to keep control of the chemicals to avoid problems. Chemical extractions require many systems to monitor. Extractions at home are using rubbing alcohol which is not likely to be a problem,but there could be a problem with the propane or butane. Most are using a CO2 process. She said it was highly unlikely to see one of these systems in a home because they are expensive systems. Commissioner Graham said she would like to see home grow be in an enclosure and that they can't be seen from a neighbor's yard. How could enforcement of this happen,only after they were reported? At this point it was agreed staff will begin to draft regulations based on the Commissioners agreeing this was the direction they wanted the regulations to move. Commissioner Graham asked about accommodating the current business owners through zoning, and Mr. Lamb stated an overlay could be created but that spot zoning would not be allowed. Commissioner Wood asked about renters who had permission to grow, and it was clarified this would be allowed. There was consensus not to come back with a zoning alternative to be able to allow the existing medical stores (dispensaries) in a zoning overlay. Commissioner Graham asked if a marijuana grow, or a federally illegal activity, was something which would have to be disclosed when selling a building. Commissioner Wood said he would say no, but he felt they were damp and would generate black mold which would be required to be disclosed. Commissioner Kelley wanted to know if the City could make it a requirement to inform of a home grow. Mr. Lamb said it would require some investigation. 12-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was a discussion regarding Planning Commissioners notes. Do they to be turned in to staff at the end of the year. These were their own notes,but Commissioners need to be aware they were subject to a public records requests. They should probably be destroyed at the end of each subject. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Kevin Anderson,Vice-Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO.07-009 RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICIES FOR IMPOSING VACATION CHARGES PURSUANT TO RCW 36.79.030 WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to vacate roadways and right of ways pursuant to RCW 36.79.030; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has the authority to charge for said vacations in an amount that does not exceed 50% of the full appraised value or for the full appraised value of the area vacated where the street or alley had been part of a dedicated right of way for over twenty five years or if the property was acquired at public expense; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley wishes to establish a policy by which they determine the amount to be charged the benefited property owners of any such vacation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING POLICY: SECTION 1. Policy. I. The cost for property received as a result of a vacation initiated by an adjacent property owner shall equal fifty per cent (50%) of the appraised value of the vacated property received. a. The appraised value shall be the same as the value of an equivalent portion of property adjacent to the proposed vacation as established by the Spokane County Assessor at the time the matter is considered by the City Council. b. If the value of adjacent properties differs, then the average of the adjacent property values per square foot will be used. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), the applicant shall pay the above- described fee only to the extent that it exceeds the cost charged by the City of Spokane Valley to initiate the vacation process, exclusive of any surveying or engineering costs that may be incurred by the applicant. 3. This charge shall be paid subsequent to council action and prior to recording the vacation with the Spokane County Auditor. 4. The City Council shall reserve the right to deviate from this policy upon the adoption of written findings of fact that demonstrate that the public interest shall be best served by an alternate approach. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon adoption. Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 1 of 2 Adopted this 10th day of July, 2007. i w islasz Diana Wilhite, Mayor ATTEST% hristine Bainbridge, Ci Clerk Approved a�.to Form: 1 Office the City ttorney Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 2 of 2 *ali COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .-� P�INSN NNS STV- 2015 - 0001 3rd Avenue Street Vacation First Reading of Ordinance 16-001 January 26, 2016 SPoka ....*Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -4.11!"..._ pukNNING -DIVISION , 1 ' _, , ,i _ D '.. -I I 1 rl 1 1 cL I ' if i' l i I 41 'LI 1 H i 1--; I i I 1 '1--i-_[,----- . - - - , . [0,..., TH_ I 1._!:11— ji_i_ c . il _ 117-11- IL "I• -:1•6x n AvIr. - 7, • - 6' ILI 1 9 "" --- L --ir ...,.., .. .-,,,..Di -.--... -4,,_ 1 j _i i 1 , 1_, Fi OM 1_11 ,_ 0•_roVirr PIN ?,: ' - ,D c_ , 1 -1-- LT 1 ITU Li lil __': :--: -----.; ) I L 1--: or], r?, ,,c, < _- Ca 7.„-- i 1 : 1 'Z' 1 7"!-3,11 _ ,z __,,,Th:li2 ' ' Fi; [ 1 I I Rier 5.de A=T , ="n- ! 74 '3_, 2.'0 ,-I--:-. -- ,,,----'41,_i____ ,..L i 1---, A, 1 m 1:' 1 1 1 i c0 1 , • gn g ..p , , , --11------ 2.. ' --.'-- . 1' ----___,„_,,-- - - - ' - i RgLIE 2 —1,11 ,,..J.,-. ..__________._, ci_-_,___:-TT—1-i (----1 1 1 v „._ __F, ,,,,, , , --- 1.----iT-4. ..„, 0122 12 21 b _I—n L 1 I t`“--.10--' 1 I-1-1. :;' • E'!11 ..= 11 1 '2 ''i 1 ri . .: . __ __ ,,, ,, , , ,_ ,i ----17-- ' 4ve ---Ti LEI 77 -7,7-r--- -: ill ,00-1_1111___] ---y 1, —I 171;i-1 5t'AIV° i.1.-- . 1 ''''.-- r•-oe''' ,,,....0.,_,H- _;',___-,---L , ° 1H A57:0- An5211.0710 45211-12607gL,701._ 11 -. • ,r, 1 ,,,i "c5- - t .3 11 : ,___. 1 - =• -. ---.__,., :,__ . '1-------i=ji I ,-'-' --'- — )11"11 _ __ “71-17-7,1----- ' .7-. ----i --- .-,-!-,-- ----'-- _- ---L I-11T 11 17-r- ' ' iii:- ---_- _-,._...,_ 1 ' I I ' b ----,1p)51-1--d---- .--- L . ---1___ ._ - - I -- 'id A•.'e27-- I 11 _ -, ' ' - - Fi( [ °-' III , eway13 v --_,._ -- , __ . .--,..___,11r_d,R75 pz.: ILI[ R F,_ II, ile3 .,„ , L ii„,yK A. N E ALLEY i,-1-711 il I,—au _, [ 1 1 , -1. ----,,, , I ., . ._ r---7---- '1 [ 1__-_-,,ii,__Li ____ __ ,_ 1 1 rp.._: _! , L. 1 .01, , .., - - . - L1_ - t-,L- T __1 =mop .11 .-. 11-1--[-E--- i__L.4_i_,_. - ----. "---1-- = 1 . H.....,,i 1-1'---11hh-IL Z -1. , , , LI ri:,_ .,:) , , ,,:.5.„.,,,,,•,,,_ ,.., ,...., ,___,_ • f 5 4 hi= I F L,'-'I —1---- " 1 1 f 1 ,.__ :Hrrrntrt, i l- IA_I I ' '' '1'''.'-..''''''-th Av.en ,..„ , I 1 '' 2-I' L 4 ir,5th'&11?-2'41 —I' - ./- L-1 - - ' ll (7,, P r.tv_o, -01 j, 17 i 1 I-Ii 4-rlipj_024, . -:g7tii- AArea of proposed jLE,1:7-1 ,L. I .,., Li_ 4521123111,1 . ft----2!----C: ' - 1 FiT:74-1 7 1 . t- • 11 ;i7-11-1421 ‘-`4L'ill II ' --4-1 1 1__ i I 1 --• I-- street vacation — ,1 -- -- = ZLiiiill Li II., ,--=_ -. > iLIIIII ---., --r-i. 1,;TRfi-J1T-TT Fr I 11 1 ---1 ITT '1.7_0•I -' Prir' t. ":` :-LI ic.1-- • ..--i-T 119i 1 1 1 1 1 t 'l ,,,,,,...v -G-'Pr-91'1 Aiv1--1391g4-'411 I-LE- 1 L. ._,.... DI_-.1%...,.__._ __--1- ,,,,,i, A..,e .77-gris--------- 2 Li_11; T_ i_ i Tritrl.k-ra-11 . iou-rAvro-, ---h-r-c , j'.':- , - --)--H-0 ' : . 1 , (-0.e 1 ith A°,e „.1-,,•;'''') °--;'-"-----4--H1-:- ii7:1_1_1 1 111127 2 .....v ......, Sp° COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E -. _... �Ualley 'DIVISION 4.8.4 - - 382.78' • 1 219-70' I FUTURE 15 0 RAN FOR BIKE o I_ o I PCL#45212.0703 (TRAIL ACCESS. Location and i5 �o len h lo he determined Trail connection Parcel 1 77-23 o' 7, : .91" 219.70 / tin 1 11 /%'� ` Cul-de-sac to be provided Parcel 2 at time of development mowN t �" PCL#45212.0723 a < '' 'rt-cv u7 `g `_ W L'i r T a -I " r Parcel 3 _ 94.76 'o3 ;� x.93' �,� C - , .-_ .s { l' "24' i 97 4 94 75 5 29,97 2474 70 — FUTURE PARCEL CONFIGURATION La .02" L3 12 FT EASEMENT TO AACCCESS PROPERTY LINES PARCEL#45212.0722 vs or 1, • ..- "- I- • 0 —- PROPERTY LINE CONSOLIDATION ' . � 3RD AVE PORTION TO BE VACATED '2 11 �:: 14_ 62.•'... . . . . _, _ - FUTURE DEDICATION OF CITY RW s 4th Ave - EXISTING FT EASEMENT ?.i 1- -J'_.. j� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .-� P�INSN NNS� `� SVMC 22 . 140.040 City Council Decision • Shall consider Planning Commission findings; ui • May have conditions and/or limitations Z appropriate to preserve public use or benefit; � • Shall specify which portion of vacation goes to abutting property owners; and z • May require compensation per Resolution 0 07-009 . *aliCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E PNey 'DIVISION V Parcel Number Appraised Market Value Lot Size in Square Feet(ft2) Appraised Value per Square tin Foot (ft2) 45212.0720 $24,000.00 12,600 $1.90 45212.0721 $30,000.00 11,865 $2.53 Z 45212.0703 $54,000.00 34,050 $1.59 45121.0723 $54,000.00 33,301 $1.62 loimi 45212.0722 $30,000.00 15,855 $0.53 45212.0719 $24,000.00 15,265.5 $1.57 ......5 Average appraised value per ft2 $9.74/. 010 Square footage of vacation 14,485 ft2 1 Appraised value for the area of street vacation. 14,485 ft2 x $1.62 = $23,465.70 50% of appraised value $23,465.70 x 50% = $11,732.85 Itim Subtracting amount paid for application processing $11,732.85 - $ 1,365.00 = $10 367.85 Estimated value of vacated 3rd Avenue $10,367.85 CL *ali COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E PNeyDIVISION 3rd Avenue Street Vacation Conditions : 0 > Prepare record of survey > Designated with adjacent zoning MIME IA t > Complete boundary line > Applicant shall pay all costs incurred 2 Z adjustment (BLA) > Locate monuments on centerline of > Transferproperty to abuttin2 ° g vacated ROW CD lims r r r > Record ordinance,es ecododinace, BLA and suryey > Coordinate with Avista , Modern > Begin conditions within 90 days of c5 13 Electric Water Co. and Spokane ordinance effective date Z Z County Division of Utilities for > All conditions shall be met before Z ` " easements transferring title > Provide 15 foot easement or > Compensation: TBD byCouncil p —z dedication for non-motorized > $10,367.85; or path to Appleway Trail > Alternative approach Spy —a PL-ANNIN � iiey COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,p s - ®IVISION 4. . ma• ,..,, ' i ' . -sii ir vaL r '� � �. ..,,I.:,,,.'_, Vacation area .- Eco- ._ -- 5� moi Z -._ k S x , .E u 0 : i _ K = , .. RT a _ • a . w6 -:.-'- t V F�' y q . a 1 s • 5 �f �' L .. -a d _ . • 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First reading of proposed Ordinance No. 16-002 adopting findings of fact justifying a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No.15-013, with modifications. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.390; RCW 36.70A; SVMC 19.120.050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted a moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing on February 24, 2015, and adopted findings of fact on April 28, 2015. Council repealed and replaced the original moratorium on mining pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 on June 30, 2015, and adopted findings of fact for the replacement moratorium on August 25, 2015, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-015. City Council heard an administrative report on a potential six-month renewal on December 8, 2015, conducted a public hearing on a potential six-month renewal on January 5, 2016, and heard an administrative report on January 19, 2016. BACKGROUND: The City adopted a moratorium on mining and mining site operations on February 24, 2015, as set forth in Ordinance No. 15-005, and subsequently adopted findings of fact justifying the moratorium on April 28, 2015, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-009. In order to ensure full notice and opportunity for public involvement regarding the moratorium, on June 30, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 to repeal Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009 and to re-establish the moratorium and provide for another public hearing on the moratorium on mining and mining site operations. The City subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 15-015 on August 25, 2015, to adopt findings of fact justifying the reestablishment of the moratorium. Pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 15-013, the moratorium was established with a term that lasts "until 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2016, unless repealed, extended, or modified by City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390." As discussed during the administrative report on December 8, 2015, and the public hearing on January 5, 2016, the City does not anticipate it will complete its Comprehensive Plan update by February 23, 2016, and so City staff have recommended a six-month renewal of the moratorium. Pursuant to State law, the City is authorized to adopt a six-month renewal of an existing moratorium, provided the City first conducts a public hearing and adopts findings of fact justifying the renewal of the moratorium prior to such renewal. The City Council has conducted a public hearing on the renewal of the moratorium. During the public hearing, Council heard testimony from two interested parties, both of whom requested that the moratorium not be renewed, or if it were renewed, that it be renewed with a modification to list parcels that were excluded from the moratorium's applicability. Further, both parties requested that the property commonly known as the "Eden Pit (Pit #55-06)," owned by Spokane County, be excluded from the moratorium. Spokane County has taken steps towards applying for permits for certain Page 1 of 2 proposed activities at the Eden Pit. In 2012, Spokane County obtained a Washington State Department of Natural Resources County or Municipality Approval for Surface Mining Form (referred to as an SM-6 Form) relating to the Eden Pit. The current status of the Department of Natural Resources approval is not known. City Council gave direction to staff at its January 19, 2016 meeting to include a modification to the moratorium as part of the renewal regarding the exception that the moratorium not impact existing mining operations and those that received a SM-6 Form prior to the establishment of the moratorium, such as those like the Eden Pit, to give full effect to City Council's original desire that the moratorium not impact existing and ongoing business operations. As required by State law, proposed Ordinance No. 16-002 sets forth proposed findings of fact justifying a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining with the requested modification. Information on the background of the moratorium, the process leading to the need for the renewal, and the public comments received during the public hearing are attached to this RCA for Council's review. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading, with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 16-002, adopting findings of fact justifying a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No.15-013, with modifications, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director; Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 16-002 Ordinance No. 15-013 Ordinance No. 15-015 RCA from January 5, 2016 public hearing Draft minutes from January 5, 2016 public hearing Copy of public comments received during January 5, 2016 public hearing and on January 8, 2016 Page 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 16-002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFYING THE ADOPTION OF A SIX MONTH RENEWAL OF THE MORATORIUM ON MINING AND MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 15-013 WITH MODIFICATIONS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is in the process of developing its Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on June 30, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 establishing a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and repealing Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013, the moratorium shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2016, unless otherwise repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council prior to such expiration; and WHEREAS, the City does not anticipate it will complete its Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23,2016; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;"and WHEREAS, a moratorium renewal enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may continue to preserve the status quo established through the original moratorium so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development; and Ordinance 16-002 Page 1 of 7 DRAFT WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium renewal for one or more six-month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and Ordinance No. 15-013, on January 5, 2016, the City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the renewal of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations for a six-month period; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony from two interested parties, and each party submitted additional written comments. Further, the City received written comments on January 8, 2016,which have been considered by City Council as part of the record for such renewal; and WHEREAS, City Council has determined based upon public testimony received that a modification to the moratorium regarding impacts to existing mines and mines that received an "SM-6 Form" as part of their reclamation permitting process from the Washington Department of Natural Resources prior to the establishment of the moratorium is appropriate to give effect to City Council's original desire that the moratorium not impact existing and ongoing mining business operations; and WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390,the City Council is required to adopt findings of fact after conducting the public hearing and prior to such renewal. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on January 5, 2016, the City Council conducted a public hearing on a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013. The City Council hereby adopts the following as findings of fact in support of renewal of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 with modifications: 1. On February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, imposing and establishing a moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. 2. On March 24, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the moratorium imposed and established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005 and received written testimony from two interested parties. Six interested parties spoke at the public hearing. 3. On April 28, 2015, after giving due consideration to the public testimony received, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact justifying the moratorium on mining established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005. 4. On June 30, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-013, repealing Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009, and re-establishing a moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching. Ordinance 16-002 Page 2 of 7 DRAFT 5. On July 28,2015, City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance 15-013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation,mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009. 6. Two written comments were submitted prior to the public hearing. At the public hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony from five interested parties. Further, at the public hearing, four persons who testified submitted written comments and one person submitted a flash drive with three electronic documents and five video recordings of portions of City Council meetings held on February 24, 2015, March 24,2015,April 14,2015,April 28,2015, and June 30,2015. 7. On August 25, 2015, after giving due consideration to the public testimony received, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-015, adopting findings of fact justifying the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013 and the re-establishment of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation,mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009. 8. Pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 15-013, the moratorium will last "until 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2016, unless repealed, extended, or modified by City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390." 9. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 RCW, the City is required to designate "where appropriate...[m]ineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals." 10. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the City is required to adopt development regulations to ensure conservation of mineral resource lands designated pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170. 11. On March 27, 2003, the City originally adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan as its interim Comprehensive Plan. The City's interim Comprehensive Plan included certain mineral resource designations for locations within the City's boundaries. 12. On April 25, 2006, the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan did not designate any mineral resource lands within its boundaries, and the City has not further designated mineral resource lands since 2006. 13. The City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands,including the following: Goal LUG-10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. 14. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") 19.120.050, mining is currently a permitted heavy industrial processing use within the heavy industrial(I-2)zone. Ordinance 16-002 Page 3 of 7 DRAFT 15. The City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zones taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once the mining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the impacts on the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts can be permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site, even after the mine closes. 16. The City has a finite amount of available undeveloped industrial land. 17. New proposals for mining and mining site operations that may be submitted pending the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update process would pose an imminent threat to public health and safety because they can permanently alter the built and natural environment and limit the City's choices in the exercise of its land use authority, thereby thwarting the Comprehensive Plan Update process and impairing the City's ability to reach a reasoned policy approach related to industrial land capacity, determining where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands would be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operation. 18. With the planning issues and potential for new mining impacts in mind, the City Council determined the moratorium was appropriate in order to maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of City permits and licenses for new mining operations beyond those presently vested while the City undertakes development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including giving due consideration to the determination of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits. 19. Pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 15-013, the City Council established a work plan in order to adequately consider (a) where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate within the boundaries of the City, and (b) whether mining and mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, are compatible and appropriate when undertaken on industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the City. The work plan directs the City as follows: A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements, testimony, positions, and other documentation or evidence related to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of mining uses. Specifically, the Planning Commission shall consider mining in its consideration and deliberations for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update and shall develop proposals for mining and mining site operations within the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. The schedule for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update process is included in the City's Public Participation Program, adopted by the City Council on January 6, 2015, which identifies phases of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and anticipated meeting dates relevant to each of the phases. B. Upon adoption of the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Planning Commission shall work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to mining and mining site operations to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. 20. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW,the City is in the process of developing its Comprehensive Plan Update. Ordinance 16-002 Page 4 of 7 DRAFT 21. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW and the work plan established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, through 2015 and continuing into 2016, the City has been analyzing and completing an inventory of available industrial lands, and reviewing designation and regulation of mineral resource lands in order to reach a reasoned policy decision in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that addresses (a) consideration of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate within the boundaries of the City, and (b) whether mining and mining site operations,including excavation,mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, are compatible and appropriate when undertaken on industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the City. 22. As part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the City has undertaken a broad public process to accept citizen-initiated Citizen Amendment Requests ("CARs"). CARs were reviewed through a public process by both the Planning Commission and the City Council and several were approved by the City Council for further analysis and consideration through the Comprehensive Plan Update. One CAR that was approved for further review was a request to include a new chapter creating Mineral Resource Lands goals,policies, and designation criteria and a corresponding map amendment to designate four sites as a Mineral Resource Overlay on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. Further, City staff have been researching,reviewing, and analyzing geologic, economic, and GIS data, as well as information from the Washington Departments of Commerce and Nature Resources, to review and analyze the appropriateness of mineral resource land designation within the City's boundaries. 23. The City was delayed for a portion of 2015 in working through its Comprehensive Plan Update while waiting for the future population forecast and allocation from the Steering Committee of Elected Officials ("SCEO") and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC"). The SCEO voted on November 4, 2015, to recommend to the BoCC the population forecast and allocation recommended by the Planning Technical Advisory Committee which utilized the Office of Financial Management medium series forecast for 2037 and which applied a historic growth rate from 2003 through 2015 for forecasting purposes. The BoCC has not acted upon the SCEO recommendation. 24. The population forecast and allocation is critical to the City's development of its Comprehensive Plan Update as it provides the basis for planning for future growth and assessing appropriate land use quantities to meet future growth needs. 25. Due to the delay in recommendation and adoption of the population allocation, the City has not completed its Comprehensive Plan Update and the City does not anticipate it will complete the Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23,2016. 26. Pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws,"which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City. 27. RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map,interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning Ordinance 16-002 Page 5 of 7 DRAFT ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal." 28. A moratorium renewal enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may continue to preserve the status quo established through the original moratorium so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. 29. RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium renewal for one or more six-month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. 30. A six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing will continue to maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of City permits and licenses for new mining operations beyond those presently vested while the City continues to work on and complete its Comprehensive Plan Update, including giving due consideration to the determination of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits. 31. Staff has determined that a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 with modifications is categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-800(19). 32. Notice of the public hearing on January 5, 2016, was published in the City's legal publication,the Valley News Herald,on December 11, 18, and 25,2015,and January 1,2016. 33. On January 5, 2016, City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing on a six- month renewal of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013. 34. At the public hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony from two interested parties. Both parties also submitted written testimony. Further, on January 8, 2016,the City received written testimony from a third party. All parties requested a modification to the moratorium to allow processing of permits for the ongoing operation and maintenance of mines that are currently operational as well as those that received a Washington State Department of Natural Resource County or Municipality Approval for Surface Mining Form (commonly referred to as a "SM-6 Form") prior to the establishment of the moratorium. The parties requested such modification to prevent impacts from the moratorium to their existing and ongoing business operations. The City Council has given due consideration to all public testimony received,including the written testimony received on January 8,2016. 35. A modification to the moratorium regarding mining operations where the operator received a SM-6 Form prior to the establishment of the moratorium is appropriate to give effect to City Council's original desire that the moratorium not impact existing and ongoing mining business operations. Ordinance 16-002 Page 6 of 7 DRAFT 36. The adoption of a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 with modifications, is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 37. The City Council finds that a six-month renewal of the moratorium originally imposed and established by Ordinance No. 15-013 with modifications is necessary for the preservation of the public health,public safety,public property and public peace. Section 2. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 3. 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 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of February,2016. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins,Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 16-002 Page 7 of 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-013 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A. MORATORIUM ON MINING, MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING,REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 15-005 AND 15.019, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is in the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update;and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City is authorized to"make and enforce within its limits all such local police,sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City;and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. if the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months,but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;"and WHEREAS,a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be thwarted or rendered moot by intervening development;and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium;and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act;and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 RCW, the City is required to designate "where appropriate...[m]ineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals";and WHEREAS,pursuant to.RCW 3630A.060,the City is required to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170;and WHEREAS,the City has not designated any mineral resource lands within its boundaries nor has it developed regulations specific to mineral resource lands;and Ordinance 15-013 Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") 19.120.050, mining is currently a permitted heavy industrial processing use within the heavy industrial(I-2)zone;and WHEREAS,the City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands, including the following: Goal LUG-10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-1l.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply;and WHEREAS, the City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zone taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once the mining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the impacts on the land may be irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts are permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site, even after the mine closes;and WHEREAS,the City has a finite amount of available undeveloped industrial land;and WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 36.70A, RCW, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update Process, the City will analyze and complete an inventory of available industrial lands and review designation and regulation of mineral resourcelands in order to reach a reasoned policy decision in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that addresses (a) consideration of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate within the boundaries of the City, and (b) whether mining and mining site operations,including excavation,mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing,stockpiling,and mineral batching,are compatible when undertaken on industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the City;and WHEREAS, additional time is necessary to allow the City to continue the development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including the determination of what the City's long-term goals are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits;and WHEREAS,new proposals for mining and mining site operations that may be submitted pending the completion of'the Comprehensive Plan Update process would pose an imminent threat to public health and safety because they can permanently alter the built environment and limit the City's choices in the exercise of its land use authority, thereby thwarting the Comprehensive Plan Update process and impairing the City's ability to reach a reasoned policy approach related to industrial land capacity, determining where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands would be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operation;and WHEREAS,a moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing will maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of.City permits and licenses for new mining operations beyond those presently vested while the City undertakes development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including giving due consideration to the determination of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate and determining what the City's long-term goals are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits;and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, imposing and establishing a moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any Ordinance 15-013 Page 2 of 5 permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations,such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing,stockpiling,and mineral batching;and WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 4 of Ordinance No. 15-005,the City Council set March 24,2015 at 6:00 p.m.at City Hall as the date,time and location for a public hearing on the moratorium;and WHEREAS,on March 6,2015,a summary of Ordinance No. 15-005 was published in the Valley News Herald, the City's newspaper of general circulation, which summary included the statement "Section 4 sets March 24,2015 as the date for a public hearing";and WHEREAS,there were articles regarding the moratorium and pending public hearing prior to the public hearing that were published in local newspapers that included reference to the public hearing on the moratorium;and WHEREAS, the agenda for the meeting on March 24, 2015, which included reference to the public hearing on the moratorium, was posted on the City's website and provided to members of the City's agenda packet distribution list via email in advance of March 24,2015;and WHEREAS,on March 24,2015,the City Council conducted a public hearing on the moratorium imposed and established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005 and received written testimony from two interested parties and six interested parties spoke at the public hearing;and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2015,after giving due consideration to the public testimony received, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact justifying the moratorium on mining established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005;and WHEREAS,though public information and notice was provided of the public hearing,there was no formal publication of notice of the public hearing in the City's official newspaper as is the City's practice;and WHEREAS, repeal of Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 and re-establishment of an emergency moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations with a new public hearing preceded by new and more broadly disseminated public notice is appropriate to ensure full notice and opportunity for interested parties to provide comments on the moratorium;and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety,public property and public peace. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Preliminary Findings. The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 2. Moratorium Established. A. The City Council hereby declares an emergency and imposes a moratorium upon the submission,acceptance, processing,modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing,stockpiling,and mineral batching. Ordinance 15-013 Page 3 of 5 B. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already- submitted complete land-use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as provided tinder Washington law. C. This moratorium shall not affect any mining or mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operation as,of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 3. Work Plan. The following workplan is adopted to address the issues involving the City's consideration and regulation of mining: A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission ("Planning Commission'') is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements,testimony,positions,and other documentation or evidence related to the public health,safety, and welfare aspects of mining uses. Specifically,the Planning Commission shall consider mining in its consideration and deliberations for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update and shall develop proposals for mining and mining site operations within the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. The schedule for the City's 2015. Comprehensive Plan Update process is included in the City's Public Participation Program, adopted by the City Council on January 6,2015,which identifies phases of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and anticipated meeting dates relevant to each of the phases. B. Upon adoption of the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update,the Planning Commission shall work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to mining and mining site operations to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. rection 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and 36.70A.390,the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on July 28, 2015 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall, City Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague,Spokane Valley,99206,to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance. Section 5. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall be in effect as of the date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect until 11:59 p.m.on February 23,2016,unless repealed, extended,or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearings) and entry of appropriate findings of fact,pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. Repeal. Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 are hereby repealed in their entirety and shall be without any force or effect as of the effective date of this Ordinance as set forth in Section 9 below. Section S. Severability. If any section,sentence,clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 9. Declaration of Emergency: Effective Date. This Ordinance is designated as a public emergency necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and therefore shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council. Ordinance 15-013 Page 4 of 3 Passed by the City Council this 30th day of June,2015. A ve._...,-;; 7 , f , bean Grafos1 Mayor ("TB Ci Clerk,Chriifine Bainbridge .„---,--- City V Approved as Form: f ^�/ Date of Publication: /l, .'Z d,/, --- Office ---Office oftheity Attorney Effective Date:June 30,2015 Ordinance 15-013 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFYING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-013 AND THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NOS. 15-005 AND 15-009 AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A MORATORIUM ON MINING, MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING,AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is in the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update;and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article II, Section I1 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to"make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City;and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing,then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;"and WHEREAS,a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development;and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.2.20 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing,provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium;and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on June 30, 2015,the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 establishing a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and repealing Ordinance Nos.15-005 and 15-009;and WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390, and Ordinance No. 15-013, on July 26,2015,the City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations,such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009;and Ordinance 15-015--Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page I of 5 WHEREAS, two written comments were submitted prior to the public hearing. At the public hearing,City Council heard verbal testimony from five interested parties. Further, at the public hearing, four persons who testified submitted written comments and one person submitted a flash drive with three electronic documents and five video recordings of portions of City Council meetings held on February 24, 2015,March 24,2015,April 14,2015,April 28,2015,and June 30,2015;and WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390,the City Council is required to adopt findings of fact after conducting the public hearing. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390,on July 28,2015,the City Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance No, 15-013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site oPerations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009. The City Council hereby adopts the following as findings of fact in support of Ordinance No. 15-013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009: 1. On February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, imposing and establishing a moratorium on submission,acceptance, processing,modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing,stockpiling,and mineral batching. 2. Pursuant to Section 4 of Ordinance No. 15-005, the City Council set March 24, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.at City Hall as the date,time and location for a public hearing on the moratorium. 3. On March 6, 2015, a summary of Ordinance No. 15-005 was published in the Valley News Herald, the City's newspaper of general circulation, which summary included the statement"Section 4 sets March 24,2015 as the date for a public hearing." 4. There were articles regarding the moratorium and pending public hearing prior to the public hearing that were published in local newspapers that included reference to the public hearing on the moratorium. 5. The agenda for the meeting on March 24,2015,which included reference to the public hearing on the moratorium, was posted on the City's website and provided to members of the City's agenda packet distribution list via email in advance of March 24,2015. 6. On March 24,2015,the City Council conducted a public hearing on the moratorium imposed and established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005 and received written testimony from two interested parties. Six interested parties spoke at the public hearing. 7. On April 28, 2015, after giving due consideration to the public testimony received,the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact justifying the moratorium on mining established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005. 8. Though public information and notice was provided of the public hearing,there was no formal publication of notice of the public hearing in the City's official newspaper as is the City's practice. 9. Repeal of Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 and re-establishment of an emergency moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations with a new public hearing Ordinance 15-015—Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 2 of 5 preceded by new and more broadly disseminated public notice is appropriate to ensure full notice and opportunity for interested parties to provide comments on the moratorium. 10. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 RCW, the City is required to designate "where appropriate...[m] neral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals." 11. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060,the City is required to adopt development regulations to ensure conservation of mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170. 12. The City has not designated any mineral resource lands within its boundaries nor has it developed regulations specific to mineral resource lands. 13. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") 1.9.120.050, mining is currently a permitted heavy industrial processing use within the heavy industrial(1.2)zone. 14. The City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands,including the following: Goal LUG-10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. 15. The City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zones taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once the mining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the impacts on the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts are permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site,even after the mine closes. 16. The City has a finite amount of available undeveloped industrial land: 17. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, the City is in the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. 18. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process,the City will analyze and complete an inventory of available industrial lands and review designation and regulation of mineral resource lands in order to reach a reasoned policy decision in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that addresses(a)consideration of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate within the boundaries of the City,and(b)whether mining and mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, are compatible and appropriate when undertaken on industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the City. 19. The current work program for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update anticipates that a draft Comprehensive Plan will be completed by the end of 2015. 20. New proposals for mining and mining site operations that may be submitted pending the completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update process would pose an imminent threat to public health and safety because they can permanently alter the built and natural environment and limit the City's choices in the exercise of its land use authority, thereby thwarting the Comprehensive Plan Update process and impairing the City's ability to reach a reasoned policy approach related to industrial land Ordinance 15-015—Findings of Pact on Mining Moratorium Page 3 of 5 capacity, determining where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands would be appropriate; and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operation. 21. Pursuant to Article 11, Section II of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws,"which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City. 22. RCW 36.70A.390 provides that"A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map,interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal." 23. A moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. 24. RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map,interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided a public hearing is held within 60 days of the adoption of the moratorium. 2.5. A moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing will maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of City permits and licenses for new mining operations beyond those presently vested while the City undertakes development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including giving due consideration to the determination of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate,and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits. 26. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013, City Council adopted a work plan to address the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 27. Staff has completed SEPA review of the moratorium and has determined the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations under Ordinance No. 15-013 is categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11- 800(19). 28. On July 28,2015,City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance 15- 013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation,mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing,stockpiling,and mineral batching and the repeal of Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009. 29. Two written comments were submitted prior to the public hearing. At the public hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony from five interested parties. Further, at the public hearing, four persons who testified submitted written comments and one person submitted a flash drive with three Ordinance 15-015—Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 4 of 5 electronic documents and five video recordings of portions of City Council meetings held on February 24, 2015, March 24,2015, April 14, 2015, April 28,2015, and June 30, 2015. The City Council has given due consideration to all public testimony received. 30. The adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 31. The City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by Ordinance No. 15- 013 is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. Section 2. Duration. The moratorium set forth in Ordinance No. 15-013 shall be and remain in effect as of the effective date of Ordinance No. 15-013 and shall continue in effect until 11:59 p.m.on February 23, 2016, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearings)and entry of appropriate findings of fact,pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. The duration of the moratorium set forth in Ordinance No. 15-013 is expressly intended to preserve in continuous force and effect the moratorium established in Ordinance No. 15-005 notwithstanding the repeal of said Ordinance No. 15-005. Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 4. Severability. If any section,sentence,clause,or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,sentence,clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this 256 day of August,2015. ATT Dean Orafos,Mayo 1. -,. . r City Clerk,Christine.rainbridge Appr ed as^t Eo fir � �• Office-44e Ci f a mey Date of Publication: Effective Date: 9 9 --g41.5— Ordinance 41>!Ordinance 15-015—Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 5 2016 Department Director Approval: iA Check all that apply: ❑ consent {❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information 0 adn'.in. report ® pending legislation 0 executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public hearing on a six-month renewal of moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No.15-013 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.70A.3001; RCW 35.70A; SVMC 1 .120.050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted a moratorium on mini-rig and. mineral product manufacturing on February 24, 2015 and adopted findings of fact on April 28, 2015, Council repealed and replaced the original moratorium an mining parsuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 on June 30. 2015, and adopted findings of fact for the replacement moratorium on August 25, 2015 pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-015. BACKGROUND: The City adopted a morato-tum on mining and mining site operations on February 24, 2015, as set forth in Ordinance No. 15-005, and subsequently adopted findings of fact justifying the moratorium on April 28, 2015. pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-00a. In order to ensure full notice and opportunity for public involvement regarding the moratorium, on June 30, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 to repeal Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009 and to re-establish the moratorium and provide for another public hearing on the moratorium on mining and mining site operations. The City subsequently adopted Ordinance trio 15-C15 on August 25, 2015 to adopt findings of fact justlying the reestablishment of the moratorium. Pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 15-013, the moratorium was established with a tenin that lasts"until 11:59 pain. on February 23, 201G, unless repealed, extended, or modified by City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RC1 !35A.53.220 and RCVV 3f.70A.390." Background on need for moratorium importantly, RCVV 36.70A.110 requires he City to designate "where appropriate...Irn]ineral resource lands that are riot already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals.' Further, RCW 36.70A.063 requires the City to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36.70A,170. In 2003, the City originally adopted by reference the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan as its Interim Comprehensive Plan, The City's interim Comprehensive Plan included certain mineral resource designations. In 2006, the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan, In the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. the City did not designate any mineral resource lands, and i1 has not designated any since 2006. However, the Corn prehens ye Plan cont,a.ns several goats and po'icies for the appropriate development of ire ir, ::Cal lands, inti LJ:rci ll ; fllc.ner�a: Goal LUG 10: Provide for the development of e.11-p ,msrn d id cuslri ! arcas :,r i:_ t::sure the long-terrn holding of appropriate land in parocri e f- .s idegrrnt to ;Inv) foto future development as inrustriall uses. l'agc 1 or 4 LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. Although the City did not designate mineral resource lands in its Comprehensive Plan, it did adopt development regulations permitting mining within the 1-2, Heavy Industrial Zone. This was due, in part, to the fact there are several existing gravel mining operations in the City, which take up significant acreage and result in large open pits once the mining use is concluded. One of the unique features of mining is the permanent impact on the land where it is sited. Once a mine is opened, the impacts of the mine on the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts can mean that the land may be permanently removed from other future available industrial uses, even after the mine doses. With the City's zoning regulations, proposals for new mines and mining operations submitted during the Comprehensive Plan Update process could be permitted on industrial lands, thereby limiting the City's choices on how to plan for industrial uses and mining operations in the future. With that in mind, City Council determined it is appropriate to maintain the status quo by prohibiting new mining operations while the City undertakes its Comprehensive Plan review to determine (1) whether and where mineral resource land designation may be appropriate, and (2) if mining is an appropriate use of the City's undeveloped land given the unique permanence of mining. City Council specifically provided an exception in the moratorium so that it would not impact current lawful operations of any existing mining site. Work Plan; Comprehensive Plan Update process In order to adequately consider whether and where mineral resource land designation and mining may be appropriate within the City, City Council established a work plan directing the City as follows: A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements, testimony, positions, and other documentation'or evidence related to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of mining uses. Specifically, the Planning Commission shall consider mining in its consideration and deliberations for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update and shall develop proposals for mining and mining site operations within the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. The schedule for the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update process is included in the City's Public Participation Program, adopted by the City Council on January 6, 2015, which identifies phases of the Comprehensive Plan Update process and anticipated meeting dates relevant to each of the phases. B. Upon adoption of the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Planning Commission shall work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to mining and mining site operations to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 15-013. Pursuant to the mandates set forth in the Growth Management Act and Section 3 of Ordinance No. 15-013, the City has continued working through the Comprehensive Plan update throughout 2015. However, the City was delayed for a portion of 2015 in working through its Comprehensive Plan Update while waiting for the future population forecast and allocation from the Steering Committee of Elected Officials ("SCEO") and Spokane County Board of County Page 2 of 4 Commissioners ("BoCC"). On November 4, 2015, the Planning Technical Advisory Committee ("PTAC") provided a recommendation to the SCEO which utilized the Office of Financial Management medium series forecast for 2037 and applied a historic growth rate from 2003 through 2015 for forecasting purposes. The SCEO considered the PTAC recommendation and voted 6-3 to recommend to the BoCC the population forecast and allocation recommended by the PTAC. The BoCC has not acted upon the SCEO recommendation. The population allocation is critical to the City's development of its Comprehensive Plan Update as it provides the basis for planning for future growth and assessing appropriate land use quantities to meet future growth needs. Due to the delay in recommendation and adoption of the population allocation, the City has not completed its Comprehensive Plan Update and staff does not anticipate the City will complete the City's Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23, 2016. As part of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update process, the City is undertaking a comprehensive review of existing land inventory and all existing and desired land uses. Further, the City is analyzing and considering the economic and physical impacts of mining on land within the City. Appropriate recommendations for mineral resource land designations and, if necessary, related development regulations for mining, will result from this activity. To date, work on the Comprehensive Plan update has included staff and consultant work in preparing analyses of certain portions of the updated Comprehensive Plan. It also included a broad public process to accept citizen-specific Comprehensive Plan Update requests, called "Citizen Amendment Requests" (CARs). The CARs went through a review process from April through June 2015 by the Planning Commission, followed by a recommendation to City Council to include them for consideration in the Comprehensive Plan Update. The City Council considered the CARs and ultimately approved several CARs in the Comprehensive Plan update for further analysis and consideration. One CAR approved for further consideration was a request submitted by CPM Development Corporation ("CPM") to include a new chapter creating Mineral Resource Lands goals, policies, and designation criteria and a corresponding map amendment to designate four sites as a Mineral Resource Land Overlay on the City's Official Comprehensive Plan Map. Further, City staff have been working through geologic, economic, and GIS data, as well as information from the Washington Departments of Commerce and Natural Resources, to review and analyze the appropriateness of mineral resource land designation within the City. Renewal Since the City does not anticipate it will complete the Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23, 2016, when the moratorium expires, staff recommends a renewal of the moratorium for a six-month period. RCW 36.70A.390 authorizes the City to adopt a six-month renewal and extension of an existing moratorium, provided the City first conducts a public hearing and adopts findings of fact justifying the renewal and extension of the moratorium prior to such renewal. Further, Section 5 of Ordinance No. 15-021 expressly recognizes the City's authority to renew and extend the moratorium. A moratorium renewal will preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. As part of the renewal, the City Council may consider renewing the moratorium as-is or renewing it with modifications that Council may deem to be appropriate given input from the public hearing. Staff has determined the moratorium renewal to be categorically exempt from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(19). Pursuant to state law and Ordinance No. 15-013, the City Council is conducting a public hearing on the moratorium renewal. At the public hearing, the City Council will take public comment and at a subsequent meeting consider findings of fact for the moratorium renewal, prior to considering adoption of the renewal. The City continues to work through the City's Page 3 of 4 Comprehensive Plan update, including consideration of whether and where mineral resource land designation may be appropriate. OPTIONS: Conduct public hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct public hearing. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director; Cary Driskefl, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 15-013 Ordinance No. 15-015 Maps of existing mining pits (operational and non-operational) Notice of Public Hearing published on December 11, 18, 25, 2015 in the Spokane Valley News Herald. Notice will be published on January 1, 2016, but is not available in time for inclusion with the materials for this meeting. Page 4 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT of WASHINGTON for SPOKANE COUNTY In the Matter of AFFIDAVIT of PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING City of Spokane Valley NO. January 5,2016 Mining Moratorium LEGAL NOTICE STATE of WASHINGTON County of Spokane MICHAEL HUFFMAN being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that he is the EDITOR of the Spokane Valley News Herald,a weekly newspaper.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Spokane County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper,which said newspaper had been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Spokane County.That the following is a true copy of a Legal Notice as it was published in regular issues commencing on the 11th day of December,2015,and ending on the 1st day of January,2016,all dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period: 1:11y+igtioa Jn.i: ilitimv 11Itwtyi:Iti111'1gmIrl • yL ,!'; ;r 1.91 �4 IM i +0 !i,yt1: . 1 0401;110,, ,w ai 11 nII d dii I nyi n 1y!naI»t ,8 i!l i11dJ 'n7 mom 1yIy 4117u11III ii Ilirv1 i dJ 1' 'd d4II,�I pY9+�1 �1,Jn idINil! iIL / , Li i I:I I „ 111.1t!I I v i },!4 a4 I~JM na:!• ��,{a� y,.i„ d,.,; Pm n Ila nI 1n t 71 1"n] ` S '1 :ED and SWORN to before me raaaal*nn4n1, i1"I'. 1 H "' '�� i 17"' u17 This 1st day of January,2016 1ai;. "y1 11,�,1i ii IAII + ,r a, r alyx ri ,; State of Washington •Idly la yln y Ivy nv vl,�:,y'n l,diy; . ®�Illl/d !,yiy I;Ir ty laiaai '9yan� 4ii Ii:a i nt t JI u:G11 ®®‘ ®®®®®® County of Spokane I I I Ja inl Ln 11 di i� 19i dI. II1 d4i iti.7.1 A Q !llei ia1 tlii 11d1171 i !lity aid i Ivl I I{J ,I WI !• I I lid,:11 +w7j 11 Ipd 11! dt 1 I aI 4vy!v a1147.....°61.1o°0° dye I;1fI i nJI II4 4 1a11ai, nna I d1 �, ®e � �s�`p® ®� I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that :I r•qyy A •val1 9r:.IL IL I II yu ui Hi + in e\ ®�° 41 id4i In °,IIS a,i n,11Iu+,d1i'i, iti ,a r4 °a+!,:$ • fit°® Michael Huffman is the person who appeared before me, i+91did+S 4'�1 In IIS vlwy La Ip,ii!iy 44' ' S� i4sy,; ;in s i,y 0 n r 41 N !n n ry to ° ® and said person acknowledged that he signed this I,174H ny 14 i gy t yt+n 11 , ,�1 laa !I;.du 0 � �� ® Z ® instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and AIN i g N fah aa!In11 u n I n 1°4 di hm °. ®! o td'I;l n +' I71gI'19JI n17�1 ':'t7d IJ11I Iia ii y; P b e voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the 'n. 1ipl i yI+1G lil !7y ;y ry n rola 11 ® O nd11 lddi1l1i1lIA 1a1 7 li! nn'1 a I d tIy14 ayry itd,y,iJw i P7un{,iI 1i 1n ' 7q ®0 �.4",,...64:11. instruma °®5®} e° 1\ ®® ,tc� 45f..,f, F „pg pv 1,t% ..,.., ,-`°._ .rte s711 d?di M� u I ny d;txa lypi it�dy aI fiaJ Y9 P� 11,„„,014,0,4,111,11:4411,000„,„14100,4.0404,141..:. ..®® �® i!t uN Lin 9.iy vl�1n,n9 IJ .!...dn i7 M.1a'.ia: ®s®11111®®® Jolene Rae.\\'•W' u '; n h l Ilauy 1xi i d3 nd.A1I+ a ylil IGly:n .!n!n: IP.a nt IiktinLy 11)u�:"+.Liid 7 I:a'...:.+.y'� : Title:Notary Public tii✓' Iy iy I''i 'yma iyi'Iy 'I yy I. My appointment expires:05-16-2019 iilei i.,timun1,yl'i9 a1,1 100 II Jnp+1!n14 i8, .,0C) I_' 14ti,1 1i� 90411 i yn i4 rnI:A„14 111 n:,i1:!I.irw. 1 as 1�1 1 Ilv'r �,I l.a i ny 414 v,td1014 n;nil /n „IGa;:11M�X411 !7..a:L ifl n _a,,Iv i i ;na i:i 1. plysilool,0.001101 d 1 +..!1 Jii 11n+. ::::110111611AtiIIn1a!I,n.f:41 I!nad.nu:.Ii + Jam], 5 In !.:nd...djaiin 1„?!.1!„::' DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,January 5, 2016 In the absence of a mayor,City Clerk Bainbridge called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mike Jackson,City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Mark Calhoun,Deputy City Manager Dean Grafos,Councilmember Cary Driskell,City Attorney Chuck Hafner,Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Ed Pace,Councilmember Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Sam Wood,Councilmember John Hohman,Community&Econ.Dev Dir. Bill Gothmann,Councilmember Pro Tem Mike Stone, Parks&Recreation Director Erik Guth,Public Works Director Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole,Living Hope Community Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:Members from Boy Scout Troop 456 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present with Councilmember Gothmann participating via telephone conference call. 1. ELECTION OF COUNCIL OFFICERS: Chris Bainbridge After City Clerk Bainbridge explained the process of electing council officers, as noted in the Council's Governance Manual,Ms.Bainbridge opened the floor for nominations.Councilmember Wood nominated Mr. Higgins. Councilmember Gothmann nominated Mr. Hafner.There were no further nominations and the nominations were closed. Each Councilmember completed a ballot, and the ballots were collected by City Clerk Bainbridge.Once they were collected,Ms.Bainbridge asked Councilmember Gothmann for his vote,and he indicated his vote was for Mr.Hafner, and Ms. Bainbridge completed his ballot. The results of the ballots were those voting for Mr.Higgins included Councilmembers Higgins, Wood,Woodard, and Pace.Those voting for Mr.Hafner included Councilmembers Hafner,Grafos,and Gothmann.Mr.Higgins received the majority of votes and was therefore declared the Mayor. Ms.Bainbridge asked Mayor Higgins if he wished to conduct the voting for Deputy Mayor or if he preferred she do so, and he asked that she continue. Ms. Bainbridge called for nominations for Deputy Mayor. Councilmember Pace nominated Councilmember Woodard for Deputy Mayor.There were no further nominations,and the nominations were closed.Since there was only one nomination,votes were conducted by a show of hands,with all votes being cast for Mr.Woodard; hence,Mr.Woodard was declared the Deputy Mayor. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve the agenda. It was then moved by Councilmember Pace and seconded, to amend the agenda to place a new business item after the Consent Agenda-a resolution declaring that Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. There was discussion about the amendment and whether it was out of order, with Councilmember Gothmann stating that the resolution is something our City already does,and Councilmember Hafner stating that Council has not had an opportunity to discuss this,and that the expectation is to approve this resolution immediately. There was further discussion about the resolution itself, with Council discussion ultimately moving back to the amended motion on the floor. Vote on whether to amend the motion:In Favor:Deputy Mayor Woodard, Mayor Higgins, and Councilmembers Pace, and Wood. Opposed: Councilmembers Gothmann, Grafos, and Hafner. Motion passed. Vote on the amended motion to approve the agenda as Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 1 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT amended: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Woodard, Mayor Higgins, and Councilmembers Pace, Wood and Gothmann. Opposed: Councilmembers Grafos and Hafner. Motion passed. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Higgins gave special recognition and thanks to Troop 456 for leading tonight's Pledge of Allegiance. COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Hafner reported that he attended former Councilmember Wick's going away reception, which he said was very well attended,and he thanked Mr.Wick again for his service.Councilmember Pace mentioned the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting and their discussion of a proposed sales tax increase, which he said he opposed. Councilmember Grafos said he also attended the reception for Mr. Wick and too expressed his thanks for Mr. Wick's service. Councilmember Gothmann said he attended Mr. Wick's reception, and mentioned that Councilmember Hafner had been chosen Citizen of the Year by the Chamber of Commerce. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he also attended Mr.Wick's reception and that it was well attended. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Higgins also extended his thanks to Mr. Wick; and mentioned attending a regional Eagle Scout gathering where 250 from the region were tapped to be eagle scouts. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comments. Mr. Rob Lee: said he owns a home here in Spokane Valley; spoke about his concerns with policing; he read most of his written statement and stated that"something doesn't seem right with the police department here in the valley;"and asked why for example, the police chief never speaks to the media but only does so through Sheriff Knezovich; said the shade of patrol cars should match the uniforms to make it easier to identify valley officers; and said he would like a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the various public safety contracts so people will know whether public funds are returning actual services,and said he wanted to know more about the cost of doing business with another local government entity now, in the past, and where those costs might land in the future,which he said would mean an in-depth review and cost analysis of the police, prosecutor,and many contracts with Spokane County. Mr.Tony Lazanis:said some decisions don't come from Council but come from staff or the Chief and he hopes future decisions come forward; said he got a bill from the police chief for $25.00 and that he was penalized $10.00 for a false alarm, but he only had one in 20 years; said all taxpayers pay for the police and said the City should look outside the police department for serving alarms. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Mining Moratorium Renewal—Erik Lamb Mayor Higgins opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Lamb went over the background of the mining moratorium as noted on his January 5, 2016 Request for Council Action form; reiterated that this would not impact existing lawful operations that were in operation the day of the moratorium; said staff is aware of several Central Pre-mix owned and operated sites, and one Spokane County site; said there have been no permit applications received to-date regarding mining; said staff continues working through the Comprehensive Plan process,and as part of that process,staff was accepting Citizen Amendment Requests (CARs); one of which was approved by Council for further consideration, which was submitted by CPM Development to include a new chapter creating Mineral Resource Lands goals, policies, and designation criteria and a corresponding map amendment to designate four sites as a Mineral Resource Land Overlay on the City's official comprehensive plan map.Mr. Lamb said that since the City does not anticipate completing the Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23, 2016, when the moratorium expires,staff recommends a six-month renewal. Mr.Lamb mentioned that one of the reasons for the delay with the comp plan, is we have not been provided the population allocation by the County, which number is critical to the City's development of the Plan Update as it provides the basis for planning future growth and assessing appropriate land use quantities to meet future growth needs. There was brief Council discussion about the possibility of modifying the moratorium if necessary, and Mr.Lamb said the ordinance and findings should be before Council within two to three weeks and Council could move it forward to modify the moratorium if desired. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr.John Pederson,said he is speaking on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners,and he presented documents to the City Clerk for Council,which reiterates the County's previous testimony;said he supports the Council's actions and desire to modify the moratorium as originally adopted,said it did impact the Eden County Pit Site,and asked that the moratorium be revised to specifically reflect the intent,that if the intent was not to impact any of the existing mining operations that were in existence or had vested rights, they ask that the moratorium be amended to specifically identify which parcels,by parcel number or exhibit or by map,that are exempt from the moratorium,and said he would provide those two parcel numbers tonight that reference the Flora and the Eden Pit Sites; said they have vested rights to operate those sites and it would be advantageous to modify the moratorium to reflect those parcels that are categorically exempt from the moratorium; said they support the designation and the ongoing work of staff and Mr. Hohman,and our coordination with him in assisting in identifying appropriate resource lands, and said they believe the County pit site should be designated accordingly,and asked that they be exempted in a revised moratorium. He handed documents to the City Clerk,which had been submitted previously.Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that the Flora site was ongoing and therefore not subject to the moratorium, and Mr. Pederson responded that the County feels it should be enumerated in the moratorium as exempt just for clarity purposes so there is no question about the site; and further in response to Councilmember Gothmann's questions,Mr.Lamb replied that the Flora pit is an active site that was in lawful and continuous operation as of the date of the moratorium and therefore would not be subject to the moratorium. Stacy Bjordahl: said she was speaking on behalf of Central Pre-Mix Development Corp, and she read portions of a January 5, 2016 letter to Spokane Valley Council, signed by John Shogren, Vice President/General Manager of Central Pre-Mix Development Corporation: "Dear Mayor and Council Members: First of all, I would like to apologize for not being present at this evening's hearing to provide oral testimony. We did not receive notice of the hearing and only heard of it through representatives of Spokane County; otherwise, I would have rearranged my travel and work schedule to ensure that I could be present for this important meeting. We are surprised that an extension of the moratorium is under consideration as we were told in previous meetings and in discussions with members of this Council and building trade groups that no such extension would be needed or granted, beyondthe year of study since the initial passage of the moratorium that will have occurred by mid-February. It does not seem that the justification for an extension of the moratorium is material to the study, designation and protection of mineral resource lands. Any small percentage change in population projection will not materially change the fact that there are more than 839 acres of Tier One industrial lands within the City of Spokane Valley and that only 158 acres are needed to meet the 2031 planning horizon; this is over 4 times the need of industrial land.'Even if a small percentage of industrial land was needed to accommodate future residential growth, there is still excess capacity of industrial land supply not only in the City of Spokane Valley but Spokane County as a region.We are concerned that Staff continues to make statements that secondary use of mined land is limited, especially given the many examples we have testified to previously, including: high end residential developments,commercial, light and heavy industrial and probable conservation sites. Not only does this fly in the face of the facts of beneficial secondary usage but further discounts the fact that all development for city growth is dependent on an economically viable source of aggregates. While we appreciate that the Staff Report to Council states existing, entitled and vested sites are exempt from the moratorium,we request that if the moratorium is extended, it be modified to include an exhibit specifically listing and formally excluding the existing,entitled or vested sites from this process.We have included that list attached as Exhibit A to this letter which includes our approved aggregate reserves at Tschirley. . . . . In closing,we do not support an extension of a moratorium that has already been in place for almost a year for all of the reasons outlined above as well as those previously testified to orally and in writing at the previously hearings. If the moratorium is extended, we request it be modified as described in Exhibit A. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue."['City of Spokane Valley Land Quantity Analysis for Urban Growth Update-September 2010,previously submitted on March 24,2015.1(Copies of the letter and attachments were handed to the City Clerk for distribution to Council.) Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT There were no further comments.Councilmember Grafos stated that as we move forward we should exclude the Eden Pit from the moratorium, as he prefers not to take a chance that we are harming an existing business, and would therefore like to modify the moratorium so Eden and Central Pre-Mix are excluded. Councilmember Hafner and Gothmann agreed.Councilmember Pace said we should keep the moratorium until the comp plan is done,that nothing has changed and there were good reasons for doing the moratorium in the first place.Deputy Mayor Woodard said he wants to study the letter from Ms.Bjordahl and he wants to keep an open mind as to what it is we are trying to do and why; said the biggest concern is we are not finished with the comp plan, which was being delayed due to the needed population allocation. Councilmember Grafos added that if we are going to be business friendly, he sees no reason why they should not be excluded. Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a.Approval of vouchers listed on Jan 5,2016 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $1,993,878.75 b.Approval of Payroll for period ending December 15,2015: $334,943.83 c.Approval of December 1,2015 Study Session Council Meeting Minutes d. Approval of December 8,2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes e.Approval of December 8,2015 Regular Council Meeting Minutes It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Mayor Higgins called for a ten-minute recess at 7:01 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. ADDED ITEM: Action Item:Resolution Declaring that Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. It was moved by Councilnember Pace and seconded by Councilmember Wood to adopt a resolution declaring that the City of Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city.Councilmember Pace said people confuse the City of Spokane and our city all the time; that the City of Spokane said they are a sanctuary city; said this issue has been brought up three times over the past year and never made it to the agenda;said he is not anti-immigrant or anti-immigration,but this is about honoring and enforcing the existing immigration laws, and said some cities don't do that. Councilmember Pace read the resolution into the record: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON, DECLARING THAT THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY IS NOT A SANCTUARY CITY.WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley puts public safety as the number one priority for our City; and WHEREAS, supporting our law enforcement community in their efforts to maintain law and order toward the end of a high level of public safety is a priority of the executive and legislative branches of our City Government; and WHEREAS,cooperating with County,State and Federal law enforcement agencies is an important part of maintaining law and order and public safety; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City Council that the City of Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city which means the City Police department will ask for proof of legal residence in the United States when appropriate and City employees are not discouraged from asking for proof of legal residence as appropriate when conducting City business.NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: 1 —The City of Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city. 2—The City of Spokane Valley Police Department is directed to assist other law enforcement agencies in enforcing U.S. immigration laws. 3 — Police officers and Sheriff's deputies, when operating within City limits, and City employees are hereby directed to require proof of legal residence in the U.S.when it is appropriate as part of doing their assigned jobs." Councilmember Pace said in determining what"when appropriate"means, it is appropriate as part of doing their assigned jobs,and that is up to the City Manager, City Attorney and Police Chief to determine what exactly that means. Councilmember Gothmann said he took an oath of office prior to taking his position as a Councilmember, and said this is not needed; said law enforcement also took an oath, and if someone is an illegal immigrant, law enforcement would call the border patrol, so they are already doing this; said Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT he doesn't see a problem we are trying to solve; said we already have clear rules; and as a point of order, said this resolution is out of order. Mayor Higgins ruled that this is not out of order and Councilmember Gothmann challenged his decision. A vote on the challenge resulted in Councilmembers Grafos, Hafner and Gothmann in favor of the challenge, and Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Wood and Pace opposed to the challenge. The challenge was defeated. Councilmember Grafos said that this City is different because we don't have politics in the legislative branch and this brings in politics instead of having a common sense government; said we are profiling people and not everyone in the city agrees with these politics. Deputy Mayor Woodard said resolutions are done to make emphasis and re-clarify what should already be done as common practice and if people don't have documentation, they shouldn't be here, and countered that this is not profiling. Mayor Higgins said this is a simple statement that we are committed to obeying and enforcing our laws as they already exist. Councilmember Hafner said this is not a police state and staff should not have to make a determination about whether to ask about immigration status;said it is the wrong message to the community, is extremist and profiling is against the law and he swore to uphold the laws of the state, nation and city; said this is a disgrace to do this and it doesn't gain anything.Deputy Mayor Woodard said people are screaming that this city take this position, a declaration that we will uphold the law.Councilmember Pace said his wife was a political refugee from Vietnam, and she was a legal immigrant; that this is about illegal immigration, and said his wife doesn't like illegal immigrants and is frustrated with the government for not enforcing immigration laws, and that this will give businesses some sense of security that we are law abiding. Vote by Acclamation in favor of the Resolution:Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Wood and Pace. Opposed to the Resolution: Councihnembers Hafner, Grafos, and Gothmann. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 4.Tesoro Crude Oil Terminal Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Mike Jackson Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Jackson explained that Tesoro Savage Petroleum Terminal, also known as Vancouver Energy,has applied for a Site Certification Agreement to construct and operate a new crude oil terminal capable of receiving an average of 360,000 barrels of crude oil daily; that the crude oil would be unloaded at the proposed facility from trains, stored on site, and loaded into marine vessels at a marine terminal located at the Port of Vancouver in Clark County,Washington;that according to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), an average of four unit trains would arrive and leave for the proposed facility daily for an annual total of 2,290 one-way train trips; and said the trains would pass through Spokane Valley.Mr.Jackson mentioned some of the environmental concerns, such as air quality, transportation,noise,and water resources;said that currently up to fifty trains daily cross Barker Road,and if all potential crude-by-rail'facilities are built,the numbers would exceed 57 weekly loaded unit trains by 2020,and 113 weekly loaded trains by 2035.Mr.Jackson noted that the air quality would be impacted,as vehicle idling hours would increase while vehicles waited at the at-grade crossings; he spoke of the increased impact to transportation which could also increase the rate of accidents and fatalities to pedestrians or motorists. Mr. Jackson noted the cost for grade separations, the noise and safety impact, emergency response issues, and the effect and impact of economic development. Councilmember Pace asked if there is any way to regulate rail traffic through our city, by perhaps a utility tax on oil trains; and Mr. Jackson said he is not aware of any as the trains are primarily controlled by the federal government. Councilmember Pace asked if we know about any other, equally dangerous commodities coming across our aquifer and Mr.Jackson said more research would be needed but he did recall hearing something about legislation requiring disclosure of the rail car contents. Councilmember Grafos said this should be a majority priority of our city;said we will never be on a federal list to solve these problems, and at some point, we need to"put our money where our mouth is"and look for a way to fund these crossings one at a time; said this would be a major economic impact if there were problems with the oil trains;said our city is cut in half by those train tracks and that we should look at this issue as an economic driver and examine some options. Councilmember Pace said the first priority is public safety so we need to identify the risk and have good plans for dealing with any of the risk;said infrastructure Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT is our second priority and we need to pick which crossing, and figure out how to make it happen,and he mentioned the idea of a ballot measure. 5.Advance Agenda—Mayor Councilmember Pace said based on citizen input,he wants to schedule council discussions in study sessions to explore developing a citizen oversight committee for all public safety functions of our city,and all of our public safety contracts including police,jail,public defender,the courts, etc.,and have the Mayor appoint a one-year ad-hoc committee with about three to five citizens appointed who have no connection with law enforcement; plus have the City Attorney and a volunteer attorney from the Center for Justice; said they would study all the available information on public safety,including police reports and issues from citizens, employees, police, and councilmembers, and report monthly to the Council in writing and in person, and the Council would decide which items to give to the City Manager as administrative, and which would be legislative policy.Further,Councilmember Pace said the committee members should be given investigative authority over those contracts as there are still incidents where citizens question police behavior,and that this gives the public an opportunity to scrutinize how our government is being run. Councilmember Grafos said as a follow up to these public meetings concerning the trains,he would like to get a list of the people attending those meetings and have public meetings as we did on our parks. Councilmember Hafner said he would like to reevaluate the voting process for bonds as there will be times when Council needs to take a stand, whether it be a County levy lift or other bond issue. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like the historic preservation plan motion brought back for reconsideration rather than distract the efforts of the Planning Commission from the comp plan, and said he wants more time to consider the issue. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Mr.Jackson asked if the Mayor and Deputy Mayor would be available Monday at 3:00 p.m.to discuss the advance agenda,and there were no objections. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:38 p.m. ATTEST: L.R.Higgins,Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-05-2016 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 5, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET, SUBJECT: Mining Moratorium Please sign below if you would like to speak tit LILe PU LIC HEARING.. PRINT NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. There may be a time limit for your comments. Any dD timeiits for Cotio it consideration sliould be provided to'Lila City Clcrk for distribution, NAME Your City of Residence PLEASE PRINT — d V)--etiovil n e _ . • eI , • a • Please mute that once irtforitrartiion is cantered oft this form,it be irres a public record subject to public disclosure • `f l S P 0 K A NEC 0 U NT Y O!Flr1:01 (t f vn'Citi6111.CrlOXi_k.% Tom.lu:.ICh,isl't)isrIl::t Siw;.Ly 'QUNN1,2N1 DI5TRIl:1"•:it.}'it'•:MA3, 1)01511¢:cI. May 14,2015 Planning Commissioner Kevin Anderson Planning Commissioner Heather Graham Planning Commissioner Tim Kelley Planning Commissioner Mike Phillips Planning Commissioner Susan Scott Planning Commissioner Joe Stay Planning Commissioner Sam Wood Spokane Valley Planning Commission 11707 E.Sprague Avenue,Suite 101 Spokane.Valley,Washington 99206 RE: City of Spokane Valley Citizen Initialed Amendment Request Review: Application No: CAR-2015-0018 Dear Planning Commissioners: The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission will be considering public testimony on CAR-2015- 0018 on May 14,2015,as part oldie City's Comprehensive flan update. The purpose of this correspondence is to encourage the Commission to consider other areas to be designated as Mineral Resource lands consistent with the Growth Management Act RCW 36.70A.170. As you are aware of and by way of background, the City of Spokane Valley adopted a moratorium (Ordinance #15-009) on February 24. 2015, precluding new mining activities. At the March 24, 2015, public hearing on the moratorium, the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners submitted the attached comments. The attached comments explained that entities planning under the Growth Management Act had certain obligations When updating or revising their Comprehensive Plans and/or development regulations including designation of mineral resource lands. Specifically, RCW 36.70A.170(1)(c)states: (1) On or before September 1, 1991. each county,and each city, shall designate where appropriate: (c)Mineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term signilleance for the extraction of minerals;and RCW 36.70A.050 provides guidelines to classify agricultural. forest, Mineral lands,and critical areas and requires consultation with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and other stakeholders. 1 t 1C?Wrs L3ROAr)WAv AVi:`1t11' " SPOKANE. WA:iltlx(11OV9920-0 IN • (_509)3'x77-2255 Spokane Valley Planning Commissioners May 14,2015 Page 2 RCW 36.70A.060 requires cities to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of agriculture, forest,and mineral lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170 and: RCW 36.70A.060(I)(a) ... Such regulations shall assure that the use of lands adjacent to agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands shall not interfere with the continued use, in the accustomed manner and in accordance with best management practices,of these designated lands for the production of food,agricultural products,or timber.or for the extraction of minerals. The current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code does not identify or designated resource lands or mineral lands as mandated under the Growth Management Act or adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands including mineral lands. We brine the above factors to your attention as information to consider in periodic update of your Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and in consideration of CAR-2015-18. We have reviewed CAR-2015-18 and after such review fully support the applicant's request that the City of Spokane Valley adopt a new Comprehensive Plan chapter and associated goals and policies to designated mineral resource lands of long-term commercial significance; a corresponding map amendment designating mineral resource lands; as well as a new section of Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)that includes specific regulations for mining activities. In addition,we respectfully request that additional properties owned by Spokane County be designated as mineral resource lands. These properties are illustrated on the enclosed maps and are identified as the Flora Road Pit (Pit #5412) located on Assessor's Parcel #45121.9015 and the Eden Pit (Pit #55-06) located on Assessor's Parcel #55065-0190. Both of these properties meet the criteria under the Growth Management Act for designation as resource lands of long-term commercial significance and prior to creation of the City of Spokane Valley were designated by the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and official zoning map as Mineral lands. In summary, we reiterate our previous comments on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-009 and urge you to designate the above-referenced Spokane County properties as mineral lands of long term commercial significance as part of your periodic review and update of your Comprehensive Plan. Very truly yours. „_„ 'V„-„ �„ `�� , � } - .t U MIEI.KE.Chair StirillYO'QUINtkl,Vice Chair Al,FR ,NCH. - mmissioner Enclosures A I OA d la t4,r1 tl t'�. x _ 3 - '4z March 24,2015 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mayor Dean Gra.os f ° ._ . .-. Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard Councilman Rod Higgins Councilman Ed Pace . Conncibnan Chuck llnfner Councilman Ben Wick Councilman Bill Bates City of Spokane Valley 11707 E.Sprague Avenue,Suite 10G Spokane Valley,Washington 99206 RE: City of Spokane Valley AMnratnrirmr adopted under Oolhaence hfn. 15-005 Dear Mayor Grabs and Council members: The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony on Ordinance No. 15-005 on March 24.2015,as required under RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. The purpose of this correspondence is to share with you certain issues and concerns which Spokane County has regarding Ordinance No. 15-005 as well as to encourage the Council to consider revision or repeal of said Ordinance. As you are aware,and by way of background,entities planning under the Growth Management Act have certain obligations when updating or revising their Comprehensive Plans and/or development regulations. The City of Spokane Valley is currently in the early stages of a periodic update of its Comprehensive flan and as such is subject to these obligations. With respect to mineral resources which are the subject of Ordinance No. 15-0004,several provisions of the Growth Management Act must be followed. They include the following: 6 RCW 36.70A.170 Natural resource lands and critic,al areas---Designations. (1) On or before September 1, 1991. each county, and city shall designate, where appropriate: (c) mineral resatncrs that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have king-term significance for the extraction of minerals..." A RCW 36.70.A.050 Guidelines to classify agriculture, forest, and mineral lauds and critical areas. March 24,2015 Page 2 (l) Subject to the definitions provided in RW 36.70A.030, the department shall adopt guidelines, under chapter 34.05 RCW...to guide the classification of: (a) Agricultural lands;(h)forest lands;(c)mineral resource lands;and(d)critical areas. The department shall consult with the department of agriculture regarding guidelines for agricultural lands,the department of natural resources regarding forest lands and mineral lands,and the department of ecology regarding critical areas.... RCW 36.70A.060 Natural resource lands a©d critical areas—Development regulations. (1) (a) ...each city within such county,shall adopt development regulations ...such regulations shall ensure that the use of lands adjacent to agriculture, forest, or mineral lands shall not interfere with continued use of the designated land for the production of food,timber or for the extraction of minerals. A review of the current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code confirms that the City of Spokane Valley has not identified or designated resource lands or mineral lands as mandated under the Growth Management Act nor has it adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands including mineral lands. Most counties and cities subject to the Growth Management Act have adopted development regulations protecting mineral lands which at the same time address environmental issues in conjunction with mining activities. We bring the above facts to your attention as information to consider in the periodic update of your Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and to provide you with additional options to consider in taking action on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-005 or repealing said Ordinance and replacing it with an Interim Zoning Ordinance that provides a regulatory framework to address the impacts of!mineral extraction and associated processing. According to Figure 2.1 of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,20%of the City of Spokane Valley land is designated as Heavy or Light Industrial.The premise of the moratorium under Ordinance No. 15-005 is that existing gravel mining operations are utilizing significant acreage that results in large open pits when mining is complete and the associated impacts are usually irreversible. With a significant portion of the City of Spokane Valley desiemated as Heavy or Light Industrial there appears to be an adequate supply of land available for industrial use. Moreover, any impacts of mining may be mitigated by adoption of detailed regulations to address reclamation and other site specific impacts. As a result of the substantial amount of land designated as Heavy or Light Industrial,the City has not demonstrated or documented the amount of these lands being utilized or converted for mineral extraction/processing or the need for the moratorium as the City has not received or accepted any current applications for mining activity. To address the perceived conversion of industrial lands to mining mid processing activities and to provide a specific regulatory framework to mitigate the impacts of mineral extraction and processing;we would strongly advise repeal of the present moratorium and adoption on an Interim Zoning Ordinance that includes performance standards for mineral extraction, processing, site reclamation, setbacks, etc. This would address the basis for the enactment of the Ordinance. For example, adoption of Chapter 14.620 (Mineral Lands) of the Spokane County Zoning Code as an Interim Zoning Ordinance will ensure continued use and development of natural resource lands that do not detrimentally impact the March 24,2015 Pogo 3 environment or surrounding land uses. Adoption of Chapter 14.620 will also afford grater protection to the environment, preclude penetration of the Spokane Valley Rethduum Prairie aquifer, ensure site reclamation consistent with chapter 78.44 RCW as administered by the Department of Natural Resources, and serve as a means to protect the rights of cut-rent property owners mail the City completes an update of its Comprehensive plan and development regulations consistent with the mandates of the Growth Management Act. In summary, we believe that the current moratorium provided for under Ordinance 15-005 will have die unintended immediate consequence of precluding mineral extraction on Spokane County owned property in the City of Spokane Valley which includes mineral resources having a life value of approximately 55,000,000. It will also significantly increase the cost of materials for future road maintenance and construction impacting the citizens of Spokane.County to include the City of Spokane Valley. Finally,it will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley road area. The Board of County Commissioners respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider the above observations and: (1) Repeal Ordinance No. 15-005,or (2) Repeal Ordinance No. 15.005 and in its place adopt as interim development regulation chapter 14.620 of the Spokane County Code. Very truly yours. • t t / 1 TODD M1ELKE.Chair S1•iELLY O'OVI5C.N.Vice Chair AI_FR1;Np:H,C:orunussioner s • [ :, : lam= , xt DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS A DivisioN OF THE PUBLIC WOPKS DEPARTMENT Mayor Dean Grafos VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Deputy Mayor Arne Woodward mayor.councilrnembers@sokanevalley.org Councilman Rod Higgins Councilman Ed Pace Councilman Chuck Hafner Councilman Ben Wick Councilman Bill Bates City of Spokane Valley 11707 E.Sprague Avenue,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 RE: City of Spokane Valley Moratorium adopted under Ordinance No.15-013 Dear Mayor Grafos and Council Members: The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony on Ordinance No.15-013 on July 28, 2015 as required under RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. We would like to make a part of the record for the July 28, 2015 meeting the testimony given by Deborah Firkins and John Pederson for Spokane County at the Planning Commissioner Meeting on June 8,2015 in regards to CAR-2015-0018 and the March 24,2015 meeting of the Spokane Valley City Council on Ordinance No.15-005 along with the letters submitted by the County at both meetings. This proposed Moratorium is quite detrimental to Spokane County and as a result, to the cities of Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake as well. Spokane County currently owns two parcels that were zoned as mineral lands while said parcels were under the County's comprehensive planning jurisdiction. The first parcel is Flora Pit(parcel number 45121.9015);Spokane County acquired this property August 12,1965 and has operated it as a pit site with a District Shop and the Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS)Office. Flora pit has been continually mined over the last 50 years. When the City's initial mining moratorium came into effect,the County was in the process of setting terms for the sale of this property to Central Premix for their operations, which would have been a mutual benefit to both parties. The present Moratorium presents a major stumbling block for the long-term viability of publicly-owned mineral aggregate production for public projects, and also undermines steps already taken by Central Premix to consolidate their operations in the Flora area. If the County retains ownership of Flora Pit, we will continue to mine the property, taking out an average of 25,000 cubic yards per year for the next 3-4 years;after that,the County will have no remaining mineral resources to utilize in the east-central county area, substantially increasing the costs to public infrastructure projects as well as eliminating the ability for Spokane County to offer the sale of mineral aggregate resources to the cities of Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake for their own municipal projects. 11)26 WEs(' BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WA 99260-0170 PII0NE: (509) 477-360(1 FAY.: (509) 77-7655 TDD: 509-477-7133 The second parcel is Eden Pit located approximately 1,600 feet north of the intersection of Eden Street and Euclid Avenue (parcel number 55065.0190). This property has been zoned for mining since 1980. The County has been preparing this site for mining activity for a number of years. An Environmental Assessment, which included a Cultural Resource Survey, has been completed for the site. Spokane County also completed SEPA review for mining 39 acres of the 44 acre site, and a Determination of Non significance was issued December 2012. We currently have an application for a mining permit under review by the Department of Natural Resources which includes SM-6(surface Mining permit application) signed by the City of Spokane Valley in August 2012. This site is estimated to be capable of providing mineral aggregate products for the next 65 years,(based on removing approximately 25,000 cubic yards per year). The Eden Pit site is critical to the County's immediate and long-range transportation programs. It is ideally situated within the east-central County,reducing the resources and subsequent costs required to transport mineral aggregates to project locations. The County's standard cost for hauling gravel is approximately 18.6%per mile per cubic yard,which makes it necessary to have pit sites that are in close proximity to the areas they serve. Minimizing material transport distances also reduce traffic congestion,fuel consumption,and air pollution. it is also important to recognize that not all mineral resource sites are created equal. An important aspect for County pit sites is that the material taken from the pit must meet or exceed the State Specified Gravel Standards. At the Flora Pit, 60% of the material removed meets those standards. Based on testing of the Eden Pit Site, it's been determined that 80%of the material removed will meet the State Specified Gravel Standards. Other mineral sites in nearby areas have not achieved this high of a usable material percentage as the Eden Pit, making it a highly prized production site for mineral aggregates. The appraisal that the County had commissioned from John Sweitzer Company, Inc., dated April 15, 2013 stated that the rock"in place" was worth $2,718,250. This value would be lost if this property is not protected as a mineral resource. We appreciate your time and consideration of our continued request for designating and protecting both the Flora and Eden Pit Sites,as referenced above,as mineral resource lands. Very truly yours, Mitchell S.Reister,P.E. Spokane County Engineer `~ Eden Pit No. 55-06 I r. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _-.k -ye _ . -- _ - _ _ _ _ _ • �.y, _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _v rt __ _ _ _ 582.9 0 291x.45 582.9 Feet 82 0111211211r This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Oata layers that appear an this map may or may not bo accurate.current,or otherwise reliable. 4_ •,[} ., ,,,. ,,..„.„,,:,:.,,, ,i;::.-,:,,,..,7.., Fiera Pit Aerial +14131glr0 - __ .oldi d5L7Amt i R . y e t ,, __ . FY • 1- ▪ i IP 35o -7- M072:0324 r ▪ r 45.0.,..'3315 F • A -_ - !. s -:44.-,.: x �_ wi. ;� r 4c125.7157 % 5507>433.4 D_ ' } ' 45123.902G`...-‘144-4Y , � t -i • 4S.e1-9L6 �� . 55075.6203 -£ -- -. r -;i751,241,93312, r ' el -aC �' jr Fr . ▪ 5507-5 OW T � � -- - 523-5 9 261.77 623.5!=001 i IC- , 71i9 enarT.$..i&fl.-r Pmu-7 Vali! _strirA trnnr 1n israr rR'r mnrN7srRj 5.0.•lyd t1 ki rOtrtnrr nn:,lays:r 1hm Alli7L`Ir nn hers rnep M.L,-rr rPaty n01 ed-...C.JI..r-,.es rrri.err,1•+=rmt - rN'a'rEfl- I ---..m—r,. - --- --........--,-..1...7.. ====r = r _ _ _ — --_ _-_a--s- --z _-_ _- _a__- _ s —.___ ___ - _ r. • s=i_�—.aeze _ _ _ _ - - _-.:_41.- _ -_t _ __ _ __ — •_ -- _-_ - _ --___-7 --4._-=_— -_ --o _ x--r__ 1_-_E says _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ ____ __ __ _t k _ _ _ __ _ _ ________ _ _ __ _ ' '-_ Y -- � _ --_ 2E- _ — — __ - - _ _ _-- _ i Elk` , r_sr. s - _ _ __— _ _ __ _ __Y_ _ __ ___ 3 _ • _ _ L. :2:761 t _ __ _ ___-4.5.: -_Et==____i__—_ .:.;' ,.t7::_-▪_—__—_ — �� a = " - _- - _ r a _ = - _ ---..:7f; ____- _ _- _ _ _ ___—_t-_- 7._— _ t ___ __ _ 2£ 3 _ -__- _ __t__ _ _ _t- _ _ - _ ,.....7:::. — _ — - __ - t .1-.:.__ _r _-- -4:-...-.: __ _ _- _ - ----- -t-- - - _ _ --:..E'_:::-.1.1-2.1'...-M7._ -E - ` ...._.-1.7,:_---__ _ _ --- : - _ - � __ _ _---=--t-=r-- - ---=---- - -- - - _ _ - =-_ • -- - -- -r--- --x x ax-- --- - x -2.-__x•__ r r. • _ -__ - ---_-_- ---__1::.iv-_--__-____t---_-_-_r =_--_-2 .7:-E'-___=__=t-a ----▪-- t---'c___---_- _ y' rr = ____.0—_= __—_— —___—__ _ __ __t_______ — __ --_ __s __ +- s __ __ __ _ -- Jy __ r _=--.,.. i —__ _ _ _i_Ta —r =`.,..,_ __ sem sz _ _ := z z_ _ .. ".`� - �aE +! I., .0. Surplus Parcel No. 45121.9015 . , - : -- ----•''''-'-- 7 ,..:.---- _ - ::z ..- . :_,-.-1..--,_ _- .-..,._ - _ __.:--..-_-.,---1:-.E.•7::..-....7.z..-4•&-.,..--...z"...r-E!,74-_. = ::::-.. ---1='-'"'-'---'•-- -.,..-------E ---k,----.-1--t- -- ----.----- -----Ez--:1-- ---.--:-: --- cric--- -=-1-.. ..1"-,77._ -•...3:-, _.-....--t- -_-:-.1-2-E-- -_ _---,-- - 'r"---3-- ---:-1-t----.1".-'.7._•E---Ef f-zz_FE -- -— ,-..—,-4-: - _--_--1-7------- --' ----.7---77-::-1:---'- .--::. _ -.7,._:- _--If 2- :."-';',".7.-."2,---f:.-...E-7.504_":„.,-.15.f.:7t.z3.-;---_,..-;--_---'_'I.':.: -E"--..:.: ----: _....:.- -_;,:--,__.: ti--__:.--_:.:_-:..Z.-;•--17:-.:S_-_z__-:-,.... --4:.• - ---- ----'-' :•:-.1-..5-z--.-.=!."--:-z-,::::::;•.:-----p.-E.,1--'-----"-..,- -.-- -z ::::-..5.7 _---- _-1. L.- -. -:':-_.-,..-:-T....... _-___:T.___,--_-:,..2.:-.-22--.L: -----:4:_----._---_- '- Ve':.t-tr,kg '!.•-.1-1.-='T --- .'-- - ---- '- - -11:-.-t-ff---:774. ::::_ . :_•:::_.-•;--:-_- .4.-t_FE-z_--_-5.'-:-._;:-.17-. .!_-.-- - _ , -.. E:a..,„..-.•::..: __ i-...•;_ _ _ --- - f. _--- -....Z-N.-.--..,---. --..--2t-1"-1:::: ---;tE -...--" ----'..::------ --R-E=4;;..-.,L.1-54.---E-.,- - ---.1•,:.::f.:-: ,' -- - _-= - 1: _ - - - ,---.--ELV-, ----1--= _ -- _- - _ _ _ __-_-:Z...-E--_-_,:..-...7_ .,-.27: ...&::.-------,--L-1.:--.1c-.71,:t--.-:;::'' -__, ..t-.:::"..--:._--az „E:•,_....E:tr_.,-., 1:-. - z-- .,_._•-: --1.--.--...-.!-:-,..'-E,•-g:L E-_- ----I.L.11--':•:-L-4.;.'s ----•.....gr-'-.'.:-E---41-.-t.--.4-:.1-_,.....--K•E ••:-2._-.-r-1 r..:t.S. -- - •...-.1-. ..±5.1.73 - . . - ,.-4.7. . ; -:..7---7 -.::..:1-1-1:-"A'-....-.-::::=-.:::::tr_z";--,:: ...---_....---;:_--.:---•-..rr--'' '-'4- _:._ _,.... -Ti_-,-.-, :7; r-7- g'LT: ---F-...-t--.._-_,-'- - ------.-----E.±1.0_•.a.,-a! !La'_ : -_ -,...1. .:. ..,-,-. ' --•... -- - -- --- • - '- - --------- - -7E- - 2.---=' - E • -E -'-•--m . • !-- -_z.z...-4,-. -y-W-g. -_ -,.-....i i:41,n,..t. AV__ _ - . -....s. s.z. -.--7----- z..-- --.'"-.: ------- -.1:." _- 4• - -- ..._-- -..: --_ = _--- .-- &-,- ICSSE.--14 ,..• --3•-.77;71.V.2 - - ---4..--:.7.34-T-1.--z _ -- — _-. -.2- • - --_-:::-E-1-: .r.f..z- .3.- -_ •2.z.. '----- ,J. Neita.:i.r, 2.1 .-: -- L--- -1..,-, ---- -:---..-7-:::-.,:--- ...- P ::::.72,1"--f.7.4 .-. ..5 - ..-.. -,-..._ -_ ...z.z.......- . - -I,:_=.7.'..::.:,, _-_-_.t_,-. ,--1..-: ._-...;_L-rr_...=-_,,,-:=--;zz-;,!--_F_,L.-----'-'-' --E21.E.4:_i-- -. ... Ez.-..k.-._ - - ---;- "--1-114.11.1 14 i2.-.!•;.;.__--: -"- •'.''-'-±2- ---'-' -2.:-- ;-:_7-- 'aLt.- -: '..--.`2. ;;;. _-,--I-E;k-------• '`'' -- --' - Z - ---,- -4-"---- -P...--.., ---C__.4.- -.1----..-4,....-. - n,..,-- .1.-....- -fl-4.-6 '-- i-srf--1-- ::.--- -'-7..L.-- rii --!...-2_ ,,....„._ t----_,..--....:_4:-.- -..:_-.!7:---2—1z - _-...; -2R-t-.7.41.-I'...;:-.2::4-1=-,...;--__ ___ ; - 1- - - _--....r-- 7-" ----_,;,--.,_—.z-- -_ - 47- .A.s..,;:--..7.4;i1=--."r-r:-.:--L!,...--"--_--...:--.;-"-'4.4=.7.7---4,--;---..:-_-:-?..-;--liCE..)v-E,-..-, •-f...-...1•:-_-E----..-.:.: -_- -z.;... . --,- - - -_-f-,,..-L--_ n__- _-_--- ..,'...: 1,7:- ---=-P-11:77-1.14.7.4.-- -.51-... .7. ..--- .-- ..1. --- z---------- —.."' ',. - •--2------,-'==------ --:-'='---.--.!1::A s M W--f.-'..r..-15-7:1;:''41---,--..z_7-7.,"-_FA.w...i..ra-:..:-=...,..-—_- -t.,k....- -- -L.L::..,....___....,.. _,is : ts,r, ------ -'1"---- _ - —r" .- -- . -.: __ .,.:-',_--- _.'—`' - — - ---,-.:- ',7.... ,.:, --.:''''" - • .-..17—.7...7--7.-"--'—tz-:- -- -- - A k --_ _ _ ___ ___- n 2 - : - 2 0 1,022.52 2,045.0 Feet 045.0 . COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY kfr, ,. r\' ,p r!. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF APPROVAL FOR '% .w1,..,!, �� , Natural Resources SURFACE MINING ............................... (Form SM-6) NAME OF COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS) TOTAL ACREAGE AND DEPTH OF PERMIT AREA Same as name of the exploration permit holder. (Type or print in ink.) (Include all acreage to be disturbed by mining,setbacks,and buffers, and associated activities during the life of the mine.)(See SM-8A.) Spokane County Public Works Total area disturbed will be 43.7 acres Division of Engineering&Roads Maximum vertical depth below pre-mining topographic grade is 42 feat Maxtmum depth of excavated mine floor Is — 1990 feet relative to mean sea level COUNTY Spokane MAILING ADDRESS No attachments will be accepted.Legal description of penult area: . 1026 West Broadway Avenue 1/4 1/4 Section Township Range Spokane,WA 99260 w 6 25N 45E Telephone (509)477-3600 Proposed subsequent use of site upon completion of reclamation Industrial Signature of comp n epresentative or individual applicants) Name and title of company representative (please print) Date signed r Robert R.Brueggeman,P.E. 4011))11.. ' ,- ,c--,--- County Engineer ��v ZG 10 BE COMPLETED BY THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY 011 MUNICIPALITY Please answer the following questions'yes'or'no'. Yes ,No 1.Has the proposed surface mine been approved under local zoning and land-use regulations? r/ 2. Is the proposed subsequent use of the land after reclamation consistent with the local land-use plan/designation? r { When complete,return this form to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources regional office. Name of planning director or administrative official (please print) Address . John Hohman,P.E. 11707 E.Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Signature d , i� / 7 Title (please print) . Community Development Director Telephone Date !° j ( DNR Reclamation Permit No. 509-720-5300 8/15/2012 FOR Di PARIMENT UST.,ONLY. __ —_____cgyelY or rtituntcimillY_AmatY{32.fBhUtArants 1tIlL—. -- -- — • P DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ldcasHHer'' CORPORATE OFFICE•5111 E BROADWAY•SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99212 Materials P.O.BOX 3366•SPOKANE.WA 99220-3366-OFFICE:(509)534-6221•FAX:(509)536-3051 January 5,2016 City of Spokane Valley Mayor and Council Members 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Public Hearing on Extension of Mining Moratorium Dear Mayor and Council Members: First of all, I would like to apologize for not being present at this evening's hearing to provide oral testimony. We did not receive notice of the hearing and only heard of it through representatives of Spokane County; otherwise,l would have re-arranged my travel and work schedule to ensure-that I could be present for this important meeting. We are surprised that an extension of the moratorium is under consideration as we were told in previous meetings and in discussions with members of this Council and building trade groups that no such extension would be needed or granted, beyond the year of study since the initial passage of the moratorium that will have occurred by mid-February. It does not seem that the justification for an extension of the moratorium is material to the study, designation and protection of mineral resource lands. Any small percentage change in population projection will not materially change the fact that there are more than 839 acres of Tier One industrial lands within the City of Spokane Valley and that only 158 acres are needed to meet the 2031 planning horizon: this is over 4 times the need of industrial land'. Even if a small percentage of industrial land was needed to accommodate future residential growth,there is still excess capacity of industrial land supply not only in the City of Spokane Valley but Spokane County as a region. We are concerned that Staff continues to make statements that secondary use of mined land is limited,especially given the many examples we have testified to previously, including: high end residential developments,commercial, light and heavy industrial and probable conservation sites. Not only does this fly in the face of the facts of beneficial secondary usage but further discounts the fact that all development for city growth is dependent on an economically viable source of aggregates. While we appreciate that the Staff Report to Council states existing,entitled and vested sites are exempt from the moratorium, we request that if the moratorium is extended,it be modified to include an exhibit specifically listing and formally excluding the existing, entitled or vested sites from this process. We have included that list attached as Exhibit A to this letter which includes our approved aggregate reserves at Tschirley. City of Spokane Valley Land Quantity Analysis for Urban Growth Update-September 2010,previously submitted on March 24,2015. 11Page • • CPM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OIdcastOe, CORPORATE OFFICE•5111 E BROADWAY•SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 99212 Materials P.O.BOX 3366•SPOKANE.WA 99220-3366•OFFICE:(509)534-6221 •FAX'(509)536-3051 In the event the City determines through its separate Comprehensive Plan update process that new mining sites are appropriate in industrial areas,CPM supports reasonable aggregate site development standards such as: setbacks, landscaping and an approved beneficial secondary use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for all new sites. We have been involved and worked with numerous jurisdictions throughout the region on the development and adoption of such standards and would look forward to engaging in the same process with the City of Spokane Valley if invited to do so. Finally.CPM once again points out that there is not an aggregate versus industrial land conflict. a. There is no shortage of industrial lands. b. There are no new applications for sites pending. c. Several formally mined sites have been and will continue to return to available lands for residential,commercial and industrial development with the net effect in the near term of further expanding available developable sites. In closing, we do not support an extension of a moratorium that has already been in place for almost a year for all of the reasons outlined above as well as those previously testified to orally and in writing at the previously hearings. If the moratorium is extended, we request it be modified as described in Exhibit A. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Respectfully, John Shogren Vice President/General Manager Central Pre-Mix Development Corporation 21 EXHIBIT"A" Requested Modification to the Moratorium Ordinance No. 15-0013. Section 2: A. [No proposed changes.] B. [No proposed changes.] C. The moratorium shall not affect any mining or mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing,mineral processing,stockpiling, and mineral batching,that were vested or in existence and in continuous and lawful operations as of the effective date of this Ordinance,which sites are listed in "Exhibit A." Provided further,this moratorium shall not preclude the acceptance, processing and approval of permits or licenses required to maintain and operate any mining or mining site operations of those sites listed in "Exhibit A." Site Parcell Sullivan Road 45123.9008 45123.9007 45122.9005 45122.9004 45123.9006 45123.9011 45125.9157 45135.9007 45124.9012 45121.9016 Spokane County Flora Pit 45121.9015 Park Road 35134.9095 35134.9057 35134.9028 35134.9075 35134.9030 35134.9029 35134.3232 35134.9081 Carnahan 35234.9099 8th&Havana Quarry 35233.9191 35233.9192 35233.0709 35233.0513 35233.0710 35233.0604 35233.0605 35233.0606 35233.0607 35233.0608 35233.0609 35233.0505 35233.9176 Tshirley(Eden) 55065.0190 Erik Lamb From:. Chris Bainbridge Sent: Friday, January 08.2016 112 PM To: "GBenner@spol anecourlty.org' Cc: Cary Dris''cetl; Erik Lamb;Mike Jackson:Arne Woodard; Bill Gothmanrk CI1uck Hefner, Dean Grafos;Ed Pare, Rad Higgins:Sarrrunl Wood;Celtic t,t;ucielka Subject: FW:Spokane County letter RF: Public Hearing for Extension of Mining Mor6,tbriim Attachments: 20116 Let:er_Headng for Extension Mining MoratoriJm.pol importance: High I am writing to acknowledge that I jut naw received your e-ni it and attached letter,and by copy of this e-mail, am sending that to our legal dep,nrtment,our CitV Manager,and our Corineilmembers, Thank you. Christine(Chris) la: ir,hl-itlge Spokane Valley{:ei :Irri°lc 509-720-5102 From: Benner,Ginger 9n i6[ EG seriner@sp kaneLainrty.arg] Sent:friday,January 08,2016 11:57 AM To:Pod Higgins c1lii,ninsv_spnkaneva Iey ori.;>; Chris Bainbridge<€i iriLrid . ')akaneyalley.t_„rp Cc:Chamberlain, Monty'f4Chinrberlain st,okt,n-r.oi.rl'rty,nip.;Firkins,Deborah<C7rii° Ifir,,17--.I1I_n;rr'e0urty,915>; Reinter, Mitch< 1I1FISTE R sank [,eCourjk�.urt> Subject;Spokane County letter RE: Public Hearing For Extension of Mining Moratorium Importance: High Good Morning" Please find altached a letter from Mitchell S. Heisler, Sr;n' ,;r:r f=• tigineer, regarding the Public.Hearin°, for Extension of Mining, Moratorium. A hard copy wilt follow in the rnOil. Thank You, Slott Assistant II Spokane County Engineering E. Rout;. 509477-7407 gbennerCn.sptr>canc ptan"+r orq Tell us about your experience]fere Cr stcrrser Servicc Sur'ey! 1 4,14 SpcoRE Cout\trY DIVISION OF L.NGP1' EL^ R1NG AND ROADS A I7i'rsios OF THE 1'v LIG \OKKF 1.7r;'1'*rarmet~T January$,201.6 City of Spokane Valley ivlayorund Council Mcntbcrs 11707 E. Sprague-Aw•c.Suite IOC+ Spokane Valley. WA 99206 LSE: ?tthlic lietiriitg on l:.vde.i. trm of.liming h{orcvornini Dear Mayor and Council'olerithers: Thank you for listening tri CPM Development Corporation's and Spokane County's concerns with regard u the designation or Mineral Resources and your moratorium on minim; within your juritidictiort. . has been acknowledged by everyone, any Comprehensive Plan requires the accommodation of lvlinerul Resource Lands. Mineral Itesotuec Iznik provide the building blocks for development including roads rind buildings,arom%other items. While the appreciate your Stall Deport stating that existing. entitled and vested sites are exempt from the tnoratoriuru, wi. [quest [hat it the moratorium is extended it be modified to include an exhibit specifically listing and fortn:tlky.excluding the existing.entitled,or vested sites. Spokane County believes ihaL Spokane County A sesstrr Parcel No. 45121.9015, cnritnlnn1 raeared to as the F;_dea Pit Site ('I.schirley Property). should be included in the exhibit of existiltg, untitled,or vested sites for the following reasons; (1) Spokane County obtained an SM-6 (Surface Mining Permit) signed by the City°I-Spokane Valley in Augi' of 2012. (2) Spokane County completed all environmental reviews for;Ankle of the Property. (3) Spokane County pursued acquiring the mineral right:, on this Property owned by Central irre-Mix appraised at 5().0O(). Spokane Count,"'also believes ihno Spokane.County Assessor Parcel No.45121.9015, commonly referred to as the Flora Mining Site, should also be included in the exhibit of existing. entitled, or vested sires as dial propcnv has Nett iri active use as a mining,site since 19165- 11)2C'\C'Esr 1!ri4AHWAY A'ENUs 1Y'A 99 26(141170 Pito �: (509) .t77-360t1 - FAX: ,:510) 17)"-7655 • -11?Il: 519-477-7133r City of Spokane Valley Mayor and Council Members January 8,2016 Page 2 Finally, we also request that both properties be added to any future Comp Plan as Mineral Resource Lands. Spokane County is an excellent steward of its resources. We commit to develop our Eden Pit Site to include landscaping. berms, and setbacks. The final reclamation will he consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan requirements for Industrial development. We will not be mining into the water table and will allow for partial above grade and below grade future site development. This type of development has been accomplished in numerous areas around the country thereby securing the finure value of the land for redevelopment. In conjunction with our development we will, if requested by the City, enter into a Development Agreement as authorized under RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. Thank you for your thoughtild consideration of our requests set forth in this letter. Respectfully, Mitchell S.Reister,P.E. County Engineer CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First reading of proposed Ordinance No. 16-003 adopting a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No.15-013, with modifications. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.390; RCW 36.70A; SVMC 19.120.050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted a moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing on February 24, 2015, and adopted findings of fact on April 28, 2015. Council repealed and replaced the original moratorium on mining pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 on June 30, 2015, and adopted findings of fact for the replacement moratorium on August 25, 2015, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-015. City Council heard an administrative report on a potential six-month renewal on December 8, 2015, conducted a public hearing on a potential six-month renewal on January 5, 2016, and heard an administrative report on January 19, 2016. City Council conducted a first reading of the findings of fact justifying adoption of the renewal on January 26, 2016. BACKGROUND: The City adopted a moratorium on mining and mining site operations on February 24, 2015, as set forth in Ordinance No. 15-005, and subsequently adopted findings of fact justifying the moratorium on April 28, 2015, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-009. In order to ensure full notice and opportunity for public involvement regarding the moratorium, on June 30, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 to repeal Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009 and to re-establish the moratorium and provide for another public hearing on the moratorium on mining and mining site operations. The City subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 15-015 on August 25, 2015, to adopt findings of fact justifying the reestablishment of the moratorium. Pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 15-013, the moratorium was established with a term that lasts "until 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2016, unless repealed, extended, or modified by City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390." As discussed during the administrative report on December 8, 2015, and the public hearing on January 5, 2016, the City does not anticipate it will complete its Comprehensive Plan update by February 23, 2016, and so City staff have recommended a six-month renewal of the moratorium. Pursuant to State law, the City is authorized to adopt a six-month renewal of an existing moratorium, provided the City first conducts a public hearing and adopts findings of fact justifying the renewal of the moratorium prior to such renewal. The City Council has conducted a public hearing on the renewal of the moratorium. During the public hearing, Council heard testimony from two interested parties, both of whom requested that the moratorium not be renewed, or if it were renewed, that it be renewed with a modification to list parcels that were excluded from the moratorium's applicability. Further, both parties requested that the property commonly known as the "Eden Pit (Pit #55-06)," owned by Spokane County, be excluded from Page 1 of 2 the moratorium. Spokane County has taken steps towards applying for permits for certain proposed activities at the Eden Pit. In 2012, Spokane County obtained a Washington State Department of Natural Resources County or Municipality Approval for Surface Mining Form (referred to as an SM-6 Form) relating to the Eden Pit. The current status of the Department of Natural Resources approval is not known. City Council gave direction to staff at its January 19, 2016 meeting to include a modification to the moratorium as part of the renewal regarding the exception that the moratorium not impact existing mining operations and those that received a SM-6 Form prior to the establishment of the moratorium, such as those like the Eden Pit, to give full effect to City Council's original desire that the moratorium not impact existing business operations. Proposed Ordinance No. 16-003 contains modifications to Section 2(C) to exclude both existing mining operations and those that received a SM-6 Form prior to the establishment of the moratorium, from the moratorium. Accordingly, the City will process permit applications and licenses submitted for those operations. However, the exclusion does not allow mining operations unless the owners and operators have received all appropriate and necessary City permits. To the extent any mining operation must still receive additional City permits, the operator must submit such permit applications prior to beginning mining. As required by State law, City Council will adopt findings of fact justifying a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining with the requested modification prior to adoption of the renewal. Those findings of fact are part of proposed Ordinance No. 16-002. Information on the background of the moratorium, the process leading to the need for the renewal, and the public comments received during the public hearing are attached to this RCA for Council's review. Ordinance No. 16-002, which contains the findings of fact justifying the moratorium and the related items supporting adoption of the renewal, including copies of the Ordinance Nos. 15-013 and 15-015, the RCA from the January 5 public hearing, draft minutes of the public hearing testimony, and copies of the public comments received regarding the renewal, are not included in this packet as they are being considered at the same meeting as part of the consideration of Ordinance No. 16-002 immediately prior to consideration of the renewal. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second reading, with or without further amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 16-003, adopting a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No.15-013, with modifications, to a second reading. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director; Cary Driskell, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 16-003. See RCA for January 26, 2016 meeting for Proposed Ordinance No. 16-002 for copy of Ordinance No. 16-002 and supporting documentation Page 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 16-003 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A SIX MONTH RENEWAL OF THE MORATORIUM ON MINING AND MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 15-013 WITH MODIFICATIONS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is in the process of developing its Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on June 30, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 establishing a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and repealing Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013, the moratorium shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2016, unless otherwise repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council prior to such expiration; and WHEREAS, the City does not anticipate it will complete its Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23,2016; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that"A moratorium,interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and fmdings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and WHEREAS, a moratorium renewal enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may continue to preserve the status quo established through the original moratorium so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium renewal for one or more six-month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and Ordinance No. 15-013, on January 5, 2016, the City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the renewal of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations for a six-month period; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony from two interested parties, and each party submitted additional written comments. Further, the City received written comments on January 8, 2016,which have been considered by City Council as part of the record for such renewal; and Ordinance 16-003 Page 1 of 3 DRAFT WHEREAS, City Council has determined based upon public testimony received that a modification to the moratorium regarding impacts to existing mines and mines that received a "SM-6 Form" as part of their reclamation permitting process from the Washington Department of Natural Resources prior to the establishment of the moratorium is appropriate to give effect to City Council's original desire that the moratorium not impact existing and ongoing mining business operations; and WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390,the City Council is required to adopt findings of fact after conducting the public hearing and prior to such renewal; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2016, pursuant to Ordinance No. 16-002, City Council adopted findings of fact justifying a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching,originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013,with modifications; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-880, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the adoption of a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation,mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 with modifications is in the public interest and necessary for the preservation of the public health, public safety,public property, and public peace. NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Public hearing; findings of fact. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, the City Council has conducted a properly noticed public hearing and adopted findings of fact justifying a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching,originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013,with modifications. Section 2. Moratorium Renewed. A. The moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching as originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 is hereby renewed and extended for a six-month (180 day)period as set forth in Section 4 herein. B. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already- submitted complete land-use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as provided under Washington law. C. This renewed moratorium shall not affect any mining or mining site operations,including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operation as of the effective date of Ordinance No. 15- 013. This renewed moratorium shall also not affect any proposed mine or mining site operation that had, prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 15-013, received a Washington State Department of Natural Resource County or Municipality Approval for Surface Mining Form (commonly referred to as a"SM-6 Form") for the site of the proposed mine or mining site operation. This Section 2(C) shall allow the City to accept and process any permit applications or licenses for such mining operations and sites;provided, however, nothing in this Section 2(C) shall be construed as an approval or acceptance by the City of any mining or mining site operations, legal rights relating to any such sites or operations, or approval, Ordinance 16-003 Page 2 of 3 DRAFT permission, allowance,or authority to mine without receiving all applicable and necessary City permits or licenses relating to any specific mine or mining site operation. Section 3. Work Plan. The work plan established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 shall be continued as part of the renewal of the moratorium as set forth herein. Section 4. Duration. The moratorium as renewed herein shall be in effect as of the date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect for a period of six-months (180 days) from the original expiration date of the moratorium until 11:59 p.m. on August 21, 2016, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. 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 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of February, 2016. L.R. Higgins,Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Date of Publication: Office of the City Attorney Effective Date: Ordinance 16-003 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business [' new business [' public hearing [' information ® admin. report [' pending legislation [' executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Grant Funding GOVERNING LEGISLATION: NA PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: NA BACKGROUND: On December 24, 2015 the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) issued a call for projects that will be funded with Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 (Enhanced Mobility for seniors and Individuals with disabilities) Program Funding. There is approximately $720,000 in Section 5310 funds available in which about $400,000 is available for Capital projects. Capital projects must primarily benefit seniors and individuals with disabilities. Projects must also support the strategies identified in the Spokane County Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan, which is managed by the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. Staff believes the City has two projects that meet the grant criteria: 9th Avenue Sidewalk- Raymond to University Road Project This project would provide sidewalks for 2 blocks along the north side of 9th Avenue from the Sunshine Garden/Terrace Residential Care Facility to sidewalks and transit facilities on University Road. The preliminary estimate for this project is $160,000. Coleman Sidewalk,- 4`" to 2nd Avenue Project This project would provide sidewalks for 1-1/2 blocks along the west side of Coleman Road from the Eagle Peak School at Pratt (formerly Pratt Elementary School) to sidewalks and transit facilities on Appleway Boulevard and Sprague Avenue. Eagle Peak School at Pratt is a small school and a licensed mental health facility working with high risk children with learning, social, and emotional disabilities. The preliminary estimate for this project is $235,000. Project applications are due by Monday, February 1 at 5:00 PM. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to move forward with grant applications for these two projects. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Projects funded under this program can be either capital or operating projects. The City's proposed projects could qualify for capital projects that are funded at 80% federal and 20% local match funds. REET funds could be used as the City's match. If awarded the grant we would need to amend the TIP to include these projects. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: FTA 5310 Funding PowerPoint Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Grant Funding Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Spokane Valley City Council January 26, 2016 Eric Guth, PE - Director of Public Works FTA Section 5310 Administered by Spokane Transit Authority ■ A call for projects was issued on December 24th, 2015 for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 grant funds ■ Grant funds can be used for capital projects that provide access to transit facilities for the elderly and for people with disabilities ■ The total grant funds available are $396,892 with projects selected in 2016 and construction in 2017 ■ The grant application deadline is February 1, 2016. 2 Project Selection ■ Staff reviewed the grant criteria and found two projects that meet the requirements: Coleman Road sidewalk - 4th to 2nd Avenues (west side) — Provides completed sidewalk access from the Eagle Peak School (formerly Pratt Elementary) to transit stops at Appleway and Sprague Avenue — Eagle Peak School is staffed with special needs teachers and is a licensed mental health facility working with high risk children with learning, social and emotional disabilities 9th Avenue Sidewalk - Raymond to University (north side) — links Sunshine Gardens Residential care facility to transit facilities on University Road. — Sunshine Gardens/Terrace is a large Spokane Valley health care and residential senior living facility. ■ STA planning staff reviewed these two projects, and concluded that both projects meet the grant requirements and would be considered. 3 Coleman Sidewalk Project 4th to 2nd Avenue ■ The project installs new curb and sidewalk on the west side of Coleman between the Eagle Peak School on 4th continuing north to 2nd Avenue, ■ The project places 438 feet of new sidewalk, filling a gap, that when complete provides continuous sidewalk from 4th Avenue to Sprague Avenue, about 1320 feet, ■ All sidewalks at intersecting streets will include new sidewalk ramps meeting current ADA requirements, and ■ The project is estimated to cost about $160,000 4 Coleman Sidewalk Project 4th to 2nd Avenue Coleman Sidewalk Project , t 4th to 2nd Avenue �z �. in I 11g I" w ..-_� _ _ Sprague Ave c i -Jr ... Existing Transit Stops I ® , a h''' k'2 Y 1. . I. � ,m- App leway Blvd la..j. is , T :.. 2nd Ave - - - -2r.d-rev NE I .n. .. ;rdvAve 3rd Ave. - - - • .y Eagle Peak Schaal,Old Pratt '_,.:y # _ I g _- ±s ` Elementary _.,.__�i_ -_�, .- S ._ .. - ..'i:11 ^ogle.4. ,'. _- Jelle 5 9th Avenue Sidewalk Project Raymond to University ■ The project installs 620 feet of new curb and sidewalk on the north side of 9th Avenue between the Sunset Gardens Residential Care Complex to University Road, ■ All sidewalks at intersecting streets will include new sidewalk ramps meeting current ADA requirements, and ■ The project is estimated to cost about $235,000. 6 9th Avenue Sidewalk Project Raymond to University " 9th Avenue Sidewalk Project t Spokane Valley• Raymond to University Road P Transit Center 7 P i _- ---'1'__ 1Y'I" \ bg o, �.� 1�. E-611 kR. r # i • : .. T .t p11 a % O , - A i_i , . Airsny -8ratves. - i ■s,l. Existing Transit Stops I Sunset Gardens �' 1' �` - 1 i 7 Residential Care 9 P ■ 4 ct -r ;1 E•1Oth-Ay e 1 7 Questions? 8 Pr' CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department Director Approval: 0 Check all that apply: LI consent 0 old business El new business 0 public hearing El information admin. report 0 pending legislation El executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Resolution Regarding Gender-Segregated Facilities GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: During the January 19, 2016 Council meeting, Councilmember Wood introduced for future discussion, a draft resolution concerning Senate Bill 6443/House Bill 2589, and opposing certain section or section of WAC 162-32-060. Senate Bill 6443 has been scheduled for a legislative hearing in Olympia, Wednesday, January 27, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. Consensus by Council to weigh-in on this issue and send a letter of opinion to State Legislature. Also Council consensus to add draft resolution to the February 2, 2016 Council Agenda for approval consideration. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: unknown STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Councilmember Wood/City Manager Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: Councilmember Wood's Proposed Resolution Senate Bill 6443 House Bill 2589 WSR 15-24-017 Permanent Rules Human Rights Commission CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON DRAFT OF POTENTIAL RESOLUTION TAKING A STAND AGAINST ONE PARAGRAPH OF THE WAC ON RESTROOM ACCESS AND PRIVACY A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHIN( ON,AFFIRMING THE RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE LIVING IN,ATTENDING SCHOOL IN, DOING BUSINESS IN,WORKING IN,OR VISITING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY TO NON-DISCRIMINATION AND PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT OR INTIMIDATION AS PRESCRIBED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION, RCW 49.60.010 AND WAC 162. WHEREAS The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley AFFIRMS that the City of Spokane Valley protects the rights of all people according to the U.S. Constitution and the Washington State Constitution, including the following: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,establish Justice,insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America."(PREAMBLE to U.S. Constitution) Washington State Constitution Article I—Declaration of Rights: Protection of Rights—"...governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights."(Section 1) Personal Rights—"No person shall be deprived of life,liberty,or property..." Invasion of Private Affairs—"No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs..." WHEREAS The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley AFFIRMS the rights protected for ALL PEOPLE by RCW 49.60: "This chapter shall be known as the"law against discrimination." It is an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public welfare, health,and peace of the people of this state,and in fulfillment of the provisions of the Constitution of this state concerning civil rights.The legislature hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race,creed,color, national origin,families with children,sex, marital status,sexual orientation,age, honorably discharged veteran or military status,or the presence of any sensory,mental,or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability are a matter of state concern,that such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.A state agency is herein created with powers with respect to elimination and prevention of discrimination in employment, in credit and insurance transactions, in places of public resort,accommodation,or amusement,and in real property transactions because of race,creed,color, national origin,families with children,sex, marital status,sexual orientation,age, honorably discharged veteran or military status,or the presence of any sensory, mental,or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability; and the commission established hereunder is hereby given general jurisdiction and power for such purposes." USING THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS FROM RCW 49.60.040: (25) "Sex" means gender. (26) "Sexual orientation" means homosexuality, bisexuality,and gender expression or identity. (26) "gender expression or identity" means having or being perceived as having a gender identity,self-image,appearance, behavior,or expression,whether or not that gender identity,self-image,appearance, behavior,or expression,is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth. (0.3%of total population according to NY Times article 06/09/15) AND THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION DEFINED IN THIS RESOLUTION: "traditional female" means traditional biological and psychological females whose gender identity,self-image,appearance, behavior or expression is the same as assigned at birth as female. (99.7%of total population according to NY Times article 06/09/15) WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley AFFIRMS the rights of all people as defined by WAC 162-32-020 Leave policies and reasonable accommodation. WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley AFFIRMS the rights of all people as defined by WAC 162-32-030 Employee benefits and privileges. WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley AFFIRMS the rights of all people to be protected from harassment as defined by WAC 162-32-040 Harassment. WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley AFFIRMS the rights of all people as defined by WAC 162-32-050 Dress and grooming standards. WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, regarding WAC 162-32-060 Gender-segregated facilities,which states: Gender-segregated facilities. (1)Facility use.All covered entities shall allow individuals the use of gender-segregated facilities,such as restrooms,locker rooms,dressing rooms,and homeless or emergency shelters,that are consistent with that individual's gender expression or gender identity. In such facilities where undressing in the presence of others occurs,covered entities shall allow access to and use of a facility consistent with that individual's gender expression or gender identity. (2)Cannot require use inconsistent with gender expression or gender identity.A covered entity shall not request or require an individual to use a gender-segregated facility that is inconsistent with that individual's gender expression or gender identity,or request or require an individual to use a separate or gender-neutral facility. (a)If another person expresses concern or discomfort about a person who uses a facility that is consistent with the person's gender expression or gender identity,the person expressing discomfort should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility, if available. (b)Any action taken against a person who is using a restroom or other gender-segregated facility,such as removing a person,should be taken due to that person's actions or behavior while in the facility,and must be unrelated to gender expression or gender identity.The same standards of conduct and behavior must be consistently applied to all facility users,regardless of gender expression or gender identity. (3)Provision of options encouraged.Whenever feasible,covered entities are encouraged to provide options for privacy, such as single-use gender-neutral bathrooms or private changing areas that are available to any individual desiring privacy. AFFIRMS the right of traditional females(99.7%of the total population)to the privacy and perceived safety,security and sanctuary traditionally provided in womens/girls restrooms,locker rooms,showers, and changing rooms, including the traditional right of not being exposed to male genitalia regardless of the gender expression or identity of the person with male genitalia. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Spokane Valley City Council: 1. Will support action taken against individuals and/or organizations who harass,discriminate against,threaten or intimidate any person for any reason. 2. Does not condone action taken against traditional females who,while respecting the rights of other people,assert their right to traditional privacy as described above. 3. Does not condone enforcing"laws" (rules) made by Executive-branch appointees. 4. Will lobby with our State Legislature to repeal WAC 162-32-060 by; a. Directing our City Manager to add the repeal of WAC 162-32-060 to the City's Legislative Agenda. b. Directing our City Manager and Mayor to send a letter to all State Senators and Representatives making our case for the above. c. Meet with our local 4th District Senator and Representatives to work together on this and other civil rights issues. S-3885 . 1 SENATE BILL 6443 State of Washington 64th Legislature 2016 Regular Session By Senators Ericksen, Bailey, Padden, O'Ban, Angel, Becker, Braun, Miloscia, Warnick, Dammeier, Honeyford, Hewitt, Roach, and Benton Read first time 01/20/16. Referred to Committee on Commerce & Labor. 1 AN ACT Relating to the human rights commission' s rule-making 2 authority; and adding a new section to chapter 49. 60 RCW. 3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 49. 60 5 RCW to read as follows : 6 The human rights commission shall repeal the rule currently 7 codified at WAC 162-32-060 in its entirety. The human rights 8 commission may not thereafter initiate any rule-making procedure that 9 involves the subject of gender segregated facilities . --- END --- p. 1 SB 6443 H-3300 . 2 HOUSE BILL 2589 State of Washington 64th Legislature 2016 Regular Session By Representatives G. Hunt, Short, Van Werven, Rodne, McCabe, Taylor, Holy, Manweller, Shea, Walsh, Scott, Muri, Smith, Schmick, Harmsworth, McCaslin, Kochmar, Condotta, MacEwen, Buys, Griffey, Wilson, Pike, Young, Klippert, Hawkins, Haler, Kretz, Wilcox, Zeiger, Dent, Hargrove, Hickel, Stambaugh, Caldier, Hayes, and Parker Read first time 01/15/16. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. 1 AN ACT Relating to allowing the use of gender-segregated 2 facilities; and amending RCW 49. 60. 030. 3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 4 Sec. 1. RCW 49. 60.030 and 2009 c 164 s 1 are each amended to 5 read as follows: 6 (1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, 7 creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or 8 military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, 9 mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or 10 service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and 11 declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be 12 limited to: 13 (a) The right to obtain and hold employment without 14 discrimination; 15 (b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, 16 advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, 17 accommodation, assemblage, or amusement; 18 (c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without 19 discrimination, including discrimination against families with 20 children; p. 1 HB 2589 1 (d) The right to engage in credit transactions without 2 discrimination; 3 (e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions 4 with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: 5 PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48. 30. 300, 6 48 . 44 .220, or 48 . 46. 370 does not constitute an unfair practice for 7 the purposes of this subparagraph; 8 (f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory 9 boycotts or blacklists . Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for 10 purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or 11 execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy 12 or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons 13 which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States 14 and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, 15 overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in 16 order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order 17 to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on 18 the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged 19 veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any 20 sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog 21 guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national 22 origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That 23 nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as 24 authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor 25 practices; and 26 (g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of 27 public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement. 28 (2) Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in 29 violation of this chapter shall have a civil action in a court of 30 competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover 31 the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with 32 the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys ' fees or any other 33 appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States 34 Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing 35 Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq. ) . 36 (3) Except for any unfair practice committed by an employer 37 against an employee or a prospective employee, or any unfair practice 38 in a real estate transaction which is the basis for relief specified 39 in the amendments to RCW 49. 60. 225 contained in chapter 69, Laws of 40 1993, any unfair practice prohibited by this chapter which is p. 2 HB 2589 1 committed in the course of trade or commerce as defined in the 2 Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19. 86 RCW, is, for the purpose of 3 applying that chapter, a matter affecting the public interest, is not 4 reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of 5 business, and is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce. 6 (4) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a public or private entity 7 from limiting access to a private facility segregated by gender, such 8 as a bathroom, restroom, toilet, shower, locker room, or sauna, to a 9 person if the person is preoperative, nonoperative, or otherwise has 10 genitalia of a different gender from that for which the facility is 11 segregated. Nothing in this chapter grants any right to a person to 12 access a private facility segregated by gender, such as a bathroom, 13 restroom, toilet, shower, locker room, or sauna, of a public or 14 private entity if the person is preoperative, nonoperative, or 15 otherwise has genitalia of a different gender from that for which the 16 facility is segregated. 17 (5) Nothing in this section prevents a minor child or a person 18 with a disability from entering a facility segregated by gender when 19 the child or person is a different gender from the gender for which 20 the facility is segregated if: (a) A parent, guardian, supervisor, or 21 caretaker is escorting the minor child or the person with a 22 disability to or from the facility, (b) the child or person is under 23 the custody, control, supervision, or care of the parent, guardian, 24 supervisor, or caretaker, and (c) the gender of the parent, guardian, 25 supervisor, or caretaker is the same as the gender for which the 26 facility is segregated. --- END --- p. 3 HB 2589 Page 1of15 WSR 15-24-071 PERMANENT RULES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION [Filed November 25, 2015, 12:26 p.m., effective December 26, 2015] Effective Date of Rule: Thirty-one days after filing. Purpose: Sexual orientation and gender identity were added as a protected class to the Washington state law against discrimination in 2006. Rules are needed in order to interpret that law to provide understanding to businesses, employers, and the public. Stakeholders have requested clarification and explanation of the law in the form of rules. New chapter 162-32 WAC is added for sexual orientation and gender identity issues, and additional sections are amended to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes . Citation of Existing Rules Affected by this Order: Amending WAC 162-12-100, 162-12-140, 162-16-200, 162-36-005, 162-36-010, and 162- 36-020 . Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 49. 60 . 120 (3) . Adopted under notice filed as WSR 15-11-104 on May 20, 2015 . Changes Other than Editing from Proposed to Adopted Version: When warranted, sexual orientation, gender expression and gender identity were specified in each section, instead of simply specifying sexual orientation as an umbrella term. Additional clarification as to unfair practices in preemployment inquiries were added in WAC 162-12-140 . The protected class of sexual orientation was eliminated from sections related to medical leave and reasonable accommodation in WAC 162-32-020. Further examples of different treatment were provided under the leave provisions in WAC 162-32- 020 . The term "opposite sex" was changed to "opposite/different sex", and "paternity leave" was changed to "parental leave" throughout the sections when warranted. In WAC 162-32-060, the section related to gender segregated facilities, separate standards for k-12 schools were eliminated, and all places of public accommodations have the same standards as outlined in the rule. Number of Sections Adopted in Order to Comply with Federal Statute: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; Federal Rules or Standards: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; or Recently Enacted State Statutes: New 6, Amended 6, Repealed 0 . Number of Sections Adopted at Request of a Nongovernmental Entity: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0. Number of Sections Adopted on the Agency' s Own Initiative: New 6, Amended 6, Repealed 0 . Number of Sections Adopted in Order to Clarify, Streamline, or Reform Agency Procedures: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0. Number of Sections Adopted Using Negotiated Rule Making: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; Pilot Rule Making: New 0, Amended 0, Repealed 0; or Other Alternative Rule Making: New 6, Amended 6, Repealed 0. http://lawfilesextleg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 2 of 15 Date Adopted: November 30, 2015. Laura Lindstrand Policy Analyst AMENDATORY SECTION (Amending WSR 00-01-177, filed 12/21/99, effective 1/21/00) WAC 162-12-100 Purpose. (1) These regulations carry out the law against discrimination as stated generally in RCW 49. 60 . 010 and 49. 60 . 030, and interpret RCW 49. 60 . 180 and 49. 60 . 200 which declare certain preemployment inquiries to be unfair practices . (2) The commission generally follows chapter 49. 60 RCW and federal court decisions that interpret comparable statutes and rules. The commission will not follow federal precedents when a different interpretation of state statutes and rules will better carry out the purposes of chapter 49. 60 RCW. (3) This regulation cannot cover every question that might arise in connection with inquiries prior to employment. The commission expects that in most cases these rules, either directly or by analogy, will guide those who are covered by the law. (4) Definition: In this chapter, the following words are used in the meaning given, unless the context clearly indicates another meaning. "Protected status" is short for the phrase, "age, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person, " and means the full phrase (see RCW 49. 60 . 180) . AMENDATORY SECTION (Amending WSR 00-01-177, filed 12/21/99, effective 1/21/00) WAC 162-12-140 Preemployment inquiries. (1) The following examples of fair and unfair inquiries apply when made in reference to job application forms, preemployment interviews, or any other type of inquiry made of job applicants . The rules also apply to inquiries made to persons other than an applicant and to inquiries made by third parties such as a credit reporting service. The rules do not apply after a person is employed. See WAC 162-12-180. (2) Employers and employment agencies shall comply with these rules except where one or more of the following conditions exist: (a) When there is a "bona fide occupational qualification. " http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 3 of 15 (b) A voluntary affirmative action plan that is in compliance with the requirements of a government agency or other competent authority such as a court, and if made in a manner provided in WAC 162-12-160 and 162-12-170. (c) A requirement of federal law or regulation, as explained in WAC 162-12-150 . If one or more of the above conditions apply, the inquiries of employers and employment agencies must be accompanied by a written explanation of their purpose. See WAC 162-12-135, 162-12-160 and 162-12-170. (3) The following examples of fair and unfair preemployment inquiries define what is an unfair practice under RCW 49 . 60 . 180 (4) and 49. 60 .200 . These examples, however, are not all inclusive. All preemployment inquiries that unnecessarily elicit the protected status of a job applicant are prohibited by these statutes irrespective of whether or not the particular inquiry is covered in this regulation. FAIR UNFAIR SUBJECT PREEMPLOYMENT PREEMPLOYMENT INQUIRES INQUIRES a.Age Inquiries as to birth date Any inquiry not in and proof of true age are compliance with permitted by RCW RCW 49.44.090 that 49.44.090. implies a preference for persons under 40 years of age. (For age discrimination,RCW 49.44.090 must be read in conjunction with RCW 49.60.180 and 49.60.200.RCW 49.44.090 limits age discrimination coverage to persons 40 years of age and older,and makes other limitations and exceptions to the age discrimination law.) b.Arrests Because statistical Any inquiry that does (see also studies regarding arrests not meet the Convictions) have shown a disparate requirements for fair impact on some racial preemployment and ethnic minorities, inquiries. and an arrest by itself is not a reliable indication of criminal behavior, inquiries concerning arrests must include whether charges are still pending,have been dismissed,or led to conviction of a crime involving behavior that would adversely affect job performance,and the arrest occurred within the last ten years.Exempt from this rule are law enforcement agencies and state agencies, school districts, businesses and other organizations that have a direct responsibility for the supervision,care,or treatment of children, mentally ill persons, developmentally disabled persons,or other vulnerable adults.See RCW 43.20A.710; 43.43.830 through http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 4 of 15 FAIR UNFAIR SUBJECT PREEMPLOYMENT PREEMPLOYMENT INQUIRES INQUIRES 43.43.842;and RCW 72.23.035. c.Citizenship Whether applicant is Whether applicant is prevented from lawfully citizen.Requirement becoming employed in before job offer that this country because of applicant present visa or immigration birth certificate, status.Whether applicant naturalization or can provide proof of a baptismal divulge legal right to work in the applicant's lineage, United States after hire. ancestry,national origin,descent,or birth place. d.Convictions Statistical studies on Inquiries concerning (see also convictions and convictions and Arrests) imprisonment have imprisonment which shown a disparate impact either do not relate on some racial and ethnic reasonably to job minority groups. duties or did not Inquiries concerning occur within the last convictions(or ten years will not be imprisonment)will be considered justified considered to be justified by business by business necessity if necessity. the crimes inquired about relate reasonably to the job duties,and if such convictions(or release from prison)occurred within the last ten years. Law enforcement agencies,state agencies, school districts, businesses and other organizations that have a direct responsibility for the supervision,care,or treatment of children, mentally ill persons, developmentally disabled persons,or other vulnerable adults are exempt from this rule. See RCW 43.20A.710; 43.43.830 through 43.43.842;and RCW 72.23.035. e.Family Whether applicant can Specific inquiries meet specified work concerning spouse, schedules or has spouse's gender. activities,commitments spouse's employment or responsibilities that or salary,children, may prevent him or her child care from meeting work arrangements,or attendance requirements. dependents. f.Disability Whether applicant is able Inquiries about the to perform the essential nature,severity or functions of the job for extent of a disability which the applicant is or whether the applying,with or without applicant requires reasonable reasonable accommodation. accommodation prior Inquiries as to how the to a conditional job applicant could offer.Whether demonstrate or describe applicant has applied the performance of these for or received specific job functions worker's with or without compensation.Also reasonable any inquiry that is http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 5 of 15 FAIR UNFAIR SUBJECT PREEMPLOYMENT PREEMPLOYMENT INQUIRES INQUIRES accommodation.Note: not job related or Employers are consistent with encouraged to include a business necessity. statement on the application form apprising applicants that if they require accommodation to complete the application, testing or interview process,to please contact the employment office, personnel or human resources department or other office as may be able to assist them. g.Height and Being of a certain height Any inquiry which is Weight or weight will not be not based on actual considered to be a job job requirements and requirement unless the not consistent with employer can show that business necessity. all or substantially all employees who fail to meet the requirement would be unable to perform the job in question with reasonable safety and efficiency. h.Marital Status None. 0)Mr. (see also Name 0)Mrs. and Family) 0)Miss ()Ms. Whether the applicant is married, single,divorced, separated,engaged, widowed,has a same sex spouse.etc. i.Military Inquiries concerning Type or condition of education,training,or military discharge. work experience in the Applicant's armed forces of the experience in United States. military other than U.S.armed forces. Request for discharge papers. j.Name Whether applicant has Inquiry into original worked for this company name where it has or another employer been changed by under a different name court order or and,if so,what name. marriage.Inquiries Name under which about a name that applicant is known to would divulge references if different marital status,sexual from present name. orientation,gender expression or gender identity,transgender status or sex assigned at birth,lineage, ancestry,national origin or descent. k.National Inquiries into applicant's Inquiries into Origin ability to read,write and applicant's lineage, speak foreign languages, ancestry,national when such inquiries are origin,descent, based on job birthplace,or mother requirements. tongue.National origin of applicant's parents or spouse. http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 6 of 15 FAIR UNFAIR SUBJECT PREEMPLOYMENT PREEMPLOYMENT INQUIRES INQUIRES 1.Organizations Inquiry into organization Requirement that memberships,excluding applicant list all any organization the organizations,clubs, name or character of societies,and lodges which indicates the race, to which he or she color,creed,sex,sexual belongs. orientation,gender expression or gender identity,marital status, religion,or national origin or ancestry of its members. m.Photographs May be requested after Request that hiring for identification applicant submit a purposes. photograph, mandatorily or optionally,at any time before hiring. n.Pregnancy Inquiries as to a duration All questions as to (see also of stay on job or pregnancy,and Disability) anticipated absences medical history which are made to males concerning and females alike. pregnancy and related matters. o.Race or Color None.See WAC 162-12- Any inquiry 150,162-12-160,and concerning race or 162-12-170. color of skin,hair, eyes,etc.,not specifically permitted by WAC 162-12-150, 162-12-160,and 162- 12-170. p.Relatives Name of applicant's Any other inquiry relatives already regarding marital employed by this status,identity of company or by any one's spouse,or competitor. spouse's occupation are considered unfair practices in accordance with WAC 162-12-150. (While the law does not prohibit company policies governing the employment of relatives,any policy that has the effect of disadvantaging minorities,women,married couples,or other protected classes,would be in violation of the law unless it is shown to serve a necessary business purpose.)See WAC 162-12-150,162-12-160,and 162-12-170. q.Religion or None. Inquiries concerning Creed applicant's religious preference, denomination, religious affiliations, church,parish, pastor,or religious holidays observed. r.Residence Inquiries about address Names or to the extent needed to relationship of facilitate contacting the persons with whom applicant. applicant resides. Whether applicant owns or rents own home. s.Sex None. Any inquiry concerning gender is prohibited. t.Sexual None. Any inquiry Orientation. concerning sexual http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 7 of 15 FAIR UNFAIR SUBJECT PREEMPLOYMENT PREEMPLOYMENT INQUIRES INQUIRES Gender orientation,gender Expression or expression or gender Gender Identity identity.transeender status.or sex assigned at birth is prohibited. Reviser' s note: The typographical errors in the above section occurred in the copy filed by the agency and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34 . 08 . 040 . AMENDATORY SECTION (Amending WSR 99-15-025, filed 7/12/99, effective 8/12/99) WAC 162-16-200 General purpose and definitions . The law against discrimination protects persons from discrimination in employment (RCW 49. 60 . 180, 49 . 60 . 190, and 49. 60 . 200) . Persons are also protected from discrimination as provided in RCW 49 . 60 . 172 (unfair practices with respect to HIV infection) , RCW 49 . 60 . 174 (actual or perceived HIV infection) , and RCW 49 . 60 . 210 (unfair to discriminate against person opposing unfair practice) . (1) The commission' s first objective in writing the rules in this chapter and in making future decisions on questions not addressed in this chapter is to eliminate and prevent discrimination. This is the overall purpose of the law against discrimination. (2) Other objectives in writing these rules are: (a) To be consistent with interpretations of federal antidiscrimination law and the antidiscrimination laws of other states, where these are comparable to Washington law, and where the commission does not find that a different rule would better serve the state of Washington. (b) To avoid the uncritical adoption of definitions from areas of law other than antidiscrimination law. It is appropriate to define employment differently in different areas of the law to carry out the separate purpose of each area of law. (c) To give effect to the purposes of the exemption of employers of less than eight from public enforcement of the law against discrimination, as identified in RCW 49. 60 . 040 . (d) The public and commission staff need standards that are certain and that are easy to understand and apply. Therefore we must sometimes simply draw a line, although reasonable persons could differ as to where the line should be drawn. (3) The state law against discrimination covers employers with eight or more employees. Persons should also educate themselves on relevant local or federal antidiscrimination laws. (4) Definition: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 8 of 15 In this chapter, the following words are used in the meaning given, unless the context clearly indicates another meaning. "Protected status" is short for the phrase, "age, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person, " and means the full phrase (see RCW 49. 60 . 180) . Chapter 162-32 WAC SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY NEW SECTION WAC 162-32-010 General purpose and scope. This chapter interprets and implements the sexual orientation and gender expression and gender identity discrimination protections of RCW 49. 60 . 030, 49. 60 . 180, and 49 . 60. 215 and provides guidance regarding certain specific forms of sexual orientation and gender expression and gender identity discrimination. NEW SECTION WAC 162-32-020 Leave policies and reasonable accommodation. (1) Leave. When an employer grants leave or time off of work to employees for medical or health reasons, the employer shall treat leave requests to address medical or health care needs related to an individual ' s gender expression or gender identity in the same manner as requests for all other medical conditions . For example: (a) If an employer provides paid sick leave for periods of disability that require medical leave, the employer must provide paid sick leave for periods of disability related to an individual ' s gender expression or gender identity that require medical leave; (b) If the employer' s policy requires a medical provider' s statement to verify the leave period as a reasonable accommodation, a medical provider' s statement may be required to verify the leave period as a reasonable accommodation when the disabling condition is related to the individual ' s gender expression or gender identity, however, an employer may not inquire if the leave is related to gender expression or gender identity or gender transition, nor can the employer require that the note specify if the leave is related to gender expression or gender identity or gender transition; (c) If the employer' s policy permits the retention and accrual of benefits, such as seniority, retirement, and pension rights, http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 9 of 15 during the leave period for other disabilities, the policy must also permit such accrual of benefits during leave for disabling conditions related to an individual' s gender expression or gender identity; (d) If an employer allows an employee to use shared leave for disabling conditions, the employer must apply the same policies and procedures for disabling conditions related to an individual' s gender expression or gender identity. (2) Reasonable accommodation. An employer shall provide reason- able accommodation for a disability when the disability is related to the individual ' s gender expression or gender identity, absent undue hardship to the employer. Such reasonable accommodation includes, but is not limited to, medical leave for medical and counseling appointments, surgery, and recovery from surgery that are related to gender reassignment procedures and treatments . An undue hardship as a reason for denying an accommodation in situations involving disabilities related to gender expression or gender identity shall be analyzed in the same manner as with accommodations for any other disability. To the extent consistent with personal medical information connected to other disabilities, personal medical information connected to disabilities related to a person' s gender expression or gender identity must be kept confidential. (3) Nothing in this section is intended to suggest that a per- son' s sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity itself is a disabling condition. NEW SECTION WAC 162-32-030 Employee benefits and privileges. (1) Consistent and equal basis. Employee benefits provided in whole or in part by an employer must be consistent between all employees and equal for all employees, regardless of the employee' s sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity. For example, it is an unfair practice to: (a) Provide health insurance coverage to an employee' s opposite/different sex spouse but to fail to provide health insurance coverage to an employee' s same sex spouse (except in situations where such a rule is prohibited or pre-empted by federal law. ) (b) Provide parental leave or bonding time for the father of a child newly born or adopted into a heterosexual relationship, but fail to provide the same parental leave or bonding time to the parent of a child newly born or adopted into a same-sex relationship. (2) Other benefits and privileges of employment. All other employee benefits, provided formally or informally including, but not limited to, health club memberships, discount programs, training, staff retreats, company gatherings and parties, and use of http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page l0 of 15 company vehicles or other company services, shall be provided on an equal basis to all employees regardless of the employee' s sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity. If the benefit or privilege is extended to the employee ' s opposite/different sex spouse, it must be extended to an employee ' s same sex spouse as well. Reviser' s note: The typographical error in the above section occurred in the copy filed by the agency and appears in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34 . 08 . 040 . NEW SECTION WAC 162-32-040 Harassment. (1) Harassment. Harassment based on an individual ' s sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity is prohibited. Sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity harassment in employment is offensive and unwelcome behavior serious enough to affect the terms and conditions of employment and which occurred because of an individual ' s sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity, and can be imputed to the employer. (2) Prohibited conduct. Prohibited conduct may include, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Asking unwelcome personal questions about an individual ' s sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, transgender status, or sex assigned at birth; (b) Intentionally causing distress to an individual by disclosing the individual ' s sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, transgender status, or sex assigned at birth against his or her wishes; (c) Using offensive names, slurs, jokes, or terminology regarding an individual ' s sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity; (d) The deliberate misuse of an individual ' s preferred name, form of address, or gender-related pronoun (except on legally mandated documentation, if the individual has not officially obtained a name change) ; (e) Posting offensive pictures or sending offensive electronic or other communications; (f) Unwelcome physical conduct. (3) Harassment in a place of public accommodation. Sexual orientation harassment or harassment based on gender expression or gender identity in a place of public accommodation is offensive and unwelcome behavior serious enough to alter the individual ' s experience at the place of public accommodation, or severe enough that the individual has no choice but to leave the place of public accommodation, which occurred because of the individual ' s sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity, and can be imputed to the place of public accommodation. In schools, such http://lavvfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 11 of 15 harassment is offensive and unwelcome behavior serious enough to interfere with a child' s access to educational opportunities, which occurred because of the child' s sexual orientation or gender expression or gender identity, and can be imputed to the school . NEW SECTION WAC 162-32-050 Dress and grooming standards. (1) Standards allowed. Covered entities may require standards of dress or grooming that serve a reasonable business or institutional purpose, such as promoting safety, developing a company identity, or projecting a professional, positive public image. (2) Prohibited standards. Covered entities cannot require an individual to dress or groom in a manner that is not consistent with that individual ' s gender expression or gender identity. NEW SECTION WAC 162-32-060 Gender-segregated facilities. (1) Facility use. All covered entities shall allow individuals the use of gender-segregated facilities, such as restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and homeless or emergency shelters, that are consistent with that individual' s gender expression or gender identity. In such facilities where undressing in the presence of others occurs, covered entities shall allow access to and use of a facility consistent with that individual ' s gender expression or gender identity. (2) Cannot require use inconsistent with gender expression or gender identity. A covered entity shall not request or require an individual to use a gender-segregated facility that is inconsistent with that individual ' s gender expression or gender identity, or request or require an individual to use a separate or gender-neutral facility. (a) If another person expresses concern or discomfort about a person who uses a facility that is consistent with the person' s gender expression or gender identity, the person expressing discomfort should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility, if available. (b) Any action taken against a person who is using a restroom or other gender-segregated facility, such as removing a person, should be taken due to that person' s actions or behavior while in the facility, and must be unrelated to gender expression or gender identity. The same standards of conduct and behavior must be consistently applied to all facility users, regardless of gender expression or gender identity. http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 12 of 15 (4) Provision of options encouraged. Whenever feasible, covered entities are encouraged to provide options for privacy, such as single-use gender-neutral bathrooms or private changing areas, that are available to any individual desiring privacy. Reviser' s note: The typographical error in the above section occurred in the copy filed by the agency and appears in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34 . 08 . 040. AMENDATORY SECTION (Amending WSR 98-08-035, filed 3/23/98, effective 4/23/98) WAC 162-36-005 Discrimination. (1) It is an unfair practice for any person, whether acting for himself, herself, or another, because of sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, families with children status, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person: (a) To refuse to engage in a real estate transaction with a person; (b) To discriminate against a person in the terms, conditions, or privileges or a real estate transaction or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith; (c) To refuse to receive or to fail to transmit a bona fide offer to engage in a real estate transaction from a person; (d) To refuse to negotiate for a real estate transaction with a person; (e) To represent to a person that real property is not available for inspection, sale, rental, or lease when in fact it is so available, or to fail to bring a property listing to his or her attention, or to refuse to permit the person to inspect real property; (f) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling, to any person; or to a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is sold, rented, or made available; or to any person associated with the person buying or renting; (g) To make, print, publish, circulate, post, mail, or cause to be so made or published a statement, advertisement, or sign, or to use a form of application for a real estate transaction, or to make a record or inquiry in connection with a prospective real estate transaction, which indicates, directly or indirectly, an intent to make a limitation, specification, or discrimination with respect thereto; (h) To offer, solicit, accept, use, or retain listing of real property with the understanding that a person may be discriminated against in a real estate transaction or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith; http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 13 of 15 (i) To expel a person from occupancy of real property; (j ) To discriminate in the course of negotiating, executing, or financing a real estate transaction whether by mortgage, deed of trust, contract, or other instrument imposing a lien or other security in real property, or in negotiating or executing any item or service related thereto including issuance of title insurance, mortgage insurance, loan guarantee, or other aspect of the transaction. Nothing in this section shall limit the effect of RCW 49 . 60. 176 relating to unfair practices in credit transactions; (k) To attempt to do any of the unfair practices defined in this chapter or chapter 49. 60 RCW. (2) It is an unfair practice for any person, for profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any real property by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, national origin, families with children status, or with any sensory, mental or physical disability and/or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person. (3) It is an unfair practice to insert in a written instrument relating to real property a provision that is void under RCW 49. 60. 224 (1) or to honor or attempt to honor such a provision in the chain of title. (4) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a person engaged in the business of furnishing appraisals of real property to take into consideration factors other than race, color, creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, disability, the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person, or families with children status. (5) Nothing in this chapter limits the applicability of any reasonable federal, state or local restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling. (6) Nothing in this chapter prohibiting discrimination based on families with children status applies to housing for older persons as defined by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U. S.C. ( (scc) ) Sec. 3607 (b) (1) through (3) , as amended by the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995, P.L. 104-76, as enacted on December 28, 1995. AMENDATORY SECTION (Amending WSR 98-08-035, filed 3/23/98, effective 4/23/98) WAC 162-36-010 Soliciting buyers from neighbors of listed house. Some real estate firms have a practice of sending letters, post cards or printed circulars to residents of a neighborhood where they have a home listed for sale in order to obtain referrals of prospective buyers of the home. Such a practice does not necessarily http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 14 of 15 discriminate against persons on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, marital status, families with children status, the presence of a sensory, mental or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person. However, the practice can have a discriminatory effect, and thereby constitute an unfair practice in a real estate transaction within the meaning of this chapter, where: (1) It is used only in neighborhoods occupied entirely or predominantly by persons of a single race, creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, marital status, families with children status, have the presence of a sensory, mental or physical disability, or who use a trained dog guide or service animal as a disabled person, or (2) Persons of a particular race, creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, marital status, families with children status, have the presence of a sensory, mental or physical disability, or use a trained dog guide or service animal as a disabled person living in the same neighborhood are not sent solicitations, or (3) The content or language of the solicitation invites, promotes or perpetuates residential segregation or discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, marital status, families with children status, the presence of a sensory, mental or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person. AMENDATORY SECTION (Amending WSR 98-08-035, filed 3/23/98, effective 4/23/98) WAC 162-36-020 Content and language of solicitation. Residential segregation on the basis of race, creed, national origin or other ethnic classification is rooted in the history of this country and fixed in the patterns of thought of many people. The content and language of a solicitation of names of prospective purchasers directed to neighbors of a house listed for sale, must be examined in this context in assessing whether the solicitation constitutes an unfair practice within the meaning of RCW 49. 60 . 222 and WAC 162-36-010. A solicitation which indicates that the recipient of the solicitation can control the type of persons who will move into the neighborhood by referring appropriate prospective buyers, is likely to be understood as an invitation to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, marital status, families with children status, the presence of a sensory, mental or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person. Phrases such as "uphold the standards http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 Page 15 of 15 of the community" (when the "standards" are unspecified) are likely to be understood the same way. Accordingly, it is an unfair practice under RCW 49. 60 . 222 and WAC 162-36-010 for the content or language of a neighborhood solicitation to: (1) Suggest in any way that the solicitor, buyer or seller has the power to control the type or character of the person or persons to whom the property involved may be sold; (2) Invite or provoke discriminatory feelings, actions, or responses from the person or persons being solicited; (3) Make reference to an assumed standard of the community which the solicitor, buyer or seller must or will uphold, unless the particular community standard is identified specifically, and the standard does not have the effect of excluding persons of a particular race, creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, marital status, families with children status, the presence of a sensory, mental or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person. http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/01/15-24-071.htm 1/15/2016 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of January 21,2016; 8:30 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 February 2,2016,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Jan 25] 1. Gender Segregation Facilities- Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 2. Amended 2016 TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 3. Sidewalks and Development—John Hohman (25 minutes) 4. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 5. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 75 minutes] February 9,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 1] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Amended 2016 TIP—Steve Worley (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 16-001 Vacating 3rd Avenue—Karen Kendall (10 minutes) 4. Second Reading Ordinance 16-002 Mining Moratorium Findings of Fact—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 5. Second Reading Ordinance 16-003 Extending Mining Moratorium—Erik Lamb (10 minutes) 6. Proposed Resolution Amending 2016 TIP—Steve Worley (5 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] February 16,2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 8] 1. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda -Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) February 23,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 15] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee —Mayor Higgins (10 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 20 minutes] March 1,2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 22] 1. Law&Justice Commission Update—Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 2. Accomplishments Report—Mike Jackson (45 minutes) 3. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 4. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 80 minutes] March 8,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Feb 29] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) March 15,2016,Workshop, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (no evening mtg) Council Chambers [due Mon,Mar 7] March 22,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Mar 14] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Solid Waste Collection—Eric Guth,Morgan Koudelka,Erik Lamb (25 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 40 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 1/21/2016 10:49:20 AM Page 1 of 2 March 29,2015, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Mar 21] 1. Port District Update—John Hohman (10 minutes) 2. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) April 5,2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Mar 28] 1. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) April 12,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 4] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) April 19,2016,Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 11] 1. City Hall Council Chambers 2. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins April 26,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 18] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports May 3,2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,Apr 25] 1. City Hall Update—John Hohman (15 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) May 10,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 2] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) May 17,2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 9] 1. City Hall Council Chambers 2. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins May 24,2016,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 16] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Department Reports May 31,2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon,May 23 1. City Hall Council Chambers 2. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Avista Electrical Franchise Pavement Preservation AWC Conference (June 21-24) SRTMC Agreement(June/July 2016) Blake Street Sidewalk(CDBG) TIP 2017-2022 (May/June) Emergency Preparedness Uncovered/unsecured loads Ord 15-023 Marijuana Ext/Renew(expires 6/9/16) SCRAPS Update Sidewalks/Snow Removal Draft Advance Agenda 1/21/2016 10:49:20 AM Page 2 of 2 City of Spokane Valley S"'`okane P Valley Community Development ...•0 Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Page Title 1 Cover Sheet 2 Pre-Application Meetings Requested 3 Online Applications Received 4 Construction Applications Received 5 Land Use Applications Received 6 Construction Permits Issued 7 Land Use Applications Approved 8 Development Inspections Performed 9 Code Enforcement 10 Revenue 11 Building Permit Valuations Printed 01/04/2016 07:00 Page 1 of 11 Community Development `o S`" kane ple Monthly Report 4.00 Val y 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Pre-Application Meetings Requested A Pre-Application Meeting is a service provided to help our customers identify the code requirements related to their project proposal. Community Development scheduled a total of 14 Pre-Application Meetings in December 2015. 15 1illiIIII! Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre-Application Commercial Pre-App Meeting Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial Pre-App 6 10 12 4 7 12 8 9 4 5 4 7 Land Use Pre-Application Meeting 4 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 7 Monthly Totals 10 11 14 9 8 13 9 10 5 10 7 14 Annual Total To-Date: 120 Printed 01/04/2016 07:00 Page 2 of 11 Community Development SInOliane pl@ Monthly Report y 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Online Applications Received Community Development received a total of 124 Online Applications in December 2015. 600 al 400 m 200 f r iiirr f , Ilia 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Trade Permit Right of Way Permit Pre-Application Meeting Request Demolition Permit ,;I Sign Permit Reroof Permit Other Online Applications = Approach Permit J Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Approach Permit 7 8 7 14 19 7 13 10 15 12 2 0 Demolition Permit 1 4 6 3 2 6 5 6 1 3 5 2 Other Online Applications 124 110 216 170 168 147 181 178 200 165 68 0 Pre-Application Meeting Request 24 20 16 15 17 23 13 26 9 15 12 0 Reroof Permit 13 14 39 69 31 39 33 41 37 30 15 18 Right of Way Permit 42 54 45 81 79 107 86 68 56 72 35 26 Sign Permit 11 5 4 10 13 15 3 15 12 17 3 3 Trade Permit 98 75 109 100 153 167 174 171 152 168 98 75 Monthly Totals 320 290 442 462 482 511 508 515 482 482 238 124 Annual Total To-Date: 4,856 Printed 01/04/2016 07:00 Page 3 of 11 Community Development Spokan ems``` 4000 Valley Monthly Report 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Construction Applications Received Community Development received a total of 303 Construction Applications in December 2015. 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial -New L.4 Commercial -TI Residential-New ® Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New *3 3 *51 2 *3 *2 *18 *8 *4 *7 *5 5 Commercial-TI *14 *11 *24 *14 *12 *7 *11 *17 *8 *8 *9 8 Residential-New *8 *10 *22 *16 *18 *13 *16 *21 *19 *23 *14 9 Commercial-Trade *23 *21 *26 *18 *30 *32 *31 *31 *29 *31 *15 *27 Residential-Trade *86 *83 *144 *119 *122 *132 *143 *138 *121 *130 *117 *119 Residential-Accessory *10 *5 *14 *7 *13 *19 *20 *11 *16 *16 *10 4 Demolition *1 *4 *7 *4 *2 *6 *5 *6 *1 *3 *6 *4 Sign *11 *9 *11 *13 *13 *15 *3 *15 *12 *17 *4 *10 Other Construction Permits *97 *130 *168 *266 *196 *200 *187 *169 *182 *173 *113 *117 Monthly Totals 253 276 467 459 409 426 434 416 392 408 293 303 Annual Total To-Date: 4,536 *Includes Online Applications. Printed 01/04/2016 07:01 Page 4 of 11 Community Development S`"`okane pie Monthly Report y 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Land Use Applications Received Community Development received a total of 45 Land Use Applications in December 2015. 100 50 1 111 MI, 0 t '11111111111111111'1i.H Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec i.zAii Boundary Line Adjustment = Binding Site Plan Preliminary State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting Act(SEPA) Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation = Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment *1 *5 *3 *7 *2 *1 *4 0 *3 *1 *3 3 Short Plat Preliminary 0 0 *2 *1 *3 *3 0 *3 0 0 0 3 Long Plat Preliminary 0 0 0 0 0 0 *1 0 0 0 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 0 0 *1 0 0 0 0 *1 0 0 0 1 Final Platting *1 0 *1 *2 *1 *2 0 *3 *4 *1 *1 3 Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment 0 0 0 *1 0 0 0 *1 0 *1 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) *1 *2 *1 0 *1 0 *2 0 0 0 1 1 Administrative *1 0 *2 *1 0 *2 *1 *1 *2 *1 0 2 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits *50 *51 *80 *48 *35 *39 *41 *53 *55 *42 *38 32 Monthly Totals 54 58 90 60 42 47 49 62 64 46 43 45 ,u Annual Total To-Date: 660 *Includes Online Applications. Printed 01/04/2016 07:01 Page 5 of 11 Community Development S`"`okane pane Monthly Report .0,00 Val y 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Construction Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 288 Construction Permits in December 2015. 600 400 t . 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial -New Commercial -TI Residential-New ® Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial-New 2 3 22 33 2 1 4 4 1 13 4 3 Commercial-TI 12 12 23 14 9 10 11 18 12 7 11 8 Residential-New 6 14 13 22 11 21 10 16 15 26 15 12 Commercial-Trade 24 20 23 19 26 32 27 35 27 29 15 29 Residential-Trade 80 92 120 133 107 138 131 114 112 147 111 120 Residential-Accessory 10 5 14 6 12 18 19 10 12 18 9 3 Demolition 0 4 7 4 2 5 6 6 1 3 6 3 Sign 11 9 11 11 13 13 6 14 10 11 7 8 Other Construction Permits 68 99 127 159 194 161 148 149 129 131 88 102 Monthly Totals 213 258 360 401 376 399 362 366 319 385 266 288 Annual Total To-Date: 3,993 Printed 01/04/2016 07:02 Page 6 of 11 Community Development S`"`okane pane Monthly Report y 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Land Use Applications Approved Community Development approved a total of 44 Land Use Applications in December 2015. 60 .011t 111 11- moo 40 It 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec . Boundary Line Adjustment ' Binding Site Plan Preliminary State Environmental Policy Short Plat Preliminary Final Platting ' Act(SEPA) ;..p.i Long Plat Preliminary Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment Administrative Exception/Interpretation = Other Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment 1 0 1 1 2 3 1 1 0 2 0 8 Short Plat Preliminary 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 Long Plat Preliminary 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Binding Site Plan Preliminary 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Final Platting 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Administrative 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits 39 52 51 41 39 32 38 50 55 42 38 33 Monthly Totals 44 52 56 44 42 38 41 55 57 48 40 44 Annual Total To-Date: 561 Printed 01/04/2016 07:02 Page 7 of 11 Community Development pokane p Valley Monthly Report .000.1c01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Development Inspections Performed Community Development performed a total of 776 Development Inspections in December 2015. Development Inspections include building, planning, engineering and ROW inspections. 2,000 1,500 1,000 Sao 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec — 2013 2014 2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2015 801 975 1,063 1,242 1,421 1,757 1,625 1,146 1,050 1,059 933 776 W 13,848 2014 601 633 996 1,281 1,321 1,295 1,413 1,225 1,310 1,481 973 1,027 r 13,556 2013 465 502 808 1,026 1,060 1,015 1,084 1,078 1,186 1,016 833 673 10,71 e Printed 01/04/2016 07:02 Page 8 of 11 Community Development Sp`o"' kane l@ Monthly Report y 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Code Enforcement Code Enforcement Officers responded to 17 citizen requests in the month of December. They are listed by type below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. 80 60 40 it 20 I . lw tw ilit ; 1 4 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Complaint, Non-Violation Environmental f General Nuisance = Property Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Complaint,Non-Violation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 Nuisance 10 18 26 22 23 32 17 43 18 7 17 13 Property 10 7 5 12 11 23 12 18 10 1 11 4 Monthly Totals 23 26 32 35 36 57 30 62 29 8 28 17 Annual Total To-Date: 383 Printed 01/04/2016 07:02 Page 9 of 11 Community Development Si okane � p ValleMonthly Report 4•0010y 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Revenue Community Development Revenue totaled $102,195 in December 2015. 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 2014 Five-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2015 $74,775 $108,328 $161,174 $187,199 $123,918 $117,453 $162,551 $162,864 $99,587 $181,791 $99,627 $102,195 N1,581,462 Trend $79,763 $67,972 $133,730 $131,195 $224,961 $199,161 $138,904 $100,987 $134,164 $109,327 $91,979 $67,777 $1,479,920 2014 $74,628 $66,134 $198,571 $160,508 $282,086 $152,637 $117,776 $127,540 $153,838 $149,197 $84,442 $97,689 $1,665,046 2013 $158,912 $51,536 $102,538 $106,496 $184,176 $409,592 $277,553 $102,021 $129,174 $133,561 $98,386 $66,559 $1,820,504 2012 $34,204 $60,319 $177,737 $173,932 $268,672 $223,888 $123,137 $103,703 $113,731 $112,542 $108,948 $51,745 $1,552,558 2011 $43,842 $77,247 $80,774 $118,237 $84,684 $106,909 $88,247 $83,949 $167,076 $78,237 $95,172 $58,881 11,083,255 2010 $87,229 $84,626 $109,029 $96,800 $305,185 $102,781 $87,805 $87,724 $107,002 $73,100 $72,948 $64,009 t1,278,238 Printed 01/04/2016 07:03 Page 10 of 11 Community Development H S`"'`0 C pl@ Monthly Report 4000 Val y 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015 Building Permit Valuation Community Development Building Permit Valuation totaled $5,070,607 in December 2015. 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 /1\ 10,000,000 5,000,000 a Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec �- 2015 2014 Five-Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 2015 $2.93M $10.71M $8.07M $18.60M $6.73M $7.53M $5.05M $8.06M $5.15M $14.42M $5.86M $5.07M $98.18M Trend $7.58M $3.92M $6.13M $6.87M $23.25M $18.45M $11.28M $6.65M $10.77M $7.64M $4.10M $2.93M '' 109.56M 2014 $3.18M $2.45M $9.90M $8.92M $34.58M $7.44M $6.37M $9.47M $12.01M $7.74M $3.60M $6.30M 111.96M 2013 $25.49M $1.92M $3.59M $7.30M $22.22M $41.88M $32.91M $6.52M $8.11M $14.22M $7.25M $2.54M 173.95M 2012 $0.72M $2.95M $5.29M $5.32M $24.39M $33.08M $7.91M $9.89M $6.47M $8.78M $3.76M $1.66M ,@ M 2011 $1.46M $5.95M $5.03M $6.15M $2.53M $4.98M $3.83M $3.45M $21.54M $4.46M $3.97M $1.85Me M1 2010 $7.06M $6.34M $6.82M $6.64M $32.55M $4.86M $5.36M $3.91M $5.71M $3.01M $1.93M $2.29M 'Mi Printed 01/04/2016 07:03 Page 11 of 11 SPcinorkane 480000 Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valtey WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 i cityhal(Cspokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager r� From: Chelsie Taylor;Finance Director Date: January 20, 2016 Re Finance Department Activity Report— December 2015 Following is information pertaining to Finance Department activities through the end of December 2015 and included herein is a 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end of December. 2015 Yearend Process Although December has come and gone we anticipate we will receive a significant number of invoices in January and February from vendors who delivered goods and services during the latter part of 2015. Consequently the expenditure figures reported herein will likely change materially in subsequent updates. By the same token the revenues figures reported at this point will also change materially as we await State distributions of shared revenues in January and February that date back to 2015. With that said we are in the preliminary phases of closing the 2015 books and hope to have this process complete by the end of March. Following the closing of the books we will begin the process of preparing our annual financial report which will be finished by the end of May. We hope to have the State Auditor's Office on site by early June to begin the audit of 2015. Lodging Tax The schedule leading to awarding funds is as follows: • September 2 - Letters mailed to agencies that have historically received funding, media release to City website and notice to newspapers. • October 2 - Grant applications due at City Hall. • October 13 - Grant applicant presentations to lodging tax advisory committee. • November 10 - Admin report to Council on results of lodging tax advisory committee meeting. • December 8 - City Council motion consideration: Award lodging tax for 2016. Fee Resolution As a part of preparing the annual budget, City Departments are asked to review the Master Fee Schedule that is currently in place and determine whether changes in fees charged and/or language used in the governing resolution should be altered. This leads to an annual update to the fee resolution that sets fees for the following year. The calendar leading to the adoption of the resolution setting 2016 fees is as follows: • December 1 —Admin report on proposed changes to the fee resolution. • December 29 —Council adoption of the fee resolution P:lFinancelFinance Activity Reports1Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.docx Page 1 Budget to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2015 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2015 Budget was adopted is located on pages 5 through 18. Because we attempt to provide this information in a timely manner this report is prepared from records that are not formally closed by the Finance Department at month end or reconciled to bank records. As I indicated earlier in this report, I anticipate updates to revenues and expenditures in all funds prior to the time the 2015 books are finally closed. We've included the following information in the report: • Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. • A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund. a The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that were reflected in our 2014 Annual Financial Report. • Columns of information include: o The amended 2015 Budget as adopted. o December 2015 activity. o Cumulative 2015 activity through December 2015. o Budget remaining in terms of dollars. o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed. A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 5):. Recurring revenues collections are currently at 96.94% of the amount budgeted with 100.00% of the year elapsed. This is typical and reflective of the nature of the timing of when revenues are collected. • Property tax are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on.April 30 and October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser amounts typically remitted in June and December. Property taxes received thus far in 2015 are $11,280,147 or 100.03% of the amount budgeted. In January we receive one final payment related to 2015 collections. • Sales tax collections represent only 11-months of collections thus far because taxes collected in December are not remitted to the City by the State until the latter part of January. Collections are currently $16,767,664 or 95.12% of the amount budgeted. • Gambling taxes are at $334,769 or 75.08% of the amount budgeted. Gambling taxes are paid quarterly with fourth quarter payments due by January 31. Effective July 1, 2015, the gambling tax rate on card games was reduced from 10% to 6%. • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. So far in 2015 we have received $923,914 or 80.62% of the amount budgeted. Fourth quarter franchise fees will be received in January at which point I anticipate actual revenues will approximate the budget estimate. • State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a calendar quarter. Through December we've received remittances totaling $1,840,269 or 104.03% of the amount budgeted. We will receive an additional payment related to the fourth quarter of 2015 in January. The balance is in excess of the budgeted amount primarily due to shared liquor revenues that were restored during the 2015 State Legislative session as well as shared marijuana taxes. P:FinancelFinance Activity Reports1Councit Monfhty Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.docx Page 2 • Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine and false alarm fees. Through December 2015 we've received remittances through the month of November with receipts of$1,341,643 or 89.02% of the amount budgeted. December remittances should bring actual collections to approximately the amount budgeted. • Community Development service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. Revenues are currently $1,467,955 or 110.78% of the amount budgeted. • Recreation program fees are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in-season), and CenterPlace. Currently, revenues total $659,156 or 116.98% of the amount budgeted. Recurring expenditures are currently at 94.31% of the amount budgeted with 100.00% of the year elapsed. Once ail invoices related to 2015 activity are received and booked I anticipate a higher percentage of the budget will be consumed. Investments (page 19) Investments at December 31 total $48,512,577 and are composed of$43,506,574 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,006,003 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 20) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through November and total $18,947,871 including general, criminal justice and public safety taxes. This figure is $805,935 or 4.44% greater than the same 11-month period in 2014. Economic Indicators (pages 21 —23) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 21) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 23) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 21 provides a 10-year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2006. • Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $711,177 or 4.43%. • Tax receipts peaked in 2014 at $17,440,083, besting the previous record year of 2007 when $17,437,467 was collected. In terms of dollars collected this represents an increase of $2,616, but when one considers the increase in the CPI over that seven-year period plus the fact that Spokane Valley now has considerably more businesses, one could reasonably argue that our local economy is still in a recovery mode. • Collection in 2015 will exceed those of 2014. Page 22 provides a 10-year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2006. • Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $23,716 or 4.60%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2014, exceeding the previous high in 2013 by $30,595 or 5.90%. • Collections in 2015 will exceed those of 2014. P.lFinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.docx Page 3 Page 23 provides a 10-year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2006. • Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $523,911 or 36.14%. This increase is unusually high due to a state remittance of real estate excise tax of greater than $100,000 that is included in the April 2015 activity and an unusually high amount received in June 2015 (nearly $350,000 as compared to under $150,000 in the several years prior for that month). • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at nearly $2.6 million, decreased precipitously in 2008 and 2009, and are slowly gaining ground. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 24) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value for property taxes which for 2015 is $7,393,971,582. Following the December 1, 2015, debt service payment the City has $6,375,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 5.75% of our nonvoted bond capacity, ar.d 1.15% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. Of this amount: o $5,250,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. a $1,125,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace, The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 25 and 26) The last two charts reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101. These include: • Page 25 provides a 10-year history of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2006. o Compared with calendar year 2014, 2015 collections have increased by $53,278 or 3.07%. The increase is due primarily to increased motor vehicle fuel taxes that were approved by the State Legislature in 2015 and were effective beginning in August 2015. o Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at just approximately $2.1 million, and subsequently decreased to a range of approximately $1,857,000 to $1,878,000 in the years 2011 through 2014, • Page 26 provides a 6-year history of Telephone Utility Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2009 (the month in which the tax was imposed). o Compared with 2014, 2015 collections have decreased $185,272 or 8.20%. Unlike tax revenues collected by the State and remitted monthly, these taxes are paid to the City directly by the service provider. Consequently there is not a "clean cutoff' in terms of when a vendor pays the tax. Tax revenues currently reported for November include only those that were received through December 31 for November returns. o Tax receipts peaked in 2009 at $3,054,473 and have decreased each year since due to what we suspect is the reduction in land lines by individual households. o The 2016 Budget was adopted with a revenue estimate of $2,340,000. We will watch this closely as we progress through the coming months. P1FinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncii Monthly Reportsl201512015 12 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.docx Page 4 P:1Finance\Finance Activity Reports'Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget #001 -GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 11,277,100 760,029 11,280,147 3,047 100.03% Sales Tax 17,628,400 1,487,624 16,767,664 (860,736) 95.12% Sales Tax-Criminal Justice 1,468,700 126,458 1,400,482 (68,218) 95.36% Sales Tax-Public Safety 820,100 69,843 779,725 (40,375) 95.08% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 445,900 3,129 334,769 (111,131) 75,08% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,146,000 11,447 923,914 (222,086) 80.62% State Sharec Revenues 1,768,900 366,854 1,840,269 71,369 104.03% Fines,Forfeitures and Penalties 1,507,100 177,221 1,341,643 (165,457) 89.02% Community Development 1,325,100 96,754 1,467,955 142,855 110.78% Recreation Program Fees 563,500 41,670 659,156 95,656 116.98% Miscellaneous Depailenent Revenue 95,900 5,173 112,232 15,332 117.03% Miscellaneous& Investment Interest 131,200 15,148 131,028 (172) 99.87% Transfer-in -#101 (street admin) 39,700 3,308 39,700 (0) 100.00% Transfer-in -#105(him tax-CP advertising) 30,000 0 0 (30,000) 0.00% Transfer-in -#402(storm admin) 13,400 1,117 13,400 0 100.00% Total Recurring Revenues 38,261,000 3,165,774 37,092,084 (1,168,916) 96.94% Expenditures City Council 513,114 28,830 367,221 145,893 71.57% City Manager 688,363 67,390 664,755 23,608 96.57% Legal 461,839 44,607 458,650 3,189 99.31% Public Safety 24,153,492 2,263,720 23,270,249 883,243 96.34% Deputy City Manager 691,303 74,682 673,513 17,790 97.43% Finance 1IT 1,203,879 91,837 1,062,292 141,587 88.24% Human Resources 243,317 20,304 235,515 7,802 96.79% Public Works 921,914 64,092 738,294 183,620 80.08% Community Development-Administration 261,094 20,090 250,497 10,597 95.94% Community Development-Econ Dev 298,276 24,081 238,902 59,374 80.09% Community Development-Dev Svc 1,424,944 130,925 1,380,258 44,686 96.86% Community Development-Building 1,380,902 102,590 1,192,110 188,792 86.33% Parks&Rec-Administration 271,372 19,929 261,160 10,212 96.24% Parks&Rec-Maintenance 844,642 68,719 771,920 72,723 91.39% Parks&Rec-Recreation 226,174 17,777 236,781 (10,607) 104.69% Parks&Rec-Aquatics 496,200 4,115 487,620 8,580 98.27% Parks&Rec-Senior Center 91,985 7,606 85,210 6,775 92.63% Parks&Rec-CenterPlace 824,997 76,918 801,683 23,314 97.17% Pavement Preservation 920,000 76,667 920,000 (0) 100.00% General Government 1,710,200 255,372 1,360,053 350,147 79.53% Transfers out-#502(insurance premium) 325,000 27,083 325,000 0 100.00% Transfers out-#310(bond pmt>$434.6 lease pr 67,600 5,633 67,600 0 100.00% Transfers out-#310(city hall o&m costs) 271,700 22,642 271,700 0 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 38,292,307 3,515,607 36,120,984 2,171.323 94.33% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures (31,307) (349,833) 971,100 1,002,407 Page 5 P:FinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports120151201512 31-2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget #001 -GENERAL FUND-continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Transfers in-#106(Repymt of Solid Waste) 40,425 0 40,425 0 100.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 40,425 0 40,425 0 100.00% Expenditures Transfers out-#309(park grant match) 115,575 8,333 115,575 0 100.00% Transfers out-#107(move PEG cash) 267,300 0 267,333 (33) 100.01% General Government-IT capital replacements 120,000 0 89,112 30,888 74.26% General Government City Hall Remodel 23,300 0 12,842 10,458 55.11% City Manager(2 scanners) 3,000 0 3,000 0 100.00% Public Safety(const offices for unit supervisors) 25,000 0 0 25,000 0.00% Community&Econ Dev(comp plan update) 250,000 5,413 210,175 30,825 84.07% Parks&Ree(upgrade dial-up modem at pools) 10,000 0 1,955 5,045 19.55% Parks&Rec(replace CP lounge carpet) 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 100.00% Parks&Rec(CenterPlace 10yr anniversary) 7,400 0 7,938 (538) 107.28% Parks&Rec(CenterPlace Roof Repairs) 36,000 2,512 13,883 22,117 38.56% Police Department-CAD/RMS 309,700 0 210,343 99,357 67.92% Police Department-(gate motor replace) 4,300 0 4,253 47 98.90% Police Department-(radar recorder) 4,600 0 4,600 0 100.00% Transfers out-#312('13 fund bat>50%) 1,783,512 0 1,783,512 0 100.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 2,967,687 24,258 2,732,521 235,166 92.08% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (2,927,262) (24,258) (2,692,096) 235,166 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (2,958,569) (374,092) (1,720,996) 1,237,573 Beginning fund balance 24,573,898 24,573,898 Ending fund balance 21,615,329 22,852,902 Page 6 P:\FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget.Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS I #101-STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 1,859,900 181,007 1,782,935 (76,965) 95.86% Investment Interest 3,000 295 2,765 (235) 92.16% Insurance Premiums&Recoveries 0 0 4,319 4,319 0.00% Utility Tax 2,565,100 175,235 2,073,712 (491,388) 80.84% Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 0 9.647 (353) 96.47% Total Recurring Revenues 4,438,000 356,538 3,873.377 (564,623) 87.28% Expenditures Wages 1 Benefits f Payroll Taxes 677,297 94,230 739,186 (61,889) 109.14% Supplies 111,500 6,463 116,911 (7.411) 106,65% Services&Charges 2,122,808 259,024 2,035,244 87,564 95.88% Snow Operations 520.000 164,138 409,654 110,346 78.78% Intergovernmental Payments 748,000 110,147 711,718 36,282 95.15% Interfund Transfers-out-#001 39,700 3,30.3 39,700 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#501 (non-plow vehicle 12,077 1,006 12,077 (0) 100.00% lnterfund Transfers-out-#311 (pavement present 206,618 17,218 2.06,618 (0) 100.00% Interfund Transfers-out-#502(unemployment) 0 0 38 (38) 0,00% Total Recurring Expenditures 4,438.000 655,53.4 4,273,146 164,854 96.29% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 0 (298,996) (399,769) (399,769) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants 0 0 0 0 0.00% Miscellaneous 0 11,200 11,200 11,200 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 11,200 11,200 11,200 0.00% Expenditures Capital 45,000 19,823 110,394 (6F,394) 245.32% Pavement marking grinder 8,000 0 6,019 1,981 75.23% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 53,000 19,828 116.412 (63,412) 219,65% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (53,000) (8.628) (105212) (52,212) Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (53,000) (307,624) (504,982) (451,982) Beginning fund balance 1,705,244 1,705,244 Ending fund balance 1,652,244 1,200,262 Page 7 P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #103-PATHS&TRAILS Revenues Motor Vehicle Fuel(Gas)Tax 7.800 763 7,520 (280) 96.41% Investment interest 0 7 51 51 0.00% Total revenues 7,800 770 7,571 (229) 97.07% Expenditures Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.00% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 7,800 770 7,571 (229) Beginning fund balance 29,828 29,828 Ending fund balance 37,628 37,399 #104-TOURISM FACILITIES HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel Tax 178,700 27,545 155.254 (23,446) 86.88% Investment Interest 0 30 65 65 0.00% Total revenues 178,700 27.575 155,319 (23,381) 86.92% Expenditures Capital Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 178,700 27,575 155.319 (23,381) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 178,700 155,319 #105-HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues HotellMotel Tax 550.000 42,376 539,727 (10,273) 98.13% Investment Interest 300 50 408 108 136.13% Total revenues 550,300 42,426 540,136 (10,164) 98.15% Expenditures Interfund Transfers-#001 30,000 0 0 30,000 0.00% Interfund Transfers-#309(Volleyball Cts) 68,000 0 68,000 0 100.00% Tourism Promotion 502,000 91,551 435,276 66,724 86.71% Total expenditures 600.000 91,551 503,276 96,724 83.88% Revenues over(under)expenditures (49,700) (49,125) 36,860 (106,888) Beginning fund balance 209,949 209,949 - Ending fund balance 160,249 246,809 Page 8 P:',Finance\Finance Activity Reports1Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #106-SOLID WASTE Revenues Sunshine Administrative Fee 125,000 0 93,750 31,250 75.00% Grant Proceeds 26,800 0 0 26,800 0.00% Total revenues 151,800 C. 93,750 58,050 61.76% Expenditures Interfund Transfers-#001 40,425 0 40,425 0 100.00% Supplies 0 0 153 (153) 0.00% Services&Charges 111,375 C. 30,377 80,998 27.27% Waste to Resources Activities 0 8,175 17,762 (17,762) 0.00% Total expenditures 151,800 8,175 88,717 63,083 58.44% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 (8,175) 5,033 (0,033) Beginning fund balance 7,339 7,339 Ending fund balance 7,339 12,372. #107-PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG Contribution 92,000 C 61,931 30,069 67.32% Transfers in-#001 267,300 C 267,333 (33) 100.01% Total revenues 359,300 C 329,264 30,036 91.64% Expenditures PEG Reimburse-CMTV 12,000 0 0 12,000 0.00% PEG COSV Broadcast 68,400 5,138 47,651 20,749 69.67% Total expenditures 80,400 5,138 47,651 32,749 59.27% Revenues over(under)expenditures 278,900 (5.138) 281,612 (2,712) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 278,900 281,612 #120-CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 C 0 0 0.00% Interfund Transfer 0 C 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 0 C 0 0 0.00% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 0 0 0 Beginning fund balance 300,000 300,000 Ending fund balance 300,000 300,000 Page 9 P;1FinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining _ Budget. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS-continued #121 -SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 8,200 1.012 7,060 (1,140) 86.09% Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 8,200 1,012 7,060 (1,140) 86.09% Expenditures Operations 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures 8,200 1,012 7,060 (1,140) Beginning fund balance 5,453,199 5,453,199 Ending fund balance 5,461,399 5,460,259 #122-WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest 800 98 685 (115) 85.59% Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0.00% Subtotal revenues 800 98 685 (115) 85.59% Expenditures Snow removal expenses 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Total expenditures 500,000 0 0 500,000 0.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (499,200) 98 685 (500,115) Beginning fund balance 504,020 504,020 Ending fund balance 4,820 504,705 #123-CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,300 108 1,160 (140) 89.20% Interfund Transfer-#001 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 1,300 108 1,160 (140) 89.20% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers out-#311 (pavement preserva[ron) 516,284 51,357 616,284 0 100.00% Total expenditures 616,284 51,357 616,284 0 100.00% Revenues over(under)expenditures (614,984) (51,249) (615,124) (140) Beginning fund balance 1,174,070 1,174,070 Ending fund balance 559,086 558,946 Page 10 P:1Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204•DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 373,800 274,400 373,800 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer-in-#301 82,150 6,846 82,150 0 100.00% Inlerfund Transfer-in-#302 82,150 6,846 82,150 0 100.00% Total revenues 538,100 288,092 538,100 0 100.00% Expenditures Debt Service Payments-CenterPlace 373,800 0 335,778 38,022 89.83% Debt Service Payments-Roads 164,300 0 150,003 14,297 91.30% Total expenditures 538,100 0 485,781 52,319 90.28% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 288,092 52,319 (52,319) Beginning fund balance 4,049 4,049 Ending fund balance 4,049 56,358 Page 11 P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reparts\Council Monthly Reports201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= - 1o0.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #301 -CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 800,000 142,261 1,136,574 336,574 142.07% Investment Interest 1,000 200 1,351 351 135.07% Total revenues 801,000 142,462 1,137,924 336,924 142.06% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#204 82,150 6,846 82,150 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer-out-#303 569,413 0 554.916 14,497 97.45% Interfund Transfer-out-#311 (pavement presen, 251,049 0 251,049 0 100.00% Total expenditures 902,612 6,846 888,115 14,497 98.39% Revenues over(under)expenditures (101,612) 135,616 249,810 322,427 Beginning fund balance 1,426,957 1,426,957 Ending fund balance 1,325,345 1,676,767 #302 SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2-Taxes 800,000 142,203 991,679 191,679 123.96% Investment interest 1,000 196 1,366 366 136.61% Total revenues 801,000 142,399 993,045 192,045 123.98% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#204 82,150 6,846 82,150 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer-out-#303 413,271 0 200,227 213.044 48.45% interfund Transfer-out-#311 (pavement presera 251,049 0 251.049 0 100.00% Total expenditures 746,470 6,846 533,426 213.044 71.46% Revenues over(under)expenditures 54,530 135,553 459,619 (20.999) Beginning fund balance 1,325,144 1,325,144 Ending fund balance 1,379,674 1,784,763 Page 12 P:\FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 10,321,343 0 6,283,782 (4,037,561) 60.88% Developer Contribution 364,378 51,213 352,563 (11,815) 96.76% Miscellaneous 0 0 50 50 0.00% Transfer-in-#301 569,413 0 554,916 (14,497) 97.45% Transfer-in-#302 413,271 0 200.227 (213,044) 48.45% Transfer-in-#312 Sullivan Rd W Bridge 500,000 0 8,222 (491,778) 1.64% Investment Interest 0 4 31 31 0.00% Total revenues 12,168,405 51,218 7,399,791 (4,768,614) 60.81% Expenditures 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06-31 1,214,829 14 1,245,166 (30,337) 102.50% 123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker 252,570 5.209 37,956 214,614 15.03% 141 Sullivan&Euclid PCC 10,000 330 9,848 152 98.48% 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 120,494 922 14,4.64 106,030 12.00% 149 Sidewalk Infill 93,190 0 8,177 85,013 8.77% 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 7.846,931 1,739,430 6,105,493 1,741,438 77.81% 156 Mansfield Ave.Connection 1,172,716 7,986 712,689 460.027 60.77% 159 University Rd/1-90 Overpass Study 40,852 0 2,842 38,010 6.96% 166 Pines Rd.(SR27)&Grace Ave. Int. Safety 101,110 3,991 82,166 18.944 81.26% 167 Citywide Safety Improvements 260,576 106,850 317,653 (57.077) 121.90% 177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 55,556 0 19,332 36,224 34.80% 191 Vista Rd BNSF Xing Safety Improvements 300 0 190 110 63.29% 196 8th Avenue-McKinnon to Fancher 400 0 396 4 99.11% 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE Start 2014) 56.056 30,049 37.884 18,172 67.58% 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements 51,428 6,461 13,132 38.296 25.53% 206 Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project 357.714 3,215 304.933 52,781 85.24% 207 Indiana&Evergreen Transit Access 85.000 173 293 84.707 0.34% 211 Trent Lighting Replacement 96,535 33,752 99,413 (2,878) 102.98% 220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell St Preservation 18,473 0 15,555 2,918 84.21% 221 McDonald Rd Diet(15th to Mision) 56,800 7,229 7.229 49.571 12.73% 222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates 4,500 0 0 4,500 0.00% 223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF&Trent 10,000 0 2,000 8,000 20.00% 224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation 162,375 0 133,069 29,306 81.95% 234 Seth Woodard Sidewalk Improvements 0 1,285 1,285 (1,285) 0.00% xxx N. Sullivan Corridor ITS Project 0 0 0 0 0.00% Contingency 100,000 0 0 100,000 0.00% Total expenditures 12,168,405 1.946,897 9,171,166 2,997,239 75.37% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 (1.895,680) (1,771,376) (7,765,853) Beginning fund balance 72,930 72,930 Ending fund balance 72,930 (1,698,446) Note: Work performed in the Street Capital Projects Fund for preservation projects is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were hid with the pavement preservation work. Page 13 P'1Finance\Finance Activity ReportsCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget % of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #309-PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 90,000 0 453 (89,547) 0.50% Interfund Transfer-in-#001 115,575 8,333 115,575 (0) 100.00% Interfund Transfer-in-#105(Brown Volleyball Cl 68,000 0 68,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer-in#312(Appleway Trail) 554,650 0 0 (554,650) 0.00% Investment Interest 500 96 668 168 133.59% Total reverues 828,725 8,429 184.696 (644,029) 22.29% Expenditures 176 Appleway Trail-University to Pines 540,600 483 524,569 16,031 97.03% 203 Browns Park Volleyball Courts 244,200 0 241,481 2,719 98.89% 208 Old Mission Trailhead Parking Improvements 0 0 68 (68) 0.00% 212 Edgecliff Park Restroom Sewer Project 0 0 (6,923) 6,923 0.00% 217 Edgecliff picnic shelter 106,450 0 104,257 2,194 97.94% 225 Pocket dog park 98,975 100,358 108,436 (9,461) 109.56% 227 Appleway Trail-Pines to Evergree 104,050 919 1,803 102,247 1.73% 231 Mission Traihead landscaping 47,100 41,466 47,066 34 99.93% 232 Shade structure at Discovery Playground 38,000 20,905 20,905 17,095 55.01% xxx City entry sign 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 1,179,375 164,132 1,041,661 137,714 88.32% Revenues over(under)expenditures (350,650) (155,703) (856,965) (781,743) Beginning fund balance 451,720 451,720 Ending fund balance 101,070 (405,245) #310-CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,200 230 1,766 566 147.15% Interfund Transfer-in-#001 339,300 28,275 339,300 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer-in-#312 58,324 0 58,324 0 100.00% Total revenues 398,824 28,505 399,390 566 100.14% Expenditures Capital(City Hall Land Acquisition) 1,128,200 0 1.128,118 82 99.99% Professional Services 12,100 0 8,621 3,480 71.24% Total expenditures 1.140.300 0 1.136.738 3,562 99.69% Revenues over(uncer)expenditures (741,476) 28,505 (737,349) (2,996) Beginning fund balance 1,919,550 1,919,550 Ending fund balance 1,178,074 1,182,201 Note: The fund balance includes$839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does,not succeed in gettir.•g a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this lend at the original sale price of$839,285.10. Page 14 P-\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS-continued #311 -STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 2011+ Revenues Interfund.Transfers in-#101 206,618 17,218 206,618 0 100.00% lnterfund Transfers in-#123 616,284 51.357 616,284 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in-#301 251,049 0 251,049 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in-#302 251.049 0 251,049 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in-#001 920,000 76,667 920.000 0 100.00% Grant Proceeds 971,032 0 871.266 (99,766) 89.73% Investment Interest 0 399 2,786 2,786 0.00% Total revenues 3,216,032 145,641 3,119,052 (96,980) 96.98% Expenditures Pre-Project GeoTech Services 50,000 31,243 31,243 16,757 62.49% Pavement Preservation 2,565,050 0 0 2,565,050 0,00% 179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2 0 0 2,851 (2,851) 0,00% 180 2013 Street Preservation Ph3 0 0 209 (209) 0.00% 186 Adams Road Resurfacing 0 0 388 (388) 0.00% 187 Sprague Ave Preservation Project 0 0 2,915 (2,915) 0.00% 188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 0 466 888,634 (888,634) 0.00% 202 Appleway Street Preservation Project 0 0 226 (226) 0.00% 211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley 0 17,642 451,827 (451,827) 0.00% 218 Montgomery Ave Street Preservation 0 303 308.223 (308,223) 0.00% 220 Hauk-Sinto-Maxwell Street Preservation 0 513 294,057 (294,057) 0.00% 224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation 0 5,140 361.004 (361.004) 0.00% 226 Appleway Resurfacing Park to Dishrnan 0 6,959 6,959 (6,959) 0.00% 229 32nd Ave Preservation 0 11,806 34,660 (34,660) 0.00% 233 Broadway Ave St Presery-Sulliv to Moore 0 2,626 4.051 (4,051) 0.00% Total expenditures 2,615,050 76,698 2,387,247 227,803 91.29% Revenues over(under)expenditures 600,982 68,943 731,805 (324,783) Beginning fund balance 1,922,013 1,922,013 Ending fund balance 2,522,995 2,653,818 #312-CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in-#001 1,783,512 0 1,783.512 0 100.00% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 1,783,512 0 1,783,512 0 100.00% Expenditures Transfers out-#303-Sullivan Rd W Bridge 500,000 0 8,222 491.778 1.64% Transfers out-#309-Appleway Trail 540,600 0 0 540,600 0.00% Transfers oui-#309-Appleway Trail(Pines to 1 14,050 0 0 14,050 0.00% Transfers out-#310-City Hall Land 58,324 0 58,324 0 100.00% Transfers out-#313-City Hall Constr 5,162,764 0 5,162,764 0 100.00% Total expenditures 6,275,738 0 5,229,310 1,046,428 83.33% Revenues over(under)expenditures (4,492,226) 0 (3,445,798) (1,046,428) Beginning fund balance 8,581,715 8,581,715 Ending fund balance 4,089,489 5,135,917 #313-CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION FUND Revenues Transfers in-#312 5.162,764 0 5,162,764 0 100.00% Total revenues 5,162,764 0 5,162,764 0 100.00% Expenditures Professional Services 702.400 113,821 362,138 340,263 51.56% Total expenditures 702,400 113,82' 362,138 340.263 51.56% Revenues over(under)expenditures 4,460,364 (113,82') 4,800,627 (340,263) Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 4,460,364 4,800,627 Page 15 P:1Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %q of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402-STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees 1,880,000 156,291 1,861,368 (18,632) 99.01% Investment Interest 1,500 289 2,017 517 134.49% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 1,881,500 156,580 1,863,385 (18,115) 99.04% Expenditures Wages/Benefits/Payroll Taxes 488,101 38,821 396,799 91,302 81.29% Supplies 15,900 619 30,240 (14,340) 190.19% Services&Charges 1,097,468 89,071 1,018,846 78,622 92.84% Intergovernmental Payments 27,000 1,200 15,291 11,709 56.63% Interfund Transfers-out-#001 13,400 1,117 13,400 (0) 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,641.869 130,828 1,474,576 167,293 89.81% Recurring Revenues Over(Under) Recurring Expenditures 239,631 25,753 388,809 149,178 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 389,674 0 380,857 (8,817) 97.74% Interfund Transfers-in-#403 120,000 0 120,000 0 100.00% Developer Contributions 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 509,674 0 500,857 (8,817) 98.27% Expenditures Capital-various projects 875,340 0 230,247 645,093 26.30% VMS Trailer 16,000 0 15,546 454 97.16% 188 Sullivan Rd Preservation 0 0 50,680 (50,680) 0.00% 193 Effectiveness Study 0 0 192,638 (192,638) 0.00% 198 Sprague,Park to University LID 0 0 10,453 (10,453) 0.00% 199 Havana-Yale Diversion 0 0 4,887 (4,887) 0.00% 200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion 0 0 3,540 (3,540) 0.00% 206 Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project 0 0 25,967 (25,967) 0.00% 211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley 0 0 142,791 (142,791) 0.00% 218 Montgomery Ave.St Preservation 0 0 87,314 (87,314) 0.00% 220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell St Preservation 0 0 77,361 (77,361) 0.00% 224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation 0 0 16,427 (16,427) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 891,340 0 857,862 33,488 96.24% Nonrecurring Revenues Over(Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (381,666) 0 (356,995) 24,671 Excess(Deficit)of Total Revenues Over(Under)Total Expenditures (142,035) 25,753 31,814 173,849 Beginning working capital 1,933,564 1,933,564 Ending working capital 1,791,529 1,965,378 Note: Work performed in the Stormwater Fund for preservation projects is for slormwaler improvements that were bid with the pavement preservation work. Page 16 P.'+FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 190.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget ENTERPRISE FUNDS-continued #403-AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 500,000 236,677 533,593 33.593 106.72% Grant DOE-Broadway SD Retrofit 1,260,000 0 433,773 (826.227) 34.43% Grant revenue 0 0 602,830 602 830 0.00% Totalrevenjes 1,760,000 236,677 1,570,196 (189.805) 89.22% Expenditures Interfund Transfer-out-#402 120,000 0 120,000 0 100.00% 197 Broadway SD retrofit 1,080,000 0 530,308 549,692 49.10% Total expenditures 1,200,000 0 650,308 549,692 54.19% Revenues over(under)expenditures 560,000 236,677 919,887 (7.39,496) Beginning working capital 1,773 1,773 Ending working capital 561,773 921,660 Page 17 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA Budget Year 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures Elapsed= 100.0% For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31,2015 2015 Actual Actual thru Budget %of Budget December December 31 Remaining Budget INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 -ER&R FUND Revenues Transfer-in-#001 19,300 1,608 19,300 0 100.00% Transfer-in-#101 12.077 1,006 12,077 0 100.00% Transfer-in-#402 4,167 347 4,167 0 100.00% Investment Interest 1,000 171 1,191 191 119.08% Total revenues 36,544 3,133 36,735 191 100.52% Expenditures Vehicle Acquisitions 30,000 0 23,790 6,210 79.30% Total expenditures 30,000 0 23,790 6,210 79.30% Revenues over(under)expenditures 6,544 3,133 12,945 (6,019) Beginning working capital 1,235,794 1,235,794 Ending working capital 1,242,338 1,248,739 #502-RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 1 7 7 0.00% lnterfundTransfer-#101 0 0 38 38 0.00% Interfund Transfer-#001 325,000 27,083 325,000 (0) 100.00% Total revenues 325,000 27,084 325,045 45 100.01% Expenditures Auto&Property Insurance 325,000 0 284,112 40,888 87.42% Unemployment Claims 0 0 13,656 (13,656) 0.00% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 325,000 0 297,768 27,232 91.62% Revenues over(under)expenditures 0 27,084 27,277 (27,188) Beginning working capital 168,209 168,209 Ending working capital 168,209 195,486 SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 74,208,705 4,835,721 67,166,522 Per revenue status report 74,208,705 4,835,721 67,166,522 Difference 0 (0) 0 Total of Expenditures for all Funds 78,056,137 6,817,517 69,038,867 Per expenditure status report 78,056,137 6,817,517 69,038,867 0 (0) (0) Total Capital expenditures(included in total expenditures) 20,048,270 2,326,514 15,571,438 Page 18 P:1Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 1/19/2016 Investment Report For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 Total LGIP" BB CD 2 BB CD 3 Investments Beginning $ 44,184,763.71 $ 3,003,008.62 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 49,187,772.33 Deposits 2,312,368.72 0.00 0.00 2,312,368.72 Withdrawls (3,000,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (3,000,000.00) Interest 9,441.37 2,994.78 0.00 12,436.15 Ending $ 43,506,573.80 $ 3,006,003.40 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 48,512,577.20 matures: 6/28/2016 11/4/2016 rate: 0.40% 0.50% Earnings Balance Current Period Year to date 1 Budget 001 General Fund $ 31,833,139.23 $ 9,248.45 $ 63,922.10 $ 65,000.00 101 Street Fund 1,518,133.87 295.45 2,764.79 3,000.00 103 Trails & Paths 35,573.63 6.92 51.47 0.00 104 Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel 155,319.48 30.23 65.10 0.00 105 Hotel/Motel 257,110.76 50.04 408.39 300.00 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 300,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,201,470.20 1,012.29 7,059.51 7,300.00 122 Winter Weather Reserve 504,534.77 98.19 684.75 700.00 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 553,880.18 107.79 1,159.61 1,700.00 301 Capital Projects 1,029,220.28 200.30 1,350.68 1,000.00 302 Special Capital Projects 1,006,549.11 195.89 1,366.10 1,000.00 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 22,895.29 4.46 31.07 0.00 304 Mirabeau Point Project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 307 Capital Grants Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 309 Parks Capital Project 492,150.21 95.78 667.97 500.00 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 1,181,086.10 229.86 1,765.78 1,900.00 311 Pavement Preservation 2,052,592.76 399.47 2,785.82 0.00 312 Capital Reserve Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 402 Storrnwater Management 1,486,399.44 289.28 2,017.37 2,500.00 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 877,410.86 170.76 1,190.84 1,000.00 502 Risk Management 5,111.03 0.99 6.94 0.00 $ 48,512,577.20 $ 12,436.15 $ 87,298.29 $ 85,900.00 *Local Government Investment Pool Page 19 P.\FinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201512015 12 31 -2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 1.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 1/19/2016 Sales Tax Receipts For the Twelve-Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 Month Difference Received 2014 2015 February 1,891,031.43 1,962,820.56 71,789.13 3.80% March 1,324,975.84 1,358,307.78 33,331.94 2.52% April 1.357,736.39 1,401,618.35 43,881.96 3.23% May 1,636,894.44 1,655,903.08 19,008.64 1.16% June 1,579,545.34 1,557,740.48 (21,804.86) (1.38%) July 1,653,343,86 1,886,262.22 232,918.36 14.09% August 1,751,296.73 1,944,085.56 192,788.83 11.01% September 1,772,033.14 1,894,514.58 122,481.44 6.91% October 1,754,039.63 1,765,807.42 11,767.79 0.67% November 1,802,029.08 1,836,885.94 34,856.86 1.93% December 1,619,010.52 1,683,925.38 64,914.86 4.01% 18,141,936.40 18,947,871.35 805,934.95 4.44% January 1,565,739.35 19,707,675.75 18,947,871.35 Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.7%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.7% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% - Crminial Justice 0.10% * - Public Safety 0.10% * 2.20% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% *' - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * - Spokane Transit Authority 0.60%© 8.70% * indicates voter approved sa/es taxes In addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county-wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county-wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 20 P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports\Tax RevenuelSales Tax120151sales tax collections 2015.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA1/6/2016 Sales Tax Collections- November For the years 2006 through 2015 F---::*..... it, _,,..„..„. 2015 to 2014 Difference 2006 1 2007 1 2008 [ 2009 1 2010 1 2011 I 2012 I 2013 1 2014 1 2015 $ % January 1,572,609 1,759,531 1,729,680 1,484,350 1,491,059 1,460,548 1,589,887 1,671,269 1,677,887 1,732,299 54,412 3.24% February 1,068,743 1,155,947 1,129,765 1,098,575 963749 990,157 1,009,389 1,133,347 1,170,640 1,197,323 26,683 2.28% March 1,072,330 1,196,575 1,219,611 1,068,811 1,018,468 1,015,762 1,067,733 1,148,486 1,201,991 1,235.252 33,261 2,77% April 1,371,030 1,479,603 1,423,459 1,134,552 1,184,137 1,284,180 1,277,621 1,358,834 1,448,539 1,462,096 13,557 0.94% May 1,392,111 1,353,013 1,243,259 1,098,054 1,102,523 1,187,737 1,174,962 1,320,449 1,400,956 1,373,710 (27,246) (1.94%) June 1,362,737 1,428,868 1,386,908 1,151,772 1,123,907 1,248,218 1,290,976 1,389,802 1,462,558 1,693,461 230,903 15.79% July 1,555,124 1,579,586 1,519,846 1,309,401 1,260,873 1,332,834 1,302706 1,424,243 1,545,052 1,718,428 173.376 11.22% August 1,405,983 1,516,324 1,377,943 1,212,531 1,211,450 1,279,500 1,299,678 1,465,563 1,575,371 1,684,700 109,329 6.94% September 1,487,155 1,546,705 1,364,963 1,227,813 1,191,558 1,294,403 1,383,123 1,466,148 1,552,736 1,563,950 11,214 0.72% October 1,526,910 1,601,038 1,344,217 1,236,493 1,269,505 1,291,217 1,358,533 1,439,321 1,594,503 1,618,821 24,318 1.53% November 1,369,940 1,443,843 1,292,327 1,155,647 1,139,058 1,217,933 1,349,580 1,362,021 1,426,254 1,487,624 61,370 4.30% Collected to date 15,184,672 16,061,033 15,031,978 13,177,999 12,956,287 13,602,489 14,104,188 15,179,483 16,056,487 16,767,664 711,177 4.43% December 1,366,281 1,376,434 1,129,050 1,070,245 1,141,012 1,247,920 1,323,189 1,408,134 1,383,596 0 Total Collections 16,550,953 17,437,467 16,161,028 14,248,244 14,097,299 14,850,409 15,427,377 16,587,617 17,440,083 16,767,664 Budget Estimate 16,002,000 17,466,800 17,115.800 17,860,000 14,410,000 14,210,000 14,210,000 15,250,000 16,990,000 17,628,400 Actual over(under)budg 548,953 (29,333) (954,772) (3,611,756) (312,701) 640,409 1,217.377 1,337,617 450,083 (860,736) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 103,43% 99.83% 94.42% 79.78% 97.83% 104.51% 108.57% 108.77% 102.65% nla %change In annual total collected 10.02% 5.36% (7.32%) (11.84%) (1.06%) 5.34% 3,89% 7.52% 5.14% n/a %of budget collected through November 94.89% 91.95% 87.83% 73.78% 89,91% 95.72% 99,26% 99.54% 94.51% 95.12% %of actual total collected through November 91.75% 92.11% 93.01% 92.49% 91.91% 91.60% 91.42% 91.51% 92.07% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of November November 18,000,000 16,000,000 ! November 14,000,000 October 12,000,000 -- September 10000,000 _1 fes_ .,; — August 8,000,000j ._ _ - -= July q 6,000,000 ME II M ® •June 4,000,000 t a May 2,000,000 — ---- IM � — •April 0 s March 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 [- Page 21 P\FinancelFinance Activity Reports1Tax RevenuelLodging Tax12015\105 hotel motel tax 2015.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 1/6/2016 Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through- November Actual for the years 2006 through 2015 2015 to 2014 Difference 2006 I 2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 t 2011 I 2012 1 2013 1 2014 j 2015 $ % January 20,653.49 25,137.92 28,946.96 23,280.21 22,706.96 22,212.21 21,442.32 24,184.84 25,425.40 27,092.20 1,667 6.56% February 20,946.09 25,310.66 24,623.06 23.283.95 23,416.94 22,792.14 21,548.82 25,974.98 26,013.62 27,111.00 1,097 4.22% March 24,308.48 29,190.35 27,509.99 25,272.02 24,232.35 24,611.28 25,654.64 27,738.65 29,383.93 32,998.14 3,614 12.30% April 34,371.82 37,950.53 40,406.02 36,253.63 39,463.49 38,230.49 52,130.37 40,979.25 48,245.81 50,454.72 2,209 4.58% May 32,522.06 31,371.01 36,828.53 32,588.80 34,683.32 33,790.69 37,478.44 40,560.41 41,122.66 44.283.17 3,161 7.69% June 34,256.71 36,267.07 46,659.88 40,414.59 39,935.36 41,403.41 43,970.70 47,850.15 52,617.63 56,975.00 4,357 8.28% July 49,744.62 56,281.99 50,421.37 43,950.26 47,385.18 49,311.97 52,818.60 56,157.26 61,514.48 61,808.87 294 0.48% August 45,916.16 51,120.70 50,818.35 50,146.56 54,922.99 57,451.68 57,229.23 63,816.45 70,383.93 72,896.67 2,313 3.29% September 50,126.53 57,260.34 60,711.89 50,817.62 59,418.96 58,908.16 64,298.70 70,794.09 76,099.59 74,051.29 (2,048) (2.69%) October 38,674.17 43,969.74 38,290.46 36,784.36 41,272.35 39,028.08 43,698.90 43,835.57 45,604.07 49,879.71 4,276 9.38% November 36,417.11 36,340.64 35,582.59 34,054.79 34,329.78 37,339.36 39,301.22 42,542.13 39,600.06 42,376.17 2,776 7.01% Total Collections 387,937.24 430,200,95 440,799.10 396,846.79 421,767.68 425,079.47 459,571.94 484,433.78 516,011.18 539,726.94 23,715.78 4.60% December 29,147.15 31,377.41 26,290.11 27,131.43 26,776.84 32,523.19 30,432.13 34,238.37 33,256.28 0.00 Total Collections 417,084.39 461,578.36 467,089.21 423,978.22 448,544.52 457,602.66 490,004.07 518,672.15 549,267.46 539,726.94 Budget Estimate 3.50,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 512,000.00 380,000.00 480,000.00 430,000.00 490,000.00 530,000.00 510,000.00 Actual over(under)budg 67,084.39 61,578.36 67,089.21 (88,021.78) 68,544.52 (22,397.34) 60,004.07 28,672.15 19,267.46 29,726.94 Total actual collections as a%of total budget 119.17% 115.39% 116.77% 82.81% 118.04% 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% ria %change in annual total collected 7.54% 10.67% 1.10% (9.23%) 5.79% 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% n/a %of budget collected through November 110.84% 107.55% 110.20% 77.51% 110.99% 88.56% 106.88% 98.86% 97.36% 105.83% %of actual total collected through November 93.01% 93.20% 94.37% 93.60% 94.03% 92.89% 93.79% 93.40% 93.95% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of November November 600,000.00 November 500,000.00 October September 400,000.00 - -- -- -- - -g'' �" -4... Augus[ 4 July 300,000.00 - ---.- -- -- ;-June 200,000.00 -- u M ay April 100,000.00 a March r February 0,0[1IN mianuary 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Page 22 P:1FinanceiFinance Activity Reports\Tax RevenuelREET120151301 and 302 REEF for 2015.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 1/6/2016 1 1st and 2nd 1/4%REET Collections through November Actual for the years 2006 through 2015 $ 2015 to2014 Difference 2006 I 2007 I 2008 I 2009 I 2010 I 2011 ) 2012 1 2013 1 2014 I 2015 $ % January 243,894.16 228,896.76 145,963.47 55281.25 59,887.08 64,128,13 46,358.75 56,898.40 61,191.55 96,140.79 34,949 57.11% February 172,154.72 129,919.79 159,503.34 45,180.53 64.121.61 36,443.36 56,114,56 155,226.07 67,048.50 103,507.94 36,459 54.38% March 182,065.71 263,834.60 133,513.35 73,306.86 86,204.41 95,879.78 71,729.67 72,171.53 81,723.70 165,867.91 84,144 102.96% April 173,796.61 211,767.08 128,366.69 81,155,83 99,507.19 79,681.38 86,537.14 90,376.91 105,448.15 236,521.17 131.073 124.30% May 306,871.66 222,677.17 158,506.43 77,463.58 109,624.89 124,691.60 111,627.22 116,164.91 198,869.74 165,748.39 (33,121) (16.65%) June 226,526.64 257,477.05 178,202.98 105,020.98 105,680.28 81,579.34 124,976.28 139,112.11 106,675.77 347,420,87 240,745 225.68% July 2,104.30 323,945.47 217,942.98 122,530.36 84,834.48 79,629.06 101,048.69 128,921.02 208,199.38 217,374.58 9,175 4.41% August 451,700.06 208,039.87 133,905.93 115,829.68 72,630.27 129,472.44 106,517.19 117,149.90 172,536.46 202,525.05 29,989 17.38% September 188,066.23 165,287.21 131240.36 93,862.17 75,812.10 68,019.83 63,516.73 174,070.25 152,322.59 179,849.27 27,527 18,07% October 211,091.20 206,442,92 355,655.60 113,960.52 93,256.02 61,396.23 238,094.79 117,805.76 123,504,75 128,832.69 5,328 4.31% November 141,729.09 191,805.53 147,875.00 133,264.84 72,021.24 74,752.72 104,885,99 78,324.02 172,226.74 129,869.62 (42,357) (24.591) Collected to date 2,300,000.38 2,410,113.45 1,890,676.13 1,016,856.60 923,579.57 895,673.87 1,111,407.01 1,246,220,88 1,449,747.33 1,973,658.28 523,910.95 36.14% December 161,285.23 179,567.77 96,086.00 71,365.60 38,724.50 65,077.29 74,299.65 75,429.19 117,681.62 0.00 Total distributed by Spokane County 2,461,285.61 2,589,681.22 1,985,762.13 1,088,222.20 962,304.07 960,751.16 1,185,706.66 1,321,650.07 1,567,428.95 1,973,658.28 Budget estimate 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 760,000.00 800,000.00 950,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,200,000.00 1,600,000.00 Actual over(under)budget 461285.61 589,681.22 (13,237.87) (911,777.80) 202,304.07 160,751.16 235,706.66 321,650.07 367,428.95 373,658.28 Total actual collections as a%of total budget 123.06% 129.48% 99.34% 54.41% 126.62% 120.09% 124.81% 132.17% 130.62% nla %change in annual total collected (1.19%) 5.22% (23.213%) (45.23%) (11.57%) (0.16%) 23.41% 11.47% 18.60% nla %of budget collected through November 115,00% 120.51% 94.53% 50.84% 121.52% 111.96% 116.99% 124.62% 120.81% 123.35% %of actual total collected through November 93.45% 93.07% 95.16% 93.44% 95.98% 93,23% 93.73% 94.29% 92.49% nla Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of November r November 3,000,000.00 November 1 2,500,000.00 October HO -__. 2,000 000.09 September 1- August 1,500,000.90 - - . -- - - - - -- - July - u June 1,000,000.09 ------ --T.. n May 500,000.00 - _...4-- - rr April LIM _ March 0,00 ■February 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Page 23 H:\Finance Activity Reports\201.5\debt capacity.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 12/7/2015 Debt Capacity 2014 Assessed Value for 2015 Property Taxes 7,393,971,582 Maximum Outstanding Remaining Debt as of Debt 010 Capacity 12/31/2015 Capacity Utilized Voted (UTGO) 1.00% of assessed value 73,939,716 0 73,939,716 0.00% Nonvoted (LTGO) 1.50% of assessed value 110,909,574 6,375,000 104,534,574 5.75% Voted park 2.50% of assessed value 184,849,290 0 184,849,290 0.00% Voted utility 2.50% of assessed value 184,849,290 0 184,849,290 0.00% 554,547,870 6,375,000 548,172,870 1.15% 2014 LTGO Bonds Road & Period Street Ending CenterPlace Improvements Total Bonds I 12/1/2014 225,000 135,000 360,000 � Repaid J 1211/2015 175,000 125,000 300,000 400,000 260,000', 660,000 - 12/1/2016 185,000 130,000\ 315,000 12/1/2017 190,000 130,000 320,000 1211/2018 230,000 135,000 365,000 12/1/2019 255,000 140,000 395,000 1211/2020 290,000 140,000 430,000 12/112021 320,000 145,000 465,000 12/112022 350,000 150,000 500,000 12/1/2023 390,000 155,000 545,000 Bonds 12/1/2024 430,000 0 430,000 Remaining - 12/1/2025 465,000 0 465,000 12/1/2026 505,000 0 505,000 12/1/2027 395,000 0 395,000 12/112028 300,000 0 300,000 12/1/2029 245,000 0 245,000 12/1/2030 225,000 0 225,000 12/1/2031 180,000 0 180,000 12/112032 130,000 0 130,000 12/1/2033 165,000 0 165,000 5,250,000 1,125,000 6,375,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 Page 24 P:\Finance\Finance Activity ReportslTax Revenue\MVFT120151motor vehicle fuel tax collections 2015.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA 1/6/2016 Motor Fuel(Gas)Tax Collections- November -: For the years 2006 through 2015 4 c. 2015 to 2014 Difference 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 $ % January 157,910 172,711 165,698 133,304 161,298 154,792 159,607 146,145 152,906 152,598 (308) (0.20%) February 145,663 162,079 149,799 155,832 145,869 146,353 135,208 145,996 148,118 145,455 (2,663) (1.80%) March 144,867 156,194 159,316 146,264 140,486 141,849 144,297 135,695 131,247 140,999 9,752 7.43% April 158,729 175,010 165,574 161,117 161,721 165,019 153,546 156,529 156,269 157,994 1,725 1.10% May 152,049 173,475 162,281 156,109 158,119 154,700 144,670 151,595 156,650 156,259 (591) (0.38%) June 166,506 183,410 176,085 173,954 168,146 158,351 159,827 167,479 161,965 164,872 2,907 1.79% July 162,989 178,857 166,823 169,756 164,221 165,398 160,565 155,348 157,805 168,205 10,400 6.59% August 183,127 183,815 171,690 179,012 176,869 153,361 164,050 173,983 172.308 186,277 13,969 8.11% September 187,645 191,884 176,912 175,965 175,067 173,820 171,651 195,397 173,299 174,505 1,206 0.70% October 178,782 180,570 165,842 163,644 164,475 158,889 153,022 133,441 160,539 161,520 981 0.61% November 177,726 181,764 193,360 167,340 168,477 160,461 162,324 164,303 165,871 181,771 15,900 9.59% Collected to date 1,815,993 1,939,769 1,853,380 1,782,297 1,784,748 1,732,993 1,708,767 1,725,913 1,737,177 1,790,455 53,278 3.07% December 159,974 159,750 142,230 144,376 143,257 124,714 138,223 142,140 141,298 0 Total Collections 1,975,967 2,099,519 1,995,610 1,926,673 1,928,005 1,857,707 1,846,990 1,868,053 1,878,475 1,790,455 Budget Estimate 1,753,000 2,000,000 2,150,000 2,050,000 1,900,000 1,875,000 1,897,800 1,861,100 1,858,600 1,858,600 Actual over(under)budg 222,967 99,519 (154,390) (123,327) 28,005 (17,293) (50,810) 6,953 19,875 (68.145) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 112.72% 104.98% 92.82% 93.98% 101.47% 99.08% 97.32% 100.37% 101.07% nla %change in annual total collected 9.57% 6.25% (4.95%) (3.45%) 0.07% (3.65%) (0.58%) 1.14% 0.56% n/a %of budget collected through November 103.59% 96.99% 86,20% 86.94% 93.93% 92.43% 90.04% 92.74% 93.47% 96.33% %of actual total collected through November 91.90% 92.39% 92.87% 92.51% 92.57% 93.29% 92.52% 92.39% 92.48% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of November November 2,500,000 1 November 2,000,000 October September 1,500,000 August July 1,000,000 OFIA_ 'June 540,004 , ..._ _ _ = w. s May ._ _ , a April 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Page 25 P:IFinance\Finance Activity Reports\Tax RevenuelTelephane Taxt20151telephone utility tax collections 2015.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WA - 1/13/2016 Telephone Utility Tax Collections- November For the years 2009 through 2015 2015 to 2014 Difference 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 ( 2013 I 2014 1 2015 $ % January _ 128,354 234,622 241.357 193,818 217,478 210.777 177,948 (32,829) (15.58%) February 282,773 266,041 230,366 261,074 216,552 205,953 212,845 6,892 3.35% March 230,721 264,175 245,539 234,113 223,884 208,206 174,738 (33,468) (16.07%) April 275,775 254,984 238,561 229,565 214,618 206,038 214,431 8,393 4.07% May 242,115 255,056 236,985 227,469 129,270 210,010 187,856 (22,154) (10.55%) June 239,334 251,880 239,013 234,542 293,668 210,289 187,412 (22,877) (10.88%) July 269,631 250,593 244,191 226,118 213,078 205,651 190,984 (14,667) (7.13%) August 260,408 246,261 349,669 228,789 211,929 205,645 185,172 (20,473) (9.96%) September 249,380 240,111 241,476 227,042 210,602 199,193 183,351 (15,842) (7.95%) October 252,388 238,500 237,111 225,735 205,559 183,767 183,739 (28) (0.02%) November 254,819 247,848 240,246 225,319 212,947 213,454 175,235 (38,219) (17.91%) Collected to date 2,685,698 2,750,071 2,744,514 2,513,584 2,349,585 2,258,983 2,073,711 (185,272) (8.20%) December 368,775 236,065 236,449 221,883 213,097 202,077 0 Total Collections 3,054,473 2,986,136 2,980,963 2,735.467 2,562,682 2.461,060 2,073.711 Budget Estimate 2,500,000 2.800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,900,000 2,750,000 2,565,100 Actual over(under)budg 554,473 186,136 (19,037) (264.533) (337,318) (288,940) (491,389) Total actual collections as a%of total budget 122.18% 106.65% 99.37% 91.18% 88.37% 89.49% n/a %change in annual total collected n/a (2.24%) (0.17%) (8.24%) (6.32%) (3.97%) nra %of budget collected through November 107.43% 98.22% 91.48% 83.79% 81.02% 82.14% 80.84% %of actual total collected through November 87.93% 92.09% 92.07% 91.89% 91-68% 91.79% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of November 3,000,000 November November October 2,500,000 - - September August 2,000,000 July , _� _.June 1,500,000 t _ g ■May . ,,.-.. •April 1,000,000 - u March ■February 500,000 - - January 0 El 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 - Page 26 Rick VanLeuven Ozzie Knezovich Chief of Police Sheriff .a ,, ` Spokane Valley Police Department il Accredited Since 2011 ��E R, \ iServices provided in partnership with °�,N= °°}� AlMk the Spokane County Sheriff's Office and the Community, ' . Dedicated to Your Safety. TO: Mike Jackson, City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: January 18, 2016 RE: Monthly Report December 2015 December 2015: December 2014: CAD incidents: 4,631 CAD incidents: 4,607 Reports taken: 2,016 Reports taken: 1,863 Traffic stops: 864 Traffic stops: 1,020 Traffic reports: 296 Traffic reports: 273 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self-initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing December residential burglaries, traffic collisions, vehicle prowlings, and stolen vehicles. Also attached are trend-line graphs for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015: Citations, Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls, Self-Initiated Calls, Collisions, Persons Crimes, Property Crimes, and Sex Crimes. Also included is the December Crimes by Cities stats report. This report reflects incidents that occurred in a specific city to which a deputy from Spokane County took the courtesy report. For example, an individual may have had his car stolen in Airway Heights, and he waited until he returned home in the Newman Lake area to make a report. In 2011, we switched from UCR to NIBRS classification. As a result, certain crimes were broken down to their violation parts for NIBRS and each part is now counted. Consequently, comparing certain crimes before 2011 to crimes during or after 2011 is not recommended using the graphs. The crimes that are impacted by the NIBRS classification changes that should not be compared to prior graphs include: Adult Rape, Assault, Forgery and Theft. ADMINISTRATIVE: In May of 2015, Spokane was chosen as one of 20 cities nationwide to compete in the Safety and Justice Challenge hosted by the MacArthur Foundation. The goal is to safely reduce local jail Page 1 populations, reduce the length of stay in jails and reduce racial and ethnic disparities within criminal justice systems across the country. In early December, members of the Vera Institute made a three- day visit to Spokane to meet with members of the panel, of which Chief VanLeuven is a member, to discuss where we are in the process and assist in any way in finalizing the grant package. In early December, Chief VanLeuven attended the monthly Joint Leadership Forum at the Training Center in the morning and then headed out to Airway Heights Prison to participate in the semi- annual FACE Panel in the afternoon. FACE (FireArms Crime Enforcement) is a program facilitated at Airway Heights as well as other prisons in the State of Washington where a panel comprised of representatives from various agencies to include law enforcement, speaks to inmates who are scheduled for release. The inmates are identified as Armed Career Criminals and are reminded by members of the panel not only that they cannot possess firearms or ammunition after their release, but the ramifications should they not change their former criminal ways and abide with conditions placed on them once they are released from prison. Chief VanLeuven is a member of this panel who meet semi-annually at Airway Heights Prison, and fully supports the foundation of this program. Members of local law enforcement agencies and fire departments met to discuss the 2015 Wind Storm that had occurred the previous month. Discussions were held on what worked well as well as those areas that need improvement in future incidents such as these. Chief VanLeuven along with Sheriff Knezovich and other command staff attended the Salvation Army Annual Luncheon. In early December, Chief VanLeuven attended the GSSAC (Greater Spokane Abuse Council) Inaugural Fundraiser. There were various items donated for a silent auction, with the goal of raising money for GSSAC and proving that you don't need alcohol to enjoy the holiday season with friends. SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): In the month of December, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: • Chester Elementary Head Trauma Presentation and Bike Helmet fitting (4t graders) • Spokane Valley Celebration of Lights—U-City • Safe Kids Coalition Meeting • GoodGuides Mentoring WVHS • East Valley Community Coalition Meeting • Crime Stoppers Meeting • GSSAC Coalition Meeting, and • Operation Family ID Page 2 December 2015 Volunteers Hours per Station *Includes estimated volunteer service hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley.These two locations cover both Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. Location #Volunteers Admin Hours L.E. Hours Total Hours Central Valley 7 134.0 24.5 158.5 East Valley* 13 131.0 37.0 168.0 Edgecliff 27 513.0 11.0 524.0 Trentwood 6 138.5 66.0 204.5 University 22 331.5 169.0 500.5 West Valley* 25 564.5 0 564.5 TOTALS 100 1,812.5 307.5 2,120.0 Volunteer Value ($22.14 per hour) $46,936.80 for December 2015 Volunteer hours totaled 31,973, with a total value for 2015 of$727,515.97! We extend a huge Thank You to our SCOPE Volunteers!! Spokane Valley Graffiti Report 2012 2013 2014 2015 Jan. 0 2 3 5 Feb. 0 7 16 8 March 2 13 11 7 April 14 9 30 14 May 16 4 4 10 June 15 9 13 5 July 41 7 12 4 Aug. 57 22 6 10 Sept. 26 4 12 6 Oct. 30 7 6 6 Nov. 19 7 2 4 Dec. 37 1 7 10 89 Total 257 92 97 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 49 on-scene hours (including travel time) in December, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control; 16 hours were for incidents specifically in Spokane Valley. There was one Special Event in Spokane Valley in December, the U-City Christmas Tree Lighting, which totaled six hours for three volunteers. Total December volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 506; year-to-date total is 5,884 hours. Compared to last year, we exceeded slightly the number of call outs SIRT responded to in 2014. However, when compared to Page 3 the five previous years, there is a definite reduction in the number of call outs. The high was in 2010 with 144 and the low was the 2014 at 124. Active membership at year end is 22 with 1 out for medical reasons. We hope to add a few more members in 2016. Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in Spokane Valley in November totaled 13 and in December 25 with 9 vehicles in November and 11 in December, respectively, eventually cited and towed. Sixteen hulks were processed in November and six hulks processed in December. During the month of December, a total of 71 vehicles were processed; the total for 2015 to date is 831. This is down slightly from 2014 where 924 vehicles were processed. SCOPE LATENT PRINT STATS TRAINING HOURS SCSO SVPD TOTAL January 0 18 48 66 February 0 26 42 68 March 0 22 43 65 April 0 30 27 57 May 0 15 51 66 June 0 27 27 54 July 0 18 35 53 August 0 29 37 66 September 0 42 48 90 October 0 39 42 81 November 0 0 0 0 December 0 0 0 0 YTD - TOTAL 0 271 395 666 SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT #of #of Hrs. #of Disabled #of #of Non- Vol. Infractions Warnings Disabled City of Spokane Valley Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 0 0 0 0 0 February 2 10 2 0 0 March 3 24 1 0 0 April 2 22 1 0 0 May 2 45 2 0 0 June 2 33.5 5 0 0 July 3 35 4 0 0 August 3 37.5 1 0 0 September 2 58 4 0 0 October 3 39 2 0 0 November 0 0 0 0 0 December 0 0 0 0 0 YTD Total 22 304 23 0 0 Page 4 #of #of Hrs. #of Disabled #of #of Non- Vol. Infractions Warnings Disabled Spokane County Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 3 16.5 0 0 0 February 6 26.5 1 0 0 March 7 54 2 0 0 April 3 39 10 0 0 May 2 13 0 0 0 June 2 16 0 0 0 July 1 10 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 0 0 September 1 11 0 0 0 October 3 17 0 0 0 November 2 14.5 3 0 0 December 0 0 0 0 0 YTD Total 30 217.5 18 0 0 OPERATIONS: Vehicle Prowler Caught In the Act — In early December at approximately 4:00 a.m., Spokane Valley Deputies were called to a vehicle prowl in the area of 11500 E. 32nd Avenue. The complainant explained to deputies that she and another resident had gone out to the garage to raise the door to smoke, when they discovered a male inside a vehicle in the garage. She advised they confronted the male, who appeared intoxicated or high and told her he would slit her throat and let her bleed out. He also complained to them about being cold and having blisters from walking so long. When deputies arrived on scene, the suspect had fled the residence, leaving behind a green and black shoulder-type bag. The victim told deputies that the suspect began to complain about wanting his bag back, but was told "no" by the victims. As he was leaving the scene, westbound, he yelled back "I'm going to come back and stab you in your sleep." The bag was open and deputies noted a black wallet, two shotgun shells, a .22 caliber bullet, a few miscellaneous hand tools, cell phone, and some money. The wallet contained two ID cards, both in the suspect's name. Both victims confirmed the individual who had been in their garage earlier was the same person as pictured on the ID. Approximately seven hours later, deputies received another caller from the victim who said the suspect had returned to their residence to get his bag. Deputies again responded, this time taking the suspect into custody on two counts of vehicle prowling. During a search of his person incident to arrest, deputies located a small flashlight and miscellaneous items in various pockets to include cell phones. Those items were booked onto property as evidence. The male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for two counts of vehicle prowling. Stolen Vehicle Recovery and Bomb Threat— In early December,just prior to 8:00 a.m., Spokane Valley Sheriffs Deputies responded to an anonymous call of a suspicious vehicle parked in the backyard of a residence located in the 1300 block of East Progress. The caller provided a license plate, which showed the vehicle as a reported stolen Toyota Camry. When Deputy Loucks arrived in the area, he observed the Camry traveling east on 12t1i Avenue from Progress. Deputy Loucks turned around and caught up to the vehicle as he waited for additional Patrol units to assist. The driver turned south on Sullivan, slowed, and then turned into the Central Valley High School parking lot. Deputy Loucks, not wanting to escalate the situation due to the numerous students arriving for Page 5 school, did not initiate a traffic stop. He maintained his distance and observed the vehicle while the Central Valley School Resource Deputy Speer was quickly notified of the incident. Deputy Speer, who was working inside the school, notified school officials of the incident and quickly began searching for the suspect. For the safety of the students, school staff immediately began to place the school in lockdown. The suspect parked the Camry in the parking lot and exited the vehicle. Although he walked into the school as staff worked to secure the students and facility, he exited through one of the back doors and was last seen fleeing away from the school grounds on foot. Several deputies, including a Sheriff's K9 Unit, searched for the suspect, but were unsuccessful in locating him. At approximately 9:00 a.m., a student reported a bomb threat after reading a note written on a bathroom wall. School officials and staff, with the assistance of the deputies already on scene, evacuated the school. Deputies and K9s searched the school. Just prior to 10:30 a.m., the school was deemed to be safe and the threat false. School officials allowed the students to reenter and classes resumed. The Camry had been reported stolen earlier in the morning just before 5:30 a.m., from the 11300 block of East 10t1i Avenue. The victim reported the vehicle was warming up and there was a pistol in the trunk when it was stolen. The pistol was not located when the vehicle was recovered. Later in the afternoon, at approximately 2:45 p.m., Deputy Speer arrested a juvenile male for Threats to Bomb or Injure Property, a felony. Through interviews and school surveillance video, Deputy Speer, working with Central Valley High School staff, developed information identifying the juvenile as the suspect who wrote the threat on a bathroom wall of the school earlier in the morning. Deputy Speer learned the reason for the threat was the hope that school officials would cancel classes the following day. The suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Juvenile Detention Facility. Although an apparent hoax, threats like these are very serious. They pose a threat to everyone at the school, disrupt school activities, worry parents and pull law enforcement away from other calls for service. This threat does not appear to be related to the earlier recovery of the stolen vehicle and fleeing suspect. Robbery Suspect Arrested — In late December, just after 10 p.m., Spokane Valley deputies were called to the Super Store 24 for an incident involving a robbery. When deputies arrived, they observed footprints leading away from the front door, through the parking lot towards Highway 27. The cashier told deputies that he was inside the store when he observed a mid-20's male suspect enter the store displaying a semi-automatic handgun in his left hand. Although the suspect didn't point the gun at him, the cashier went directly to the cash drawer of the register and handed it to the suspect. The suspect placed the drawer on the counter, pulled out a black plastic grocery sack and had the cashier place the money inside. The cashier then placed the black plastic bag in the suspect's left pants pocket as directed by the suspect. Before leaving the store, the suspect told the cashier that if he called the police, he would shoot him. As the suspect was leaving the store, he yelled to the cashier to sit on the ground and told him not to watch where he was going. Once the cashier believed the suspect had left the area, he called 911. The cashier provided a description to the deputies of a white male and described what he was wearing and further stated the suspect was wearing a black backpack on his back. He believed the suspect stole just under $1,000. Patrol units and K9s attempted to track the suspect, but were ultimately unable to locate the suspect in the area. Approximately three hours later, the male suspect called 911 to turn himself in for committing the robbery. He provided dispatch with his location and was taken into custody without incident. The suspect explained to deputies that he was struggling to pay bills and needed money. He went downstairs to his roommate's room and stole his roommate's gun. He told deputies he dressed so no one would see him, providing his clothing description along with the black backpack. His description of events matched those provided by the cashier and confirmed on surveillance cameras. When asked about the location of the gun, he said it had fallen out of his pocket somewhere between Page 6 the store and his residence. Prior to leaving his residence to be booked into the jail on robbery charges, he located for deputies the various items to include clothing, bandana worn, money, the black backpack, etc., which deputies booked onto property as evidence. Deputies along with a K9 officer and his K9 eventually located the stolen 9mm Ruger that had been dropped in a backyard. The firearm was not loaded and had no magazine in it. It was also booked into property as evidence. The stolen money was located and when counted, only came up to $637, short of the $980 that the cashier had reported. The male suspect was ultimately booked into the Spokane County Jail on 1st Degree Robbery charges. ******************** Page 7 t,Go1JNry.�, sv Crime Report u -11 Date Range: 12/1/2015 to 12/31/2015 Regional Intelligence Group 9 • RIG9 Year To Date Totals: Full Year Totals: December- December- 2015-YTD 2014-YTD 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2015 2014 BURGLARY 80 124 999 1,167 1,167 1,079 1,030 997 918 713 FORGERY 72 42 633 658 658 693 627 515 341 297 MAL MISCHIEF 167 181 1,678 1,645 1,645 1,624 1,763 1,548 1,177 1,129 NON-CRIMINAL 18 10 134 151 151 106 108 160 913 889 PROP OTHER 149 120 1,595 1,449 1,449 1,463 1,355 1,114 855 888 RCRVD VEH 51 31 409 464 464 531 438 407 293 186 STLVEH 60 42 516 573 573 596 570 515 478 293 THEFT 296 274 3,089 3,096 3,096 3,105 2,753 2,407 2,358 2,169 VEH OTHER 15 39 201 279 279 268 287 194 3 5 VEH PROWL 112 115 1,183 1,196 1,196 1,205 1,160 1,488 1,395 920 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 1,020 978 10,437 10,678 10,678 10,670 10,091 9,345 8,731 7,489 ASSAULT 89 82 1,072 1,087 1,087 902 891 955 888 900 DOA/SUICIDE 27 16 275 222 222 218 250 208 188 209 DV 71 50 695 485 485 386 402 498 1,141 1,145 HOMICIDE 1 0 2 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 KIDNAP 3 1 28 41 41 24 16 14 16 21 MENTAL 38 27 381 307 307 268 270 252 289 310 MP 17 13 190 138 138 156 154 124 128 115 PERS OTHER 305 269 3,494 3,203 3,203 2,976 2,901 2,372 1,603 1,583 ROBBERY 13 7 90 94 94 88 74 59 57 66 TEL-HARASS 5 10 111 132 132 148 212 162 153 159 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 569 475 6,338 5,712 5,712 5,168 5,172 4,647 4,464 4,511 ADULT RAPE 7 6 80 70 70 64 75 62 44 35 CHILD ABUSE 2 1 30 42 42 26 27 56 115 159 CUSTINTFER 19 15 197 237 237 236 190 184 206 157 IND LIBERTY 0 3 25 29 29 20 27 17 8 10 MOLES/CHILD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 47 32 RAPE/CHILD 1 3 14 13 13 13 13 23 28 35 RUNAWAY 16 30 409 406 406 397 530 510 490 440 SEX OTHER 5 5 66 69 69 45 37 56 215 211 SEX REGIS F 0 0 2 0 0 4 8 2 1 2 STALKING 0 5 16 24 24 21 24 19 18 15 SUSP PERSON 51 41 602 604 604 440 423 340 215 174 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 101 109 1,441 1,494 1,494 1,266 1,354 1,287 1,387 1,270 DRUG 29 28 379 336 336 314 424 511 534 665 ISU OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 TOTAL ITF 29 28 379 336 336 314 424 513 536 666 TRAFFIC 296 273 3,476 3,216 3,216 3,525 3,957 3,569 3,081 3,183 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 296 273 3,476 3,216 3,216 3,525 3,957 3,569 3,081 3,183 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 2,015 1,863 22,071 21,436 21,436 20,943 20,998 19,361 18,199 17,119 Printed 1/19/2016 11:34:31 AM Rpt011 Page 1 of 1 Selected Data for Comparisonst.C°UN7'i , 8. Report Area: Incidents Handled By Spokane County up Within Spokane Valley N Date Range: 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2015 Regional Intelligence Group 9 RIG 9 Previous Year: 1/1/2014 through 12/31/2014 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TOTALS CAD Incidents 0 11,215 13,295 8,944 9,451 6,461 10,193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59,559 Traffic Stops 0 2,246 2,775 2,018 1,818 1,731 2,245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,833 Accidents 0 360 624 260 304 236 426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,210 Stolen Vehicles 0 120 99 99 106 44 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 573 Vehicle Recovered 0 90 64 39 50 26 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 330 Burglary 0 226 229 145 215 106 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,167 Robbery 0 23 11 17 16 11 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 Theft 0 631 521 460 572 321 591 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,096 Malicious Mischief 0 269 345 238 365 156 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,645 Vehicle Prowling 0 220 216 180 257 109 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,196 Current Year: 1/1/2015 through 12/31/2015 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TOTALS CAD Incidents 0 12,516 14,497 9,541 9,225 6,735 10,260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62,774 Traffic Stops 0 2,817 3,034 1,791 1,509 1,631 2,170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,952 Accidents 0 387 721 354 334 260 504 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,560 Stolen Vehicles 0 107 101 95 95 48 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 516 Vehicle Recovered 0 77 67 50 54 25 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 308 Burglary 0 230 210 157 147 90 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 999 Robbery 0 14 8 17 13 9 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 Theft 0 706 531 548 450 310 544 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,089 Malicious Mischief 0 304 402 255 318 180 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,678 Vehicle Prowling 0 211 238 203 197 134 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,183 Printed 1/13/2016 3:21:35 PM Rpt005 Page 1 of 3 Selected Data for Comparisonst.C°ujsy Report Area: Incidents Handled By Spokane County up Within Spokane Valley Date Range: 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2015 Regional Intelligence Group 9 RIG 9 - Previous Month/Previous Year: 11/1/2014 through 11/30/2014 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TOTALS CAD Incidents 0 989 992 689 629 504 706 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,509 Traffic Stops 0 212 189 145 118 138 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 955 Accidents 0 36 54 30 20 24 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 Stolen Vehicles 0 18 9 11 8 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 Vehicle Recovered 0 20 6 2 6 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 Burglary 0 23 19 19 7 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 Robbery 0 2 0 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Theft 0 67 39 35 38 21 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 239 Malicious Mischief 0 21 22 23 33 19 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 Vehicle Prowling 0 23 18 16 27 4 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 Previous Month: 11/1/2015 through 11/30/2015 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TOTALS CAD Incidents 0 1,005 1,098 722 695 531 768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,819 Traffic Stops 0 242 217 124 111 134 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,020 Accidents 0 45 82 44 33 17 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 262 Stolen Vehicles 0 7 8 8 7 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 Vehicle Recovered 0 5 7 6 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Burglary 0 17 12 13 17 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 Robbery 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Theft 0 51 37 23 37 26 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 Malicious Mischief 0 23 28 22 22 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 Vehicle Prowling 0 6 31 17 15 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 Printed 1/13/2016 3:21:35 PM Rpt005 Page 2 of 3 Selected Data for Comparisons t.C°u4sy 8. Report Area: Incidents Handled By Spokane County up Within Spokane Valley Date Range: 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2015 Regional Intelligence Group 9 RIG 9 Current Month/Previous Year: 12/1/2014 through 12/31/2014 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TOTALS CAD Incidents 0 933 1,042 682 694 558 698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,607 Traffic Stops 0 207 203 155 127 164 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,020 Accidents 0 33 43 23 20 23 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 Stolen Vehicles 0 5 12 8 7 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 Vehicle Recovered 0 5 9 1 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Burglary 0 28 24 10 26 10 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 Robbery 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Theft 0 61 44 37 54 35 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 274 Malicious Mischief 0 32 47 23 35 26 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 Vehicle Prowling 0 22 24 14 17 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 Current Month: 12/1/2015 through 12/31/2015 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TOTALS CAD Incidents 0 990 1,028 687 707 476 743 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,631 Traffic Stops 0 214 181 131 129 98 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 864 Accidents 0 41 85 44 54 33 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 329 Stolen Vehicles 0 10 8 12 14 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 Vehicle Recovered 0 6 11 4 8 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Burglary 0 16 19 9 11 11 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 Robbery 0 0 2 3 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Theft 0 67 44 52 42 27 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 296 Malicious Mischief 0 45 40 17 31 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 Vehicle Prowling 0 25 20 20 17 12 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 Printed 1/13/2016 3:21:35 PM Rpt005 Page 3 of 3 CAD Incidents by Cities c°�' �sy (Only incidents handled by Spokane County Sheriffs Office) ' , ii Date Range: 12/1/2015 to 12/31/2015 Regional Intelligence Group 9 55, RIG 9 AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV TOTALS CAD Incidents 31 142 249 11 9 5 17 157 89 15 3,199 5 577 4,631 0 9,137 Self Initiated Incidents 26 53 132 3 2 0 10 96 22 4 854 1 494 1,602 0 3,299 Drug Self Int(Patrol) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 10 Traffic Stops 2 28 24 0 0 0 6 25 9 1 266 1 166 864 0 1,392 Traffic Stops(ARST/CIT/IN) 0 3 10 0 0 0 1 3 5 0 87 0 60 378 0 547 TS(Warrants) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 8 28 0 43 Calls for Service 5 89 117 8 7 5 7 61 67 11 2,345 4 83 3,029 0 5,838 Alarms 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 98 0 0 105 0 212 Accidents 1 7 6 0 0 0 1 7 7 1 431 0 19 329 0 809 Accidents(ARREST/CIT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 16 0 26 Drug Calls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 2 18 0 31 DV 8 0 9 0 1 0 5 0 2 2 129 2 2 207 0 367 DUI 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 45 0 5 61 0 121 DUI(Arrest) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 13 0 18 Pursuits 0 Suspicious Activity 9 9 31 1 0 0 1 15 16 0 334 0 48 527 0 991 Vehicle Recovered 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 0 4 34 0 51 911 Abandon Line 0 28 14 4 2 4 0 5 4 0 169 0 9 242 0 481 Shoplifting 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 77 0 79 All Arrests(ARREST/CIT/IN) 3 5 17 2 0 0 1 8 8 4 202 1 86 652 0 989 Crime Check Reports 0 0 15 1 1 0 2 9 8 2 433 7 6 621 0 1,105 Printed 1/13/2016 2:52:35 PM Rptool Page 1 of 1 RMS Crimes by Cities .t. s$$ (Only incidents handled by Spokane County Sheriffs Office) P Date Range: 12/1/2015 to 12/31/2015 Regional Intelligence Group 91; RIG AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV TOTALS BURGLARY 8 0 5 1 1 0 6 0 1 0 62 0 0 80 0 164 FORGERY 8 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 52 0 2 72 0 144 MAL MISCHIEF 4 2 6 0 1 0 2 3 1 0 76 0 0 167 0 262 NON-CRIMINAL 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 0 2 18 0 31 PROP OTHER 26 10 8 3 0 0 11 7 1 1 74 1 25 149 0 316 RCRVD VEH 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 18 0 2 51 0 78 STL VEH 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 20 0 0 60 0 86 THEFT 38 2 9 0 0 0 5 8 2 0 141 1 2 296 0 504 VEH OTHER 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 15 0 28 VEH PROWL 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 51 1 0 112 0 183 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 102 15 42 4 2 0 29 21 9 3 513 3 33 1,020 0 1,796 ASSAULT 1 0 5 0 1 0 2 6 1 4 56 0 1 89 0 166 DOA/SUICIDE 2 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 29 0 0 27 0 65 DV 8 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 42 0 2 71 0 133 HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 KIDNAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 MENTAL 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 38 0 55 MP 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 17 0 39 PERS OTHER 16 7 10 0 1 1 5 6 5 1 197 4 31 305 0 589 ROBBERY 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 13 0 17 TEL-HARASS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 5 0 15 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 30 10 23 0 2 1 15 13 8 5 371 4 34 569 0 1,085 ADULT RAPE 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 0 12 CHILD ABUSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 CUST INTFER 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 2 0 19 0 46 IND LIBERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 RAPE/CHILD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 RUNAWAY 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 1 16 0 46 SEX OTHER 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 10 SUSP PERSON 14 3 5 0 0 0 7 1 1 0 28 0 6 51 0 116 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 16 5 7 1 0 0 8 2 2 0 85 2 8 101 0 237 DRUG 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 8 29 0 55 TOTAL ITF 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 8 29 0 55 TRAFFIC 9 2 3 0 0 0 7 5 3 2 173 0 45 296 0 545 TOTAL TRAFFIC 9 2 3 0 0 0 7 5 3 2 173 0 45 296 0 545 UIBOC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 TOTAL OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 158 34 76 5 4 1 63 41 22 10 1,152 9 128 2,016 0 3,719 Printed 1/13/2016 2:55:09 PM Rpt003 Page 1 of 1 Francis 1 ✓ t 7 v Forke �! .,_(2 • / S O ellesle 5•c • Wellesle L t %� U.r,ver _ �'f �- a n T L { lL c3 lL � -•Nr _Mi rabeau Eu fl id Fr-•-rick ane Eu lid I WO•; I 4 Mar0ibert( Lake .i..7./ dipp ____ Knox Montgomee1 India a 1. — __AIWOMOV7MMINIMI. 1_ (1) --,Q-or --miry � ,_ Mission Mission j ._ _ 6 _ Catald . b MN �:»r�r�l' ---..now-- i Vista 1111.1.11 _ N A�� r=g-eogI. Broadw.11111811 • �� _ 40% =NE S. ,, .Sprague A..ewa \_ 2nd _ `. r —_ 4 h Shelley Hartson M 8th , '-' 4 h ii Lake 81h T L p� L a Y j N Q N a w = a b 16th 6th \Q H S �°' 3 25� 0 a_1111444/tE se 2 � 3 Ni• 32nd 1 tlst O , `� K. 9 40th Be/% (erre Commercial Burglary C a rLo w N III 1) 0 44th ,v,) Medium J horpe - High x` r cr oy O 1 ': E l\th a' 311-- Lc \ 6 O 3 C 4+ R]C1 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Prepared By: I MapProduce1 Jan 2016 20 15 December Commercial Burglary Hotspots RegionallneelCountySheriff9 Francis 1 7 Forke \u b N`` • u Wellesle 5'r\CV • Wellesle ° l m 0,mer I Cb �� a, ry r Marino Lo E EL' iIIWO•: LL LL 0 \-ate S Eu lid • Eu lid Mi Fr-• = ane Qo S40-e Mon.:ome fie, Bucke e 1 11 11 Mariet ibert Lake m m .r India a OPct 411161 Mission dell L jiii r a`�� 10 45, 1 40 40 - '�` _\ \ ter40 I P Catald I > cvit ili . Vista Pr: .S1 _ .11111 A� Irgre".04- y- z Broadw: n —�D ,i b • 40 L Bill LL 10 61) ME Q S.r._ue _ __ e�— 40 2nd �, 3rd ,...„.: 1114W .9 A•• imiqMix 71111 CD-- m Shelley : h Hartson 8th �� :� Lake 141110L v Ili 1 v Qv .A � � 1 w 2 I b 16th .th - IIIIN \,1,5 40 t 40 d, 3 24th —40 � • 3• m3 m ° 32nd 29th , 40 Kffli 10 m 9 v 40th Bei%-(erre Residential Burglary r' C rd o Low E 7 -o 44th a _ -Medium cuUN l 1. horpe — High x7 `', °' — E L ET Lh 5 O 3 C 4+ R i c.i - 4,,, o0.s I Miles Prepared By: 1 i I 2015 December Residential Burglary Hotspots Regional Intelligence Group 9 Map Produced: 11 Jan 2016 Spokane County Sheriff Francis 1 € / F orket 7 L •� 2 Y Wellesle 5'�� •• Wellesle ° r� U aver U• o C rd T. o LL ll 10 fa Mirabeau Eu lid Fr o ane Eulid. I WO•; �4 lbw Bucke e iberty Lake T.--2 cl:y FtaMon•;ome y KnoxMae 1111). India a "�' I ion �` Mission Mission j0 0 . L o6 _ v I > Catald D v �a:570,,A �i i Vista e ACS r'.moo+ =Broadw _ _ N LL �) " S.r._ue 2nd U d . . 4111‘.1111 A'•er �e � Spr e 4th c �� p H �) Shelley 8th E v Lake 8t h T 8th ° v Ix > N Q N c o Irl 1 (II b 16th I 6th 11N \iiii, s -.11 1%zavill �d� 25- 'ilwilr 49 • s. 3 0 29 ,• ist I 0 .1) n. v 40th Be/O erre Stolen Vehicles r C rd Low v III — -o CS 4th a E Medium horpe — High x-7`• ` rte oy ! 0 1 -. ' L G.b _b O 2 )th 5 O 3 C 4+ R lci � 1 '4 0 1 0.5 i II Miles 2015 November & December Stolen Vehicle Hotspots Regionallligenc PIn reeared ce Group 9 I Map Produced: I I Jan 2016 Spokane County Sheriff Francis 7 Hcp\umbra Forke • Q vlli • ellesle . - 5•c\r • Wellesle ,- _....=--.. 0•r.0er UI — �- v C v T , i LL { e ra. I Eu lid 2 Mirabeau Euflid Fr-• °kan .,` _ N- _ 4 o 1L • Miar�et Libert LakeU1 Francis i= i i 7 r Forked �_. a .Q ~ O v G ellesle . - 5'r�r 0 N ___a Wellesley ° Q J , _ ___________--,,,_,-_--------_,-,,--- -- -._-_, --e- 7,— a a>,-'s ••-11 /Var. p Umai 4° 1 inc' ll. O CD Eu lid Mirabeau , Eu^lid Frcicerick Q I WO• Bucke e 0 Mare Liber Lake 0O 1. 0 • QO • O 2 Knox 2 Montgome�� • 1 Qe _..41141L o Mission 01 _ 2 M0. 1© A Q Mission 6 ar.Q Ai °. O Catald o0Ielli © 1= � Q 2 � —--;Toa. aY � Co .::.r�1ista .� O O Gr yloili z Broadway011) 1WOQ _ / 0 MIMI Q MINN /� 2 Sprague 2nd 00 0yrie w O tQ Q Pr ' _ O 2 O. �1 LE ,ewaOQ Q 0 0 CT r v H Shelley h Hanson Q 8th_,,___t ih � LaShke �W 22 16thLa jy 0 CI. ��-d� 3 25,- 24th 0 3 ° '--^ m • 3 �_ I2 29tr 32nd c 1st I O Q > L IIII Traffic Collisions 37th t 0 40th B%E, erre Low Medium 9 Low ° -Medium - High ' 44th Z1 E O ( rL�,;l'i- horpe O 2 oy O O 3 C 4+ i N ..,.:..- u Q o 0.�5 I.s Miles Prepared By: I I 2015 November Traffic Collision Hotspots Regional Intelligence Group 9 Map Produced: I I Jan 2016 Spokane County Sheriff Selected Data for ComparisonscOU , RMS Stats/Charts-Spokane Valley up Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls 4000 2o12 2013 . .2014 :2015 3000 -----'—_-- 40.41#1. -- -_, 2000 1000 0 February Apri June August October December January March May July September November January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 2443 2253 2622 2805 2890 2861 3450 3365 3029 2845 2647 2714 2013 2746 2383 2882 2928 3166 3195 3491 3529 3127 3016 2753 2773 2014 2702 2550 2992 2935 3369 3291 3847 3593 3279 3069 2715 2884 2015 2995 2658 3209 2971 3473 3639 3928 3817 3652 3675 3104 3029 Printed 1/13/2016 2:51:17 PM Rpt007 Page 7 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons „,`" '"fs, RMS Stats/Charts-Spokane Valley Regional Intelligence Group 9 t;,1;> RIG 9 Spokane Valley Person Crimes 350 .i .2012 --•2013 Air ‘41111111141111161w ii 2014 gi 2015 300 250 ---�...i,.. 200 150 100 50 0 February April June August October December January March May July September November January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 213 207 260 235 266 252 293 269 251 248 206 248 2013 223 180 213 256 248 255 278 278 249 243 251 243 2014 270 225 265 273 280 274 335 331 323 286 290 279 2015 301 248 285 261 316 330 348 313 272 272 263 318 Printed 1/13/2016 2:51:17 PM Rpt007 Page 16 of 28 Selected Data for ComparisonscOU , RMS Stats/Charts-Spokane Valley up Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Property Crimes 1000 .ms,2012 2013 q .2014 gin 2015 800 4111116 411111111P—AftTlift-4111441 _d, Niter 600 6 400 200 0 , I I I , February April June August October December January March May July September November January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 645 498 502 609 671 625 697 775 728 773 681 699 2013 717 599 729 671 634 634 697 710 695 817 710 689 2014 632 578 758 665 717 706 727 665 755 683 671 778 2015 706 675 644 586 633 636 686 709 700 733 603 787 Printed 1/13/2016 2:51:17 PM Rpt007 Page 17 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons .�`" '"f.s, RMS Stats/Charts-Spokane Valley Regional Intelligence Group 9 t;,1,;> RIG 9 Spokane Valley Self Initiated Incidents 2500 iii,2012 --•2013 —2014 g .2015 2000 - ...._..... 1001011 -- t 1500 1000 500 0 February Apri June August October December January March May July September November January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 1980 1988 2175 2125 1809 1716 1863 1891 1519 2116 1848 1639 2013 1638 1881 2015 1696 1639 1745 2094 1682 1477 1766 1660 1512 2014 2126 1707 1831 1763 1899 1903 2096 1863 1826 1802 1794 1723 2015 1923 1795 2038 2001 1606 1838 2073 2003 1958 2072 1715 1602 Printed 1/13/2016 2:51:17 PM Rpt007 Page 20 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisonsni`"'"f.s, t RMS Stats/Charts-Spokane Valley f r, Regional Intelligence Group 9 if : kIG 9 Spokane Valley Crime Sex Crimes 50 —2012 2013 . .2014 g .2015 40 V , ..,„....___. 4000. 30 20 10 0 February April June August October December January March May Jul, September November January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 37 13 21 24 30 34 46 33 35 31 27 33 2013 24 23 26 21 44 41 36 37 32 29 33 38 2014 26 38 41 43 42 25 25 33 34 36 39 33 2015 36 36 26 23 42 27 45 32 22 25 21 29 Printed 1/13/2016 2:51:17 PM Rpt007 Page 22 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons .'`" '"fs, RMS Stats/Charts-Spokane Valley7 elk: Regional Intelligence Group 9 t;,1;> RIG 9 Spokane Valley Traffic Collisions 200 "ma 2012 =---•2013 —2014 —2015 150 100— . � A 1111111111%CilL11111111111116 -.4,44( 50- 0 February April June August October December January March May July September November January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 102 82 83 76 98 78 98 90 91 97 94 122 2013 120 69 82 79 90 107 87 98 97 76 114 128 2014 100 105 83 65 103 82 93 90 105 112 116 95 2015 105 76 110 102 106 127 103 103 124 94 131 152 Printed 1/13/2016 2:51:17 PM Rpt007 Page 27 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons .'`" '"fs, RMS Stats/Charts-Spokane Valley Regional Intelligence Group 9 t;,!: kIG 9 Charge Count from Tickets: Spokane Valley 1 600 —2012 2013 —2014 2015 1400 1200 411111.r- 1000 „,. 7:111.1%* Iiiib. 4**/- � 800 E4 600 400- 200 0 February Apri June August October December January March May July September November January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 1059 1143 1297 1400 1181 1202 1239 1199 839 1273 1072 866 2013 901 1086 1136 995 978 1226 1290 970 757 1078 948 827 2014 1216 1000 917 959 1130 1110 1242 998 1054 843 868 881 2015 985 895 1006 1054 762 843 985 1019 1124 954 825 858 Printed 1/13/2016 2:51:17 PM Rpt007 Page 28 of 28 St"oka.n Valle PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT December 2015 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION Contract Total %of Contract Name Contractor Expended as Contract Amount of 12/31/15 Expended Street Maintenance Poe Asphalt $1,366,663.00 $1,350,754.30 98.83% Street Sweeping AAA Sweeping $563,699.94 $543,989.39 96.50% Storm Drain Cleaning AAA Sweeping $189,990.00 $189,712.13 99.85% Snow Removal Poe Asphalt $140,000.00 $90,858.07 64.89% Landscaping Senske $62,811.00 $55,687.00 88.66% Emergency Traffic Control Senske $20,000.00 $6,894.88 34.47% Litter and Weed Control Geiger Work Crew $60,000.00 $56,668.86 94.45% State Highway Maintenance WSDOT $265,000.00 $139,538.52** 52.66% Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping Spokane County $632,000.00 $480,922.70 76.10% Dead Animal Control Brad Southard $20,000.00 $18,038.00 90.19% * Budget estimates ** Does not include December 2015 —waiting on invoices Citizen Requests for Public Works 90 80 U, 70 w 60 c 50 cu cc 40 w 30 20 10 II0 Total Citizen Dead Sign & Storm Requests: Misc Animal Roadway Street Signal Drainage/ Public Requests Removal Hazard Sweeping Requests Erosion Works ■Submitted 80 5 15 13 2 34 11 •In Progress 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 ■Resolved 78 5 15 13 2 33 10 *Information in bold indicates updates 1 WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/, http://www.ecy.wa.qov/geographic/spokane/spokane river basin.htm, http://www.spokanecounty.orq/utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works/Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for December 2015: • AAA Sweeping continued arterial maintenance sweeping and wind storm cleanup. • City crews and the Geiger crew continued with the wind storm cleanup. Snow and Ice operations and roadway maintenance. STORMWATER UTILITY The following is a summary of Stormwater Utility activities in the City of Spokane Valley for December 2015: • Worked on updating Stormwater Utility Fee Rolls. • Began work on updating swale inventory and information in GIS, as well as entering stormwater structure information into the GIS system for new 2015 developments and projects. • Assessed stormwater retrofit possibilities with several 2016 pavement preservation projects. • Assisted with Windstorm 2015 response including providing maps of trees down and extension of contracted sweeping services. • Completed work on service contract renewals for Storm drain Cleaning and Street Sweeping Services. • Continued work on service contract renewals for Roadway Landscaping and Weed Control Services. • Continued work on an internal review of the City's Stormwater Program to prepare for probable future audit by the State. • Continued work on various capital improvement projects, (see below). Worked on negotiating grant agreements with Ecology on several projects including, Sprague LID, University to Park; Decant Phase 3; and Stormwater Retrofits with Pavement Preservation Projects. *Information in bold indicates updates 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS Public Works�l()�idCZL--' Projects Val ley. Monthly Summary-Design &Construction December-2015 Bid Estimated Total Project Proposed Open %Complete Construction Project # Design&Construction Projects Funding Ad Date Date PE I CN Completion Cost Street Projects 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 FHWA-BR 06/27/14 07/18/14 100 54 09/30/16 $15,833,333 0166 Pines Rd.(SR27)&Grace Ave.Int Safety HSIP 04/22/16 05/13/16 95 0 10/01/16 $ 733,086 0201 ITS Infill Project-Phase 1 FHWA-CMAQ 03/25/16 04/15/16 50 0 12/31/16 $ 327,562 0207 Indiana&Evergreen Transit Access Imp STA-FTA/NF 03/11/16 03/25/16 0 0 12/31/16 $ 85,000 0234 Seth Woodard Sidewalk Improvements CDBG 05/27/16 05/17/16 5 0 12/31/16 $ 389,987 0236 Fancher Road Bridge#3502 Joint Repair COSV 02/26/16 03/11/16 100 0 06/01/16 $ 160,000 0237 Appleway Trail-Sullivan to Corbin COSV 03/03/17 03/24/17 0 0 12/31/17 $ 2,130,000 Street Preservation Projects 0226 Appleway Resurfacing,Park to Dishman Mica FHWA-STP(U) 01/02/17 01/02/17 10 0 12/31/17 $ 1,190,000 0233 Broadway Ave Street Pres-Sulliv to Moore COSV 04/01/16 04/15/16 25 0 12/31/16 $ 450,000 0229 32nd Ave-Dishman Mica Rd to Pines Rd COSV 01/22/16 02/12/16 85 0 12/31/16 $ 1,400,500 Saltese Road-Houk Rd to 24th Ave COSV 04/22/16 05/06/16 0 0 12/31/16 $ 1,090,467 Traffic Projects 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements HSIP 07/31/15 08/21/15 100 80 07/31/16 $ 503,424 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Back Plates HSIP tbd tbd 0 0 03/01/19 $ 81,000 0228 Transportation Management Center COSV Local agency work 100 85 12/31/15 $ 45,000 Parks Projects 0227 Appleway S.U.P.-Pines to Evergreen FHWA-STP(U) 01/12/18 02/02/18 0 0 12/31/18 $ 1,899,252 Design&Construction $26,318,611 Design Bid Estimated Total Project Complete Open %Complete Construction Project # Design Only Projects Funding Date Date PE Completion Cost Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave-Flora to Barker FHWA-STP(U) 12/31/17 15 $ 517,919 0141 Sullivan&Euclid PCC FHWA-STP(U) 12/31/17 80 $ 175,260 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan FHWA-STP(U) 08/31/16 90 $ 276,301 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement COSV 12/31/16 5 $ 51,619 0221 McDonald Rd Diet(16th to Mission) HSIP 06/30/16 0 $ 616,000 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF&Trent COSV tbd 0 $ 10,000 Stormwater Projects 0193 Effectiveness Study Dept of Ecology 06/30/15 100 $ 300,000 0198 Sprague,Park to University LID Dept of Ecology 03/01/16 30 $ 20,000 0199 Havana-Yale Diversion Dept of Ecology 10/31/16 35 $ 20,000 0200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion Dept of Ecology 10/31/16 35 $ 20,000 Design only $ 2,007,099 *Information in bold indicates updates 3 TRAFFIC CIP Projects Staff continues to coordinate with traffic related design and study items as part of CIP projects. Materials for the pedestrian signal replacement portion of the Citywide Safety Project have been ordered and installation could begin this fall. Finalizing materials for the signing portion of the project. Specific Studies Staff is coordinating with the consultant to wrap up the University Overpass Study. Staff obtained the final Sullivan Road Corridor Study. Development Projects Reviewing traffic impact studies and letters for several projects and assisting Development Engineering with the Comprehensive Plan Update. PLANNING AND GRANTS Staff worked on year-end reports for grant funding for 2015, fund obligation schedules, and project milestones to develop an amended 2016 TIP that will be presented to Council early next year. *Information in bold indicates updates 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business [' new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Draft Amended 2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council Adopted the 2016-2021 Six Year TIP on June 23, 2015, Resolution #15-005; Council approval for TIB Grant Applications on July 14, 2015; and Recreation and Conservation Office Grant Funding Resolution 14-004 for the Appleway Trail. BACKGROUND: Council adopted the 2016-2021 TIP based upon information staff had at that time relative to available funds and how these funds could be utilized for transportation projects. Since the adoption of the 2016-2021 TIP, staff submitted grant applications for the following projects that were selected for funding that will begin in 2016: • Appleway Trail, Sullivan to Corbin (RCO and WA State Discretionary) • McDonald Rd Preservation Project (TIB) • Opportunity Elementary— SRTS (Bowdish Rd) (TIB) • Mirabeau Pkwy & Pines (SR-27) Traffic Signal (TIB) • Sprague LID, Park to University (ECOLOGY) Additional proposed changes identified in the Amended 2016 TIP include the following: Added Projects: The City's has identified Fund 311 Pavement Preservation projects in the City's 2016 budget which add these projects: • Broadway Preservation, Sullivan to Moore • Sullivan Rd Preservation, Spokane River to Flora Pit Road • 32nd Ave Preservation, Dishman Mica to Pines • Saltese Ave Preservation, Houk to 24th Carryover projects from 2015: • Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access, Indiana @ Evergreen • Pines (SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project, Pines (SR-27)@Grace Ave • Citywide Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped) • ITS Infill Project (CN) • Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade Based on this information, it is recommended that the 2016 TIP be amended to include projects where the City was awarded grant funding and projects that were not completed in 2015. Since the City uses Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) monies as matching funds for state and federal grants, this amendment to the current-year TIP is necessary to meet the state law that requires REET funds to only be used on projects that have been identified in an adopted plan. Attached is a summary of the proposed changes. A public hearing on these changes to the 2016 TIP is scheduled for February 9, 2016. Adoption of the Amended 2016 TIP is scheduled for February 23, 2016. OPTIONS: Information only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The projects costs shown in the draft Amended 2016 TIP are preliminary and may be adjusted prior to adoption to reflect 2015 year-end adjustments. There are sufficient capital project funds to meet the local match requirements for these projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, PE, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric Guth, PE, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Amended 2016 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Adopted 2016 Transportation Improvement Program Primary City Total 2016 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0155 Sullivan West Bridge Sullivan @Spokane River BR $ 536,000 $ 5,064,000 2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project(PE/RW Only) Flora Barker STP(U) $ 43,000 $ 273,000 3 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates(PE/CN) Various locations HSIP $ 9,000 $ 81,000 4 0221 McDonald Rd Road Diet 16th Mission HSIP $ 3,000 $ 574,000 5 Seth Woodard Elementary Sidewalk Imp Mission Park CMAQ $ 30,000 $ 361,000 6 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements(PE Only) Sprague @ Barker Developer $ 12,000 $ 50,000 7 2016 Street Preservation Project Various locations City $ 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 8 0226 Appleway Preservation Park Dishman Mica STP(U) $ 11,000 $ 83,000 9 0227 Appleway Shared Use Path Pines Evergreen STP(U)/TAP $ 31,000 $ 145,000 10 3502 Fancher/BNSF RR Overpass Joint Repair(PE/CN) Fancher @ BNSF RR FedBR $ 201,000 $ 201,000 11 Maribeau Pkwy&Pine(SR-27)Traffic Signal Pine& Maribeau Pkwy City $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Funded Projects $633,000 $ 6,220,000 Planned Projects $2,793,000 $ 3,162,000 $ 3,426,000 $ 9,382,000 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT AMENDED 2016 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 16-00#,(2-23-2016) Primary City Total 2016 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0155 Sullivan West Bridge Sullivan @Spokane River BR $ 1,010,000 $ 6,980,000 2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project(PE/RW Only) Flora Barker STP(U) $ 43,000 $ 273,000 3 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates(PE/CN) Various locations HSIP $ 9,000 $ 81,000 4 0221 McDonald Rd Road Diet 16th Mission HSIP $ 3,000 $ 574,000 5 Seth Woodard Elementary Sidewalk Imp Mission Park CDBG $ 11,580 $ 358,790 6 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements(PE Only) Sprague @ Barker Developer $ 12,000 $ 50,000 7 2016 Street Preservation Project Various locations City $ 3,050,000 $ 3,050,000 Broadway Preservation Sullivan Moore Sullivan Rd. Preservation Sullivan @ Spokane River 0229 32nd Ave Preservation Bowdish Pines 0229 32nd Ave Preservation Dishman Mica Bowdish Saltese Houk McDonald Saltese McDonald 24th 8 0226 Appleway Preservation Park Dishman Mica STP(U) $ 11,000 $ 83,000 9 0227 Appleway Shared Use Path Pines Evergreen STP(U)/TAP $ 31,000 $ 145,000 10 3502 Fancher/BNSF RR Overpass Joint Repair(PE/CN) Fancher @ BNSF RR City $ 201,000 $ 201,000 11 Maribeau Pkwy&Pine(SR-27)Traffic Signal Pine& Maribeau Pkwy TIB $ 28,149 $ 446,338 12 0221 McDonald Rd Preservation Project 8th Mission TIB $ 7,100 $ 1,244,730 13 Opportunity Elementary-SRTS(Bowdish Rd) 12th 8th TIB $ 222,912 $ 506,342 14 0237 Appleway Trail Sullivan Corbin RCO/DOC $ 41,516 $ 276,775 15 0198 Sprague LID(Low Impact Development) Park University DOE $ - $ 20,000 16 0207 Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access Indiana @ Evergreen STA $ - $ 85,000 17 0166 Pines(SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project Pines(SR 27)@ Grace Ave HSIP $ - $ 562,000 18 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements(Bike/Ped.) Various locations HSIP $ - $ 154,000 19 0201 ITS Infill Project(CN) Various locations CMAQ $ 35,790 $ 265,115 $ 4,717,047 $ 15,356,090 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances,and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. Funded Projects Added Projects 2015 Carry Over Projects P:\Public Works\Capital Projects\CIP-TIP Funding\2016-2021 TIP\2016 Amended TIP Amended 2016 TIP.xlsx 1/20/2016