The URL can be used to link to this page

2016, 02-09 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, February 9, 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 Bill Dropko, Greenacres Christian Fellowship 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. PUBLIC HEARING: Amended 2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) — Steve Worley 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 claim vouchers on Feb 9, 2016 Request for Council Action Form, Totaling: $1,479,020.31 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending January 31, 2016: $410,578.54 c. Proposed Resolution 16-004, Appointment of Alternates to Spokane Transit Authority d. Approval of January 19, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session e. Approval of January 26, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Formal Format NEW BUSINESS: 3. Second Reading Ordinance 16-001 Vacating 3rd Avenue — Karen Kendall [public comment] 4. Second Reading Ordinance 16-002 Mining Moratorium Findings of Fact — Erik Lamb [public comment] 5. Second Reading Ordinance 16-003 Extending Mining Moratorium — Erik Lamb [public comment] 6. Proposed Resolution 16-005 Amending 2016 TIP — Steve Worley [public comment] Council Agenda 02-09-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 3 7. Proposed Resolution 16-006 Authorizing Intermittent Closing of the Spokane River — Cary Driskell [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 8. Governance Manual — Councilmember Hafner 9. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY 10. Operations & Administrative Quarterly Report 11. Parks & Recreation Quarterly Report 12. Windstorm Funding to Outside Agencies 13. Contract for Comprehensive Plan Update 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 2°d 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 03rd and 51 Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. Council Agenda 02-09-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 3 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 02-09-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 9, 2016 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ['new business ® public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Revised Code of Washington (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 (Transportation Improvement Board) Grant Applications on July 14, 2015; Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Grant Funding Resolution 14-004 for the Appleway Trail; Informational Request for Council Action on January 26, 2016 and Administrative Report on February 2, 2016 for the Amended 2016 TIP. 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 Legislature) • McDonald Rd Preservation Project (TIB) • Opportunity Elementary — Safe Routes To School (Bowdish Rd) (TIB) • Mirabeau Pkwy & Pines (State Route 27) (SR -27) Traffic Signal (TIB) • Sprague LID (Low Impact Development), 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 Road Preservation, Spokane River to Flora Pit Road • 32nd Avenue Preservation, Dishman Mica to Pines • Saltese Avenue Preservation, Houk to 24th Carryover projects from 2015: • Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access, Indiana at Evergreen • Pines (SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project, Pines (SR -27) at Grace Ave • Citywide Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped) • ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) Infill Project (Construction only) • 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. OPTIONS: Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Public Hearing 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 (Professional Engineer) - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Manager Eric Guth, PE - Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Amended 2016 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Adopted 2016 Transportation Improvement Program Proj. # Project From Primary City Total 2016 To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0155 Sullivan West Bridge 2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project (PE/RW Only) 3 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates (PE/CN) 4 0221 McDonald Rd Road Diet 5 Seth Woodard Elementary Sidewalk Imp 6 0205 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements (PE Only) 7 2016 Street Preservation Project 8 0226 Appleway Preservation 9 0227 Appleway Shared Use Path 10 3502 Fancher/BNSF RR Overpass Joint Repair (PE/CN) 11 Maribeau Pkwy & Pine (SR -27) Traffic Signal Funded Projects Planned Projects Sullivan Flora Various locations 16th Mission Sprague @ Various locations Park Pines Fancher @ Pine & @Spokane River Barker Mission Park Barker Dishman Mica Evergreen BNSF RR Maribeau Pkwy City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT AMENDED 2016 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 16-005, (2.9.2016 ) BR STP(U) HSIP HSIP CMAQ Developer City STP(U) STP(U)/TAP FedBR City $ 536,000 $ 43,000 $ 9,000 $ 3,000 $ 30,000 $ 12,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 11,000 $ 31,000 $ 201,000 $ 350,000 $ 5,064,000 $ 273,000 $ 81,000 $ 574,000 $ 361,000 $ 50,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 83,000 $ 145,000 $ 201,000 $ 350,000 $633,000 $ 6,220,000 $2,793,000 $ 3,162,000 $ 3,426,000 $ 9,382,000 Proj. # Project From Primary City Total 2016 To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0155 Sullivan West Bridge 2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project (PE/RW Only) 3 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates (PE/CN) 4 0221 McDonald Rd Road Diet 5 Seth Woodard Elementary Sidewalk Imp 6 0205 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements (PE Only) 7 2016 Street Preservation Project Broadway Preservation Sullivan Rd. Preservation 0229 32nd Ave Preservation 0229 32nd Ave Preservation Saltese Saltese 8 0226 Appleway Preservation 9 0227 Appleway Shared Use Path 10 3502 Fancher/BNSF RR Overpass Joint Repair (PE/CN) 11 Maribeau Pkwy & Pine (SR -27) Traffic Signal 12 0221 McDonald Rd Preservation Project 13 Opportunity Elementary - SRTS (Bowdish Rd) 14 0237 Appleway Trail 15 0198 Sprague LID (Low Impact Development) 16 0207 Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access 17 0166 Pines (SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project 18 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped.) 19 0201 ITS Infill Project (CN) Sullivan Flora Various locations 16th Mission Sprague @ Various locations Sullivan Sullivan @ Bowdish Dishman Mica Houk McDonald Park Pines Fancher @ Pine & 8th 12th Sullivan Park Indiana @ Pines (SR 27) @ Various locations Various locations @Spokane River Barker Mission Park Barker Moore Spokane River Pines Bowdish McDonald 24th Dishman Mica Evergreen BNSF RR Maribeau Pkwy Mission 8th Corbin University Evergreen Grace Ave BR $ STP(U) $ HSIP $ HSIP $ CDBG $ Developer $ City $ 1,010,000 43,000 9,000 3,000 11,580 12,000 3,050,000 $ 6,980,000 $ 273,000 $ 81,000 $ 574,000 $ 358,790 $ 50,000 $ 3,050,000 STP(U) $ 11,000 $ 83,000 STP(U)/TAP $ 31,000 $ 145,000 City $ 201,000 $ 201,000 TIB $ 28,149 $ 446,338 TIB $ 7,100 $ 1,244,730 TIB $ 222,912 $ 506,342 RCO/DOC $ 41,516 $ 276,775 DOE $ - $ 20,000 STA $ $ 85,000 HSIP $ $ 562,000 HSIP $ $ 154,000 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 2/4/2016 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 9, 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 01/21/2016 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 01/26/2016 01/28/2016 01/28/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 01/29/2016 02/03/2016 02/03/2016 VOUCHER NUMBERS 5377, 5387-5388; 5391-5392; 37477 37478-37493 37494-37525 37526-37557 37558-37562 (-37563) 37564 37565-37569; 59196; 17279932; 126160198 37570-37591 37592-37605 37606-37610 6510-6521 GRAND TOTAL: TOTAL AMOUNT $118,145.06 $192,919.00 $374,015.88 $632,696.14 $2,503.24 $141.52 $46,435.81 $74,898.46 $31,172.49 $4,450.21 $1,642.50 $1,479,020.31 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001 - General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.032.000. Public Works 001.058.050.558. CED - Administration 001.058.051.558. CED — Economic Development 001.058.055.558. CED — Development Services -Engineering 001.058.056.558. CED — Development Services -Planning 001.058.057.558 CED — Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't -Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preservation Other Funds 101 — Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121— Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 123 — Civil Facilities Replacement 204 — Debt Service 301 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 - REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 01/21/2016 8:38:22AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5377 1/20/2016 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben65335 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 1,089.41 Total: 1,089.41 5387 1/20/2016 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben65337 311.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 33,707.66 Total : 33,707.66 5388 1/20/2016 000682 EFTPS Ben65339 101.231.12.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 36,392.20 Total : 36,392.20 5391 1/20/2016 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL/ Ben65341 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 7,271.72 Total: 7,271.72 5392 1/20/2016 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC PL Ben65343 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,184.07 Total : 1,184.07 37477 1/20/2016 000210 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Ben65333 001.231.28.00 HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT: 38,500.00 Total : 38,500.00 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 118,145.06 6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 118,145.06 Page: 1 vchlist 01/25/2016 7:12:04AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37478 1/25/2016 001081 ALSCO 37479 1/25/2016 000394 AM LANDSHAPER INC 37480 1/25/2016 000030 AVISTA 37481 1/25/2016 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 LSPO1707739 Pay App 1 Dec 2015 2015 37482 1/25/2016 004873 GREATER AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION BLD -2015-2949 37483 1/25/2016 001732 GREATER SPOKANE SUBSTANCE 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 37484 1/25/2016 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 984100 37485 1/25/2016 004872 SEELY, SHELLY 37486 1/25/2016 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 6428042 7014452 7026924 7029730 7029731 7030313 BLD -2015-3073 Fund/Dept 001.016.000.521 309.000.232.594 001.076.300.576 101.042.000.542 001.058.059.322 001.090.000.560 001.090.000.560 001.090.000.560 001.090.000.560 001.090.000.560 001.090.000.560 001.076.305.575 001.058.059.322 001.076.300.576 001.076.099.576 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.016.000.521 001.090.000.518 Description/Account Amount FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC Total : DISCOVERY PLAYGROUND SHADE Total : UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA Total : WATER CHARGES FOR PW - REVII Total : PERMIT REFUND BLD -2015-2949 Total : 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI Total : EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( Total : PERMIT REFUND BLD -2015-3073 Total : CONTRACT MAINT: PARKS DEC 20 WINDSTORM 2015 PARK CLEAN UI SNOW REMOVAL FUTURE CITY HP SNOW REMOVAL/DEICE: FUTURE MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC" SNOW REMOVAL CITY HALL Total : 20.39 20.39 14,725.40 14,725.40 8,074.15 8,074.15 12,171.28 12,171.28 171.75 171.75 370.36 499.81 1,200.00 1,328.15 2,237.81 1,259.87 6,896.00 94.82 94.82 51.00 51.00 58,934.26 38,045.00 548.97 271.77 1,603.35 391.32 99,794.67 Page: vchlist 01/25/2016 7:12:04AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: - 2 - Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37487 1/25/2016 000451 SPOKANE REG SPORTS COMMISSION 4th Qt2015 37488 1/25/2016 002301 SPOKANE RIVER FORUM 324 37489 1/25/2016 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 53940 53944 37490 1/25/2016 001206 SWANSON'S REFRIGERATION &, RESTA 12706 37491 1/25/2016 000295 VALLEYFEST 37492 1/25/2018 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 37493 1/25/2016 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE 16 Vouchers for bank cmda: apbank 16 Vouchers in this report Dec 2015 6159 Dec 2015 Fund/Dept Description/Account 105800.000.557 105.000.000.557 001l16D00.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.090.000.550 105.000.008.557 001.090.000.580 Amount 2015 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMI Total : 2015LODGING TAX GRANT RE|M8 Total : WORK ORDER 26355 PRECINCT WORK ORDER 26393 AT CENTERF Total : REACH IN COOLER REPAIR AT CP Total : 2015 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI Total : 2015 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB Total : 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI Total : 30,000.00 30,000.00 525.54 525.54 256.53 216.53 473.06 288.03 288.03 235.20 235.20 19,166.65 19,166.65 231.06 231.06 Bank total : 192,919.00 Total vouoherm: 192,918.00 Page: vchlist 01/25/2016 10:23:11 AM Voucher `'List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37494 1/25/2016 000277 AWC 37495 1/25/2016 002603 B&H PHOTO VIDEO 37496 1/25/2016 004871 BAIRD, SAMANTHA 37497 1/25/2016 003221 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 37498 1/25/2016 001888 COMCAST 37499 1/25/2016 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 37500 1/25/2016 000686 DEPT OF LICENSING 37501 1/25/2016 003697 ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE LLC 37502 1/25/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 37503 1/25/2016 000179 GFOA 37504 1/25/2016 002568 GRANICUS INC Fund/Dept 39588 001.018.016.518 105736429 001.090.000.518 AQUATICS REFUND 001.076.302.347 SEPA 45201.0122 313.000.215.594 JANUARY 2016 001.090.000.518 78304763 78320310 23201 0045551 13559315 44865 44866 44906 44907 44908 0131582 001.090.000.548 001.090.000.548 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.586 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 001.018.014.514 71699 001.011.000.511 Description/Account Amount 2016 DRUG & ALCOHOL TESTING Total : REPLACEMENT SCANNERS AQUATICS REFUND: Total : Total : SEPA REVIEW - FUTURE CITY HAL Total : INTERNET CITY HALL Total : COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0( COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0( Total : PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICEN Total : SCRAPS INTERNET SERVICE Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : 2016 DUES: CALHOUN, DUFFEY, V1 Total : 308.00 308.00 1,929.98 1,929.98 17.50 17.50 350.00 350.00 145.20 145.20 1,006.63 1,049.27 2,055.90 116.00 116.00 104.94 104.94 102.85 72.25 51.20 92.65 92.65 411.60 640.00 640.00 MAINTENANCE FOR JANUARY 201 777.16 Page: vchlist 01/25/2016 10:23:11 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37504 1/25/2016 002568 002568 GRANICUS INC 37505 1/25/2016 000917 GRAYBAR 37506 1/25/2016 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 37507 1/25/2016 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 37508 1/25/2016 004870 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 37509 1/25/2016 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 37510 1/25/2016 000265 JACKSON, MIKE (Continued) 982962344 106672 25808 E983780 600478067 JANUARY 2016 37511 1/25/2016 000971 NORTHWEST IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY 31291 37512 1/25/2016 002532 NPELRA 37513 1/25/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 37514 1/25/2016 004199 PINECROFT LLC Fund/Dept 001.090.000.518 001.011.000.511 001.011.000.511 402.402.000.531 001.090.000.548 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 WHITEHEAD30018 001.018.016.518 817215642001 817215940001 CIP 0166 37515 1/25/2016 000092 PLANNING ASSOCIATION, OF WASHING 601 37516 1/25/2016 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS INC 27712 27717 001.076.000.576 001.076.305.575 303.303.166.595 001.058.056.558 001.058.057.558 001.011.000.511 Description/Account Amount SUPPLIES: IT Total : Total : MEMBER REGISTRATION - R HIGG Total : GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : SUPPLIES: STORMWATER SCHEDULE 572E3651 AUTO ALLOWANCE PHOTO PORTRAIT COUNCIL 2016 MEMBERSHIP DUES J WHITE Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS & REC OFFICE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACE Total : ROW & EASEMENTS SR 27 AND GI Total : PLANNING ASSOC OF WASH 2016 Total : NAME PLATE NAME PLATES 777.16 1,220.87 1,220.87 20.00 20.00 55.00 55.00 868.51 868.51 830.28 830.28 300.00 300.00 104.99 104.99 200.00 200.00 241.59 23.45 265.04 55,050.00 55,050.00 450.00 450.00 16.85 115.88 Page: vchlist 01/25/2016 10:23:11 AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37516 1/25/2016 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS INC (Continued) 27718 001.011.000.511 NAME TAG 12.28 Total : 145.01 37517 1/25/2016 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE 15-140 001.032.000.543 2016 DOCUMENT VIEWER SUBSCF 120.00 Total : 120.00 37518 1/25/2016 000202 SRCAA 7408 001.090.000.553 SCAPCAASSESSMENT FEE 29,108.00 Total : 29,108.00 37519 1/25/2016 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8080040832 001.090.000.518 SERVICE 40204D 160.16 Total : 160.16 37520 1/25/2016 000098 WA CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY 40137 502.502.000.518 2016 LIABILITY/PROGRAM ASSES 277,298.00 Total : 277,298.00 37521 1/25/2016 001134 WA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH 010460 402.402.000.531 2016 WATERWORKS OPERATOR C 42.00 Total : 42.00 37522 1/25/2016 004754 WAPRO 2016 RENEWAL 001.013.000.513 2016 RENEWAL - C KOUDELKA 25.00 Total : 25.00 37523 1/25/2016 000255 WFOA 1330595-88487723 001.018.014.514 WFOA MEMBERSHIP R NIMRI 50.00 Total : 50.00 37524 1/25/2016 001189 WSDA 65644 402.402.000.531 2016 PESTICIDE LICENSE COLLIEF 33.00 Total : 33.00 37525 1/25/2016 001885 ZAYO GROUP LLC JANUARY 2016 001.090.000.518 DARK FIBER LEASE 253.01 JANUARY 2016 001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICE 560.73 Total : 813.74 32 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 374,015.88 32 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 374,015.88 Page: vchlist 01/26/2016 2:58:58PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37526 1/26/2016 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 37527 1/26/2016 000673 BUDGET ARBOR & LOGGING LLC 37528 1/26/2016 000729 CH2MHILL INC 37529 1/26/2016 004437 COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES INC 37530 1/26/2016 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 37531 1/26/2016 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 37532 1/26/2016 000746 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 37533 1/26/2016 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES INC 37534 1/26/2016 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 37535 1/26/2016 003261 FEHR & PEERS 55073 11-2828 4026196 4026915 1576 RE-313-ATB60119031 DECEMBER 2015 OCTOBER 2015 000-217156-00-2 CD201608291 CD201608292 CD201608293 CD201608294 CD201608295 CD201608296 CD201608297 CD201608298 1215 -0577 -Rev 105402 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 303.303.155.595 303.303.155.595 001.090.000.513 311.000.211.595 001.076.304.575 001.076.304.575 502.502.000.517 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 303.303.142.595 001.090.000.558 Description/Account Amount STREET SWEEPING SERVICES Total : TREE REMOVAL - STORM DAMAGE Total : 0155 - SULLIVAN RD W BRIDGE SL 0155 - SULLIVAN RD W BRIDGE SI.. Total : TOURISM ANALYSIS THROUGH 12/ Total : SR 290/SULLIVAN RD TO IDAHO Total : ADVERTISING FOR SENIOR CENTE ADVERTISING FOR SENIOR CENTS Total : 4TH QUARTER 2015 UI TAX ICE SLICER RS ICE SLICER RS ICE SLICER RS ICE SLICER RS ICE SLICER ICE SLICER RS ICE SLICER RS ICE SLICER RS Total : Total : 0142 -RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES Total : MIRABEAU SUBAREA TRAFFIC STt 61,596.17 61,596.17 1,902.25 1,902.25 55,374.37 22,038.60 77,412.97 13,531.76 13, 531.76 4,671.27 4,671.27 35.99 35.50 71.49 1,234.02 1,234.02 5,459.94 5,434.82 5,535.33 5,431.22 5,564.05 5,501.23 5,328.92 5,377.39 43,632.90 3,307.50 3,307.50 13,090.00 Page: vchlist 01/26/2016 2:58:58PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37535 1/26/2016 003261 003261 FEHR & PEERS (Continued) Total : 13,090.00 37536 1/26/2016 002992 FREEDOM TRUCK CENTERS PC001324793-01 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 21.74 Total : 21.74 37537 1/26/2016 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC 0138667 311.000.000.544 TASK 0100 PAVEMENT EVALUATIOI 10,189.00 Total : 10,189.00 37538 1/26/2016 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 307159 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS 30.28 307160 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS 1.50 307763 001.013.000.513 COPIER COSTS 22.42 307764 001.018.013.513 COPIER COSTS 49.76 307770 001.013.015.515 COPIER COSTS 102.73 307771 001.013.015.515 COPIER COSTS 13.24 307785 001.058.050.558 COPIER COSTS 125.56 307786 001.058.050.558 COPIER COSTS 25.28 307797 001.018.016.518 COPIER COSTS 69.67 307798 001.018.016.518 COPIER COSTS 15.64 307941 001.076.000.576 COPIER COSTS 357.80 307942 001.076.000.576 COPIER COSTS 19.24 307987 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS 5.63 Total : 838.75 37539 1/26/2016 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 600480007 001.090.000.518 SCHEDULE 572DD016 745.84 Total : 745.84 37540 1/26/2016 002384 IMS INFRASTRUCTURE MGMT. LLC 11515-7 101.042.000.542 2015 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT P1 4,750.00 Total : 4,750.00 37541 1/26/2016 003959 MAX J KUNEY CO PAY APP 16 303.303.155.595 0155 - SULLIVAN RD WEST BRIDGE 298,792.52 Total : 298,792.52 37542 1/26/2016 003251 MDI MARKETING 10423 001.090.000.558 ADVERTISING 7,302.62 Total : 7,302.62 37543 1/26/2016 002552 MDM CONSTRUCTION INC. 6055 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 15,980.00 Total : 15,980.00 Page: •"2µ vchlist 01/26/2016 2:58:58PM Voucher List Spokane Valley C7 Page: —3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept 37544 1/26/2016 003117 MEALS ON WHEELS, HOLLY CHILINSKI 11-17-15 STORM GRANT 001.090.000.565 37545 1/26/2016 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC 4TH QTR 2015 CAM 37546 1/26/2016 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 37547 1/26/2016 000952 RECALL DESTRUCTION SVC 37548 1/26/2016 002520 RWC GROUP 37549 1/26/2016 004862 SCARSELLA BROS INC 37550 1/26/2016 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 37551 1/26/2016 000994 SIMPSON ENGINEERS INC. 37552 1/26/2016 003480 SNAP 37553 1/26/2016 000405 SPOKANE VALLEY PARTNERS 44822 44823 44824 44825 44826 44828 3901117451 Description/Account Amount 11-17-15 WIND STORM GRANT Total : 001.090.000.518 4TH QTR 2015 CAM CHARGES FOF Total : 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 2015 STREET AND STORMWATER 2015 STREET AND STORMWATER 2015 STREET & STORMWATER MA 2015 STREET AND STORMWATER 2015 STREET AND STORMWATER 2015 STREET & STORMWATER MA Total : 001.058.057.558 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION SERVI Total : 20982N 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 21063N 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 10914 101.000.000.542 ON-CALL SNOW REMOVAL 7029729 001.090.000.518 SNOW REMOVAL CITY HALL 16417-01 16418-01 303.000.234.595 303.000.207.595 11-17-15 STORM GRANT 001.090.000.565 11-17-15 STORM GRANT 001.090.000.565 Total : Total : Total : 15 -039M -ON CALL SURVEYING SEI 15-039K- ON CALL SURVEYING SE Total : 11-17-15 WIND STORM GRANT Total : WIND STORM RESPONSE GRANT Total : 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,157.20 2,157.20 1,092.81 1,171.88 1,063.71 7,048.72 6,518.40 2,471.14 19,366.66 61.61 61.61 39.68 5,102.50 5,142.18 8,400.00 8,400.00 141.31 141.31 4,918.56 3,052.14 7,970.70 10,000.00 10,000.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 37554 1/26/2016 002555 T. LARIVIERE EQUIPMENT &, EXCAVATIO 4654 101.000.000.542 SNOW REMOVAL 11,765.00 Page: vchlist 01/26/2016 2:58:58PM Voucher List Spokane Valley /6 Page: —4 -- Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37554 1/26/2016 002555 002555 T. LARIVIERE EQUIPMENT &, EXCA\ (Continued) 37555 1/26/2016 001670 VAN DYK, KEN EXPENSES 37556 1/26/2016 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 37557 1/26/2016 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC. 32 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 32 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date 0062886-1518-7 007196 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount Total : 11,765.00 303.303.155.595 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT SEP -I Total : 101.042.000.542 11-17-15 WINDSTORM CLEANUP Total : 001.058.055.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 545.10 545.10 3,335.64 3,335.64 739.94 Total : 739.94 Bank total : 632,696.14 Total vouchers : 632,696.14 Page: vchlist 01/28/2016 11:47:29AM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37558 1/28/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8565 2015 Final 001.143.70.00 ASCE 299.00 8565 2015 Final 001.143.70.00 DROPBOX 244.58 8565 2015 Final 001.032.000.543 WALMART 124.98 8565 2015 Final 001.090.000.518 WALMART 182.62 8565 2015 Final 001.090.000.518 BEST BUY 423.90 Total : 1,275.08 37559 1/28/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8573 2015 Final 001.013.000.513 CONCORD CONSULTING CORPOR 378.38 Total : 378.38 37560 1/28/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8557 2015 Final 001.090.000.517 RAMAX PRINTING 114.95 8557 2015 Final 001.143.70.00 ALASKA AIRLINES 201.20 8557 2015 Final 001.143.70.00 DOUBLEKNOT INC 35.00 8557 2015 Final 001.011.000.511 ROSAUERS 13.79 8557 2015 Final 001.011.000.511 ROSAUERS 44.78 Total : 409.72 37561 1/28/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 37562 1/28/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 6 Vouchers in this report 8599 2015 Final 8599 2015 Final 8581 2015 Final 8581 2015 Final 8581 2015 Final 8581 2015 Final 8581 2015 Final 599 201 S ' 001.076.305.575 HOME DEPOT 001.076.301.571 YMCA 001.058.056.558 HOME DEPOT 001.058.056.558 ROSAUERS 001.143.70.00 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 001.143.70.00 WSAPT 001.143.70.00 WSAPT Total : Total : Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 2;644:78' 5-030)41 81.43 133.00 214.43 14.64 20.99 120.00 35.00 35.00 225.63 1141752- 144752- 6 144:52- Page: �1 vchlist 01/28/2016 12:47:44PM Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37564 1/28/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 1 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date 8599 2015 Final 001.076.301.571 YMCA 141.52 Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 141.52 141.52 141.52 Page: vchlist 01/29/2016 11:41:05AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37565 1/29/2016 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 37566 1/29/2016 003657 HEARTH HOMES 37567 1/29/2016 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO 37568 1/29/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 37569 1/29/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 59196 1/27/2016 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 17279932 1/29/2016 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount RE-313-ATB60119052 101.042.000.542 REIMBURSE TRAFFIC SVCS MAINZ RE-313-ATB60119061 101.042.000.542 REIMB ROADWAY MAINT Total : 2015 001.090.000.560 2015 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI Total : 90028 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 810109332001 810109332002 810109332003 810111762001 810965779001 810965991001 14500796 4TH QTR 2015 Q4-2015 126160198 1/27/2016 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-73 8 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.566 001.076.301.586 001.076.302.576 001.016.000.521 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW Total : Total : 4TH QTR LIQUOR/EXCISE TAX Total : LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX Total : COMBINED EXCISE TAX RETURN Total : DECEMBER 2015 REVENUE SPLIT Total : Bank total : 8 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 3,988.34 27,420.88 31,409.22 475.08 475.08 102.72 102.72 115.10 22.82 7.82 36.08 89.83 36.08 307.73 6,136.55 6,136.55 1,526.68 1,526.68 1,245.33 1,245.33 5,232.50 5,232.50 46,435.81 46,435.81 Page: vchlist 01/29/2016 2:11:01PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: "Y` Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37570 1/29/2016 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY 37571 1/29/2016 001473 APWA JC1019075 672486 37572 1/29/2016 003337 ARROW CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY INC 167269 37573 1/29/2016 000673 BUDGET ARBOR & LOGGING LLC 37574 1/29/2016 002562 CD'A METALS 37575 1/29/2016 003255 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 37576 1/29/2016 001194 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 37577 1/29/2016 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC INC 37578 1/29/2016 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES INC 37579 1/29/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 37580 1/29/2016 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 11-2835 993405 576591 2016-WAR046507 97918 CD201606364 44953 44957 44994 44995 44996 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.090.000.518 PROWATCH SSA UPGRADE Total : 001.032.000.543 APWA MEMBERSHIP: WORLEY Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 101.042.000.542 TREE TRIMMING 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 101.042.000.543 TOWER RENTAL 402.402.000.531 MUNICIPAL STORMWATER GENER Total : 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 101.000.000.542 ICE SLICER RS 001.058.051.558 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.058.056.558 001.058.056.558 600480218 001.090.000.518 LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION SCHEDULE 572DA494 Total : Total : Total : Total : 1,904.11 1,904.11 209.00 209.00 42.75 42.75 652.20 652.20 147.09 147.09 206.07 206.07 29,769.75 29,769.75 15.00 15.00 5,350.46 5,350.46 57.60 74.80 133.95 100.30 98.60 465.25 839.80 839.80 Page: vchlist 01/29/2016 2:11:01PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: "r Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37581 1/29/2016 001987 JENKINS, ART 37582 1/29/2016 001944 LANCER LTD 37583 1/29/2016 000662 NAT'L BARRICADE & SIGN CO EXPENSE 0457182 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 001.011.000.511 Description/Account Amount EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT BUSINESS CARDS 90097 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES FOR PW 90135 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 37584 1/29/2016 000971 NORTHWEST IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY 26847 37585 1/29/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 37586 1/29/2016 004829 OSI HARDWARE 37587 1/29/2016 000881 OXARC INC 37588 1/29/2016 002836 PALADIN DATA SYSTEMS CORP. 37589 1/29/2016 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 815704877001 817310978001 817933014001 817933382001 817933384001 818437866001 818438217001 818488757001 818489080001 001.011.000.511 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.518 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 STUDIO PORTRAIT Total : Total : Total : Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: IT OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE 40009 101.000.228.594 SFP MODULES 4667HSS CM00734 2400 5-755565 CM 5-753264 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.058.050.558 Total : Total : SUPPLIES: PW CREDIT RE INVOICE 6825GSS Total : SMARTGOV SOFTWARE ANNUAL 5. Total : 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 101.000.000.542 SUPPLES: PW Total : 356.82 356.82 136.13 136.13 176.09 23.48 199.57 104.99 104.99 120.07 13.38 165.59 99.00 26.07 35.40 14.74 5.42 10.41 490.08 138.48 138.48 164.69 -121.48 43.21 29,931.63 29,931.63 75.92 -63.86 12.06 Page: -�' vchlist 01/29/2016 2:11:01 PM /`7` Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37590 1/29/2016 000051 SPOKANE LILAC FESTIVAL ASSOC. 24936 001.011.000.511 CORONATION TICKETS 10.00 Total : 10.00 37591 1/29/2016 000335 TIRE-RAMA 8040061116 101.000.000.542 TIRES 1,259.83 8040061234 101.000.000.542 TIRES FOR #204 & #203 2,614.18 Total : 3,874.01 22 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 74,898.46 22 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 74,898.46 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 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Page: vchlist 01/29/2016 2:35:47PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37592 1/29/2016 004878 ANDERSEN, TOM 37593 1/29/2016 000030 AVISTA 37594 1/29/2016 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 37595 1/29/2016 002712 GTFX INC. 37596 1/29/2016 002043 HDR ENGINEERING INC 37597 1/29/2016 002538 HYDRAULICS PLUS INC BSP -2015-0003 Jan 2016 Jan 2016 40837 Pre -Comm -2015-0074 19970 37598 1/29/2016 002183 HYDROCAD SOFTWARE SOLUTION LLC 34411 2016 37599 1/29/2016 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT 37600 1/29/2016 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP INC. 37601 1/29/2016 001860 PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 37602 1/29/2016 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC 37603 1/29/2016 004875 SCHILLING, DANIELLE 37604 1/29/2016 002212 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS Jan 2016 96124 1507432 42944 Expenses 12976274 Fund/Dept 001.058.058.345 101.042.000.542 001.058.055.558 001.076.305.575 001.058.058.345 101.000.000.542 402.402.000.531 001.076.305.575 001.076.000.576 001.076.305.575 001.011.000.511 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 Description/Account Amount REFUND OF SEPA REVIEW Total : UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA Total : PETTY CASH: 13661,65,66,67 Total : SERVICE GREASE TRAP AT CP Total : PERMIT REFUND: PRE COMM 201; Total : SINGLE SPOOL VALVE Total : HYDROCAD SOFTWARE SUPPORT Total : OPERATING SUPPLIES FOR CP AN Total : DATE STAMP Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SIGNS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 350.00 350.00 29,095.85 29,095.85 15.78 15.78 166.31 166.31 250.00 250.00 175.39 175.39 300.00 300.00 197.18 197.18 63.59 63.59 174.02 174.02 108.70 108.70 16.00 16.00 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE: 54.54 Page: 1 vchlist 01/29/2016 2:35:47PM /8 Voucher List Page: --2'- Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 37604 1/29/2016 002212 002212 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS (Continued) Total : 54.54 37605 1/29/2016 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 49191 303.303.155.595 POSTAGE PAID 205.13 Total : 205.13 14 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 31,172.49 14 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 31,172.49 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 02/03/2016 1:28:27PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 37606 2/3/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 37607 2/3/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 37608 2/3/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 37609 2/3/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 37610 2/3/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 5 Vouchers in this report 8565 Jan 2016 8565 Jan 2016 8557 Jan 2016 8557 Jan 2016 8557 Jan 2016 8557 Jan 2016 5214 Jan 2016 8581 Jan 2016 8581 Jan 2016 8573 Jan 2016 8573 Jan 2016 8573 Jan 2016 Fund/Dept 001.090.000.518 001.018.014.514 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.013.000.513 001.011.000.511 001.018.016.518 001.058.057.558 001.058.050.558 Description/Account Amount DROPBOX MY PLACE TO LEARN Total : IIMC GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP SOUTHWEST AIRLINES MICHAELS STORES ALASKA AIRLINES Total : Total : INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PARLIAE\ Total : 001.013.015.515 WSAMA 001.032.000.543 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 001.018.016.518 ROSAUERS Total : Bank total : 4,450.21 Total vouchers : 4,450.21 2,319.51 60.00 2,379.51 855.00 15.00 528.96 54.35 1,453.31 391.20 391.20 87.50 70.00 157.50 30.00 30.00 8.69 68.69 vchlist 02/03/2016 8:49:22AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 6510 2/3/2016 001698 ALLSTATE INSURANCE 6511 28/2016 004880 DONAHUE, STACEY 6512 2/3/2016 004881 ETAILZ INC PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND 6513 2/3/2018 004882 INLAND EMPIRE UTILITY COORD, COUN PARKS REFUND 6514 2/3/2016 004884 JASSMAN DEVELOPMENT 6515 2/3/2018 004876 MONROE, ALLEN 6516 2/3/2016 004870 OROZCO, DIANA 6517 2/3/2016 004877 SAVAGE SERVICES CORP. 6518 2/3/2016 004883 THE LANDS COUNCIL 6519 2/3/2016 002645 UNITED CHURCH OF GOD 6520 2/3/2018 000187 VERA WATER & POWER 6521 2/3/2016 004885 WASH STATE EFSEC 12 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND PARKS REFUND Fund/Dept 001.23710.90 001.23710.99 001.23710.99 001.23710.09 001.23710.00 001.23710.99 001.23710.89 001.23710.99 00123710.99 001.237.10.90 001.23710.90 001.237.10.89 Description/Account Amount DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 216 Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRES IDE LOUI Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 111 Total : DEPOSIT REFUND Tota : DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: ROOM 109 Total : DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM Total : 52.00 52.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 160.00 160.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 210.00 210.00 14.50 210.00 210.00 Bank total : 1,642.50 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 9, 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 31, 2016 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN; BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 274,689.93 $ 6,225.00 $ 280,914.93 Benefits: $ 119,058.87 $ 10,604.74 $ 129,663.61 Total payroll $ 393,748.80 $ 16,829.74 $ 410,578.54 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: February 9, 2016 Department Director Approval: n Check all that apply: ® consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing Information ® admin. report pending legislation executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 16-004 Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Committee Alternates 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, including the appointment of Councilmembers Hafner and Pace to the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board. BACKGROUND: Since that appointment, Councilmember Hafner has requested the appointment of alternates to attend an STA meeting in his or Councilmember Pace's absence. Appointed alternates have voting authority. According to STA Bylaws: Article II, Section 2.1(c): Board Composition. "Two (2) elected officials selected by and serving at the pleasure of the City of Spokane Valley." "2.2 Alternates. (a) The cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley and the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County may appoint alternate members by resolution whose name(s) shall be forwarded to and kept on file with STA." OPTIONS: Approve resolution with named alternates RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 16-003 appointing Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember Pro Tem Gothmann as Spokane Valley Alternates to the Spokane Transit Authority Board for appointed members Councilmember Hafner and Pace. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: n/a STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Mayor Higgins ATTACHMENTS Resolution 16-004 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 16-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, CONCERNING AN APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVES TO THE SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Bylaws Article II, Section 2.2, the cities of "Spokane and Spokane Valley and the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County may appoint alternate members by resolution whose name(s) shall be forwarded to and kept on file with STA;" and WHEREAS, L.R. Higgins, Mayor for the City of Spokane Valley, hereby recommends that Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember Pro Tem Bill Gothmann be appointed as STA Board Member alternates for Councilmember Hafner and Councilmember Pace for the calendar year 2016. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, that the following appointment to the Spokane Transit Authority is hereby approved as follows: Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember Pro Tem Bill Gothmann are appointed as alternates for calendar year 2016, to serve in the absence of City of Spokane Valley primary members Councilmember Hafner and Councilmember Pace on the Spokane Transit Authority Board of Directors, to act in their place and stead, with full voting rights and other rights as are assigned to duly appointed full board members, all pursuant to the STA By -Laws. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. PASSED by the City Council of Spokane Valley, Washington this 9th day of February, 2016. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY L.R. Higgins, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 16-004 Appointing STA Alternates Page 1 of 1 DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington January 19, 2016 Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Dean Grafos, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem Mike Jackson, City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney John Hohman, Comm & Economic Dev. Dir Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. A. Current Spokane Valley Police Department Immigration Practices and Policies — Sheriff Knezovich Spokane County Sheriff Knezovich extended thanks for being invited to tonight's meeting; said he is here to answer questions and discuss some recent issues about the Sheriff's office. Concerning uniforms, Sheriff Knezovich explained that there are three types of uniforms: black jumpsuit, green jumpsuit, and kaki uniform; that they are currently transitioning away from the black jumpsuit as it has negative connotations; said he doesn't like it nor do Spokane Valley residents; said it will take time as stopping use of that jumpsuit immediately would have budget ramifications, and he estimated they will be gone in about two years. The Sheriff also mentioned he is "not a fan of changing to navy blue" but would entertain any combination or color, adding that there are already several agencies in the area that wear navy blue. Concerning cars, he said he would not make any changes in the police department without running that by staff, and he mentioned that they are trying to purchase vehicles and get Spokane Valley to a "take-home car" status; said they did that in the unincorporated area and it saves time during shift changes, and get the officers in-service a lot quicker. The Sheriff said they are also buying used cars for patrol; said his car budget in 1999 was $680,000 and in 2016, it is $513,000; and considering inflation, the vehicles are more expensive now than in 1999. To stretch the budget and remain fiscally conservative, he said they found ways to make that dollar stretch; and said changing vehicles from other agencies cost about $1800 a car. Regarding Chief VanLeuven not having a voice, Sheriff Knezovich said that is not true; said the Chief speaks on Spokane Valley's behalf, and speaks at numerous events. Sheriff Knezovich also mentioned and applauded the accreditation process of the Spokane Valley Police Department; said that the Chief runs an entire division and is autonomous, and some of the myths that have circulated are just not true; said we have a great voice with Chief VanLeuven and that he is one of the best law enforcement officers the Sheriff has had an opportunity to work with. Councilmember Hafner asked about unmarked cars, and Sheriff Knezovich said that the law permitting unmarked cars has been in existence since about 1976; said the former Undersheriff raised the issue in 2010 and was informed that the state statutes are very clear about authorizing the use of unmarked cars and that he has spoken with many attorneys across the state and has heard nothing to the contrary; said he Council Special Study Session: 01-19-2016 Page 1 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT will mark whatever cars Council wants him to, but in doing so, it means giving up certain investigative techniques adding that not many people consider this a major issue or he would have heard more about it. Councilmember Grafos asked about the resolution on immigration and what the policy is for the Sheriff's Department, and how big of a problem it is; for example, does the Sheriff's Office work with federal authorities and/or the border patrol. Sheriff Knezovich said that law enforcement officers uphold the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Washington; said we don't live in a sanctuary city, we live in a sanctuary nation as those laws aren't being enforced; said representatives from ICE (United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement) gave a presentation at a Sheriff Officer's association meeting and halfway through, it got a little tense as ICE was telling them what they needed to do and the Sheriff Officers asked why ICE wasn't coming when called about illegal aliens; said it just isn't happening and it is very frustrating across the state as ICE is not responding to pick up illegal aliens; said ICE informed them they would only get involved with an illegal alien when a felony was involved, but even that was not a guarantee for deportation. Sheriff Knezovich said this is a major problem and not just recently; that about five years ago a Washington State Supreme Court Justice meet with the Sheriff Officers and chewed them out for arresting illegal aliens as they were leaving the court; which he said makes it difficult to know whether or not to arrest people; said if he or his officers run across an illegal alien, they will be held and the proper federal authorities will be called; but said they can only be held for a very short time; said unlike Yakima Grant County, Tri -Cities or elsewhere, we do not have a major illegal problem here; said they arrest a lot of people from Mexico connected with the drug trade; and that they are doing an analysis on people in gang/drug trade that are actually illegal aliens, but said there really isn't a huge legal issue in this area. Mayor Higgins said that the intent of the resolution was to let law enforcement know that the Council has their back. Sheriff Knezovich said the resolution is very clear, and thinks the confusion stems from discovering this issue from a reporter; said he was not aware of this issue before that report, adding that the resolution is stating what the Sheriff's Office is already doing. In response to Councilmember Gothmann's question about how long an illegal alien would be held, Sheriff Knezovich said hours, not days; that once the charge is over, they call ICE and when the individual is set to be released and if ICE doesn't come, said the individual would be released. Councilmember Hafner asked how the Sheriff's Office determines if someone is an illegal immigrant. Sheriff Knezovich said individuals are not required to show identification in order to obtain a driver's license, so just because someone has a Washington driver's license, doesn't mean they are not illegal; said that is usually found out through investigation; said officers do not ask legal status; said there are many legal immigrants, and the last thing the officers want is to get into a profiling issue. Councilmember Grafos stated that whether there is a resolution or not, the Sheriff's Office hasn't changed their policy; and Sheriff Knezovich agreed; and said if our City had declared it was a sanctuary city, the Sheriffs Office would still enforce the law. Sheriff Knezovich said he would be happy to give other reports and/or updates to Council in the future. 1 Mining Moratorium — Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained the background of this moratorium renewal, which he said is permitted by state law based on following certain required steps, as noted in his January 19, 2016 Request for Council Action form. As discussed during the prior administrative report and public hearing, Mr. Lamb explained that the moratorium may be renewed with modifications if Council desires, however, he strongly recommends that it be done in general "use" terms in a manner similar to what is already included in Section 2(C) of Ordinance 15-013 rather than on a parcel -by -parcel basis as suggested in previous public comments. Mr. Lamb explained that section 2(C) excludes mining operations "that were in existence and in continuous and lawful operation" as of the effective date of Ordinance 15-013. Mr. Lamb said staff want to help ensure the moratorium does not inadvertently become a form of site-specific regulation, which could happen if done on a parcel -by -parcel basis, and that it might appear as if the moratorium were being converted to quasi -development regulations, which he said could expose the City Council Special Study Session: 01-19-2016 Page 2 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT to legal challenges. After Council/staff discussion, it was determined to include a modification for the ordinance findings first reading, to state that the moratorium not impact existing mining operations and those that received a SM -6 [County or Municipality approval for surface mining] prior to the establishment of the moratorium, such as those like the Eden Pit, which he said would give full effect to Council's desire that the moratorium not impact existing and ongoing business operations. 2. City Hall Update — John Hohman Community and Economic Development Director Hohman explained that staff is working on the exact bid document for the package that will be going out shortly; said the project is on budget and on -target; that there will be two alternate bids for the expansion of the basement as discussed previously, for either a medium or a full basement; said that staff will get the bid out and will return to Council for discussion after the bids come in; said he anticipates he should have a complete set of plans by next month and hopes it will be able to be permitted once there is a contract. Mr. Hohman said staff is working on some of the environmental work now such as SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) requirements; said the traffic study is complete and they are working concurrently with the design going forward. To keep the project on budget some changes were made such as the deletion of the depiction of the river running through the lobby and through the site, and although the library proposal won't be occurring across the street as originally thought, a change there could happen later. One of the concerns, Mr. Hohman explained, was the noise in the lobby if there were hard tile floors, so they are proposing 75% of that be carpeted although there would be tile entryways at both entrances. Mr. Hohman said that undergrounding utilities falls outside our franchise agreement so it would be a city cost; said conservative estimates for undergrounding utilities were between $125,000 and $150,000, but that could be included as an alternate cost, which all could be decided when the bids come in. Councilmembers expressed their desire that the project stay within budget. In response to Councilmember Gothmann's question about the cost of undergrounding utilities at a future date, Mr. Hohman said the cost would be significantly higher and said staff could investigate the cost of just installing the conduit, which he estimated at about $60,000. The question came up about the library proposal and Mr. Jackson said he telephoned Nancy Ledeboer previously but will call her again to see when the Board will be holding their next meeting. 3. Police Reaccreditation Report — Chief VanLeuven Via his PowerPoint presentation, Spokane Valley Police Chief Rick VanLeuven provided some background on the Police Department's Accreditation process, including the purpose of accreditation, some of the standards assessed during the accreditation, benefits to the community, and the on-site assessment, evaluation and review phases. Chief VanLeuven said that only 56 out of approximately 300 Washington State agencies are accredited. There was brief Council discussion about the many facets of the Police Department and accreditation process. It was also suggested that Chief VanLeuven give a report once a month to discuss some of the various topics associated with the Police Department. Chief VanLeuven said he would work with the City Manager on that suggestion, and said the Police Department's Monthly Report, which is included as part of a council packet, is very detailed and covers a variety of topics and challenges. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:30 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:39 p.m. 4. Council Training Open Public Meeting Act; Public Records Act — Cary Driskell, Erik Lamb City Attorney Driskell explained that state law changed a few years ago and now Councilmembers, as well as members of some committees such as Planning Commission and Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, must receive training on the Open Public Meeting Act, and the Public Record Act. He also mentioned that annual training is provided to Council and to all staff. Deputy City Attorney Lamb went over the basics and background of the Public Record Act, followed by Deputy City Attorney Driskell doing likewise for the Open Public Meetings Act, and briefly discussed the Appearance of Fairness doctrine. Council Special Study Session: 01-19-2016 Page 3 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT 5. Draft Comment Letter Regarding Tesoro Savage Energy Distribution Terminal Facility — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson gave a brief history of this facility proposal, mentioned our Public Hearing and the State's Public Hearing; and regarding the suggestion of Council sending a letter to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which is the entity that evaluated the project, said a draft letter has been placed at the Council dais. Mr. Jackson said the letter has changes from last week and that it mentions what we found missing or incorrect; said the letter focuses on concerns with impacts, safety, transportation, air quality, noise and economic development; as well as that we don't have the resources to provide emergency response and could not support the project until definitive plans are in place to determine resources and to have an effective mitigation plan. Mr. Jackson said the letter is due Friday and suggested mailing it Thursday. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested adding the concern about the sole source aquifer and how one derailment could have a dramatic effect on our water systems. After further brief discussion, it was determined that the letter will be finalized and signed by each Councilmember. 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Councilmember Wood proposed that Council consider at a future Council meeting, a resolution dealing with new WAC 162.32.060 passed by the Human Rights Commission December 26, 2015, that allows males who claim female gender identity, to use female bathrooms in schools, parks, and businesses; said he heard from several citizens that this is a concern; he mentioned Council's CORE beliefs as noted in the business plan; he said this would be an expression of policy and that he wants more than a formal motion. Councilmember Hafner said he has no problem with this provided the governance manual is followed. Councilmembers Grafos and Gothmann also stated they have no objection in moving this forward for discussion. Councilmember Wood said he has drafted a resolution which can be distributed to Council, and that the City's staff and legal department can review the proposed document. Mr. Jackson said he will work with the committee and bring this forward for Council discussion. Councilmember Hafner mentioned the City of Spokane's desire to go for a one or two-tenths tax to fund a central city bus line and that the City of Spokane would be doing that by themselves; that it sounds like they were told that if the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board would not go for a sales tax increase by the end of 2016, that they would do that by themselves; and said he thinks there are some implications our City needs to consider to make sure there is a clear understanding of what that means to us; and said perhaps this can be discussed at the upcoming workshop meeting. Mr. Jackson said staff can provide background on how to address this topic. 7. Council Comments — Major Higgins Councilmember Gothmann said that while he was in Arizona, he did some research on Roger Sherman, a Connecticut man and one of the United States Founding Fathers who liked to have both sides of the issues discussed; and he suggested that two weeks ago Council could have followed Mr. Sherman's example when a Councilmember, with no forewarning, brought up a proposed resolution concerning immigration; said he, his fellow councilmembers and the public were blindsided with this proposed document; and he urged Council to resolve to work together while serving the community. Councilmember Grafos said he wanted to correct the record a little concerning that meeting where the non -sanctuary city resolution was brought up; said he has been a real estate broker since the 70's; said at that pervious meeting it was brought up that as part of every real estate transaction sales agreement, the real estate agent is responsible to disclosure and determine if the person is an illegal immigrant; he said the correct interpretation is that there is simply a check mark on the real estate agreement about seller citizenship; said it was brought up about immigration and illegal people but that check mark is for the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980, so when it goes to the closing attorney and if the Council Special Study Session: 01-19-2016 Page 4 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT box is checked, the IRS will be notified; said it is a tax issue and has nothing to do with immigration, and that the person responsible for that is the seller and the buyer and not the agent. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would not respond. 8. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson mentioned an e-mail that he and Council received from Mr. Kevin Twohig, of the Public Facilities District, suggesting he come to Council to present information concerning the proposed sportsplex. Mr. Jackson mentioned that Mr. Twohig has a slide presentation and he would ask for a copy of that as well. Council had no objection. Concerning the current legislative session, Mr. Jackson said he sent Council a report from Lobbyist Briahna Murray; said that Senator Padden has proposed Senate Bill 6215 identifying water rights for municipal water supply purposes, and changes to the definition to include irrigation, which he said could give a higher standing to those agricultural rights and said there could be a hearing on this Thursday, and said he wanted to give Council an opportunity to phone in support if so desired; said he doesn't have a lot of information but this would broaden the use of irrigation water and help ensure more water is available as the city develops. Councilmember Wood said he is chair of the Carnhope Water District and has been working with Senator Padden and that part of the irrigation rights are in jeopardy and that Senator Padden is working to get those rights converted over to municipal water rights, and said he is in favor of the bill. Other Councilmembers nodded in agreement. Mr. Jackson said there will be a hearing next week in Olympia concerning SB 5694, our nuisance abatement issue, and said he will send the City Attorney to testify if needed; said we are opposed to HB 1438, which would preempt cities' rights to ban marijuana unless by a vote of the people, and said he is uncertain how that would impact a moratorium; said Ms. Murray continues to bring up the Barker Overpass Project, although it is likely not to get funded. Mr. Jackson also mentioned that we have a signed contract with GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) for $7,500 to develop a plan and a study around forming port districts; said Mr. Ben Wick was attending the meetings, not as a formal appointment; said the group has some elected officials and they are beginning discussions on raising property taxes to raise the necessary funds; he encouraged one or more Councilmembers to attend that meeting. Also late this week or early next week, Mr. Jackson said the plan is to release the RFP (Request for Proposal) for a consultant to begin the study of providing solid waste collection; said staff will select the firm, and members of that firm will attend a Council meeting to discuss the future of the solid waste collection program. Mr. Jackson said that the workshop is scheduled for March 15 and the agenda has grown so some items will be removed, but the workshop will handle items along the lines of Council goals; and said he hopes to send Council a draft copy tomorrow. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Special Study Session: 01-19-2016 Page 5 of 5 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,January 26, 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 MayorMark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Dean Grafos, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Chuck Hafner, CouncilmemberChelsie Taylor, Finance Director Ed Pace, CouncilmemberMike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Sam Wood, CouncilmemberJohn Hohman, Community & Econ. Dev Dir. Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro TemMike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Erik Guth, Public Works Director Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Mike Graef of the Valley United Methodist Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Members from Cub Scout Troop 412led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmemberswere present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. Mayor Higgins announced that because Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember Wood would be leaving early tonight to go to Olympia for the Legislative session, that item 5a will be moved to immediatelyfollow public comments. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Grafos:said he attended the Chamber’s event where Councilmember Hafner was acknowledged as the Citizen of the Year. Councilmember Gothmann: reported that he too attended theChamber event and extended congratulations to Councilmember Hafner; mentioned the Valleyfest Cycle Celebration will be held July 31 this year. CouncilmemberPace: said the Governance Committee will meet shortly and asked that Council let him or other committee membersknow if there are suggested changes. Councilmember Wood: said he had no report except thathe is headed to Seattle tonight to attend two days of meetings with the Washington Legislators. Councilmember Hafner: reported that he attended a 9-1-1 Board meeting and saidthere were almost 50,000 calls to crime check, and there were 185 wireless 9-1-1 calls; said the Health Board will be seeking a new health officer; and mentioned the Spokane Transit Authority Operations Committee meeting. DeputyMayor Woodard: said he attended the Blake Road Community meeting here at City Hall where citizens had an opportunity to talk about things they are trying to accomplish; and said we need another discussion about that. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-26-2016Page 1of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT MAYOR’S REPORT: Said he attended a Greater Spokane, Inc. meeting,and went to the Chamber meeting, and the Blake Road meeting where they discussed the issue of sidewalks. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Kayloni Bonner:saidshe supports anyefforts to repeal the recentlyadopted proposal that would allow men into female facilities; she supports Senate Bill 6443 to repeal the rules by the Commission in their entirety and not make any other procedures; voiced concern of rulemakingauthority as it bypasses the representative system; said opposing argument is that it won’t put females at risk but saidthat is not realistic; having men behind closed doors in a facility would put women at risk and she imploredCouncil urge repeal of those measures. Jay Bemis: spoke in support of the previous speaker’s views; said that if this bill or law is passed it will make it so that if his daughter has to use the bathroom and there is a man in there, that it would be legal; said we have to make a stand and that people can’t be subjected to a pedophile-friendly bill; that that is not okay and it is evil. Kris Pomeroy: said he is a volunteer at one of the local youth centers on the South Hill and works with a lot of LGBT \[lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender\] youth and got to know hundreds of these kids; said every day they run into discriminationand violence, including bathroom issues; said they have a high suicide rate, many are homeless as parents kick them out and they face rejection; asked Council to please consider that when considering this issue; said transgender people are not pedophilesand they don’t want to interfere with any kids or make anyone scared; these are women in various stages of transition; said his birth gender is female so that would put people like him in awomen’s restroom; asked that both sides of the argument be considered; asked that if he were to use the restroom, which would be more appropriate; and who will stand at the door to check pants; said lewd conduct or assaultis still illegal. George Conrad: said he opposesthe rules from the Human Rights Commission; feels the draft resolution clearly states exactly what we want; said he feels women’s right to privacytrumps those transgenders’ rights for self-expression; said transgenders don’t need someoneenabling or co-depending or assuring them that theirself-expression trumps everything else; said the Human Rights Commission is not legislation, and you can’t find their website; said that Commission is totallyout of control. Colton Gerard:said he is a resident of Spokane; said everyone is entitled to be safe including transgender people; until about five months ago he was 100% woman; and now he has officially started treatment and finds himself in a particular position; said he walked into a women’s restroom and a little girl looked at him very funny; that he finally went into a men’s locker room for the first time and was terrified; said he likes private changing areas; that they are not out there to be lewd, they just want to be safe. Tony Lazanis:said he was surprised to see the article in the newspaper; said a few bureaucrats passed the bill; that it is not right and he hopes we don’t allow men and women to use the same bathroom; said it is a bad law. In the interest of time, Mayor Higgins announced that Council wouldcontinue with the agenda and will hear more comments after new business. 5a. AdministrativeReport: Discussion on Proposed Resolution Regarding Gender-SegregatedFacilities – Councilmember Wood Mayor Higgins said that next on the agenda is a discussion on the proposed resolution regarding gender- segregated facilities; said we have two issues, one of which is since there is a hearing in Olympia tomorrow, we might want to weigh-in on the issue and instruct our lobbyist to convey our wishes regarding Senate Bill 6443; and the second issue is a resolution which has been proposed that this Council adopt; which he said will be taken up next week at this time; but we are talking about the letter now, and he asked Council for their thoughts. Councilmember Wood said he had no comment. Councilmember Hafner said he seeks clarification; that he realizes that CouncilmemberWood brought this proposal to Council; and we want to make sure the proposed resolution is legal. CouncilmemberGothmann said as a point of order, that we are working on the letter and not the resolution, and Mayor Higgins concurred. In Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-26-2016Page 2of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT answer to CouncilmemberHafner’s questionof what is Council working on, Councilmember Gothmann said we areworking on the letter from the City Council; and Councilmember Hafner replied that in that case, he will reserve comments on the resolution for before Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember Wood leave for the evening. Also as a point of order, Councilmember Gothmann said the letter ties directly with the resolution, and he asked how could one be discussed without the other and said that there are a lot of people who wanted to testify about the resolution, and it was on the agenda and now that issue is being broken off. Mayor Higgins said there are two different instruments; one addresses if we are going to support Senate Bill 6443, and the resolution that states a position of council will be taken up separately; and said the resolution will be on the agenda next week. In response to previous comments about the draft letter, Councilmember Pacesaid Council saw it earlier asthe City Manager e-mailed it to Council previously; said it should be just like any other letter that the Council would consider taking a stance on in sending to the legislature; said he is ready to sign the letter. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he thinks the letter is necessary; said the rules have changed the emphasis; said men’s and women’s restrooms are different; women do different things in a restroom like fixing their hair, nursing babies, etc., said it is a privacy issue and the security issue is huge to them; said he would like the rules repealed; said it doesn’t repeal gender identitywhich is a protected class which has rights butthat those rights aren’tnecessarily superior rights; and said the letter is good and Council can discuss the resolution next week. Councilmember Hafner said there is no question that the letter states what the Council wants to do; but there is a due process for the people to have a hearing and talk and discuss the issue without him being forced to sign a letter because a hearing is tomorrow; said there are two bills trying to repeal this, and he suggested Council let the legislators do their job, and said Council hasn’t had discussion about the previously proposed resolution; that Council shouldhave thorough discussion in order to make the appropriate decision; said the letter caught him by surprise. CouncilmemberWood said he proposed the resolution to give everyone an opportunityto express their views; that the people he knows and talks to oppose that WAC (Washington Administrative Code)and the Human Rights Commission; said he feels itis a public safety issue and that the first concern is public safety, including security and privacy. CouncilmemberPace said that the first draft of that resolution was handed out after last week’s Council meeting; and the letter was e-mail to Council earlier this week, so there was plenty of time to read it; said the second draft of the resolution will be discussed next week; said the letter stands alone just as any other letter Council has done before as a legislativematter; and he moved to send the letter with six signatures. There was no second and the motion did not move forward. Councilmember Grafos said he did not sign the letter; and said that the issue ties back to the resolution. Mayor Higgins said that Council is doing exactly what they said they were going to do, but Councilmember Grafos countered that the public had no knowledgeof the letter. Mayor Higgins said that Council has in the past adopted letters such as this by consensus. Mayor Higgins said the issue is the letter and he asked for consensus to sign and send the letter. All Councilmembers concurred except CouncilmembersGrafos and Hafner. \[At the request of the City Manager, City Clerk Bainbridge left the room to print an original letter for the five signatures so that Deputy Mayor Woodard could take the signed letter with him when he left for Olympia.\] 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 Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-26-2016Page 3of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT It was moved by Deputy MayorWoodard, seconded and unanimously agreed toapprove the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-001 Vacating a Portion of Third Avenue –Karen Kendall After Deputy City Attorney Lamb read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance 16-001 to a second reading at the February 9, 2016 Council meeting. Planner Kendall explained about the proposed street vacation and showed the area in question on the map; rd stated that the area is unimproved and not maintained, and all six parcels abutting 3Avenue are owned by the same property owner; she mentioned compensation as noted in Resolution 07-009, and of the optional approach, which she said Council can decide tonight and which will be included in the ordinance for the second reading. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Dan Hultquist,Mead: explained that he is the owner of the adjacentproperties, and he gave copies for Council distribution, of his points of concern. Mr. Hultquist said that the unimproved portion of Third Street has been usedas a convenient garbage disposal site, an abandoned meeting site, and a meeting place for undesirable mischief, which results in garbage being dropped on his property; said although the County and City have both owned the right-of-way, neither has done any weed control, thus leaving that his responsibility; he said that Third Street is not a desirable location for property and isnot an area where development is needed; he asked regarding the easement for the bike trail, if there is an option of either providing the easement or the right-of-way, and if an easement, would he be requiredto pay property taxes on that portion of the bike trail easement. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said he would have to research that, but thinks if it just an easement it would bededicated to the property and likely he would not berequired to pay taxes, but said he would have to double-check. Mr. Hultquistsaid if he had to make that decision now, he is not sure which would be better or more advantageous; he also asked if in light of the expenses he is facing, if the compensation fee can be waived; said he has been maintaining the weed control and garbage cleanup for over twenty years; and that there will be improvement costs to fence the bike trail; and over half of the footageof Third Street would be given back to the City in the form of the bike trail, plus the cul-de-sac and Skipworth wideningrequirement at the time of development. Mr. Lamb said section 5 condition 4 of the draft ordinance provides for an easement or right-of-way, and that it would be an administrative decision at that point. CouncilmemberGothmann said the petitioner is asking staff to look at costs, and that he too would like to get those costs from staff, such as cost of improvements, paving, fencing, and would ask that the easement or whatever happens occurs no later than the development of the trail itself, as CouncilmemberGothmann said he hopes the easement precedesthe trail or occurs at the same time. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like to see the waiving of the fees for the second reading, for the reasons mentioned, including the benefits to the City. Councilmember Gothmann reiterated that he wants to see the dataon it, not just a yes or no answer concerning costs. Mr. Jackson said the intent is for Council to make the decision, and if unclear, we would use the estimated value for the second reading; and said staff will gather more information and if needed, can change the ordinance at that second reading. There were no other public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried.Mayor Higgins excused Deputy Mayor Woodard and Councilmember Wood who left the meeting at 7:03 p.m. 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-002 Mining Moratorium Findings of Fact –Erik Lamb After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Pace and seconded to advance ordinance 16-002, adopting findings of fact justifying a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to ordinance15-013, with modifications, to a second reading.Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that this moratorium expires the end of February but we won’t be able to complete the comp plan update by then; said this ordinance Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-26-2016Page 4of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT contains the findings and the ordinance immediately following this one is the actual renewal; he explained the background of the moratorium and that the crux of the issue was the Eden Pit; so as not to impact local businesses, those mines or proposed mines that havea SM-6 permit will be excepted from the moratoriumif Council so chooses. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. John Pederson, representing Spokane County, said the Board of County Commissioners authorized him to speak and support the moratorium as modified as it adequately expresses the concerns of the County, and he thanked Council for the amendment. JanaMcDonald,said on behalf of CMP Development Corporation, that she also supportsthe moratorium with the amendment, and extended her thanks. There were no other public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-003 Extending Mining Moratorium –Erik Lamb After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by CouncilmemberPace and seconded to advance Ordinance No. 16-003, adopting a six-month renewal of the moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing, originallyadopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013, with modifications, to a second reading. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that this is the operative renewal of the mining moratoriumas just discussed; that state law requires findings be adopted prior to renewal, and if approved, this would renew the moratorium untillate August. After going over the amended language about the SM-6 permits, he mentioned that staff continues working on the comp plan update. Mayor Higgins invited publiccomment. John Pederson: said he representsthe Board of County Commissioners and supports this ordinance as well, and said the County would be willing to enter into a development agreement that wouldbind the County to the County’s mining standards. Jana McDonald: speaking on behalf of CMP, againofferedher continued support and availability to city staff regarding mining information, resources, and data as they work through the comp plan; and said she too supports the extension. There were no other public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comments. Nick Franco, Spokane: said he works at Eastern Washington University in Cheney and works with transgender students; said they already use the bathrooms and locker rooms in the gender they know themselves to be and that this has been going on for years; said he knows of no incidents of assault by a transgender individual and he encouraged Council to conduct a findings of factabout all the issues; said transgenders actively avoid locker rooms and restrooms with a large number of stalls as they fear assault, but that many times they don’t have anoption; and he asked Council where wouldyou suggest they go as using facilities of the gender that they are not, places them at greater risk of assault; said there is a lot of fearas people fear what they don’t understand, and he encouraged people to seek understanding; said transgenderpeople are thoughtful, respectful and are also sons, daughters, and family members and that the letter indicates a lack of understanding transgenders. Donna O’Leary: said she is ashamed of our government and of those who took an oath to protect and serve toallow this to become law; said the mandating of this law has put every person in danger; she asked how would you prevent sex predators from access to these facilities and what actions will be taken tomake sure people will be safe; she spoke of a past incident involving a transgender man who had exposed himself in a women’s restroom; and of a transgender student in a women’s locker room exposing himself to underage girls; said men commit crimes in women’s facilities and now we have to accept this behavior; said people need to call theirlegislators to keep sex predators and all men out of every women’s facility in Washington state. Tony Lazanis: said any law has to be passed by the state legislators and that this new law isn’t worththe paper it is written on. Paul Bonner, Spokane Valley:concerning the schools, said they access the use of facilities on a case-by- case basis and in most cases, the transgender should have access to locker rooms; said there are a lot of people in our society who are not genuine but wouldliketo take advantage of any open door to seek self- gratification. Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-26-2016Page 5of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Kristin Marshall: said she heard some things like public safety is not Council’s concern and another that it is; said this is not being racist; people can live lives they want to; said there will be people who won’t follow this rule but if Washington state wants this, they have to make it for a single stall. Nina Fluegal: spoke about the complexitiesof trying to explain these issues to her young grandchildren; it used to be boys were boys and girls were girls, but now there is a third option; said the majority still rules in this country and something needs to happen or she’ll move. Gene Strunk, Spokane Valley: said this is evidence of how our society is so upside down to the point of being ridiculous; a few weeks ago therewas a big deal about the sanctuary city vote; said in the United States there are 19,743 organized municipalities; of those are 270 sanctuary cities which represent1/10 of 1%; so now we’re listening to transgender proponentswho represents 1 in 100,000 -maybe less; same thing is applicable to homosexuals; they make up 1.2% on a good day; said he hearsridiculousarguments about protected citizens; really depressing is that threecouncilmembersengagedin name calling others bigots, racists, liars, on the premise of 1/10th of 1%. Lynn Wallace, Spokane Valley: spoke about the use of family restrooms and how thrilled people like single fathers are they those restrooms exist. George Conrad: said these rules were passed by an appointed commission and not by a legislature; that the rules are if you are uncomfortable and express it, then you have to leave; if you use the wrong pronoun for transgender it is considered a violation of their protected class; this is a lawsuit begging to happen and he said he hopes this city will recognize that. Matt Landoe: said there are some things happening today that help him understand some of the plight of the transgenders such as the safety issue they have which needs to be acknowledged; that we need not be hateful but more understanding; said transgender and restrooms are two separate issues and everyone should be entitled to be safe, but trying to solve the problem by having everyone mix is not the solution; said it is more complicated and more discussion is needed; forcing the majority to go find a restroom is not the solution either. Councilmember Gothmann said it was suggested he doesn’t care about the issue because it is a state issue; said the legislators tell the people to make the rules and if adopted, we would be subject to those rules; and he encouraged everyone to work to change the rule at the state level, and to phone, write or visit the state legislators as they hold their public hearing tomorrow. Dulce Gutierrez,Spokane Resident: said she is a student at Eastern; said there has been a lot of talk about fear tonight and about how to explain this to childrentoo young to understand; said kids are a lot smarter than we think they are; that she has transgender family members and friends and when it is explained to kids, they listen; said people assume that sexual assaults occur; said people are a lot more likely to be assaulted by afamily member than a stranger. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS : 5. Federal Transit Authority Sidewalk Grant –Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth explained about the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Grant opportunity for funding from the FederalTransit AdministrationSectionfor projects to benefit seniors and individuals with disabilities; and said the deadline to submit applications is Monday, February 1. Mr. Guth explained th the two project proposals, 9Avenue Sidewalkand Coleman Sidewalk; and said that as with any other grant, this is also a competitive process. Councilmember Pace said he realizes there isn’t much time, but asked if Mr. Guth checked with property owners to see how they feel and Mr. Guth said once we know if we got the grant, staff will contact the property owners and explain the preliminarydesign. There was consensus to move forward. 6. Advance Agenda –Mayor Higgins Concerning his participation on the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board, Councilmember Hafner mentioned that many members have alternates and by not having an alternate, if he and/or Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-26-2016Page 6of 7 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Pace were unable to attend, they would lose any control on voting, but such appointment would need to be an official appointment from this Council; he said he wouldrecommend the Mayor of Cheney and the Mayor of Millwood as the two alternates if either he or Mr. Pace were unable to attend a meeting; and he suggested such a motion at the February9 meeting. There were no objections. Councilmember Hafner also mentionedthe governance manual and suggested Council discuss that as well to either followit or not. Councilmember Grafos mentioned the proposed resolution might better be brought up during a regular meeting, and it was noted that the resolution is scheduled as an actionitem for the February 2 meeting. INFORMATIONONLY The (7) Department Monthly Reports; and (8)Draft Amended 2016 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Jackson had no additional comments. It was moved by Councilmember Pace, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn.The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. _____________________________________ ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor _____________________________ Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting:01-26-2016Page 7of 7 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 9, 2016 Department Director: Check all that apply: ❑ consent n old business ®new business n public hearing ❑ information n admin. report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second 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. On January 12, 2016, City Council agreed to move forward to an ordinance first reading. On January 26, 2016, City Council voted to move forward to an ordinance second reading. 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 followed by 1St reading of Ordinance 16-001 on January 26, 2016. 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. Over the past 12 years Council has approved 22 street vacations. Compensation is determined on a case by case basis. Only four vacation requests have been conditioned to provide payment for vacated right-of- way. This occurred between 2008 and 2010 and compensation amounts ranged between $1,354.00 to Page 1 of 2 $44,445.20. Historically, Council has not required compensation when the public interest and benefit is served through the provision of public improvements or like dedications. Section 1.4 of Resolution 07-009 allows City Council to take an alternative approach, if it can be determined the public interest is better served. Staff recommends no compensation shall be paid by the applicant based on the following; 1. The street vacation requires a 15 foot easement or right-of-way dedication for a paved 10 -foot non -motorized pathway to Appleway Trail for public use. 2. Dedication and future improvements of the trail connection exceeds the estimated value of the vacated area. a. The estimated value of the vacated area is $10,367.85. b. The estimated value of the trail connection dedication or easement and construction costs of the improvements is $11,800. OPTIONS: Move to approve with or without amendments. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve Ordinance 16-001. 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. Written Comment provided by Dan Hultquist at January 26, 2016 Council meeting 8. Aerial Photo 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. b. 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 15foot easement or right-of-way dedication for a paved 10 -foot non -motorized pathway to Appleway Trail for public use. ii. At the time of development, the trail connection shall be designed per City Street Standards and constructed. iii. At time of development, a public cul-de-sac shall be dedicated and constructed at the north end of Skipworth Road. iv. The fair market value of the dedication of land and estimated costs for future improvements of the trail connection and the public cul-de-sac equal or exceed 50% of the appraised value of the vacated street property. v. The public interest will be served by the required dedications of a trail connection for public use. 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. Ordinance 16-001 - Street Vacation STV -2015-0001 Page 2 of 5 DRAFT 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- 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. Ordinance 16-001 - Street Vacation STV -2015-0001 Page 3 of 5 DRAFT 8. All necessary easements required by Spokane County Division of Utilities 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. 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 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. 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 J e Sto , Chairman ATTEST ? iC t Dean Horton, Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 trirr�r .0.0Valley COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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 Characteristics: The area is approximately 16,000 square feet of an unimproved section of 3rd Avenue that is 340 feet in length and ranges from 40 to 50 feet in width. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multifamily Residential District (MF -2) Zoning of Property: High Density Multifamily Residential District (MF -2) Existing and Surrounding Land Use: Vacant. Multifamily development located west, and single family residential to the south and east and Appleway Trail to 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 Comments Dated 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 December 3, 2015 Page 3 of 5 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 Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Philips Susan Scott Joe Stoy, absent - excused Sam Wood Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner Christina Janssen, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner 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 Philips 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 F1 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 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 Heather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy, absent - excused Sam Wood John Hohman, Community Development Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner Christina Janssen, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner 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 Philips 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. 1. 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. Diana Wilhite, Mayor ATTEST: hristine Bainbridge, Ci Clerk Approved a$o Form: Office oZ the City ttorney Resolution 07-009 Street Vacation Charges Page 2 of 2 DAN HULTQUIST 14502 N FREYA MEAD, WA 99021 PHONE: 509-994-0080 JAN. 26, 2016 REGARDING: 3RD AVE STEET VACATION RECEIVED JAN 262016 SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPME • THANKYOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS STREET VACATION • WANTED TO VACATE FOR YEARS, o PROCRASTINATION ON MY PART o REASONS FOR WANTING THIS STREET VACATION ARE: ■ OVER THE YEARS, THIS UNIMPROVED PORTION OF 3RD ST HAS BEEN USED AS A CONVENEINT GARBAGE DISPOSAL SITE, ABANDON VEHICLES SITE, AND MEETING PLACE FOR UNDESIREABLE MISCHIEF. ■ ALTHOUGH COUNTY AND CITY HAVE BOTH OWNED THE RIGHT OF WAY, NEITHER HAVE DONE ANYTHING IN THE WAY OF WEED CONTROL, OR CLEANUP OF GARGBAGE, MAKING IT MY RESPONSIBILITY OVER THE PAST20 SOME YEARS ■ 3RD AVE IS NOT IN A DESIRABLE LOCATION IF THE PROPERTIES WERE TO BE DEVELOPED, NOR IS IT NEEDED FOR DEVELOPEMENT • QUESTIONS o IF THE TRAIL WERE TO BE AN EASEMENT, WOULD I BE REPONSIBLE FOR PROPERTY TAXES? • REQUESTS o THE OPTION OF AN EASEMENT OR R/W DECISION BE GIVEN TO THE OWNER TO DECIDE AT THE TIME OF RELINQUISHING THE TRAIL PROPERTY. o REQUEST COMPENSATION BY THE CITY FOR VACATING 3RD AVE BE WAIVED BECAUSE: • I HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING WEED CONTROL, AND GARGBAGE CLEANUP FOR OVER 20 YEARS • TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO THE COUNTY WITH NO COMPENSATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AT THE TIME R/W WAS ISSUED WELL OVER HALF THE SQ FOOTAGE OF 3RD AVE, WILL BE GIVEN BACK TO THE CITY IN THE FORM OF BIKE TRAIL, CUL-DE-SAC AND SKIPWORTH WIDENING REQUIREMENT AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. IMPROVEMENT COSTS BY OWNER TO PAVE AND FENCE BIKE TRAIL FOR CITY WILL EXCEED THAT OF BUYING BACK THE VACATED STEET. COSTS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPROVE SUCH THINGS AS PAVING AND FENCING OF BIKE TRAIL, CURBING, PAVING AND SIDEWALKS OF CUL-DE-SAC AND SKIPWORTH AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT • WITH 3RD AVE BEING VACATED AND TURNED INTO MARKETABLE REALESTATE AGAIN, PROPERTY TAXES FOR HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT WILL PROVE TO BE VERY ADVANTAGEOUS. PUBLIC R/W'S DO NOT GENERATE PROPERTY TAXES. o REQUEST HOLDING OFF ON IMPROVING BIKE TRAIL UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT DEVELOPMENT TAKES PLACE. ■ WATER EASEMENT WILL MOST LIKELY PIGGY BACK ON TRAIL, AND EXCAVATION MAY BE REQUIRED AT TIME OF DEVELOPEMENT THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THE ABOVE REQUESTS. DAN HULTQUIST 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE 16-001 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 9, 2016 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ❑admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second 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, heard an administrative report on January 19, 2016, and a first reading 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 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. The modification was to give full effect to City Council's original desire that the moratorium not impact existing business operations. City Council clarified that it desired for those proposed mines which had received a SM -6 Form, such as those like the Eden Pit, be included in the exception for existing businesses. 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 approve proposed Ordinance No. 16-002, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve 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. 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 15.009, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is in the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. if the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorim, 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 WHERCAS, 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 bearing 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 ofminerals"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to. RCW 3630A.060, the City is required to adapt 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 (1-2) zone; and WHEREAS, the City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands, including the following: Goal LUG -10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply; and WHEREAS, the City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zone taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once the mining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the impacts on the land may be irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts are permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site, even after the mine closes; and WHEREAS, the City has a finite amount of available undeveloped industrial land; and WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 36.70A, RCW, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update Process, ttie 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, rnineral 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 ComprehensivePlan 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 Spoloane 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 5 Passed by the City Council this 30th day of June, 2015. City Clark, ChrLine Bainbrid Approved as Form: T r4 /' Dean Grafos, Mayor Date of Publication: 1l, . d A - 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 ORDLNANCE 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 1 of 5 WHEREAS, two written comments were submitted prior to the public hearing. At the public hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony frotn 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 ofthe 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 unposed 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 (tithe 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 (I-2) zone. 14. The City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands, including the following: Goal LUG -10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure the long-term holding of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development as industrial uses. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. 15. The City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zones taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once the mining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the impacts on the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts are permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site, even after the mine closes. 16. The City has a finite amount of available undeveloped industrial land. 17. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, the City is in the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. 18. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the City will analyze and complete an inventory of available industrial lands and review designation and regulation of mineral resource lands in order to reach a reasoned policy decision in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that addresses (a) consideration of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate within the boundaries of the City, and (b) whether mining and mining site operations, including excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching, are compatible and appropriate when undertaken on industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the City. 19. The current work program for the 2015 Cotnprehensive Plan Update anticipates that a draft Comprehensive Plan will be completed by the end of2015. 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, interum zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim officialcontrol, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal." 23. A moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. 24. RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing, provided a public hearing is held within 60 days of the adoption of the moratorium. 25. A moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing will maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of City permits and licenses for new mining operations beyond those presently vested while the City undertakes development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including giving due consideration to the determination of where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-term goals and policies are with regard to mining and. mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits. 26. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-013, City Council adopted a work plan to address the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 27. Staff has completed SEPA review of the moratorium and has determined the moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations under Ordinance No. 15-013 is categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11- 800(19). 28. On July 28, 2015, City Council conducted a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance 15- 013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching and the repeat 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 goats and policies of the City's Comprehensive Pian 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 City Clerk, Christine.ainbridge Date of Publication; / _�f 645 Effective Date: 9 —19-'- %># Dean Grafos, Mayo Ordinance 15-015 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 5 of 5 Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action January 5 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that appfy: ❑ consent {❑ old business ❑ new business ® pu%Iia hearing ❑ Information 0 admin. report ® pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public hearing on a six-month renewal of moratorium an raining and mineral product manufacturing, originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No.15-013 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.70A.3001; RCW 35.7OA,; SVMC 1c:.120.050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted a moratorium on mini`rg 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 parsuant to Ordinance No. 15-013 on June 30. 2015, and adapted findings of fact for the replacement moratorium on August 25, 2015 pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-015. BACKGROUND: The City adopted a morato ium on reining 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 involvemen' 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 ruining site operations. The City subsequently adopted Ordinance Mk 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 term that lasts "until 11:59 p.rn. 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 RCW ! 35A.53.220 and RCVV 36.70A.390." Background cin need for moratorium importantly, RCW 36.70A.110 requires he City to designate "where a ppropriate.,_[rn]ineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have Tong -terra significance for the extraction of minerals.- Further, RCUU 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 Pian, The City's interim Comprehensive Plan included certain mineral resource designations. In 2006, the City adapted its Comprehensive Plan, In the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. the City dad not designate any; mineral resource lands, and it has not designated any since 2006. However, the. Comprehers.ve Plan cont,a.ns several goals and policies for the appropriate development of irCa lands, inti ud:rci tl ; f llc.ner�a: Goal LUG 10: provide for the devrvlopmen.. of ��eli-p Eirn 1 irrc:ustri ! arcs :,r i:_ t::sure the long-term holding of appropriate i2 nrrl in parc.:1 e f- s ndequatT to;Inv) foto future development as industrial uses. lac 1 or LI 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 closes. 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 Pian 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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING City of Spokane Valley January 5, 2016 Mining Moratorium STATE of WASHINGTON County of Spokane AFFIDAVIT of PUBLICATION NO. LEGAL NOTICE 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 llth 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: I: If 1 11 . @silkier iat if' illii1L 1 I! r.!I I ! lit#11!!?!I 00041;11040 MOM t V YIw1Ysi I" I illi1:.1.14:1 I!. i, aJ di 'd :dJ II::I IkkillitiMi l,411il!udlNSI f p1 4; La ;aJ11 I N i� 11.1!'4' gbini itin;a piNtoi401 ,i 911!' .144:041 14141, • Id.{Y.I? Y1 n y.: 1 u•Y n t 4 ! {ii , Y ' u n 1::i !u; • yYay I IP 19 Ia9a q'I 'XYa111 11ai Il ,ai Nl 1 JI N:1.11 i I I JN iN'ILII 19a di 171a9i �1 117111{ �l i. il' IyY ; d1d 1 Id I j71 ' I i 1 ty Na: a Ivi ' I {J i' 9 'h I I lid, i' 'w�1 11I}IN i!! 1t ] i al .uY Ny I r qy7 d vu�Y 9r, iL IL d!i n! �u NI Hld 1;404 • .vaa..:!:i 4!f lu a!I'd!I M.ai,l, 1, n nd I h:+,:d�I;i , a7.I.. ,�:!.::,d•1y :. 9l 'h'.I1i d'IS '1'L1 In "110 vla:y La Ip Ilii jY a:1�dY1111n ti,7 �,u�N 1lN{a d r7 I 1 {I a Na N914 a,4Y IIsi IN �YY; iia lid d au ala i u�l N IJ II as du,1 u n 1 r :!:u 4 11 Ir N.! idi i !IN P 17191 1111 N17:t :'171 IJ{II :iJd 11 'N. 11 p' Jyl i 9G a lil IYY iY ry J M1IN� P� Ni i III IN YYI1 9dd 1A l l ai'111 7, ,4 :14:110 11'4;4 Id P;IP I 411 Y I.id alw PJn{,! JN -7" unluiii044 6 a'L n '21:1 A11O 1 a. u1' u71da?di M� u 1 u} djtNalypa ii�Yy 4111001i: III r:11N. 4, 11 w 1191 N u lid ay'na iY d': l : , ,,11I;Ja 11N 144,A a fieri .linni n ICY IY i:intiiul n to 11a. .ry i1d + I a' MON to �.'1« 1Y dY 11, n I w•a;, hal IY II Yli'ui iii a7I 111 • IIYI'nii l 11 I NYN II 19{111114 • !_p g l � iu9 n!!I1l i Yu li u1:1': 14 111 u.:,!I1:!::!I1; :. Jina!1 ilei aiS;i!IY!ira .Na;i rl a Y bin 1!Yl; 1110, 1, f?1:.:!4 ii, 140; 32 i ED and S WORN to before me This 1st day of January, 2016 State of Washington County of Spokane I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Michael Huffman is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrumbttt. Jolene Rae Wehtz Title: Notary Public My appointment expires: 05-16-2019 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: Rod Higgins, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Dean Grafos, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem Staff Mike Jackson, City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director John Hohman, Community & Econ. Dev Dir. 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 Councibnember 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 pact 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 NBLJC HEA1I1 C SIGN -IN SHEET SUBJECT: Mining Moratorium Please sign below if you would like to speak at LILe P>l1OLICC HEARING.. [RIMY 'NAME. ANI) ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. There may be a time limit for your comments. Any dnenrneiits for Cotincil consideration sliou1d be provided to 'Lila City Clerk for distribution, NAME PLEASE PRINT Your City of Residence Please mote that once Information is cantered oft this form, it becomes a public record subject to public disclosure POK A NE May 14, 2015 C O U T Y O!Fi i. n • (of Crtft3RS.R; NT.RN ]MM).\II ,gr,tsrt)isrnt::t Si4irl. Y i)'QuiNN,2Nir islit14:f•:i2.}'it'•:\t.l's.310)Ots•n¢a:r 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 Vallee 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 1 1. WFS r BROADWAY Avi` tiF " SPOKANE. 1l'•A:illiNt O" 99260-0100 ' (_i09)477-2265 Spokane Valley Planning Commissioners May 14, 2015 Page 2 RCW 36.70A.060 requires cities to adopt development regulations to assure conservation or agriculture, forest. and mineral lands designated under RCW 36.70A.170 and: RCW 36.70A.060(1)(a) ... Such regulations shall assure that the use of lands adjacent to agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands shall not interfere with the continued use, in the accustomed manner and in accordance with best management practices, of these designated lands for the production of food, agricultural products, or timber. or for the extraction of minerals. The current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Codc docs not identify or designated resource lands or mineral lands as mandated tinder the Growth Management Act or adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands including mineral lands. We bring the above factors to your attention as information to consider in periodic update of your Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and in consideration of CAR -2015-18. We have reviewed CAR -2015-18 and after such review fully support the applicant's request that the City of Spokane Valley adopt a new Comprehensive Plan chapter and associated goals and policies to designated mineral resource lands of long-term cornincrcial 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 #4512L9015 and the Eden Pit (Pit #55-06) located on Assessor's Parcel 455065-0190. 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 continents on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-009 and urge you to designate the above -referenced Spokane County properties as mineral lands of long term commercial significance as part of your periodic review and update of your Comprehensive Plan. Very truly yours. D MIEI.KE. Chair Enclosures ls r , Vice Chair AL FR 1\CH. - mmissioner March 24, 2015 Mayor Dean Grafos Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard Councilman Rod Higgins Councilman Ed Pace Conncibnnn Chuck tlnfner Councilman Ben `r►'ick Councilman Bill Bates City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avearnc, Sidle 101 Spokane Valley, Washington 9920(1 VL! ELECTRONIC MAIL RE: City gfSpokane Nr/ley rl?ntarvritrnr urloltred wider• Urrlhrvnce Aro. 15-005 Dear Mayor Grnfos and Council members: The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony nn Ordinance No. 15-005 on March 24. 2015, as rcyuired 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 tender 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 ere the subject of Ordinance No. 15-0004, several provisions of the Growth tvlanagement Act n►ust be followed. They include the following: t2C\V 36.70A.170 Natural resource lands and critical :meas ---Designations. (1) On or before September 1, 1991, each county, and city shall designate, where appropriate: (c) mineral resou cis that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals..." RCW 36.70.A.050 Guidelines to classify agriculture, forest, end mineral lauds and critical areas. March 24, 2015 Page 2 (1) Subject to the definitions provided in RW 36.70A.030, the department shall adopt guidelines, under chapter 34.05 RCW...to guide the classification of: (a) Agricultural lands; (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 and critical areas—Development regulations. (1) (a) ...each city within such county, shall adopt development regulations ...such regulations shall ensure that the use of lands adjacent to agriculture, forest, or mineral lands shall not interfere with continued use of the designated land for the production of food, timber or for the extraction of minerals. A review of the current City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code confirms that the City of Spokane Valley has not identified or designated resource lands or mineral Lands as mandated under the Growth Management Act nor has it adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands including mineral Lands. Most counties and cities subject to the Growth Management Act have adopted development regulations protecting mineral lands which at the same time address environmental issues in conjunction with mining activities. We bring the above facts to your attention as information to consider in the periodic update of your Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and to provide you with additional options to consider in taking action on the moratorium adopted in Ordinance No. 15-005 or repealing said Ordinance and replacing it with an Interim Zoning Ordinance that provides a regulatory framework to address the impacts of !mineral extraction and associated processing. According to Figure 2.1 of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, 20% of the City of Spokane Valley land is designated as Heavy or Light Industrial. The premise of the moratorium under Ordinance No. 15-005 is that existing gravel mining operations are utilizing significant acreage that results in large open pits when mining is complete and the associated impacts are usually irreversible. With a significant portion of the City of Spokane Valley designated as Heavy or Light Industrial there appears to be an adequate supply of land available for industrial use. Moreover, any impacts of mining may be mitigated by adoption of detailed regulations to address reclamation and other site specific impacts. As a result of the substantial amount of land designated as Heavy or Light industrial, the City has not demonstrated or documented the amount of these lands being utilized or converted for mineral extraction/processing or the need for the moratorium as the City has not received or accepted any current applications for mining activity. To address the perceived conversion of industrial lands to mining and processing activities and to provide a specific regulatory framework to mitigate the impacts of mineral extraction and processing; we would strongly advise repeal of the present moratorium and adoption on an Interim Zoning Ordinance that includes performance standards for mineral extraction, processing, site reclamation, setbacks, etc. This would address the basis for the enactment of the Ordinance. For example, adoption of Chapter 14.620 (Mineral Lands) of the Spokane County Zoning Code as an interim Zoning Ordinance will ensure continued use and development of natural resource lands that do not detrimentally impact the March 24, 2015 Pogo 3 environment or surrounding land uses. Adoption of Chapter 14.620 will also afford gteatcrr 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 current property owners instil the City completes an update of its Comprehensive plan and development regulations consistent with the mandates of the Growth Management Act. In stunma y, we believe that the current moratorium provided for tinder 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 fife 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 w extend public sewer in the Tshiriey road area. The Board of County Commissioners respectfully requests that the City Council carefully consider the above observations and: (t) Repeal Ordinance No. 15-005, or (2) Repeal Ordinance No. 15.005 and in its place adopt as interim development regulation chapter 14.620 oldie Spokane County Code. Vety truly yours. 1 ': k2Ltrlir�f TODD N41E1..K E, Chair 11 l( / 1 ‘,/ ter-_. -_ SI 11 Ll Y CS'QEY N. Vice Chair AL FR ENC1f, C:otminssioncr DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS A DIVisIoN OF THE PUBLIC WOPKS DEPARTMENT Mayor Dean Grafos Deputy Mayor Arne Woodward Councilman Rod Higgins Councilman Ed Pace Councilman Chuck Hafner Councilman Ben Wick Councilman Bill Bates City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL mayor.councilmembers@sokanevalley.org RE: City of Spokane Valley Moratorium adopted under Ordinance No. 15-013 Dear Mayor Grafos and Council Members: The City of Spokane Valley Council will be considering public testimony on Ordinance No. 15-013 on July 28, 2015 as required under RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. We would like to make a part of the record for the July 28, 2015 meeting the testimony given by Deborah Firkins and John Pederson for Spokane County at the Planning Commissioner Meeting on June 8, 2015 in regards to CAR -2015-0018 and the March 24, 2015 meeting of the Spokane Valley City Council on Ordinance No. 15-005 along with the letters submitted by the County at both meetings. This proposed Moratorium is quite detrimental to Spokane County and as a result, to the cities of Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake as well. Spokane County currently owns two parcels that were zoned as mineral lands while said parcels were under the County's comprehensive planning jurisdiction. The first parcel is Flora Pit (parcel number 45121.9015); Spokane County acquired this property August 12, 1965 and has operated it as a pit site with a District Shop and the Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) Office. Flora pit has been continually mined over the last 50 years. When the City's initial mining moratorium came into effect, the County was in the process of setting terms for the sale of this property to Central Premix for their operations, which would have been a mutual benefit to both parties. The present Moratorium presents a major stumbling block for the long-term viability of publicly -owned mineral aggregate production for public projects, and also undermines steps already taken by Central Premix to consolidate their operations in the Flora area. If the County retains ownership of Flora Pit, we will continue to mine the property, taking out an average of 25,000 cubic yards per year for the next 3-4 years; after that, the County will have no remaining mineral resources to utilize in the east -central county area, substantially increasing the costs to public infrastructure projects as well as eliminating the ability for Spokane County to offer the sale of mineral aggregate resources to the cities of Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake for their own municipal projects. 1026 WEST BI:oADwAY• AVENUE • SPOKANE, \Vi\ 99260-0170 PIIUME: (509) 477-3600 FAX: (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 $2,718,250. This value would be lost if this property is not protected as a mineral resource. We appreciate your time and consideration of our continued request for designating and protecting both the Flora and Eden Pit Sites, as referenced above, as mineral resource Lands. Very truly yours, Mitchell S. Reister, P.E. Spokane County Engineer Eden Pit No. 55-06 582.9 291.45 582.9 Feet This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Oata layers that appear an this map may or may not be accurate. current, or otherwise reliable. 44131.917 I s5i 5-9157 rt '45),ZI,91:11.2 dS127.0438 .151 }'..7315 Fiera Pit Aerial 523_5 i7 261.77 -51001 T emar,.'A$ ..i& fl.-flr:mu- val..: -N:trissak trnnr 1n rrerre'r mnrNT rs.j ,ar• and t1 led rO sone- 1111:1- IAA, :nrt 1ha1.1py7L`Arnn hsi shop M.L1-1,r rraty nA1 ed-.1r4f/Y..r-s. es rrn1. error.- rmit res a'rEfl- Surplus Parcel No. 45121.9015 - - - . - - _ - - _ 4-0:2 -- ; - - • • - --- cwi•'• V _ - _ - _ _ - _ =ii.d.v.111 - _ — =-•• - h - - - - - - - - - -- • - - = _ - • _ , =•- •....14.2.1 Er • - - _ - • _ 2.045.0 1,022.52 2,045.0 Feet WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY APPROVAL FOR SURFACE MINING (Form SM -6) NAME OF COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS) Same as name of the exploration permit holder. (Type or print in ink.} TOTAL ACREAGE AND DEPTH OF PERMIT AREA (Include all acreage to be disturbed by mining, setbacks, and buffers, and associated activities during the life of the mine.) (See SM -8A.1 Total area disturbed will be 43.7 acres Spokane County Public Works 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 MAIIJNG ADDRESS No attachments will be accepted. Legal description of penult area: 1/4 1/4 Section Township Range 1026 West Broadway Avenue 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 epresentalive or individual applicants) Ij � 411, f ci BL t t?+ir t EGD EY Tiff„ APPROI'RtrATL CO INT Name and title of company representative (please print} Robert R. Brueggeman, P.E. County Engineer tij{ IuNlCI - ITt Date signed � ZG following 'yes' or ho'. Yes , No Please answer the questions 1. Has the proposed surface mine been approved under local zoning end land -use regulations? 2. Is the proposed subsequent use of the land after reclamation consistent with the local land -use plan/designation? 1 { When complete, return this form to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources regional office. Name of planning director or administrative official (please print) John Hohman, P.E. Address 11707 E. Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Signature 7 /1" , Title (please print) Community Development Director Telephone 509-720-5300 Date 8/15/2012 rf3R l)T.I'a1IiTAIE+ii osr. r tir a. DNR Reclamation Permit No. ______cQMit'y or µu etcleillll'9e+roznLt;iM I_R n➢SAStLi— tPiii DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CORPORATE OFFICE • 5111 E BROADWAY - SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99212 P.O. BOX 3366 • SPOKANE. WA 99220-3366 - OFFICE: (509) 534-6221 • FAX: (509) 536-3051 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 Miring Moratorium COOldcastle' Materials 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 CORPORATE OFFICE • 5111 E BROADWAY • SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99212 P.O. BOX 3366 • SPOKANE. WA 99220-3366 • OFFICE: (509) 534-6221 • FAX- (509) 536-3051 l" Oidcast e„ Materials 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 ofa 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 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: Sent: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: (1,ris Bainbridge Friday, January 08, 2016 112 PM "GBenner@spolwneraurIty.arg Cary Dris''cetl; Erik Lamb; Mike Jackson: Arne tiWloodard; Bill Gothir,anrk Chuck Hefner; Dean Grafos; Ed Price, Rad Higgins: SaMuel Wood; Caine t,t;ucielka FW: Spokane County letter RF: Public Hearing for Extension of Ivlining t Ior6,tarium 2016_t_etter_Hearing for Extension Mining Moratoritrrn.pol High am writing to acknowledge that I just naw received your e-mail and attached letter, acrd by copy of th[s a -mail, am sending that to our legal department, our CitV Manager, and aur Cocineilmembers, Thank you. Christine (Chris) 1;:Lir,hridge Spokane Valley Co), l:Irri°lc 509-720.5102 From: Benner, Ginger rn,iNL[r:G6eriner@spakaneLaiiiitv.org] Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 11:57 AM To: Rod Higgins c117r ,rinsvyoukarteve Iey orip'; Chris Bainbridge <CkS ir5Lri& ' sr' c kaneValleys_ Grp Cc: Chamberlain, MontycF,gCitanrberlainL-st,okt,n-r.o".rrrty,nrf›; Firkins, Deborah <Dril l iiir'9\n1_;rr'Ci7urt"Aj, >; Reinter, Mitch <mRFISTE:fi sriok r,esourjk�.ur1;} 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, SprAa:le Courrm, E tigineer, regarding the Public. Hearin°, for Extension of Il+lining Moratorium. A hard copy wilt follow in the rnOil. Thank You. i.:''�.C]• �. ' (,} 41 L: stair Assistant 11 Spokane County Engineering E. Rout;. 509-477-7407 gbe n n e rCn.s ptr>c an cP to n"+r .arq Tell us about your experience Imre Cristcsrrrer Service Survey! SP01-14, DIVISION OF ENGIIINZEERING AND ROADS A 17i'rsics of THE 1'v LIG WOR1.5 1.7t;'t'*aarn'F)T January $, 201.6 City or Spokane Valley Mayor and Council Members 11707 E. Sprague Asti. Suite IOC+ Spokane Valley. WA 99206 LSE: heir-ilic lfcuring on Eviensio colAlinring, h{krivorium r7Dcar Ma. syr and Council '*leathers: 1°crank you for listening to CPM Development Corporation's and Spokane Cuunry's concerns with regard u the designation or Mineral Resources and your moratorium on minim; within your juritidictiun. As has been acknowledged by everyone, any Comprehensive Plan requires the accommodation of IvIlinerul Resource !,uncle. Mineral Itesooree land provide the building blocks for development including roads and buildings, among other items. \ hile we appreciate your Staff Deport stating tout existing. entitled and vested sites arc exempt from the mornlvrinci , we [quest [hat it the moratorium is extended it be modified to include an exhibit specifically listing and forrn tlLy excluding the existing. entitled, or vested sites. Spokane Couniy believes lhaL Spokane County A icssui Parcel No. 45121.9015, cnrttnr l rt.:tenred to as the F;_duit Pia Site ('I-schirley Property). should be included in the exhibit of existing,. entitled. or crested site for the rt flowing reasons; (1) Spctkaic County obtained an SM -6 (Surface. Mining Permit) sighed by the City of Spokane Valley in 11u .0 l of 201 2. (2) Spokane County completed all environmental revievis lir ttunine of the Property. (3) Spokane County pur:ructl au'quirarig the mineral rig,1iL on this Property o,,, 'ned by Central Pre -Mix appraised at $450.000. Spokane County also believes dint Spokartc County Assessor Parcel No. 45121.9015, commonly refened to as the Flora Mining Sale, should also be iter luded in the exhibit of existing. entitled, or vested sires as that ptrrpcnv iias been iri active nsc as a mining site since 19G5- 1026 WEST 1!IioA JWAY AVENUE ' Sroh7,FF., WA 992611-01701 PHONE: (509) 47}-3600 - FAX: {gfl)) 177-7655 • -1'I?11: 509.477-7133, 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 Resolute 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 be 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 future 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 36.7013.170 et seq. Thank you for your thoughtful 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: February 9, 2016 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ❑admin. report Department Director Approval: ® new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second 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 is considering adoption of the findings of fact justifying adoption of the renewal on February 9, 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. The modification was to give full effect to City Council's original desire that the moratorium not impact existing business operations. City Council clarified that it desired for those proposed mines which had received a SM -6 Form, such as those like the Eden Pit, be included in the exception for existing businesses. 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 the RCA for Ordinance No. 16-002, which contains the findings of fact justifying the moratorium. Ordinance No. 16-002 is being considered for adoption immediately prior to consideration of the renewal. OPTIONS: Move to approve proposed Ordinance No. 16-003, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve 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. 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 February 9, 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: February 9, 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: Proposed Resolution 16-005 Amending 2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Revised Code of Washington (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 (Transportation Improvement Board) Grant Applications on July 14, 2015; Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Grant Funding Resolution 14-004 for the Appleway Trail; Informational Request for Council Action on January 26, 2016 and Administrative Report on February 2, 2016 for the Amended 2016 TIP. 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 Legislature) • McDonald Rd Preservation Project (TIB) • Opportunity Elementary — Safe Routes To School (Bowdish Rd) (TIB) • Mirabeau Pkwy & Pines (State Route 27) (SR -27) Traffic Signal (TIB) • Sprague LID (Low Impact Development), 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 Road Preservation, Spokane River to Flora Pit Road • 32nd Avenue Preservation, Dishman Mica to Pines • Saltese Avenue Preservation, Houk to 24th Carryover projects from 2015: • Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access, Indiana at Evergreen • Pines (SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project, Pines (SR -27) at Grace Ave • Citywide Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped) • ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) Infill Project (Construction only) • 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. OPTIONS: 1) Adopt the Amended 2016 TIP with or without additional changes; or 2) take further action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve Resolution 16-005, adopting the 2016 amended TIP. 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 (Professional Engineer) - Capital Improvement Program Manager Eric Guth, PE - Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 16-005, Draft Amended 2016 TIP DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 16-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE 2016 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley City Council Adopted the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) on June 23, 2015, Resolution #15-005, with such program acting as a guide for the coordinated development of the City's transportation system; and WHEREAS, changes in certain funding sources and project schedules have occurred; and WHEREAS, the attached Amended 2016 TIP incorporates said changes for year 2016; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the 2016 TIP are consistent with Spokane Valley' s adopted Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the attached Amended 2016 TIP for the City of Spokane Valley for the purpose of guiding the design, development and construction of local and regional transportation improvements for the year 2016. 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. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this 9th day of February, 2016. City of Spokane Valley R.L. Higgins, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 16-005 Amending 2016 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Adopted 2016 Transportation Improvement Program Proj. # Project From Primary City Total 2016 To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0155 Sullivan West Bridge 2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project (PE/RW Only) 3 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates (PE/CN) 4 0221 McDonald Rd Road Diet 5 Seth Woodard Elementary Sidewalk Imp 6 0205 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements (PE Only) 7 2016 Street Preservation Project 8 0226 Appleway Preservation 9 0227 Appleway Shared Use Path 10 3502 Fancher/BNSF RR Overpass Joint Repair (PE/CN) 11 Maribeau Pkwy & Pine (SR -27) Traffic Signal Funded Projects Planned Projects Sullivan Flora Various locations 16th Mission Sprague @ Various locations Park Pines Fancher @ Pine & @Spokane River Barker Mission Park Barker Dishman Mica Evergreen BNSF RR Maribeau Pkwy City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT AMENDED 2016 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 16-005, (2.9.2016 ) BR STP(U) HSIP HSIP CMAQ Developer City STP(U) STP(U)/TAP FedBR City $ 536,000 $ 43,000 $ 9,000 $ 3,000 $ 30,000 $ 12,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 11,000 $ 31,000 $ 201,000 $ 350,000 $ 5,064,000 $ 273,000 $ 81,000 $ 574,000 $ 361,000 $ 50,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 83,000 $ 145,000 $ 201,000 $ 350,000 $633,000 $ 6,220,000 $2,793,000 $ 3,162,000 $ 3,426,000 $ 9,382,000 Proj. # Project From Primary City Total 2016 To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0155 Sullivan West Bridge 2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project (PE/RW Only) 3 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates (PE/CN) 4 0221 McDonald Rd Road Diet 5 Seth Woodard Elementary Sidewalk Imp 6 0205 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements (PE Only) 7 2016 Street Preservation Project Broadway Preservation Sullivan Rd. Preservation 0229 32nd Ave Preservation 0229 32nd Ave Preservation Saltese Saltese 8 0226 Appleway Preservation 9 0227 Appleway Shared Use Path 10 3502 Fancher/BNSF RR Overpass Joint Repair (PE/CN) 11 Maribeau Pkwy & Pine (SR -27) Traffic Signal 12 0221 McDonald Rd Preservation Project 13 Opportunity Elementary - SRTS (Bowdish Rd) 14 0237 Appleway Trail 15 0198 Sprague LID (Low Impact Development) 16 0207 Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access 17 0166 Pines (SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project 18 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped.) 19 0201 ITS Infill Project (CN) Sullivan Flora Various locations 16th Mission Sprague @ Various locations Sullivan Sullivan @ Bowdish Dishman Mica Houk McDonald Park Pines Fancher @ Pine & 8th 12th Sullivan Park Indiana @ Pines (SR 27) @ Various locations Various locations @Spokane River Barker Mission Park Barker Moore Spokane River Pines Bowdish McDonald 24th Dishman Mica Evergreen BNSF RR Maribeau Pkwy Mission 8th Corbin University Evergreen Grace Ave BR $ STP(U) $ HSIP $ HSIP $ CDBG $ Developer $ City $ 1,010,000 43,000 9,000 3,000 11,580 12,000 3,050,000 $ 6,980,000 $ 273,000 $ 81,000 $ 574,000 $ 358,790 $ 50,000 $ 3,050,000 STP(U) $ 11,000 $ 83,000 STP(U)/TAP $ 31,000 $ 145,000 City $ 201,000 $ 201,000 TIB $ 28,149 $ 446,338 TIB $ 7,100 $ 1,244,730 TIB $ 222,912 $ 506,342 RCO/DOC $ 41,516 $ 276,775 DOE $ - $ 20,000 STA $ $ 85,000 HSIP $ $ 562,000 HSIP $ $ 154,000 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 2/4/2016 Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action February 9, 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: Resolution 16-006 — Restrictions on Spokane River Use Re: Sullivan Road Bridge Project. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11.020 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The City is currently working on the Sullivan Road west bridge replacement project through its contractor, Max J. Kuney Company. That project occasionally requires closure of the Spokane River immediately adjacent to and under the project for safety reasons because of equipment use and potentially falling debris. Additionally, fluctuating water levels due to seasonal runoff creates additional safety issues with regard to the construction site. The Spokane County Sheriff has traditionally been consulted on whether conditions warrant closing portions of the river because he is the chief safety officer in the County. As such, staff has consulted with Sheriff Knezovich and advised him of the conditions. Sheriff Knezovich read this draft Resolution and recommended that it be approved to appropriately provide for the health, safety, and welfare of our citizenry. This proposed Resolution is drafted to recognize that periodic, short-term closures on an as - needed basis will provide the safety necessary and still leave the river open for normal use the rest of the time. The Resolution would delegate to the City Manager or designee the authority to assess the conditions and close the Spokane River around the construction site intermittently as appropriate. It would expire October 31, 2016 unless acted on by the Council prior to that. The Resolution also requires that appropriate notice be given of intermittent closures and subsequent re -openings so that the public is well informed. OPTIONS: (1) approve Resolution 16-006; (2) request changes. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve Resolution 16-006 regarding restrictions on use of the Spokane River relating to the Sullivan Road bridge construction project. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution 16-006. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 16-006 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PERIODICALLY CLOSE AND OPEN THE SPOKANE RIVER ON A TEMPORARY BASIS RELATING TO THE SULLIVAN ROAD BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT UNTILOCTOBER 31, 2016, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City may take appropriate action to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens pursuant to the Washington State Constitution, Article XI Section 11, and RCW 35A.11.020; and WHEREAS, the southbound Sullivan Road bridge is currently under construction. As a consequence of this construction, and due to fluctuating water levels due to seasonal runoff, periodically there may be a risk of injury for people utilizing the river; and WHEREAS, the City has been advised by Spokane County Sheriff Knezovich that these conditions constitute a significant safety concern, and that it is appropriate to restrict access to the Spokane River surrounding the Sullivan Road bridge construction project due to danger posed by the construction project and the elevated water levels in the Spokane River. These conditions pose a danger to any person entering the river, including rescue personnel. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington as follows: Section 1. Restrictions on Access to Spokane River Around Sullivan Road Bridge. a. The City is currently replacing the southbound Sullivan Road bridge. This work occasionally results in potentially unsafe conditions for people who may be in the Spokane River immediately below the construction site, which includes an area on either side of the bridge. b. The City and its contractor are able to determine when unsafe conditions are likely to occur due to ongoing construction. In lieu of ordering the area around the construction zone to be closed until the new southbound bridge is completed, the City Council delegates to the City Manager or designee the authority to close that portion of the Spokane River identified in Section 1(c), including those identified limitations of use, on a periodic basis as may be warranted by the conditions. The City Manager may consult with any appropriate personnel necessary in making the determination to close or re -open the affected portion of the river. c. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to periodically close the Spokane River in the vicinity of the Sullivan Road bridge when unsafe conditions due to ongoing construction and/or river water levels occur. When so closed, the public shall not intentionally enter, swim, dive or float, with or without a boat, raft, craft, or other floating device, in or upon the water of the Spokane River from 100 feet east of the easternmost edge of the northbound Sullivan Road bridge to 500 feet west of the easternmost edge of the northbound Sullivan Road bridge as identified by the City through media releases, traffic alerts, or other appropriate means. Said media releases or traffic alerts shall identify the beginning and end date and time of each intermittent closure. Resolution 16-006 - Restrictions on Use of Spokane River Re: Sullivan Road Bridge - 1 - DRAFT d. The Spokane Valley Police Department is directed to take appropriate action to enforce this Resolution for the benefit of the public health, safety, and welfare. Section 2. Duration of Restrictions on Access to Spokane River. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption, and shall continue in effect until October 31, 2016, unless terminated earlier by subsequent action of the City Council. Adopted this 9th day of February, 2016. City of Spokane Valley R.L. Higgins, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 16-006 - Restrictions on Use of Spokane River Re: Sullivan Road Bridge - 2 - CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 9. 2016 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ® admin. report AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Governance Manual GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Latest Version of the Governance Manual Adopted August 11, 2015 Department Director Approval: ❑ ['new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session BACKGROUND: Councilmember Hafner has requested discussion of the Governance Manual OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF/COUNCIL CONTACT: Councilmember Hafner ATTACHMENTS: Governance Manual, Adopted August 11, 2015 Spokane jUalley Governance Manual Adopted by Resolution 15-007 A Comprehensive Collection of Rules and Procedures Adopted August 11, 2015 Resolution 03-028 adopted 05-13-2003, replaced by Resolution 04-013 adopted 05-25-2004, replaced by Resolution 05-021 adopted 09-13-2005, replaced by Resolution 06-022 adopted 11-14-2006, replaced by Resolution 07-020 adopted 12-11-2007, replaced by Resolution 09-012 adopted 09-08-2009, replaced by Resolution 10-020 adopted 12-28-2010, replaced by Resolution 12-002 adopted 04-10-2012, replaced by Resolution 13-005 adopted 04-23-2013, replaced by Resolution 14-003 adopted 02-25-2014, replaced by Resolution 15-007 adopted 08-11-2015 Page 1 of 56 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Council Meetings...................................................................... 4 A. General............................................................................................. 5 1. Time and Location.................................................................................... 5 2. Open to the Public.................................................................................... 5 3. Presiding Officer 5 B. Types of Meetings 6 1. Regular Meetings.................................................................................... 6 a. Formal Format............................................................................ 6 b. Study Session Format........................................................................... 8 c. Executive Sessions............................................................................. 10 2. Special Meeting 11 3. Pre -Agenda Meeting.............................................................................. 12 C. Meeting Rules and Procedures 13 1. Council Rules of Order............................................................................. 13 2. Quorum............................................................................................. 13 3. Attendance, Excused Absences................................................................... 13 4. Respect and Decorum.............................................................................. 13 5. Seating Arrangement................................................................................. 13 6. Dissents and Protests.......................................................................... 13 7. Councilmember Meeting Participation by Telephone/Video Conference .................. 13 8. Internet Use..................................................................................... 14 9. Adjournment Due to Emergency or Disruption ................................................. 14 10. Permission Required to Address the Council .................................................... 15 11. Approaching the Dais.............................................................................. 15 12. Out of Order Requests............................................................................. 15 13. Photographs, etc. Requiring Artificial Illumination Prior Permission Required .......... 15 14. Voting.............................................................................................. 15 15. Motions and Discussion........................................................................... 15 Table of Parliamentary Procedure at a Glance ................................................ 17 16. Ordinances........................................................................................... 18 17. Resolutions ................................................................................... 18 19. Reconsideration..................................................................................... 18 19. Council Materials/packets.......................................................................... 19 20. Three Touch Principle.............................................................................. 20 CHAPTER 2: Legislative Processes and Procedures .............................................. 21 A. Election of Council Officers............................................................................ 22 B. Filling Council Vacancies: Permanently Filling a Vacancy 22 C. Filling Council Vacancies: Temporarily Filing a Council Position ............................ 25 D. Legislative Agendas...................................................................................... 28 E. Council Travel Provisions 28 F. Ballot Measures.......................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 3: Council Contacts 30 A. Citizen Contacts and Interactions.................................................................... 31 1. Mayor/Council Correspondence............................................................. 31 2. Citizen Concerns, Complaints and Suggestions to Council 31 3 Administrative Complaints to Individual Councilmembers ............................. 31 4. Social Media.................................................................................... 31 5. Donations........................................................................................ 31 B. Staff Contacts and Interactions....................................................................... 32 1. Role of the City Manager..................................................................... 32 Page 2 of 56 2. City staff Attendance at Meetings 32 3. City Clerk — Minutes............................................................................ 32 4 Administrative Interference by Councilmembers........................................ 32 5. Informal Communications Encouraged.................................................... 33 CHAPTER 4: Hearings.................................................................................. 34 A. General Public Hearings............................................................................... 35 1. Purpose..................................................................................... 35 2. Legislative Hearings............................................................................ 35 B. Quasi -Judicial ................................................................................... 36 1. Purpose..................................................................................... 36 2. Specific Statutory Provisions.................................................................. 36 3. Actions/Procedures for a Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing ................................ 36 4. Appearance of Fairness Doctrine........................................................... 38 CHAPTER 5: Committees, Boards, Commissions ................................................. 40 A. Regional.................................................................................................. 41 1. Committees...................................................................................... 41 2. Council Relations with Boards, Commissions, Advisory Bodies ...................... 41 B. In-house.................................................................................................. 41 1. Standing Committees........................................................................... 41 a Planning Commission.................................................................. 41 b. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee ................................................. 42 c. Finance Committee.................................................................. 42 C. Private Committees, Boards, Commissions......................................................... 44 CHAPTER 6: Disclaimer................................................................................... 45 A. Purpose..................................................................................................... 45 B. Use.......................................................................................... 45 C. Reliance....................................................................................... 45 Appendices: A. Definitions................................................................................................. 46 B. Frequently Used Acronyms............................................................................ 48 C. Chart of Council Comments/reports................................................................... 51 D. Policy Resolution of Core Beliefs................................................................... 52 E Statement of Ethics................................................................................. 54 Index................................................................................................ 5 5 Endnotes......................................................................................................... 57 Page 3 of 56 CHAPTER 1 Council Meetings Page 4 of 56 A. General 1. Council Meetings - Time and Location Unless otherwise specified in a meeting notice, regular meetings of the City Council shall be held at Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers on Tuesdays beginning at 6:00 p.m. 2. Council Meetings - Open to the Public All meetings of the City Council and of committees thereof shall be open to the public, except as provided for in RCW 42.30.110' (Executive Sessions), or RCW 42.30.140" (Open Public Meetings Act). Councilmembers shall notify appropriate staff of Councilmember's plans to attend any of the various outside public meetings hosted by other organizations or agencies, or City meetings hosted by various City Departments, so that notice may be published concerning such attendance in order not to risk any real or perceived violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. 3. Presiding Officer The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council and be recognized as the head of the City for all ceremonial purposes. The Mayor shall have no regular administrative or executive duties unless specifically set forth herein. In case of the Mayor's absence or temporary disability, the Deputy Mayor shall act as Mayor during the continuance of the absence. In case of the absence or temporary inability of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, an acting Mayor Pro Tempore selected by majority vote of the remaining members of the Council, shall act as Mayor during the continuance of the absences [RCW 35A.13.035" 1] The Mayor, Deputy Mayor (in the Mayor's absence) or Mayor Pro Tem are referred to as "Presiding Officer" from time to time in these Rules of Procedure. Page 5 of 56 B. Types of Meetings 1. Regular Meeting Any Council meeting that meets in the Spokane Valley City Council Chambers on Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. shall be deemed a "regular meeting." a. Formal Format 1. Normally held 2nd and 4th Tuesdays. The City Clerk, under the direction of the City Manager in consultation with the Mayor, shall arrange a list of proposed matters according to the order of business and prepare an agenda for the Council. On or before close of business on a Friday preceding a Tuesday Council meeting, or at the close of business at least 24 hours preceding a special Council meeting, a copy of the agenda and supporting materials shall be prepared for Councilmembers, the City Manager, appropriate staff, and the media who have filed a notification request. Agendas may be amended as required, and expeditiously distributed to Council and appropriate staff. 2. Requests for presentations from outside entities or individuals will only be permitted if they are considered the official business of the City. Such requests should be submitted to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the appropriate Council meeting. The City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and the Mayor for a determination of whether the matter is an administrative issue, and whether it should be placed on an upcoming Council agenda. Playing of videos, DVD's, PowerPoints, or other electronic presentations shall be pre-screened and pre -approved by the City Manager who shall determine the appropriateness of the material. In the event the presenter has no PowerPoint or other material to submit prior to the meeting, the presenter shall be requested to provide a brief written summary of the topic and items to be discussed. All written materials, including the written summary, must be submitted to the City Clerk at least ten days prior to the appropriate Council meeting. 3. Forms of Address. The Mayor shall be addressed as "Mayor (surname)." The Deputy Mayor shall be addressed as "Deputy Mayor (surname)." Members of the Council shall be addressed as "Councilmember (surname)" unless waived by the Presiding Officer. 4. Order of Business. The business of all regular formal meetings of the Council shall be transacted as follows, provided, however, that the Presiding Officer may, during a Council meeting, rearrange items on the agenda to conduct Council business more expeditiously, without the necessity of a formal action or motion. However, adding or removing items from the agenda once a meeting has been called to order requires Council to make a motion and vote on approving the "amended agenda." a. Call to Order by the Presiding Officer. b. Invocation. c. Pledge of Allegiance. d. Roll Call. (See Chapter 1, C3 [page 13] for procedure to excuse an absence) e. Approval of Agenda. In case of an emergency or an extremely time -sensitive issue which neither the administration nor the entire Council was aware of prior to the distribution of the agenda and accompanying materials, a new item may be introduced by the Presiding Officer, with concurrence of at least three Councilmembers, or by the City Manager and suggested as an amended agenda item for the present meeting. If a new item(s) is added, Council shall then consider a motion to approve the amended agenda. ("Three -Touch Principle" should be followed whenever possible.) f. Introduction of Special Guests and Presentations. g. Councilmember Reports. Council or government -related activities (e.g. synopsis of committee, commission, task force or other board meetings). These verbal reports are intended to be brief, City work-related reports of significance in keeping the Council informed of pertinent policy issues or events stemming from their representation of the City on a regional board, committee, task force or commission, whether as a formal member or as a liaison. Extended reports shall be placed as future agenda items for presentation or submitted in writing as an informational memo. (See Appendix C for chart concerning Council comments and reports) Page 6 of 56 h. Mayor's Report. i. Proclamation. j. Public Comments. 1. An opportunity for public comments on subjects not on the agenda for action (as well as comments connected with action items) are limited to three minutes each unless modified by the Presiding Officer. Although the City Council desires to allow the opportunity for public comment, the business of the City must proceed in an orderly, timely manner. At any time the Presiding Officer, in the Presiding Officer's sole discretion, may set such reasonable limits as are necessary to prevent disruption or undue delay of other necessary business. a. Subjects Not on the Current Agenda. Although it is not necessary for members of the public to sign in to speak, the Presiding Officer may invoke a sign -in procedure for speakers. Speakers shall state their name and city of residence, and the subject of their comments, and spell their last name for the record. The Presiding Officer may allow the verbal comments subject to such time limitations as the Presiding Officer deems necessary. Following such verbal comments, the Presiding Officer may place the matter on a future agenda, or refer the matter to administration for investigation and/or report. b. Subjects on the Current Agenda. Any member of the public who wishes to verbally address the Council on an action item on the current agenda, shall proceed to the podium at the time when comments from the public are invited during the agenda item discussion. The Council may hear such comments before or after initial Council discussion. The Presiding Officer may also invoke a sign -in procedure. If necessary the Presiding Officer in consultation with the City Manager and/or City Attorney shall rule on the appropriateness of verbal public comments as the agenda item is reached. The Presiding Officer may change the order of speakers so that comment is heard in the most logical groupings. c. Comments shall only be made from the podium microphone, first giving name, city of residence and subject. No comments shall be made from any other location, and anyone making "out of order" comments shall be subject to removal from the meeting. The public shall be reminded that this is not an opportunity for dialogue or questions and answers, but public comment. When appropriate, staff shall research issues and report back to those making the comment as well as to Council. Verbal public comments are opportunities for speakers to briefly address Council, and those speaking are to address members of Council and not the audience. In order to prevent disruption of the Council meeting, members of the public are asked to refrain from distributing materials to the audience, since Council meetings are not a public forum to address the audience. Since this is an opportunity for verbal public comment, in the interest of time and keeping in mind all documents submitted during Council meetings become the property of the City, graphs, charts, posterboards, PowerPoint presentations, or other display materials are not permitted, although written comments and written materials including photographs and petitions may be submitted to Council via the City Clerk. d. Demonstration, applause or other audience participation before, during or at the conclusion of anyone's public comments is prohibited. Any disruptive behavior, as determined by the Presiding Officer, shall be cause for removal from the meeting room. e. Any ruling by the Presiding Officer relative to the subsections 1 and 2 above may be overruled by a vote of a majority of Councilmembers present. f. Council shall not permit public comments if they relate to any matter upon which a quasi-judicial hearing has been required, scheduled, or held. (See Chapter 4 for procedure for taking public comment on legislative matters.) Unless solicited and scheduled, comments shall not be permitted relative to any future or possible/probable future ballot issue. (See Chapter 2, F Ballot Measures.) 2. Written Public Comments. Citizens have the option of submitting written views, opinions, comments, data and arguments to Council on any topic and at any time, not just prior to or during public Council meetings. Unless the Mayor asks the Clerk to read written comments, or the citizen reads their own prepared written comments, such comments shall not be read aloud Page 7 of 56 during regular or special Council meetings although they shall be included as part of the public record on the topic and if appropriate, may be publicly acknowledged. Any written comments submitted to Council via the City Clerk shall be distributed to Council by placing copies at each Councilmember's workstation or City desk; or in the case of e-mailed or other electronic comments, shall be forwarded to Council via e-mail. If individual Councilmembers receive written (including electronic) public comments or materials for the purpose of reading/sharing those materials during Council meetings, those materials should be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the Council meeting so the Clerk can make copies for later distribution to members of Council. Councilmembers shall avoid accessing any electronic message during Council meetings. Accessing such communication could be construed as receiving public comment without the benefit of having the citizen in person to address their concerns. (See also C8 Internet Use) k. Public Hearings. (See Chapter 4 for procedural details) 1. Consent Agenda. 1. Items which may be placed on the Consent Agenda are those which: (1) have been previously discussed by the Council; (2) based on the information delivered to members of the Council by administration can be reviewed by a Councilmember without further explanation; (3) are so routine, technical or nonsubstantive in nature that passage without discussion is likely; or (4) otherwise deemed in the best interest of the City. 2. The proper Council motion on the Consent Agenda is: "I move approval of the Consent Agenda." This motion has the effect of moving to approve all items on the Consent Agenda. Prior to the vote on the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, the Presiding Officer shall inquire if any Councilmember wishes an item to be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda. If any matter is withdrawn, the Presiding Officer shall place the item at an appropriate place on the agenda for the current or a future meeting, or the matter may be addressed immediately after passage of the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. m. Unfinished Business [includes matters that were pending when a previous meeting adjourned, or matters specifically postponed to the present meeting] n. New Business. [Action items are designated as New Business] o. Public Comments. [Same as j above] (Three-minute time limit each) p. Administrative Reports. Reports or tracking of an administrative issue or topic. q Information Only Items. These items are generally not discussed or reported. r. City Manager Comments. s. Executive Session (as required). (See Chapter 1, section Blc below) t. Adjournment. No Council meeting should be permitted to continue beyond approximately 9:00 p.m. without approval of a majority of the Councilmembers present. A new time limit shall be established before taking a Council vote to extend the meeting. When a motion is made to adjourn into Executive Session for a specified period of time, no additional motion is needed to extend the meeting beyond 9:00 p.m. since that is implied as part of the motion to adjourn into Executive Session. In the event that a meeting has not been closed or continued by Council as herein specified, the items not acted on shall be deferred to the next regular formal Council meeting, unless the Council by a majority vote of members present determines otherwise. b. Study Session Format 1. Normally held 1st, 3rd and 5th Tuesdays. The purpose of the study session format is to allow Councilmembers to be made aware of impending business and allow informal discussion of issues that might be acted on at a future meeting. Action items should normally not be included on a study session agenda, although there may be times when due to deadlines or other pertinent issues, action items must be included. Study sessions shall be in a less formal setting than regular formal meetings. Council may be seated other than at the dais, but shall not discourage public observation. Unless there are designated action items which permit public comment, there shall be no public comment at study sessions although Page 8 of 56 the Council may request staff or other participation in the same manner as a regular formal Council meeting. The City Clerk, under the direction of the City Manager, shall arrange a Council study session agenda for the meeting. For each item, the agenda shall contain the discussion subject, the discussion leader, the activity and the discussion goal. A copy of the agenda and accompanying background materials shall be prepared for Councilmembers, the City Manager, appropriate staff and the press, on or before 4:30 p.m., one day before the meeting. Councilmembers have the option of accessing their Council packet via the City's website. Unless notified otherwise, the City Clerk shall prepare a hard copy agenda packet for individual Councilmembers. During a Council meeting, the Presiding Officer may rearrange items on the agenda to conduct Council business more expeditiously without the necessity of a formal action or motion. However, adding or removing items from the agenda once a meeting has been called to order requires Council to make a motion and vote on approving the "amended agenda." a. Voting. 1. Action Items on the Agenda. Although action items may occasionally be included on a study session agenda, it is the practice of Council to keep those instances to a minimum. Because a study session is a recognized meeting according to the "Open Public Meetings Act," it is permissible for Council to take fmal action during these meetings. 2. Non -action Items on the Agenda. Because study sessions are usually understood by the public and media as referring to meetings at which Council considers and discusses items and does not take final action or vote, it could be misleading to the public as to the purpose of the meeting if a motion is made unexpectedly. As it is Council's practice to invite public comment after most motions, it would be inappropriate to make a "surprise" motion unless there is a rare special circumstance. Voting or making a motion when neither is included on an agenda does not violate state law, but for consistency sake and to avoid any surprises to the public and media, the practice is discouraged. 2. Discussion Leader's Role. During the Council study session, the discussion leader should introduce the subject and give background information, identify the discussion goal, act as facilitator to keep the discussion focused toward the goal, and alert the Presiding Officer when it is appropriate, to schedule the topic for a motion or official direction of the Council. 3. The role of the Presiding Officer is to facilitate Councilmembers engaged in free flowing discussion without the necessity of each Councilmember being recognized by the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer retains the option of assuming the function of the discussion leader at any time in order to maintain decorum and ensure all Councilmembers have the opportunity to be heard, and to keep the discussion properly focused. 4. Requests for presentations from outside entities or individuals will only be permitted if they are considered the official business of the City. Such requests should be submitted to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the appropriate Council meeting. The City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and the Mayor for a determination of whether the matter is an administrative issue, and whether it should be placed on an upcoming Council agenda. Playing of videos , DVD's, PowerPoints, or other electronic presentations shall be pre-screened and pre -approved by the City Manager, who shall determine the appropriateness of the material. In the event the presenter has no PowerPoint or other material to submit prior to the meeting, the presenter shall be requested to provide a brief written summary of the topic and items to be discussed. All written materials, including the written summary, shall be submitted to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the appropriate Council meeting. 5. Council Comments. The purpose of this agenda item is to allow Councilmembers an opportunity to report on an activity or key issue which either just arose, needs immediate or imminent action, or to simply report on something in connection with their role as a Councilmember that transpired since the last Council meeting. It is also an opportunity for Councilmembers to bring up topics for clarification, or to address other upcoming concerns. (See Appendix C for chart concerning Council Page 9 of 56 comments and reports.) Pre -scheduled materials Council wishes to share as part of the Council packet, may also be included on study session agendas under "Council Comments." 6. City Manager Comments. The purpose of this agenda item is to allow the City Manager the opportunity to brief Council on an activity or issue which either just arose, needs immediate or imminent action, or to simply inform Council of items that transpired since the last Council meeting. 7. Forms of Address. Councilmembers and staff have the option of addressing each other on a first name basis during the study session format meetings. 8. Roll Call. The City Clerk shall conduct a roll call of Councilmembers. (See Chapter 1, C3 for procedure to excuse an absence.) c. Executive Sessions 1. If Council holds an executive session, it shall be held pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act, RCW Chapter 42.30. Council may hold an executive session during a regular or special meeting. Before convening in executive session, the Presiding Officer shall ask for a motion from Council to: publicly announce the purpose for adjourning into executive session; the approximate length of time for the executive session; and the likelihood of Council taking action at the close of the executive session and return to open session. a. At the close of the executive session and upon Council's return to chambers, the Presiding Officer declares Council out of executive session, and asks for the appropriate motion (i.e. an action motion or a motion to adjourn). b. To protect the best interests of the City, Councilmembers shall keep confidential all verbal and written information provided during executive sessions. Confidentiality also includes information provided to Councilmembers outside of executive sessions when the information is considered exempt from disclosure under the Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers (RCW 42.52'") and/or the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56"). 2. RCW 42.30.110 explains the purpose for holding an executive session, some of which include: a. RCW 42.30.110(1)(b). To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price (pending land acquisition); b. RCW 42.30.110(1)(g). To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the performance of a public employee. However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4) (labor negotiations), discussion by a governing body of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally applied within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public, and when a governing body elects to take final action hiring, setting the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a meeting open to the public; [note that stating that an executive session is to discuss a "personnel matter" is not sufficient because only certain types of personnel matters are appropriate for discussion in an executive session.] (review qualifications of a public employee) c. RCW 42.30.110(1)(h). To evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to elective office. However, any interview of such candidate and final action appointing a candidate to elective office shall be in a meeting open to the public (review qualifications of an elected official) d. RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public Page 10 of 56 knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency. For purposes of this subsection (1)(i), "potential/pending litigation" means matters protected by Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.6 or RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) concerning: (i) Litigation that has been specifically threatened to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party; (ii) Litigation that the agency reasonably believes may be commenced by or against the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity; or (iii) Litigation or legal risks of a proposed action or current practice that the agency has identified when public discussion of the litigation or legal risks is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency. 3. Council may adjourn into executive session even if it is not listed on the meeting agenda. There is a requirement in RCW 35A.12.160" that the public be made aware of the preliminary agendas of meetings in advance of the meeting, but that does not mean that an item that arises after the agenda has been posted cannot be discussed at the meeting, even in executive session. Since final action on the matter would not be taken at the executive session, it would not violate any provision in state law to hold an executive session at a regular Council meeting even if the executive session was not listed on the agenda. [per MRSC Index -General Government -Executive sessions.] Although amending the agenda is not required in order to adjourn into executive session, it is a good practice for the Mayor to announce at the beginning of the meeting, that Council will be adjourning into an executive session at the end of the regular meeting. 4. Attendance at Executive Sessions. The City Attorney or Deputy City Attorney shall attend executive sessions which address litigation or potential litigation. The question of who may attend an executive session other than the Council is determined by the City Manager. 2. Special Meetings Meetings set at days, times, and places other than Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. in the Spokane Valley City Council Chambers shall be deemed "special meetings," such as joint meetings with other jurisdictions or entities (Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commissioners), and Council workshops or retreats. A special meeting may be called by the Mayor or any three members of the Council. (RCW 35A.13.170"" 35A.12.110"1111) Written notice of the special meeting shall be prepared by the City Clerk. The notice shall contain information about the meeting, including date, time, place, and business to be transacted and shall be posted on the City's website and displayed at the main entrance of the meeting location (RCW 42.30.080'x). The notice shall be delivered to each member of Council at least 24 hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting (RCW 35A.12.110x). The notices provided in this section may be dispensed within the circumstances provided by RCW 42.30.080x', that is: (a) As to any member who, at or prior to the time the meeting convenes, files with the City Clerk a written waiver of notice, (b) As to any member who was actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes, and (c) In the event a special meeting is called to deal with an emergency involving injury or damage to persons or property or the likelihood of such injury or damage, when time requirements of such notice would make notice impractical and increase the likelihood of such injury or damage; or as otherwise provided by law. Agendas shall be drafted in a form submitted by the City Clerk, approved by the City Manager, and distributed in a manner similar to agendas for formal and study session meetings. The processes and rules for agenda content apply to regular formal, study session format, as well as special meetings. Page 11 of 56 Agenda Items: : 1. Action Items on the Agenda. Action items may be included on an agenda for a special meeting, and could even be the reason the special meeting is called. It is the practice of Council to allow time for the public to comment on action items and the "public comment" should be so noted on the agenda. . Once the Special Meeting Agenda has been published and distributed, the agenda may be amended provided the amended agenda is distributed to Councilmembers and to the media, and posted on the City's website and at the meeting doorway, at least 24 hours in advance of the special meeting. Final disposition shall only be taken on those noted action items, and shall not be taken on any other matter at that special meeting (RCW 42.30.080(3)x") 2. Non -action Items on the Agenda. Special meetings in the form of a workshop, retreat, or with other jurisdictions, shall only include non -action items and as noted above, no final disposition shall be taken during these meetings. 3. Pre -Agenda Meetings: The City Manager, City Clerk, Mayor and Deputy Mayor generally meet at a fixed weekly time to review the Council agenda of the upcoming meeting, which gives all involved an opportunity to ask questions and gather any additional materials or research needed for the impending meeting. This meeting also serves as an opportune time to discuss the Advance Agenda, which is a planning document to aid in scheduling items on future Council agendas. 4. Placing Items on an Agenda: a. Routine Council Business: Through the normal course of business, Council may move items forward to a future agenda by consensus. b. New Item Council Business: At the appropriate time during a Council meeting (such as Council Comments, or Advance Agenda), Councilmembers may request to have items placed on a future agenda. Each request shall be treated separately. The City Manager is most familiar with staff's workload and shall determine when the item can be prepared and brought forward to Council. The following process shall be used to propose an item on a future Council meeting: i. A Councilmember proposes an item and gives brief explanatory background of the issue and its importance to the City; ii. Councilmembers may ask clarifying questions but should not engage in debate; iii. The item shall be considered at the next meeting of the Agenda Committee taking into account legal or other appropriate scheduling issues as determined by the City Attorney or City Manager; a. The Committee may place the item on a future agenda or as a pending item; or b. The Committee may determine not to place the item on a future agenda or as a pending item and shall notify the proposing Councilmember who has the option of bringing the issue up again during the advance agenda portion of a meeting for further discussion. At that time, a consensus of three or more Councilmembers shall move the item forward to a future agenda or as a pending item, taking into account legal or other appropriate scheduling issues as determined by the City Attorney or City Manager. c. Staff: except for routine items such as those found on most Consent Agendas, requests for items to come before Council shall be routed through the City Manager or come directly from the City Manager as part of the normal course of business. Page 12 of 56 C. Meeting Rules and Procedures 1. Council Rules of Order The City Clerk shall serve as the official parliamentarian for all Council meetings, and shall keep a copy of the most current "Robert's Rules of Order" (RONR) in Council Chambers during Council meetings. 2. Quorum At all regular and special meetings of the Council, a majority of the Councilmembers who hold office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A lesser number may adjourn from time to time, provided that written notice of said adjournment is posted on the exterior Council Chamber doors pursuant to RCW 42.30.090' Council meetings adjourned under the previous provision shall be considered regular meetings for all purposes. (RCW 35A.13.170X'35A.12.120X") 3. Attendance, Excused Absences RCW 35A.12.060X' provides that a Councilmember shall forfeit his/her office by failing to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the Council without being excused by the Council. Members of the Council may be so excused by complying with this section. The member shall contact the Mayor, City Clerk, or City Manager prior to the meeting and state the reason for his/her inability to attend the meeting. Following roll call, the Presiding Officer shall inform the Council of the member's absence, and inquire if there is a motion to excuse the member. This motion shall be nondebatable. Upon passage of such motion by a majority of members present, the absent member shall be considered excused and the City Clerk shall make an appropriate notation in the minutes. 4. Respect and Decorum It is the duty of the Mayor and each Councilmember to maintain dignity and respect for their offices, City staff and the public. While the Council is in session, Councilmembers shall preserve order and decorum and a Councilmember shall neither by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings of the Council, nor disrupt or disparage any Councilmember while speaking. Councilmembers and the public shall comply with the directives of the Presiding Officer. Any person making disruptive, disparaging or impertinent remarks or unreasonably disturbing the business of the Council, either while addressing the Council or attending its proceedings, shall be asked to cease such disruption, or may be asked to leave, or be removed from the meeting. At any time during any Council meeting, any Councilmember may object to personal affront or other inappropriate comments, by calling for a "point of order." After the Councilmember is recognized by the Presiding Officer and the Councilmember explains their point concerning respect and decorum, or lack thereof, the Presiding Officer shall rule on the remark and may ask the person making the disturbance to cease or leave the room. Continued disruptions may result in a recess or adjournment as set forth in #9 below. 5. Seating Arrangement Councilmembers shall occupy the respective seats in the Council Chamber assigned to them by the Mayor. 6. Dissents and Protests Any Councilmember shall have the right to express dissent from or protest verbally or in writing, against any motion, ordinance or resolution of the Council and have the reason therefore entered or retained in the minutes. 7. Councilmember Meeting Participation by Telephone/Video Conference Telephone/video conference participation by Councilmembers may be allowed provided that a quorum of Councilmembers shall be physically present for the Council meeting in question, and provided technical availability and compatibility of electronic equipment enables the conferencing Councilmember(s) to hear the proceedings, be heard by those present, and participate in Council discussion. More than one Councilmember may request participation via telephone for the same meeting, provided that those Page 13 of 56 Councilmembers would be able to be reached at the same phone number, as the Council Chamber's current system can only accommodate the use of one telephone number per meeting. a. Requests to use telephone/video conference participation shall be approved by the Council by motion. Such participating Councilmember(s) shall be present and counted. So as not to disrupt the Council meeting, adequate notice shall be given to allow appropriate setup in time for the beginning of the meeting. b. Telephone/video conference participation for voting purposes shall be allowed for public hearings or any quasi-judicial proceedings, and the requesting Councilmember(s) shall declare that (s)he has reviewed the associated material (if any) provided for those hearings and/or proceedings prior to the time the vote will be taken by Council. 8. Internet Use Use of the City's network systems implies Council is aware of and understands that the system is provided to assist in the performance of their roles as Councilmembers, and as such, Councilmembers are obligated to use, conserve and protect electronic information and information technology resources and to preserve and enhance the integrity of those resources which belong to the citizens of Spokane Valley. a. As noted on page 8, Councilmembers shall avoid accessing any electronic message during Council meetings. Accessing such communication could be construed as receiving public comment without the benefit of having the citizen in person to address their concerns. Likewise, Councilmembers shall avoid browsing the Internet of non -City business during Council meetings in order that Council's full attention can be given to the topic at hand. b. Information technology resources are provided for the purpose of conducting official City business. The use of any of the City's information technology resources for campaign or political use, unless such use has been determined not a violation of RCW 42.17A.555X"" by the City Attorney, Washington State Attorney General, or Washington Public Disclosure Commission, or as otherwise authorized by law, is absolutely prohibited. c. Confidential material shall not be sent via e-mail. d. All letters, memoranda, and interactive computer communication (e-mail) involving Councilmembers, the subject of which relates to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental function, with specific exceptions stated in the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) are public records. Copies of such letters, memoranda and interactive computer communication shall not be provided to the public or news media without filing a public record request with the City Clerk. e. E-mail communications that are intended to be distributed among all Councilmembers, whether concurrently or serially, shall be considered in light of the Open Public Meetings Act. If the intended purpose of an e-mail is to have a discussion that should be held at an open meeting, the electronic discussion should not occur, and Council discussion should wait until everyone has had ample opportunity to view the message before including such topic(s) on an upcoming agenda. 9. Adjournment Due to Emergency or Disruption In the event of an emergency such as a fire or other natural or catastrophic disaster, threatened violence, or inability to regain or retain good order, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith declare a recess, adjourn, or continue the meeting, and the City Council as well as everyone in the room shall immediately leave the meeting room. The Presiding Officer may reconvene the meeting when it has been determined by the appropriate safety officials that it is safe to do so. 10. Permission Required to Address the Council Persons other than Councilmembers and staff shall be permitted to address the Council upon recognition and/or introduction by the Presiding Officer or City Manager. 11. Approaching the Dais Once a Council meeting has been called to order, stepping between the speaker's podium and the dais is prohibited, and stepping behind any part of the dais, including those parts occupied by staff is also prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, video recording, still photography, tape recording, and distributing written handouts. Council reserves the right to invite anyone forward to the podium to be addressed by Council. Page 14 of 56 12. Out of Order Requests Occasionally a member of the public may wish to speak on an agenda item but cannot remain until the item is reached on the agenda. During "Open Comments From the Public," such person may request permission to speak by explaining the circumstances. The Presiding Officer in his/her sole discretion shall rule on allowing or disallowing the out of order request. 13. Photographs, Motion Pictures or Videos Requiring Artificial Illumination — Prior Permission Required No overhead projection, photographs, motion pictures, or videos that require the use of floodlights, or similar artificial illumination shall be used by the public at City Council meetings without the prior consent of the Presiding Officer or the City Manager. 14. Voting The votes during all meetings of the Council shall be transacted as follows: a. The Presiding Officer shall first call for a vote from those in favor of the motion, followed by a call for those opposed to the motion, and afterwards shall state whether the motion passed or failed. Unless otherwise provided by statute, ordinance, or resolution, all votes shall be taken by voice. At the request of any Councilmember or the City Clerk, a roll call vote shall be taken by the City Clerk. The order of the roll call vote shall be determined by the City Clerk. b. In case of a tie vote on any proposal, the motion shall be considered lost. c. Every member who was present when the question was called, shall give his/her vote. If any Councilmember refuses to vote "aye" or "nay," their vote shall be counted as a "nay" vote unless the Councilmember has abstained or recused themself due to actual or perceived appearance of a conflict of interest, which shall be so stated prior to the vote at hand. d. The passage of any ordinance, grant or revocation of franchise or license, and any resolution for the payment of money, any approval of warrants, and any resolution for the removal of the City Manager shall require the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the whole membership of the Council''' Except as provided in "e" below, all other motions or resolutions shall require an affirmative vote of at least a majority of the quorum present. e. Majority Plus One: The passage of any public emergency ordinance (an ordinance that takes effect immediately), expenditures for any calamity, violence of nature, riot, insurrection, or war; and provisions for a lesser emergency, such as a budget amendment (RCW 35A.33.090X'x), shall require the affirmative vote of at least a majority plus one of the whole membership of the Council. (RCW 35A.13.190'). 15. Motions and Discussion a. Order of Procedure: 1. Member of Council makes a motion by stating: "I move .. ." The motion is seconded. Staff makes their presentation. Mayor asks Council if there are any questions for staff. Once all questions have been addressed, the staff member steps away from the podium to allow for the public comment opportunity. 2. The Mayor invites public comments. Public comments should be limited to one comment per person per topic and limited to three minutes. The Mayor reminds the public this is time for comments and not discussion; and if the public has questions, those questions shall be addressed by staff at another time outside the meeting. 3. The Mayor opens the floor to Council for discussion. The maker of the motion normally begins the discussion. The discussion must have bearing on whether the pending motion should be adopted (RONR §43); and can be prefaced by a few words of explanation, but must not become a speech (RONR §4). All Council remarks should be addressed through the Mayor. Page 15 of 56 4. When discussion has ended, the Mayor re -states the motion or asks the Clerk to re -state the motion. Once the motion is re -stated, the Mayor calls for the vote, which is normally taken by voice. The Mayor or the Clerk then states whether the motion passed or failed. b. In General: 1. Except in rare circumstances, Council motions shall be in the form of an affirmative motion. Affirmative motions are preferred to prevent "approval by default" of a failed negative motion. 2. Agenda items scheduled for Council action shall require a motion by a Councilmember before discussion unless by majority vote the Council suspends the requirement. If a motion fails , the agenda item shall be considered concluded. However, said item could be reconsidered if done during the same meeting, or through Council majority vote could be brought back at a later meeting to "rescind an action," or to "amend something previously adopted." (Mayoral appointments excepted. See Committees for further discussion.) 3. Councilmembers should direct questions to the City Manager or the designated presenter. 4. Main motions are made when no other motion is pending (see chart below). They are debatable and subject to amendment. Since seconding a motion means "let's discuss it," if there is no second but discussion ensues, the matter of having a second to proceed is moot and the motion can proceed. However, if there is no second and no discussion, the motion does not progress. Note that the motion does not "die for a lack of a second" but it merely does not progress. 5. The maker of a motion can withdraw their motion without the consent of the seconder, and if the mover modifies the motion, the seconder may withdraw the second. The person making the motion is entitled to speak first to the motion. A maker of the motion may vote against the motion but cannot speak against their own motion. 6. No one should be permitted to speak twice to the same issue until everyone else wishing to speak has spoken. All remarks shall be directed to the Presiding Officer and shall be courteous in language and deportment (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, Article VII, Section 43, Decorum in Debate), keeping in mind it is not the Councilmember, but the measure that is the subject of debate. 7. When an amended motion is on the floor, the vote is taken on whether to adopt the amendment. If adopted, the next vote is on the fully amended motion. 8. Motions should be reserved for items marked on the agenda for action, so as to avoid any surprises for Council, staff and the public. Page 16 of 56 Parliamentary Procedure at a Glance Roberts Rules of Order § IF YOU WANT TO YOU SAY INTERRUPT ? NEED 21'1)? Can be Debated ? Can be Amended? VOTE 11 Postpone indefinitely (the purpose is to prevent action or kill an issue.) I move to postpone . ... (an affirmative vote can be reconsidered; a negative vote cannot.) indefinitely No Yes Yes No Majority 12 Modify wording of motion I move to amend the motion by .. . No Yes Yes Yes** Majority 14 Postpone to a certain time Ex: I move to postpone the motion to the next Council meeting. No Yes Yes Yes Majority 16 Close debate I move the previous question, or I call for the question *** No Yes No No Majority* 17 To Table a motion I move to lay on the table, the motion to No Yes No No Majority 19 Complain about noise, room temperatures, etc. Point of Privilege Yes Yes Yes Yes Chair decision 20 Take break I move to recess for . No Yes No Yes Majority 21 Adjourn meeting I move to adjourn No Yes No No Majority 23 Object to procedure or personal affront Point of Order Yes No No No Chair decision 25 Suspend rules I move to suspend the rules and ... No Yes No No Majority* 34 Take matter from table I move to take from the table the motion to ... No Yes No No Majority 35 Reconsider something already disposed of I move we reconsider action on .. . No Yes Yes Yes Majority It should be noted that the purpose of tabling a motion is not to simply postpone an issue or a vote. If the intended purpose is to postpone, then the motion to postpone should be used. If more information is needed or desired in order to make the most informed vote possible, then an option would be for the maker of the motion to simply withdraw the motion. The consent of the seconder is not needed to withdraw a motion. While a motion is still on the table, no other motion on the same subject is in order. The motion to table enables the assembly to lay the pending question aside temporarily when something else of immediate urgency has arisen. The motion to "Lay on the Table" is out of order if the evident intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure. (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th Edition) *(Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states 2/3 vote required. Council direction is to base vote on majority except on matters where 2/3 (or majority plus one) is required by state statute. ** If the main motion to amend can be amended. ***Call for the Question: if it is felt that debate on a motion on the floor has continued longer than warranted, a member of Council may "call the question." The "call for the question" is a motion to end debate and vote immediately. If this "call for the question" motion is passed by a majority vote, then the vote must be taken on the original debated motion on the floor. Page 17 of 56 16. Ordinances Except for unusual circumstances or emergencies, ordinances and resolutions shall customarily be prepared, introduced and proceed in accordance with the "Three Touch Principle." Prior to final passage of all ordinances or resolutions, such documents shall be designated as drafts. a. A Councilmember may, in open session, request of the Presiding Officer that the Council consider enacting an ordinance for a specific purpose. The Presiding Officer then may assign the proposed ordinance to the administration, a committee, or the Council for consideration. The committee or administration shall report its findings to the Council. The City Manager may propose the drafting of ordinances (RCW 35A.13 °'). Citizens, Boards and Commissions may also propose consideration of ordinances and resolutions. b. Sponsorship. When a Councilmember wishes to assume sponsorship of an ordinance or resolution, once on the agenda, he or she should so announce, make the initial motion and provide an introduction of the measure. c. Ordinances shall normally have two separate readings at separate Council meetings. Unless waived by the City Council at each reading, the title of an ordinance shall be read by the City Clerk prior to its passage. However, if a Councilmember requests that the entire ordinance or certain sections be read, such request shall be granted. Printed copies shall be available upon request to any person attending a Council meeting. d. The provision requiring two separate readings of an ordinance may be waived at any meeting of the Council by a majority vote of all members present. (This would require a successful motion to suspend the rules and pass the ordinance on a first reading.) e. If a motion to pass an ordinance to a second reading fails, the ordinance shall be considered lost, unless a subsequent motion directs its revision and resubmission to first reading. f. Any ordinance repealing any portion of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall also repeal the respective portions of the underlying ordinance(s). Ordinances repealing earlier ordinances shall not apply to acts, incidents, transactions or decisions occurring before such repeal. 17. Resolutions A resolution may be approved on the same day it is introduced. While it is not necessary to have the title of a resolution read aloud, Council may invoke the two reading procedures described above to facilitate public understanding and/or comment on the resolution. If Council invokes the two reading procedures, a Councilmember may request that the entire resolution or certain sections be read, and such request shall be granted and the City Clerk shall read as requested. Printed copies shall be made available upon request to any person attending a Council meeting. 18. Reconsideration The purpose of reconsidering a vote is to permit change or correction of an erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of the vote. Any action of the Council, including final action on applications for legislative changes in land use status, shall be subject to a motion to reconsider except: 1. any action previously reconsidered; 2. motions to adjourn or motions to suspend the rules; 3. an affirmative vote to lay an item on, or take an item from, the table; 4. a previously passed motion to suspend the rules; or 5. a vote electing to office one who is present and does not decline. Such motion for reconsideration: 1. shall be reconsidered during the same Council meeting; 2. shall be called up when no business is pending (no action is pending); 3. if action is pending, the Mayor asks the Clerk to note that the motion to reconsider has been made and shall be taken up when a member calls the motion to reconsider the vote when no other business (action ) is pending; Page 18 of 56 4. shall be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side on the original motion. This means a reconsideration can be moved only by one who voted aye if the motion involved was adopted, or no if the motion was lost. It is permissible for a Councilmember who cannot make such a motion, but believes there are valid reasons for one, to try to persuade someone who voted on the prevailing side, to make such a motion. 5. a member who makes this motion should state that he or she voted on the prevailing side; 6. needs a second, and can be seconded by any member; 7. is debatable if the type of motion it reconsiders is debatable; and 8. is not amendable and requires a majority vote to adopt. Step 1: A member of Council who voted on the prevailing side makes the motion, such as "I move to reconsider the vote on the resolution relating to holidays. I voted for [or against] the resolution." This motion needs a second, which can be seconded by any Councilmember. Step 2: If the motion for reconsideration is adopted, the original motion is then placed before Council as if that motion had not been voted on previously; and Council again takes that motion under discussion, followed by a new vote. Any motion for reconsideration of a matter which was the subject of a required public hearing or which is a quasi-judicial matter, may not be discussed or acted upon unless and until the parties or their attorneys and the persons testifying have been given at least five days advance notice of such discussion and/or action. 19. Council Materials a. Council Material Councilmembers and staff should read the agenda material and ask clarifying questions of the City Manager or other appropriate staff prior to the Council meeting when possible. Council recognizes there are times when Councilmembers may wish to bring additional documentation to a meeting on a specific subject, whether that subject is on the agenda or not, in order to share with Council and staff. When possible, the materials should be distributed to Councilmembers and staff prior to the Council meeting, or if distributed during a meeting, Councilmembers should indicate the materials are for future reading, since except in an emergency, Councilmembers would normally not take time at the dais to read material just received. Pre -scheduled materials Council wishes to share as part of the Council packet could also be included on study session agendas under "Council Comments." b. Council Packets Councilmembers shall personally pick up their agenda packets from their individual inboxes provided at each Councilmember's desk, unless otherwise arranged by the Councilmember or further directed by Council. Councilmembers have the option of accessing their Council packet via the City's website. Unless notified otherwise, the City Clerk shall prepare a hard copy agenda packet for individual Councilmembers. c. Packet Materials Request for Council Action form (RCA): This is a cover sheet used by staff to introduce an agenda item. It includes the agenda item title, citing of governing legislation associated with the topic, previous Council action taken, and background on the topic. Options for Council consideration are also included, as well as a staff recommended action or motion. The options and recommended action or motion should be viewed as aids to Council in making a motion or taking action, but should not be thought of as obligatory, as Council always has the option of making a motion different from what is included on the form. Generally, by the time an item is ready for a motion, Council has already read, heard, and/or discussed the item at least three times (as an informational item, an administrative report, and lastly as an action item), and the wording of a motion would not normally be controversial, although it is important to state the motion as a motion, such as "I move to" or "I move that" or other similar language. Page 19 of 56 20. "Three Touch Principle" Decision makers and citizens at all levels of the City should have adequate time to thoroughly consider the issues prior to final decisions. It is the intent of the Council that the Council and administration shall abide by the "Three Touch Principle" whenever possible. These procedural guidelines are designed to avoid "surprises" to the City Council, citizens and administrative personnel. Any request or proposal for adopting or changing public policy, ordinances, resolutions or City Council directives which require a decision of the City Council or administration, should "touch" the decision makers three separate times. This includes verbal or written reports, "information only" agenda items, or any combination thereof. To facilitate the Council's strategic use of legislative time at its meeting, staff may satisfy the first touch by issuing an informational memorandum, unless the subject matter is complex in nature. Quasi-judicial matters and any subject discussed in executive sessions are excluded from application of the "Three Touch Principle." It is recognized that unexpected circumstances may arise wherein observance of the "Three Touch Principle" is impractical. However, when unusual circumstances arise which justify a "first discussion" decision, the persons requesting the expedited decision should also explain the timing circumstances. This principle excludes staff reports and other general communications not requiring a Council decision. Page 20 of 56 CHAPTER 2 Legislative Process Page 21 of 56 A. Election of Officers Procedures for electing officers are as follows: 1. Biennially, at the first meeting of the new Council, the members thereof shall choose a Presiding Officer from their number who shall have the title of Mayor. In addition to the powers conferred upon him/her as Mayor, he/she shall continue to have all the rights, privileges and immunities of a member of the Council. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of Mayor, the members of the Council at their next regular meeting shall select a Mayor from their number for the unexpired term. Following the election of the Mayor, election of a Deputy Mayor shall be conducted in the same manner. The term of the Deputy Mayor shall run concurrently with that of the Mayor. (RCW 35A.13.030°) 2. The election for Mayor shall be conducted by the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall call for nominations. Each member of the City Council shall be permitted to nominate one person, and a nomination shall not require a second. A nominee who wishes to decline the nomination shall so state at that time. Nominations are then closed. The election for Deputy Mayor shall be conducted by the Mayor, and nominations shall be made in the manner previously described for the election of the Mayor. 3. Except when there is only one nominee, election shall be by written ballot. Each ballot shall contain the name of the Councilmember who cast it. Selection of Mayor and of Deputy Mayor shall each be determined by majority vote of Councilmembers present. The City Clerk shall publicly announce the results of the election. Thereafter, the City Clerk shall record the individual Councilmember's vote in the minutes of the meeting. 4. If the first round of votes results in no majority vote of Councilmembers present, the voting process shall be repeated no more than two more times. During subsequent votes, Councilmembers do not have to vote the same as they did in the previous vote. If after three attempts, Council is unable to agree on a Mayor by majority vote of Councilmembers present, the office of Mayor shall be temporarily filled by an Acting Mayor, which shall be the Councilmember who just previously served as Mayor if that person is still a member of Council, or if the previous Mayor is no longer a Councilmember, then by the Deputy Mayor, or if such person prefers not to serve as Mayor or if that person is no longer a member of Council, the Councilmember with the next highest seniority. The Acting Mayor shall continue in office and exercise such authority as is described in RCW 35A.13'1' until the members of the Council agree on a Mayor, which shall be determined at the next scheduled Council meeting, at which time the role of Acting Mayor shall cease and terminate. 5. At the next scheduled Council meeting voting for Mayor shall proceed in the same manner as the initial first round of voting from the previous Council meeting, but Councilmembers shall only vote on the Councilmembers who received the highest number of votes. If after three voting attempts, there is still no majority vote of Councilmembers present, the vote shall be determined by whichever Councilmember has the most votes at the third voting attempt. If at that time, there is a two-way tie of Councilmembers receiving the most votes, the tie shall be broken based on the flip of a coin. The City Manager shall flip the coin. If there are more than two Councilmembers tying with the most votes, that tie shall be determined by another means of chance to narrow the Councilmembers down to two, at which time the outcome shall be determined by written ballot. B. Filling Council Vacancies: Permanently Filling a Vacancy 1. Permanently Filling a Vacancy: If a vacancy occurs on the City Council, the Council shall follow the procedures outlined in RCW 35A.13.0207 and Council's adopted procedure in compliance with RCW 35A.13.020",as well as RCW 42.12.070'. The timeline will vary depending on when the process begins. Pursuant to RCW 35A.13.020, City Council has 90 days from the vacancy to appoint a qualified person to the vacant position. If this timeframe is not met, the City's authority in this matter would cease and the Spokane County Board of Commissioners would appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy. Public comment shall not be taken during this entire process. Page 22 of 56 a. Procedure for Filling a Council Vacancy, Timeline/Procedure-Publication: The City Clerk shall publish the vacancy announcement inviting citizens of the City who are interested and qualified to sit as a Councilmember, to apply on an application form provided by the City. Qualifications to sit as a Councilmember are set forth in RCW 35A.13.020, which refers to RCW 35A.12.030: (1) must be a registered voter of the city at the time of filing his or her declaration of candidacy; (2) has been a resident of the city for a period of at least one year next preceding his or her election. Additional qualifications include never having been convicted of a felony, and that Councilmembers shall not hold any other office or employment within the Spokane Valley City government [RCW 35A.12.030]. In order to avoid any real or perceived conflict of interest, no member of Council's immediate family may be currently employed by the City of Spokane Valley since employment is considered a contractual matter, and a councilmember would have a prohibited interest in a contract between a family member who is an employee of the city, and the city. (See Appendix A Definitions for description of immediate family.) If possible, the vacancy announcement shall be published for three consecutive weeks. b. The City Clerk shall establish the deadline to receive applications, for example, no later than 4:00 p.m. on a certain date. c. As per RCW 42.30.110(1)(h), set a special meeting with an executive session beginning at 5:00 p.m. Council shall meet and adjourn to executive session to review and discuss all of the applications. After the review and discussion, Council shall return to Council Chambers and the Special Meeting shall be adjourned. d. Hold a regular 6:00 p.m. meeting, same evening as above special meeting. Per RCW 42.30.110(1)(h), Council shall meet in open session and part of this agenda shall include selection of applicants to interview. Selection shall be by nomination and second. A vote shall be taken and candidates receiving three or more votes shall be interviewed Immediately after this Council meeting or as soon as practicable, the Clerk shall send a list of potential questions to all those to be interviewed. e. Schedule a regular 6:00 p.m. Council meeting to conduct the interviews. Per RCW 42.30.110(1)(h), the interviews shall be conducted during an open Council meeting. Each interview shall be a maximum of 30 minutes. f. Schedule a special 5:00 p.m. meeting with an executive session. Per RCW 42.30.110(1)(h), Council shall meet and adjourn to executive session (closed session) to discuss applicants. After the discussion, the Special Meeting shall be adjourned as usual. g. Hold a regular 6:00 p.m. meeting, same evening as f above special meeting. Per RCW 42.30.110(1)(h), Council shall meet in open session; and the last action item of that agenda will include a vote to fill the vacancy. Upon selection of the new Councilmember, that person shall be sworn in by the City Clerk, and take their seat at the dais. 2. Interview Questions/Process: If a vacancy occurs on the City Council, the Council shall follow a. During the interview, each Councilmember may ask each candidate up to three questions. Follow-up questions are to be counted as one of the three questions. b. Candidates shall be interviewed in alphabetical order of last name. c. Candidates should be prepared to answer any of the following questions, even though every question might not be asked of each candidate, and Council has the option of asking questions not included in this list of potential questions. Council has the option of asking follow-up questions up to a total of three questions per candidate. Follow-up questions are included as part of and not in addition to, the three maximum questions. d. Potential Council Applicant Interview Questions: i. What is a Councilmember's primary responsibility to the citizens of Spokane Valley? ii. What are the most important issues our City faces today? iii. Please explain your view of the most difficult aspect of being a Councilmember. iv. What do you think is the biggest challenge facing the City Council? v. What are the three highest priorities the City needs to address and how do you propose to address these issues? vi. As a Councilmember, one of the most challenging issues we face is balancing the City budget. Keeping in mind that the majority of our revenue is from sales tax and property tax, how would you propose to strike a balance between revenues and Page 23 of 56 expenses; and at what point, if at all, would you support additional revenues to maintain service levels? vii. Discuss your ideas on pavement preservation including solutions for long-term sustainability of our roads. viii. How can we determine what the citizens want for the future of Spokane Valley? ix. What do you envision the City of Spokane Valley will be like ten and twenty years from now? x. All total, Councilmembers serve on approximately 20 different boards, committees, councils and task forces. Does your life style allow you to serve on outside committees and share these responsibilities? It could mean up to 10 hours per month in addition to your Council duties. xi. Do you plan to run and/or actively campaign for the November election for what will be a four-year term? xii. Have you attended City Council meetings in the past? xiii. What did you discover from attending Council meetings? xiv. Why do you want to be on the City Council? xv. Please explain your familiarity with and understanding of our City's form of government, including the difference between Council and staff responsibilities. xvi. What do you hope to accomplish as a Councilmember and what do you offer the City? xvii. If the majority of the Council took a position that you were against, how would you handle your response to the public and/or media? xviii. As a Councilmember, what new or different perspective would you bring to the City Council? xix. Are you aware and knowledgeable about the Open Public Meeting Act? xx. Are you aware and knowledgeable about the Public Record Act? 3. Nomination and Voting Process a. Nomination Process: Councilmembers may nominate an applicant to fill the vacancy. A second is required. If no second is received, that applicant shall not be considered further unless no applicant receives a second, in which case all applicants who were nominated may be considered again. Councilmembers may not make more than one nomination unless the nominee declines the nomination and unless there is no second to the nomination; in which case the Councilmember make another nomination. Once the nominations are given, the Mayor shall close the nominations and Council shall proceed to vote. b. Voting Process. RCW 42.12.070 states that where one position is vacant, the remaining members of the governing body shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacant position. By adoption of this policy, Council has chosen the following process for making such appointment: i. Except when there is only one nominee, a vote for an applicant shall be by written ballot. Each ballot shall contain the name of the Councilmember who cast it. ii. The vacancy may only be filled when a majority of the remaining City Council (whether present or not) affirmatively votes for the applicant, i.e. if five City Councilmembers are present, this would require at least four Councilmembers voting for an applicant. If subsequent rounds of voting are needed, each round of voting follows the same process. The Mayor may ask for Council discussion between voting rounds. a. Round One Vote: The City Clerk shall publicly announce the results of the election. The applicant receiving the majority of votes shall be the new Councilmember. If no applicant receives a majority of votes from the City Council, then the three applicants receiving the most affirmative votes would be considered in a second round. b. Round Two Vote: Round Two proceeds the same as Round One. If one of the three applicants still fails to receive a majority of affirmative votes, then the two applicants of the three who received the most affirmative votes would then be considered in a third round; or if there are only two applicants Page 24 of 56 and they receive tie votes, a third round shall be taken. Councilmembers may change their vote between rounds. c. Round Three Vote: Round Three proceeds the same as Rounds One and Two. If after this round, the vote of the two applicants results in a tie, then the City Manager, with concurrence of Council shall flip a coin to determine who shall fill the vacancy, with the applicant whose last name is closest to the letter A being assigned "heads" and the other person assigned "tails." In the rare circumstance where both applicants' last name begins with the same letter of the alphabet, the applicant whose entire last name is closest to the letter A shall be assigned "heads" and the other person assigned "tails."In the equally rare circumstance where both applicants have the same last name, the applicant whose first name is closest to the letter A shall be assigned "heads" and the other person assigned "tails." 4. Seating of New City Councilmember: Once an applicant either has received a majority of votes or wins the coin flip, if the appointed applicant is at the meeting, the City Clerk shall administer the oath of office, and the new Councilmember shall be officially seated as a City Councilmember. If the appointed applicant is not at the meeting, such action is not official until the applicant takes the oath of office. C. Filling Council Vacancies:Temporarily Filling a Council Position 1. Temporarily Filling a Council Position Any member of Council may request that the Council discuss the extended excused absence of a Councilmember. This could either be an impromptu discussion, or one scheduled for an upcoming Council meeting. Once the issue has been discussed, a motion may be made to begin the process of temporarily filling the Council position. Council should also consider the length of the term for the temporary Councilmember, particularly if the absent Councilmember's term is set to expire in ninety days or less since the impending election would render this process moot. Public comment shall not be taken during this entire selection process. If such motion is approved: a. Publication:_The City Clerk shall publish the vacancy announcement inviting citizens of the City who are interested and qualified to sit as a Temporary Councilmember (maximum of one year), to apply on an application form provided by the City. Qualifications to sit as a Councilmember are set forth in RCW 35A.13.020, which refers to RCW 35A.12.030, and as noted below. If possible, the vacancy announcement shall be published for two or three consecutive weeks. i. The City Clerk shall establish the deadline to receive applications, for example, no later than 4:00 p.m. on a certain date. ii. Once applications are received and the due date has passed, the City Clerk shall send each Councilmember copies of all the applications for Council's review. b. Executive Session: Council has the option of holding an Executive Session to discuss applicants (RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)). c. Qualifications: i. registered voter of the City at the time of selection ii. by the time of selection, continuously resided within the City limits of Spokane Valley for at least one year iii. never been convicted of a felony iv. no member of the selected individual's immediate family may be currently employed by the City of Spokane Valley v. selection shall not create a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest vi. Councilmembers shall not hold any other office or employment within the Spokane Valley City government [RCW 35A.12.030]. 2. Considerations and Process: This term shall be for a maximum of one year and shall terminate upon the return of the absent Councilmember or the permanent vacation of the position, whichever occurs Page 25 of 56 first. If the disability or absence of the Councilmember becomes permanent (through resignation or other reason), Council shall follow the procedures set forth in RCW 35A.13.020 and Council's adopted procedure for handling Council vacancies. The pro tempore individual may apply for the Council position if it is permanently vacated, if so desired. If the time period of the selected pro tempore individual is set to expire prior to the selected timeframe for filling a Council vacancy, Council may, by majority vote of the whole Council (including the pro tempore Councilmember), move to permit the pro tempore individual to remain in that capacity until such Council vacancy has been filled. 3. Nomination Options for Conducting Interviews: a. After holding an executive session to review applications, during a subsequent open session, any Councilmember may i. nominate an applicant to be interviewed. ii. the nomination must be seconded iii. Councilmembers may make more than one nomination, but only one at a time iv. the Mayor shall ask if there are further nominations v. if no further nominations, the Mayor shall close the nominations vi. votes shall be taken on each applicant in the order of nomination. vii. votes shall be by raised hand viii applicants receiving three or more votes shall be interviewed ix. once all voting has taken place, the City Clerk shall summarize which applicants shall be interviewed based on the voting outcome x.as soon as possible after the Council meeting, the City Clerk shall a. notify each applicant to inform them if they will or will not be interviewed b. notify those to be interviewed, of the date and time for their interview c. send each person to be interviewed, the list of possible interview questions OR i. Instead of the above nomination process, after holding an executive session to review applications, Council may choose to interview all applicants. ii. the length of the interview shall be determined based upon the number of applicants iii. interviews shall be done in last -name alphabetical order iv the City Clerk shall notify all applicants of the date, time and procedure for their interview v. to keep the process as fair as possible, on the date of the interview applicants not yet interviewed, shall be asked to wait in a waiting area outside the Council Chambers. 4. Nomination and Voting Process to Fill the Position: a. Council again has the option of holding an Executive Session to discuss applicants [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)] . b. Voting Process: shall be done in open session i. Any Councilmember may move to nominate an applicant to fill the position. A second is required. If no second is received, the applicant shall not be considered further. ii. Additional nominations shall continue in the same manner. Councilmembers may not make more than one nomination. iii. The Mayor shall ask if there are any further nominations. If there are no further nominations, the Mayor shall close the nominations. iv. Any vote for approval shall be by written ballot. Each ballot shall contain the name of the Councilmember who cast it. v. The position shall only be filled if a majority of the remaining (six, assuming there is one council position to consider) City Council affirmatively votes for the applicant. If there are only five members present at the time the vote is taken, this would require at least four out of those five Councilmembers voting for an applicant. [RCW 35A.13.035. Note: By statute, this process differs from filling a permanent position where a coin -flip option is included.] Page 26 of 56 vi. After nominations are closed, each Councilmember shall submit a written ballot with the one name of their choice for the Temporary Councilmember. vii. If the first round of voting does not result in one applicant receiving a majority of votes, or in the case of a tied majority vote, then the three applicants receiving the most affirmative votes would be considered in a second round. Each Councilmember shall submit a written ballot with the one name of their choice for the Temporary Councilmember. The City Clerk shall publicly announce the results of the election. Thereafter, the City Clerk shall record the individual Councilmember's vote(s) in the minutes of the meeting. OR viii. If the vote to approve the first nominated individual fails, voting shall continue on the remaining nominated individuals until a majority of affirmative votes is eceived. The first applicant to receive a majority of affirmative votes shall be the new Councilmember. ix. If no one applicant receives a majority vote, Council has the option to make a motion for reconsideration for any of the motions just failed; or request that the process start again from the beginning with City staff re -advertising for the position, and the selection shall be scheduled for a future Council meeting; or decide not to fill the position. x. Once either the first vote or a subsequent vote results in a majority, if the applicant is at the meeting, the City Clerk shall immediately administer the oath of office and the temporary Councilmember shall be officially seated at the Council dais. If the approved applicant is not at the meeting, such action is not official until the applicant takes the oath of office. 5. Interview Question Process: During the interview, each Councilmember a. may ask each candidate up to three questions. Follow-up questions shall be counted as one of the three questions. b. Candidates shall be interviewed in alphabetical order of last name. c. Candidates should be prepared to answer any of the following questions, even though every question might not be asked of each candidate. Council has the option of asking questions not included in this list of potential questions d. Potential Council Applicant Interview Questions: i. What is a Councilmember's primary responsibility to the citizens of Spokane Valley? ii. What are the most important issues our City faces today? iii. Please explain your view of the most difficult aspect of being a Councilmember. iv. What do you think is the biggest challenge facing the City Council? v. What are the three highest priorities the City needs to address and how do you propose to address these issues? vi. As a Councilmember, one of the most challenging issues we face is balancing the City budget. Keeping in mind that the majority of our revenue is from sales tax and property tax, how would you propose to strike a balance between revenues and expenses; and at what point, if at all, would you support additional revenues to maintain service levels? vii. Discuss your ideas on pavement preservation including solutions for long-term sustainability of our roads. viii. How can we determine what the citizens want for the future of Spokane Valley? ix. What do you envision the City of Spokane Valley will be like ten and twenty years from now? x. Have you attended Spokane Valley City Council meetings, or other Council meetings in the past? xi. What did you discover from attending Council meetings? xii. Why do you want to be on the City Council? xiii. Please explain your familiarity with and understanding of our City's form of government, including the difference between Council and staff responsibilities. Page 27 of 56 xiv. What do you hope to accomplish as a Councilmember and what do you offer the City? xv. If the majority of the Council took a position that you were against, how would you handle your response to the public and/or media? xvi. As a Councilmember, what new or different perspective would you bring to the City Council? xiii. Are you aware and knowledgeable about the Open Public Meeting Act? xviii. Are you aware and knowledgeable about the Public Records Act? D. Legislative Agenda Councilmembers work each year (or sometimes every two years) to draft a "legislative agenda" to address Council ideas, suggestions and specific legislative programs in terms of upcoming or pending legislative activity in Olympia that would or could have an effect on our City. Additionally, Councilmembers have the option of creating a similar legislative agenda to address concerns on a national level, which can be addressed during Council's participation in the annual National League of Cities Conferences held in Washington, D.C. E. Council Travel Provisions Council is allocated a budget to handle certain City business-related travel expenses. The total allocation of travel funding budgeted for the legislative branch for the fiscal year shall be apportioned one-seventh (1/7) to each Councilmember. These monies may be used to defray expenses for transportation, lodging, meals and incidental expenses incurred in the conduct of City business. Periodic updated statements of expenditures shall be provided to each Councilmember by the Finance Department. Should a Councilmember exhaust their apportionment of funds, that person shall be responsible for payment of any travel and related expenses, or they may request a voluntary allocation from another Councilmember who has a balance in their travel apportionment. To be reimbursed for expenses incurred as part of City business, Councilmembers should timely submit detailed receipts with their reimbursement form. During the last six months of a Councilmember's current term of office, incurring City business-related travel expenditures requires the prior authorization of the Finance Committee, except when such travel fulfills the obligations of the Councilmember's service on statewide or regional boards, commissions or task forces. F. Ballot Measures: 1. State Law RCW 42.17A 555. State law has enacted statutory prohibitions (with limited exceptions) against the use of public facilities to support or oppose ballot propositions: "No elective official nor any employee of his or her office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency. However, this does not apply to the following activities: (1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body or by an elected board, council, or commission of a special purpose district including, but not limited to, fire districts, public hospital districts, library districts, park districts, port districts, public utility districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts, to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body, members of the board, Page 28 of 56 council, or commission of the special purpose district, or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view. (2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry; (3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency. " [emphasis added] 2. City's Implementation of RCW 42.17A.555 In the City's implementation of RCW 42.17A.555, the City Council shall not, during any part of any Council meeting, consider requests from outside agencies for Council to support or oppose ballot measures; nor shall Council permit any public comment on any proposed or pending ballot issue, whether or not such comments seek endorsement or are just to inform Council of upcoming or proposed ballot issues; nor shall Councilmembers disseminate ballot -related information. 3. Providing Informative Materials to Council The requestor has the option of mailing materials to individual Councilmembers via the United States Postal Office. Because even the use of e-mail for ballot purposes could be construed as use of public facilities and could be interpreted as being in violation of RCW 42.17A.555, materials should be sent via regular mail through the United States Postal Office. Information shall be objective only and not soliciting a pro or con position. 4. Public Comment. Council has chosen not to support or oppose ballot issues as those are left to the will of the people voting. The use of any of the City's facilities including the use of the Council chambers and/or broadcast system would likely be construed as being in violation of RCW 42.17A.555 and therefore, general public comment on ballot issues, or proposed ballot issues shall not be permitted. Page 29 of 56 CHAPTER 3 Council Contacts Page 30 of 56 A. Citizen Contact/Interactions Outside of a Council Meeting 1. Mayor/Council Correspondence Councilmembers acknowledge that in the Council/Manager form of government, the Mayor is recognized by community members as a point of contact. To facilitate full communications, staff shall work with the Mayor to circulate to Councilmembers, copies of emails and written correspondence directed to the Mayor regarding City business. This provision shall not apply to invitations for mayoral comments at various functions, nor requests for appointments or other incidental contact between citizens and the office of the Mayor. 2. Concerns, Complaints and Suggestions to Council When citizen concerns, complaints or suggestions are brought to any, some, or all Councilmembers, the Mayor shall, in consultation with the City Manager, first determine whether the issue is legislative or administrative in nature and then: a. If legislative, and a concern or complaint is about the language or intent of legislative acts or suggestions for changes to such acts, and if such complaint suggests a change to an ordinance or resolution of the City, the Mayor and City Manager may refer the matter to a future Council agenda for Council's recommendation in forwarding the matter to a committee, administration, or to the Council for study and recommendation. b. If administrative, and a concern or complaint regards administrative staff performance, execution of legislative policy or administrative policy within the authority of the City Manager, the Mayor should then refer the complaint directly to the City Manager for review, if said complaint has not been so reviewed. The City Council may direct that the City Manager brief the Council when the City Manager's response is made. 3. Administrative Complaints Made Directly to Individual Councilmembers When administrative policy or administrative performance complaints are made directly to individual Councilmembers, the Councilmember shall then refer the matter directly to the City Manager for review and/or action. The individual Councilmember may request to be informed of the action or response made to the complaint. However, the City Manager shall not be required to divulge information he/she deems confidential, in conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies or practices. Although citizens' direct access to elected officials is to be encouraged to help develop public policy, City Councilmembers should not develop a "personal intervention" pattern in minor calls for service or administrative appeals which may actually delay a timely customer service response. The best policy is to get the citizen into direct contact with customer service unless an unsatisfactory result has occurred in the past. In that case, refer to the paragraph above. 4. Social Media Councilmembers shall not use social media as a mechanism for conducting official City business, although it is permissible to use social media to informally communicate with the public. Examples of what may not be communicated through the use of social media include making policy decisions, official public noticing, and discussing items of legal or fiscal significance that have not been released to the public. As with telephone and e-mails, communication between and among Councilmembers via social media could constitute a "meeting" under the Open Public Meetings Act, and for this reason, Councilmembers are strongly discouraged from "friending" other Councilmembers. 5. Donations On occasion, Councilmembers could be contacted by citizens or businesses regarding donations. The City has administrative procedures to receive donations, and Councilmembers should direct the donor to Page 31 of 56 contact the appropriate City staff. Councilmembers shall not accept nor physically receive any donation. Councilmembers shall always be cognizant of their ethical responsibilities when discussing donations with citizens, including but not limited to a responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest, the prohibition on creating a special privilege or exemption for themselves or others, and from disclosing confidential information of the City. Councilmembers should avoid circumstances which are likely to give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest or of providing or procuring a special privilege or exemption. B. Staff Contacts and Interactions 1. Role of the City Manager The City Manager is the chief administrative officer of the City of Spokane Valley. The City Manager is directly accountable to the City Council for the execution of the City Council's policy directives, and for the administration and management of all City departments. The powers and duties of the City Manager are defined by Washington law RCW 35A.13.080. Such duties may be expanded by Ordinance or Resolution. Balanced with the City Manager's accountability to the City Council for policy implementation is the need for the Council to allow the City Manager to perform legally defined duties and responsibilities without interference by the City Council in the day-to-day management decisions of the City Manager. 2. City Staff Attendance at Meetings The City Manager or his/her designee shall attend all meetings of the City Council, unless excused by the Presiding Officer or Council. The City Manager shall be responsible to the Council for the proper administration of all affairs of the City. The City Manager shall recommend for adoption by the Council such measures as he/she may deem necessary or expedient; prepare and submit to the Council such reports as may be required by the body or as the City Manager deems advisable to submit; keep the Council fully advised as to the business of the City; and shall take part in the Council's discussion on all matters concerning the welfare of the City. (RCW 35A.13.080) It is Council's intent that the City Manager schedule adequate administrative support during Council meetings for the business at hand, keeping in mind that the City Manager must also protect the productive capability of department heads and of all staff. Required attendance at meetings by City staff shall be at the pleasure of the City Manager. 3. City Clerk - Minutes The City Clerk, or in the Clerk's absence the Deputy City Clerk shall keep minutes as required by law, and shall perform such other duties in the meeting as may be required by the Council, Presiding Officer, or City Manager. In the absence of the City Clerk and the Deputy City Clerk, the City Clerk shall appoint a replacement to act as Clerk during the Council meeting. The Clerk shall keep minutes which identifies the general discussion of the issue and complete detail of the official action or agreement reached, if any. As a rule and when possible and practical, regular meetings, or those Council meetings held at 6 p.m. on Tuesdays, (which includes formal format and study session format) shall be video -recorded. Special meetings shall not normally be video -recorded. Executive Sessions shall not be video or audio recorded. Original, signed and approved minutes shall be kept on file in the City Clerk's office and archived according to State Record Retention Schedules. Copies of the approved minutes shall also be posted on the City's website as soon as practical after such minutes are approved and signed. Whenever possible, video recordings of Council meetings shall be posted on the City's website. 4. Administrative Interference by Councilmembers Neither the Council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his/her removal from, any office by the City Manager or any of his/her subordinates. Except Page 32 of 56 for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative branch solely through the City Manager and neither the Council nor any committee or member thereof shall give any directives, tasks, or orders to any subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the Council, while in open session, from fully and freely discussing with the City Manager anything pertaining to appointments and removals of City officers and employees and City affairs. (RCW 35A.13.120.) 5. Informal Communications Encouraged The above RCW requirement is not to be construed as to prevent informal communications with City staff that do not involve orders, direction, or are meant to influence actions or administrative policy. Members of the Council are encouraged to interact informally and casually with City staff for the purpose of gathering information, obtaining explanations of policies and programs or providing incidental information to staff relevant to their assignment. Such informal contacts can serve to promote better understanding of specific City functions and problems. However, Councilmembers must be careful in such interaction to avoid giving direction or advice to members of City staff. While maintaining open lines of communication, City staff responding to information requests from Councilmembers shall inform their supervisor of such contact and provide the supervisor with the same information shared with the Councilmember. Page 33 of 56 CHAPTER 4 HEARINGS Page 34 of 56 A. General Public Hearings 1. Purpose Legislative public hearings are hearings held to obtain public input on legislative decisions on matters of policy. Legislative public hearings are required by state law when a city or county addresses matters such as comprehensive land use plans, or the annual budget. They are generally less formal than quasi-judicial public hearings. They do not involve the legal rights of specific, private parties in a contested setting, but rather affect a wider range of citizens or perhaps the entire jurisdiction. The wisdom of legislative decisions reached as a result of such hearings is not second-guessed by the courts; if challenged, they are reviewed only to determine if they are constitutional or violate state law. For example, a court will not review whether the basic budgetary decisions made by a city were correctly made. 2. Legislative Public Hearings a. State statutes do not specify how public hearings should be conducted. Because legislative hearings are generally informal, the main concern is to provide an opportunity for all attending members of the public to speak if they so desire. Time limits should be placed on individual comments if many people are intending to speak, and the public should be advised that comments must relate to the matter at hand. The "ground rules" for the conduct of the hearing may be stated by the Presiding Officer at the beginning of the hearing: 1. All public comments shall be made from the speaker's podium, shall be directed to the Mayor and Council, and any individual making comments shall first give their name and city of residence. This is required because an official recorded transcript of the public hearing is being made. 2. No comments shall be made from any other location, and anyone making "out of order" comments shall be subject to removal from the meeting. 3. Unless otherwise determined by the Presiding Officer, all comments by the public shall be limited to three minutes per speaker. 4. There shall be no demonstrations, applause or other audience participation, before, during or at the conclusion of anyone's presentation. Such expressions are disruptive and take time away from the speakers. 5. Unless read and/or handed in by the individual speaker during the public hearing, previously received written public comments shall be read by the City Clerk at the pleasure of the Mayor. In the interest of time, the Mayor may limit the reading of such comments, to the Clerk reading whom the letter or written material is from, and if easily discernible, whether that person is for or against the issue at hand. All written comments become an official part of the record. 6. These rules are intended to promote an orderly system of holding a public hearing, to give persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure that individuals are not embarrassed by exercising their right of free speech. b. The Presiding officer declares the public hearing on (topic) open, notes the time for such opening, and asks staff to make their presentation. c. After staff presentations, the Presiding Officer calls for public comments. d. The Presiding Officer asks if any members of Council have questions of any of the speakers or staff. If any Councilmember has questions, the appropriate individual shall be recalled to the podium. e. The Presiding Officer declares the public hearing closed and notes the time for such closing. Page 35 of 56 B. Quasi -Judicial Hearings 1. Purpose Quasi-judicial public hearings involve the legal rights of specific parties, and the decisions made as a result of such hearings must be based upon and supported by the "record" developed at the hearing. Quasi-judicial hearings are subject to stricter procedural requirements than legislative hearings. Most quasi-judicial hearings held by local government bodies involve land use matters, including site specific rezones, preliminary plats, variances, and conditional uses. (MRSC Public Hearings When and How to Hold Them by Bob Meinig, MRSC Legal Consultant August 1998) 2. Specific Statutory Provisions a. Candidates for the City Council may express their opinions about pending or proposed quasi-judicial actions while campaigning, per RCW 42.36.040, except that sitting Councilmembers shall not express their opinions on any such matter which is or may come before the Council. b. Ex parte communications should be avoided whenever possible. During the pendency of any quasi-judicial proceeding, no Councilmember may engage in ex parte communications with proponents or opponents about a proposal involved in the pending proceeding unless the Councilmember: (1) places on the record the substance of such verbal or written communications; and (2) provides that a public announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties' rights to rebut the substance of the communication shall be made at each hearing where action is taken or considered on the subject. This does not prohibit correspondence between a citizen and his or her elected official if the correspondence is made a part of the record, when it pertains to the subject matter of a quasi-judicial proceeding. (RCW 42.36.060) c. Public Disclosure File. The City Clerk shall maintain a public disclosure file, which shall be available for inspection by the public. As to elected officials, the file shall contain copies of all disclosure forms filed with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission. d. Procedure On Application. Any person making application for any action leading to a quasi-judicial hearing before the Planning Commission and/or City Council shall be provided with a document containing the following information: (1) the names and address of all members of the City Council, and the Planning Commission, (2) a statement that public disclosure information is available for public inspection regarding all such Councilmembers, and (3) a statement that if the applicant intends to raise any appearance of fairness issue, the applicant should do so at least two weeks prior to any public hearing, if the grounds for such issue are then known and in all cases, no later than before the opening of the public hearing. The applicant shall sign a receipt for such document. 3. Actions/Procedures for a Quasi -Judicial Public Hearing See the following excerpt from the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Appendix C for City Council Appeal Hearing Procedures: Appendix C CITY COUNCIL APPEAL HEARING PROCEDURES A. The Council shall not consider any new facts or evidence outside the verbatim transcript and certified record submitted by the Hearing Examiner, except for: 1. Grounds for disqualification of the Hearing Examiner, when such grounds were unknown by the appellant at the time the record was created; or 2. Matters that were improperly excluded from the record after being offered by a party to the hearing before the Hearing Examiner; or 3. Matters that were outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. The Council shall allow the record to be supplemented if the offering party demonstrates grounds for supplementation as set forth in subsections (A)(1), (2) or (3) of this appendix. Page 36 of 56 a. Any party requesting that the record be supplemented shall submit such request, along with the specific evidence to be offered to the Council, within 14 calendar days of the date the appeal hearing was scheduled. b. The Council may require or permit the correction of ministerial errors or inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record. c. The Council will allow the submittal of memoranda by the appellant, or a party of record in opposition to the appeal, subject to the following requirements: i. The appellant may file a memorandum in support of the appeal. The memorandum must be filed no later than 12:00 noon on the third Friday preceding the date set by the Council for consideration of the appeal. ii. Any party of record in opposition to the appeal may submit a reply memorandum in opposition to the appeal. Any reply memorandum must be filed no later than 12:00 noon on the second Friday preceding the date set for consideration of the appeal. iii. All memoranda shall be limited to stating why the record or applicable laws or regulations do or do not support the decision, and shall not contain any new facts or evidence, or discuss matters outside the record, except as permitted above. iv. The offering party shall promptly submit a copy of the memorandum or request to supplement the record to the City Attorney, and to opposing parties as practicable. B. The Council will allow oral argument by the appellant, or a party of record in opposition to the appeal, subject to the following requirements: 1. It is expected that all parties can reasonably be aligned as either in support of the appeal or opposed to the appeal. Accordingly, all parties who desire to make oral argument shall communicate with other parties aligned on the same side of the appeal and attempt to reach agreement in selecting a representative, or otherwise arrange for the allocation of time allowed under these rules to those in support of or those opposed to the appeal. 2. Oral argument shall be presented first by the appellant, followed by those parties of record in opposition to the appeal, and then rebuttal and surrebuttal. 3. Oral argument shall be limited to stating why the record or applicable laws or regulations do not support the decision, and shall not contain any new facts or evidence unless allowed by subsection A of this appendix. 4. Oral argument shall be limited to 20 minutes total for the appellant, and 20 minutes total for those parties in opposition to the appeal, regardless of how many parties make up each side. 5. The respective times allowed for oral argument above include the combined time used by a side for opening argument, rebuttal and surrebuttal. The time taken to respond to questions from the Council is not included in the time allowed for argument. C. The Council may affirm or reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision, or remand it for further proceedings. The Hearing Examiner's decision will be presumed to be correct and supported by the record and law. A tie vote on any motion shall have the effect of affirming the Hearing Examiner's decision. D. The Council may reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision, or remand it for further proceedings, if the appellant has carried the burden of establishing that one or more of the following standards are met: 1. The Hearing Examiner engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; 2. The decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due to construction of law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; 3. The decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the entire record; 4. The decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts; 5. The decision is outside the authority of the Hearing Examiner. E. The Council may also remand the decision to the Hearing Examiner if the appellant offers newly discovered evidence that would reasonably have affected the decision had it been admitted in the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner. "Newly discovered evidence" is evidence that with reasonable Page 37 of 56 diligence could not have been discovered and produced at the time the proceedings before the Hearing Examiner were conducted. F. The Council shall adopt written findings and conclusion in support of its decision. If the Council concludes that a finding of fact by the Hearing Examiner, upon which the decision is based, is not supported by substantial evidence, the Council may modify the finding or substitute its own finding, citing substantial evidence in the record that supports the modified or substitute finding. In the event of a tie vote on the proposed findings of fact, that vote shall be considered a final action, the findings shall reflect the same, and the decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be affirmed. G. The Council's decision shall include a notice stating that the decision can be appealed within 21 calendar days from the date the decision was issued, by filing a land use petition with the Superior Court as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW and meeting the other provisions of such chapter, and that the decision shall act as official notice under RCW 43.21C.075. H. The notice included in the Council's decision shall also state that affected property owners may request the Spokane County Assessor for a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130. I. The City Clerk shall, within five business days from the date of the Council's decision on the appeal, mail a copy of the Council's decision to the appellant, the applicant (if different than the appellant), any other party who testified or submitted a memorandum at the closed record appeal hearing before the Council, any person who requested notice of the decision, and any person who submitted substantive comments on the application. The City Clerk shall also provide notice of the decision to the County Assessor. J. Where the Hearing Examiner's decision recommends approval of the proposal and no appeal has been filed within the time period set forth above, the City Manager or designee shall modify the official zoning map of the City according to the Hearing Examiner's decision. The modification of the zoning map completes the Hearing Examiner's decision and shall be considered the final legislative action of the City Council. Such final action, for zoning purposes, is considered an official control of the City by exercise of its zoning and planning authority pursuant to Washington law. (Ord. 08-022, 2008). 4. Appearance of Fairness Doctrine a. "The test of whether the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine has been violated is ... as follows: Would a disinterested person, having been apprised of the totality of a board member's personal interest in a matter being acted upon, be reasonably justified in thinking that partiality may exist? If answered in the affirmative, such deliberations, and any course of conduct reached thereon, should be voided." Swift vs. Island County, 87 Wn.2d 348 (1976); Smith vs. Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715 (1969). b. Types of Hearings to Which the Doctrine Applies. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine shall apply only to those actions of the Council which are quasi-judicial in nature. Quasi-judicial actions are defined as actions of the City Council which determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties in a hearing or other contested proceeding. Quasi-judicial actions do not include the legislative actions adopting, amending, or revising comprehensive, community, or neighborhood plans or other land use planning documents or the adoption of area -wide zoning ordinances or the adoption of a zoning amendment that is of area -wide (versus site-specific) significance (RCW 42.36.010). Street vacations are typically legislative actions, unless clearly tied to, and integrated into, a site-specific development proposal which is quasi-judicial in nature. c. Obligations of Councilmembers - Procedure. 1 Immediate self -disclosure of interests that may appear to constitute a conflict of interest is hereby encouraged. Councilmembers should recognize that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not require establishment of a conflict of interest, but whether there is an appearance of conflict of interest to the average person. This may involve the Councilmember or a Councilmember's business associate, or a member of the Councilmember's immediate family. It could involve ex parte (outside the hearing) Page 38 of 56 communications, ownership of property in the vicinity, business dealings with the proponents or opponents before or after the hearing, business dealings of the Councilmember's employer with the proponents or opponents, announced predisposition, and the like. Prior to any quasi-judicial hearing, each Councilmember should give consideration to whether a potential violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine exists. If the answer is in the affirmative, no matter how remote, the Councilmember should disclose such facts to the City Manager who will seek the opinion of the City Attorney as to whether a potential violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine exists. The City Manager shall communicate such opinion to the Councilmember and to the Presiding Officer. 2. Anyone seeking to disqualify a Councilmember from participating in a decision on the basis of a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine must raise the challenge as soon as the basis for disqualification is made known, or reasonably should have been made known, prior to the issuance of the decision. Upon failure to do so, the doctrine may not be relied upon to invalidate the decision consistent with state law. The party seeking to disqualify the Councilmember shall state with specificity the basis for disqualification; for example: demonstrated bias or prejudice for or against a party to the proceedings, a monetary interest in outcome of the proceedings, prejudgment of the issue prior to hearing the facts on the record, or ex parte contact. Should such challenge be made prior to the hearing, the City Manager shall direct the City Attorney to interview the Councilmember and render an opinion as to the likelihood that an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation would be sustained in Superior Court. Should such challenge be made in the course of a quasi-judicial hearing, the Councilmember shall either recuse him/herself or the Presiding Officer shall call a recess to permit the City Attorney to make such interview and render such opinion. 3. The Presiding Officer shall have authority to request a Councilmember to excuse him/herself on the basis of an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation. Further, if two or more Councilmembers believe that an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation exists, such individuals may move to request a Councilmember to excuse him/herself on the basis of an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation. In arriving at this decision, the Presiding Officer or other Councilmembers shall give due regard to the opinion of the City Attorney. d. When Council conducts a hearing to which the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies, the Presiding Officer (or in the case of a potential violation by that individual, the Mayor Pro Tem) shall ask if any Councilmember knows of any reason which would require such member to excuse themselves pursuant to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. The form of the announcement is as follows: All Councilmembers should now give consideration as to whether they have: 1. A demonstrated bias or prejudice for or against any party to the proceedings; 2. A direct or indirect monetary interest in the outcome of the proceedings; 3. A prejudgment of the issue prior to hearing the facts on the record; or 4. Had ex parte contact with any individual, excluding administrative staff, with regard to an issue prior to the hearing. If any Councilmember should answer in the affirmative, then the Councilmembers should state the reason for his/her answer at this time, so that the Chair may inquire of administration as to whether a violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine exists. Page 39 of 56 CHAPTER 5 COMMITTEES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS Page 40 of 56 A. Regional Committees, Boards, etc. 1. Committees Spokane Valley Councilmembers and/or residents who seek representation on any standing committee, board, or commission required by state law, shall be appointed by the Mayor with confirmation by the Council. a. Appointment Process: Any committee, board, commission, task force, etc., requiring Mayoral appointment of committee members, shall also require confirmation by the Council, which shall be by majority vote of those present at the time the confirmation vote takes place. By majority vote, Council can reject the appointment. If Council fails to confirm the recommended appointment, the Mayor could either make another recommendation, or the appointment may be postponed to a later date, giving City staff opportunity to further advertise for committee openings. 2. Council Relations with Boards, Commissions and Council Citizen Advisory Bodies Councilmembers are encouraged to share with all Council members, copies of minutes from any statutory boards, commissions, or committees on which they serve and participate. Communications from such boards, commissions and bodies to the City Council which seek action or feedback, should be acknowledged by the Council, preferably by a letter from the Mayor. Any member of the Council may also bring such communication to the Presiding Officer's attention under the agenda item "Committee, Board and Liaison Reports." If any member of the Council requests that any such communication be officially answered by the Council, the Presiding Officer may place the matter on an agenda under New Business, Information, Council Comments (study session format), or other appropriate place, for a specific Council meeting, or take other appropriate action. Councilmember(s) may be designated by the City Council to take the lead on particular significant issues and to provide appropriate feedback of information to Council, in order to gain corporate approval and coordination of corporate efforts. No Councilmember may speak for the Council unless Council has designated that person as the lead on that particular issue. B. In -House Committees, Boards, etc. 1. Standing committees or commissions required by law shall be appointed by the Mayor for a time certain not to exceed the term provided by law or the term of office of the appointing Mayor and confirmed by Council. Following are established in-house committees: a. Planning Commission -- 7 members. "SVMC 18.10.010 Establishment and purpose. There is created the City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission (hereafter referred to as the "Planning Commission"). The purpose of the Planning Commission is to study and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for future planned growth through continued review of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, development regulations, shoreline management, environmental protection, public facilities, capital improvements and other matters as directed by the City Council. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). 18.10.020 Membership. A. Qualifications. The membership of the Planning Commission shall consist of individuals who have an interest in planning, land use, transportation, capital infrastructure and building and landscape design as evidenced by training, experience or interest in the City. B. Appointment. Members of the Planning Commission shall be nominated by the Mayor and confirmed by a majority vote of at least four members of the City Council. Planning commissioners shall be selected without respect to political affiliations and shall serve without Page 41 of 56 compensation. The Mayor, when considering appointments, shall attempt to select residents who represent various interests and locations within the City. C. Number of Members/Terms. The Planning Commission shall consist of seven members. All members shall reside within the City. Terms shall be for a three-year period, and shall expire on the 31st day of December. D. Removal. Members of the planning commission may be removed by the mayor, with the concurrence of the City Council, for neglect of duty, conflict of interest, malfeasance in office, or other just cause, or for unexcused absence from three consecutive regular meetings. Failure to qualify as to residency shall constitute a forfeiture of office. The decision of the City Council regarding membership on the planning commission shall be final and without appeal. E. Vacancies. Vacancies that occur other than through the expiration of terms shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as for appointments. F. Conflicts of Interest. Members of the planning commission shall fully comply with Chapter 42.23 RCW, Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers; Chapter 42.36 RCW, Appearance of Fairness; and such other rules and regulations as may be adopted from time to time by the City Council regulating the conduct of any person holding appointive office within the City. No elected official or City employee may be a member of the planning commission. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). b. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee -- 5 members. "SVMC 3.20.040 Lodging tax advisory committee. The City Council shall establish a lodging tax advisory committee consisting of five members. Two members of the committee shall be representatives of businesses required to collect the tax, and at least two members shall be persons involved in activities authorized to be funded by this chapter. The City shall solicit recommendations from organizations representing businesses that collect the tax and organizations that are authorized to receive funds under this chapter. The committee shall be comprised equally of members who represent businesses required to collect the tax and members who are involved in funded activities. One member of the committee shall be from the City Council. Annually, the membership of the committee shall be reviewed. The Mayor shall nominate persons and the Councilmember for the lodging tax advisory committee with Council confirmation of the nominees. Nominations shall state the term of committee membership. Appointments shall be for one- and two-year terms. (Ord. 27 § 4, 2003)." c. Finance Committee-- 3 members. "SVMC 2.50.120(a) and (b) Establishing travel policies and procedures. a. The responsibility and authority for developing, adopting, modifying and monitoring the travel policies and procedures for reimbursement of expenses incurred while on official business of the City of Spokane Valley is delegated to the City Council Finance Committee. It is recognized by the City Council that public officials and employees will periodically be required to travel and incur related expenses on behalf of the City. The purpose of the travel policies and procedures is to provide criteria for payment and/or reimbursement of valid expenses. The Council directs that the Finance Committee consider the following in the development of travel policies and procedures: (A). Reimbursement for transportation costs when using personal automobiles including rates to be established on a mileage or other reasonable basis and for airfare or other mode of travel; (B). Reimbursement for hotel/motel accommodations; (C). Reimbursement for meals either at actual cost including a per meal maximum amount or a per diem allocation; (D). Reimbursement for incidental expenses such as parking, taxis, buses, rental cars, etc.; and (E). Such other matters that are reasonably related to travel. Page 42 of 56 b. The finance department, under the supervision of the Finance Committee, is directed to develop a fully itemized travel expense form which shall be used to administer the City travel policy and account for expenditures and reimbursement of officials or employees. Claims for reimbursement must be accompanied by receipts showing the amount paid and items/services received unless otherwise provided in the policies and procedures. All claims for reimbursement shall be duly certified by the individual submitting such claim on a form approved by the Finance Director in compliance with state regulations and guidelines established by the State Auditor. For administrative staff, the City Manager or designee shall approve expenses and reimbursement. The City Council shall approve, through budget allocation, travel expenses and reimbursement for Council members. The Council reserves the right to review the travel policies and procedures of the City including modifying and amending the same from time to time. (Ord. 29 § 1, 2003)." The Finance Committee shall have no regularly prescribed duties or meetings except the bills/payroll and warrant procedures required by state law, unless specifically charged by the City Council. The City Manager may also request meetings to discuss matters of financial interest with the Finance Committee. SVMC 3.35.010(D) Contract Authority The Finance Committee of the City Council is authorized to approve change orders on short notice that are in excess of the amounts authorized in subsection C of this section, in circumstances where such a change order is necessary to avoid a substantial risk of harm to the City. In such an event, the City Manager shall provide appropriate information to the City Council at its next regular meeting setting forth the factual basis for the action. (Ord. 07-004 §2, 2007; Ord. 03-072§ 2, 2003.). 2. When required by law, committee meetings should be open to the public, including the media, unless discussing matters which would qualify for an executive session if discussed within the whole Council. All Council committee meetings shall be for the purpose of considering legislative policy matters, rather than administrative matters unless requested by the City Manager. Legislative policy considerations should be brought to the Council unless referred to a committee for pre -study. 3. The Mayor may appoint such other ad hoc advisory committees or liaisons from the Council or community for the purpose of advising the Council in legislative policy matters. All ad hoc committees shall be defined by a clear task and a method of "sunsetting" the committee at the conclusion of the assigned task. As with all committee vacancies, ads announcing a vacancy or soliciting membership or participation in a task force or other committee shall be placed on the City's website, and in the City's official newspaper. 4. Council Liaison. Appointments shall be by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council for a time certain not to exceed the term of the appointing Mayor. Individual members of the Council may be assigned as liaisons whose duties involve keeping current with a group or activity by either attendance when the group or activity takes place, or communication with appropriate leaders so the liaison Councilmember can keep Council informed. Liaisons may, at times, advocate Council actions on behalf of their assigned group or activity. Extreme care must be taken to avoid an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation, or conflict of interest possibilities with agencies or circumstances where such possibilities may exist (i.e.: Planning Commission quasi-judicial). Liaison functions and duties may be further defined and/or directed by the Presiding Officer with concurrence of Council. 5. Task Force. The City Council may create, and confirm the Mayor's recommendation to appoint members to small task force groups. A task force is a temporary group formed and "tasked" by legislative authority to study a specific subject for a specified period of time. Page 43 of 56 6. After consultation with the City Manager, any other Council committees, citizen task forces or similar organized groups shall have rules or operating procedures thereof established by Council directive with special attention to RCW 35A.13.120. Such committees shall be commissioned for a time certain, not to exceed two years or the term of the appointing Mayor, whichever is less and be provided with a clear task description. Appointment shall be by the Mayor. Council may waive confirmation in the instrument creating said committee or group. Such committees shall be subject to review whenever a new Council is seated following elections, so as to determine whether the committee and its functions continue to be appropriate and necessary. Members of any committee, board or commission which have been appointed or confirmed by the Council, may be removed without cause by a majority vote of the Council. No advisory board, commission, committee or task force shall take any final action outside of an open public meeting unless permitted to do so per state statutes, and when permitted by state statutes, no final action shall be taken without the foreknowledge and approval of majority vote of the Council. C. Private Committees, Boards, Commissions The Council recognizes there are various other private boards and committees, such as Spokane Neighborhood Action Partners (SNAP), which appointments are made by their own board. These boards and committees which do not require an appointment by our Mayor, with confirmation by our Council, are nonetheless important aspects of our community and we recognize the time commitment any Councilmember may extend as a member of any of these committees and/or boards. As well, Council appreciates hearing a periodic report or update on activities and issues surrounding those boards and committees. Page 44 of 56 CHAPTER 6 Disclaimer DISCLAIMER A. Purpose These City Council Rules of Procedure are designed to provide guidance for the City Council. They are not to be considered restrictions or expansions of City Council authority. These rules have been prepared from review of many statutes, ordinances, court cases and other sources but they are not intended to be an amendment or substitute for those statutes, ordinances, court decisions or other authority. B. Use No action taken by a Councilmember or by the Council which is not in compliance with these rules, but which is otherwise lawful, shall invalidate such Councilmember's or Council action or be deemed a violation of oath of office, misfeasance or malfeasance. No authority other than the City Council may enforce these rules or rely on these rules. Failure of the City Council to follow any of these rules shall be considered a Council decision to waive such rule. No notice of such waiver need be given. C. Reliance Public Use or Reliance Not Intended. Because these rules are designed to assist the City Council and not to provide substantive rules affecting constituents, it is expressly stated that these rules do not constitute land use regulations, official controls, "appearance of fairness rules," public hearing rules, or other substantive rules binding upon or to be used by or relied upon by members of the public. These rules do not amend statutory or other regulatory (such as ordinance) requirements. Page 45 of 56 Appendix A: Definitions Action: All transactions of a governing body's business, including receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, and evaluations, as well as "final" action. [RCW 42.30.010, 42.30.020(3)]. Codified: The process of forming a legal code (i.e., a codex or book of laws) by collecting and including the laws of a jurisdiction or municipality. Consensus: A collective judgment or belief; solidarity of opinion: "The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. General agreement or harmony. [Random House Webster's College Dictionary, April 2001] [Wikipedia: explains it as a group decision making process; not necessarily the agreement. In other words, the question to the group is: "Is this something you can live with?" or, Does anyone object?] It is not unanimity, but more a process for deciding what is best overall. Members of the group reach a decision to which they consent because they know it is the best one overall. It differs from voting which is a procedure for tallying preferences. Sometimes knowing there will be an up -down vote at the end often polarizes the discussion. It does not require each member of the group to justify their feelings. [Taken from: Consensus Is Not Unanimity: Making Decisions Cooperatively, by Randy Schutt. ' J Similar to a type of verbal "show of hands" on who feels particularly strong on this?" Sometimes thought of as preliminary approval without taking final "action." A show of hands is not an action that has any legal effect. ["Voting and Taking Action in Closed Sessions" by Frayda Bulestein.] Ex -parte: from a one-sided or partisan point of view; on the application of one party alone. An ex -parte judicial proceeding is conducted for the benefit of only one party. Ex -parte may also describe contact with a person represented by an attorney, outside the presence of the attorney. Immediate Family: includes the spouse or domestic partner, dependent children, and other dependent relatives, if living in the household. For the purposes of the definition of "intermediary" in this section, "immediate family" means an individual's spouse or domestic partner, and child, stepchild, grandchild, parent, stepparent, grandparent, brother, half brother, sister, or half sister of the individual and the spouse or the domestic partner of any such person and a child, stepchild, grandchild, parent, stepparent, grandparent, brother, half brother, sister, or half sister of the individual's spouse or domestic partner and the spouse or the domestic partner of any such person (RCW 42.17A.005(24)). Motion: An enacted motion is a form of action taken by the Council to direct that a specific action be taken on behalf of the municipality. A motion, once approved and entered into the record, is the equivalent of a resolution in those instances where a resolution is not required by law, and where such motion is not in conflict with existing state or federal statutes, City ordinances or resolutions. Ordinance: An enacted ordinance is a law passed [enacted] by a municipal organization legislatively prescribing specific rules of organization or conduct relating to the corporate affairs of the municipality and those citizens and businesses therein. Council action shall be taken by ordinance when required by law, or where prescribed conduct may be enforced by penalty. Special ordinances such as adopting the budget, vacating a street, amending the Comprehensive Plan and/or Map, and placing a matter on an election ballot, including general obligation bonds, are not codified into the City's municipal code. Resolution: An enacted resolution is an administrative act which is a formal statement of policy concerning matters of special or temporary character. Council action shall be taken by resolution when required by law and in those instances where an expression of policy more formal than a motion is desired. Regular Meeting: Any Council meeting that meets in the Spokane Valley City Council Chambers on Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. shall be deemed a "regular meeting." Page 46 of 56 Social Media: A term used to define the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction and content creation. Through social media, individuals or collaborations of individuals create on-line web content, organize content, edit or comment on content, combine content, and share content. Social media uses many technologies and forms including syndicated web feeds, weblogs (blogs), wiki, photo -sharing, video -sharing, podcasts, and social networking. (From MRSC, and Social Media and Web 2.0 in Government, WebContent.gov) Page 47 of 56 Appendix B: Frequently Used Acronyms AACE - American Association of Code Enforcement ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act ADT - Average Daily Traffic ATF - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms AWC - Association of Washington Cities BOCC - Board of County Commissioners CAFR - Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CDBG - Community Development Block Grant CIP - Capital Improvement Plan CM - City Manager CM/AQ - Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program CTED - Community, Trade, & Economic Development (now Department of Commerce) CTR - Commute Trip Reduction (legislation) CUP - Conditional Use Permit DEIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement DEM - Department of Emergency Management DNR - Department of Natural Resources DNS - Declaration of Non -Significance DOE - Department of Ecology; Department of Energy DOT - Department of Transportation E911 - Enhanced 911 EA - Environment Assessment EDC - Economic Development Council EEO/AA - Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EIS - Environmental Impact Statement EOE - Equal Opportunity Employer EPA - Environmental Protection Agency ERU - Equivalent Residential Unit (for measuring water -sewer capacity and demand) ESU - Equivalent Service Unit (for measuring stormwater utility fees) F & WS - Federal Fish & Wildlife Service FAA - Federal Aviation Administration FCC - Federal Communications Commission Page 48 of 56 FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency FICA - Federal Insurance Contribution Act FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Maps FLSA - Fair Labor Standards Act FMLA - Family Medical Leave Act FY - Fiscal Year GAAP - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GASB - Governmental Accounting Standards Board GIS - Geographic Information System GMA - Growth Management Act GPM - Gallons Per Minute HOV - High -Occupancy Vehicle HR - Human Resources HUD - Housing & Urban Development (Department of) ICMA - International City/County Management Association L & I - Labor & Industries (Department of) LID - Local Improvement District MGD - Million Gallons per Day MOA - Memorandum of Agreement MOU - Memorandum of Understanding MPO - Metropolitan Planning Organization MRSC - Municipal Research Services Center NEPA - National Environment Policy Act NIMBY - Not In My Backyard NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PE - Preliminary Engineering; Professional Engineer PERC - Public Employment Relations Commission PMS - Pavement Management System PPE - Personal Protective Equipment PPM - Parts Per Million; Policy & Procedure Manual PUD - Public Utility District PW - Public Works QA - Quality Assurance RCW - Revised Code of Washington Page 49 of 56 REET - Real Estate Excise Tax RONR Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised ROW - Right of Way SAO - State Auditor's Office SBA - Small Business Administration SEPA - State Environmental Policy Act SMA - Shorelines Management Act SWAC - Solid Waste Advisory Committee TIB - Transportation Improvement Board TIP - Transportation Improvement Program TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load UBC - Uniform Building Code UFC - Uniform Fire Code UGA - Urban Growth Area WAC - Washington Administrative Code WACO - Washington Association of County Officials WCIA - Washington Cities Insurance Authority WCMA - Washington City/County Management Association WSDOT - Washington State Department of Transportation WSP - Washington State Patrol WUTC - Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant Page 50 of 56 APPENDIX C: Council Report/Council Comments Formal Council Meetings Council Reports/ Committee Updates Study Sessions General Council Comments Concerning Council's Participation on General Comments Not necessarily Regional Committees and Boards: connected with any committee or • Budget updates or proposed board: cuts • Upcoming events • Upcoming or recent events • Items that occurred after last • Newly appointed or assigned week's meeting that you CEO's want/need to share before the • Vision, mission, goals & next Council meeting objectives discussed, adopted or • General questions or changes comments to City Manager • Long range financial plans Page 51 of 56 APPENDIX D: RESOLUTION 07-019 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 07-019 AMENDED GENERAL POLICY RESOLUTION OF CORE BELIEFS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AMENDING RESOLUTION 03-027, ESTABLISHING A GENERAL POLICY RESOLUTION EMANATING FROM THE CORE BELIEFS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY AND SETTING FORTH DUTIES OF BOTH ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS OF THE CITY TO HELP GUIDE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE DECISIONS TOWARD EFFECTIVE, RESPONSIVE, AND OPEN GOVERNMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, as the elective legislative body, is charged with promulgating Ordinances and Resolutions which become the law of the city; and WHEREAS, such Ordinances and Resolutions must provide enforceable provisions subordinate to, and in harmony with, all other applicable federal and state statutes and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide a clear set of general policy guidelines for the conduct of city government; Section 1. Modifying Resolution 03-027 as set forth below by adding new section 7. The remainder of the resolution 03-027 is unchanged: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley does hereby affirm and resolve that the following core beliefs shall serve as guidelines for the conduct of affairs by all branches of Spokane Valley City Government. Section 1. We believe that Spokane Valley should be a visionary city encouraging its citizens and their government to look to the future beyond the present generation and to bring such ideas to public discussion and to enhance a sense of community identity. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. We believe that elected body decision-making is the only lawful and effective way to conduct the public's legislative business and that careful observance of a clear set of Governance Coordination rules of procedure can best enhance public participation and decision making We believe in the City Council as policy leaders of the City. One or more City Councilmembers are encouraged to take the lead, where practical, in sponsoring Ordinances or Resolutions excepting quasi-judicial or other public hearings and the statutory duties of the City Manager as set forth in RCW 35A.13.020. We believe in hearing the public view. We affirm that members of the public should be encouraged to speak and be heard through reasonable rules of procedure when the public business is being considered, thus giving elected officials the broadest perspectives from which to make decisions. Page 52 of 56 Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. Section 8. We believe that the City of Spokane Valley's governance should be known as "user friendly," and that governance practices and general operations should consider how citizens will be served in the most responsive, effective and courteous manner. We believe that the economic and commercial job base of the community should be preserved and encouraged to grow as an alternative to increasing property taxes. We believe it imperative to have an expanded and diverse economic base, We believe that Councilmembers set the tone for civic discussion and should set an example by: (a) Setting high standards of decorum and civility. (b) Encouraging open and productive conversation amongst themselves and with the community about legislative matters. (c) Demonstrating respect for divergent points of view expressed by citizens, fellow Councilmembers and the staff. (d) Honoring each other and the public by debating issues within City Hall and the Community without casting aspersions on members of Council, the staff, or the public. (e) Accepting the principle of majority rule and working to advance the success of "corporate" decisions. We solicit the City Manager's support in conducting the affairs of the city with due regard for: (a) Promoting mutual respect between the Citizens, City staff and the City Council by creating the organizational teamwork necessary for effective, responsive and open government. (b) Providing the City Council and public reasonable advance notice when issues are to be brought forward for discussion. (c) Establishing and maintaining a formal city-wide customer service program with emphasis on timely response, a user-friendly atmosphere, and an attitude of facilitation and accommodation within the bounds of responsibility, integrity, and financial capability of the city, including organizational and job description documents while pursuing "best practices" in customer service. (d) Seeking creative ways to contain or impede the rising cost of governmental services, including examination of private sector alternatives in lieu of governmentally provided services. (e) Providing a data base of future projects and dreams for the new City of Spokane Valley so that good ideas from its citizens and leaders are not lost and the status of projects can be readily determined. Approved by the City Council this l lth day of December, 2007. ATTEST: /s/ DIANA WILHITE /s/ CHRISTINE BAINBRIDGE Diana Wilhite, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: /S/ MICHAEL F. CONNELLY Office of the City Attorney Page 53 of 56 APPENDIX E: STATEMENT OF ETHICS SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCILMEMBERS' STATEMENT OF ETHICS By adoption of the Resolution which adopts this Governance Manual, the Spokane Valley City Councilmembers hereby agree to be bound by the following rules of ethics: DECLARATION OF PURPOSE: • Provide guidelines and set high ethical standards for Councilmembers to perform their duties in an open, honest, and unbiased manner. • Establish procedures for prevention and/or elimination of possible conflicts of interest. • Improve and strengthen the public's perception and trust in their local government. DEFINITIONS: Compensation: Anything of economic value regardless of amount, however designated, which is paid, loaned, advanced, granted, transferred, or gifted, or to be paid, loaned, advanced, granted, transferred or gifted for or in consideration of personal services to any person or that person's immediate family as that term is defined in RCW 42.17A.005(24). Contract: Includes any contract or agreement, sale, lease, purchase, or any combination of the foregoing. A contracting party is any person, partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, whether for profit or otherwise, or other business entity which is a party to a contract with a municipality. PROHIBITED CONDUCT: (a) Acceptance of Gifts: No Councilmember, based solely on their position with the City of Spokane Valley, shall receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit, directly or indirectly, anything of economic value regardless of the amount, as a gift, gratuity, or favor from any person or entity outside the City organization. Campaign donations made and reported in conformance with Washington law are exempt from this provision. (b) Interest in Contracts, Exceptions: No Councilmember shall be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract where the City of Spokane Valley is named as a party to the contract; and no Councilmember shall accept, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract. This prohibition shall not apply to the exceptions specified in RCW 42.23.030 which are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. (c) Incompatible Service; Confidential Information: No Councilmember shall engage in or accept private employment or render services for any person, or engage in any business or professional activity when such is incompatible with the faithful discharge of his/her official duties as a Councilmember. No Councilmember shall disclose confidential information acquired by reason of such official position, nor shall such information be used for the Councilmember's personal gain or benefit. PERSONAL OR PRIVATE INTERESTS, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Any Councilmember who has a financial or other private or personal interest in any ordinance, resolution, contract, proceeding, or other action pending before the City Council or any of its committees, shall promptly disclose such interest at the first public meeting when such matter is being considered by the City Council, and a summary of the nature of such interest shall be incorporated into the official minutes of the City Council proceedings. Any Councilmember who feels disqualified by reason of such interest in any matter before the City Council, shall make a public statement and disclose the reasons why that Councilmember feels disqualified, and state that they are recusing themselves from the issue, and with permission of the Presiding Officer, will leave the Council Chambers until such time as the issue at hand has been disposed of in the regular course of business. Page 54 of 56 APPENDIX F: INDEX A Advance Agenda • 12 Agenda Committee • 12 Appearance of Fairness Doctrine • 38, 39, 43 applause • 7, 35 applications • 18, 23, 25, 26 attendance • 5, 32, 43 B ballot • 7, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 46 budget amendment • 15 C candidate • 10, 23, 27 Confidential material • 14 D dais 8, 14, 19, 23, 27 deadline • 23, 25 donation • 32 E election • 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 46, 57 electronic message • 8, 14 e-mail • 8, 14, 29 emergency • 6, 11, 14, 15, 19, 57 ethical • 32, 54 executive session • 10, 11, 20, 23, 26, 43 F Filling a Council Vacancy • 23 Finance Department • 28 flip of a coin • 22 Internet • 8, 14 M majority of the whole • 15 Majority Plus One • 15 misleading • 9 N nomination • 22, 23, 24, 26 notice • 5, 11, 13, 14, 19, 28, 38, 43, 45, 53, 57 0 Open Public Meetings Act • 5, 9, 10, 14, 31, 57 P parliamentarian • 13 podium 7, 14, 15, 35 presentations • 6, 7, 9, 35 prevailing side • 19 pro tempore • 26 Q qualifications • 10, 23 quasi-judicial • 7, 14, 19, 35, 36, 38, 39, 43, 52 R recommended appointment • 41 reconsideration • 18, 19, 27 recuse • 39 Request for Council Action • 19 5 seats • 13 social media • 31, 47 speak twice • 16 surprises • 9, 16, 20 T telephone • 13, 14, 31 three Councilmembers • 6 three minutes • 7, 15, 35 Three Touch • 6, 18, 20 V vote to extend the meeting • 8 Page 55 of 56 Endnotes: 'RCW 42.30.110 — Open Public Meeting Act, Executive Sessions RCW 42.30.140- Open Public Meeting Act, RCW 35A.13.035- Optional Municipal Code (35A) — Council-manager plan of government RCW 42.52 — Ethics in Public Service " RCW 42.56 — Public Records Act ' RCW 35A.12.160 Optional Municipal Code (35A) — Council manager plan of government; public notice of hearings and meeting agendas ' RCW 35A.13.170 — Optional Municipal Code (35A) — Council manager plan of government; council meetings — quorum, rules - voting v111RCW 35A.12.110 — Council meetings shall meet regularly, at least once a month. ix RCW 42.30.080 — Open Public Meetings Act, Special Meetings, procedures for calling Special Meetings X RCW 35A.12.110 — Council meetings shall meet reguarly, at least once a month. ' RCW 42.30.080 - Open Public Meetings Act, Special Meetings, procedures for calling Special Meetings ' RCW 42.30.080(3) — Open Public Meetings Act, Special Meetings, procedures for calling Special Meetings RCW 42.30.090 — Open Public Meetings Act, Adjournments ""' RCW 35A.13.170 - Optional Municipal Code (35A) — Council mgr plan of gov't; meetings: quorum, rules, voting 35A.12.120 — Council meetings, shall meet regularly, at least once a month ' RCW 35A.12.060 — A council position shall become vacant if the councilmember fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the council without being excused by the council. " " RCW 42.17A.555 — Use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns — Prohibition — Exceptions '"' RCW 35A.12.120 — Council — Quorum — Rules — Voting ' RCW 35A.33.090 — Emergency Expenditures — Other emergencies — Hearing. RCW 35A.13.190 — Ordinances, emergencies, may be effective upon adoption if passed by a majority plus one of the whole membership of the council and have the ordinance designated as a public emergency; but such ordinance may not levy taxes, grant, renew or extend a franchise, or authorize the borrowing of money. '1RCW 35A.13 - Council-manager plan of government. '" RCW 35A.13.030 - Mayor — election — chair to be mayor — duties: Biennially at the first meeting of the new council members shall choose a chair from among their number; chair's title shall be mayor and preside at meetings RCW 35A.13 — Council-manager plan of government. "iv RCW 35A.13.020 — Mayor — election, chair to be mayor, duties x"" RCW 35A.13.020 — ibid. '°"'' RCW 42.12.070 — Filling nonpartisan vacancies Page 56 of 56 To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of February 4, 2016; 10:00 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative Council & Staff City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings February 16, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. City Hall Update — John Hohman 2. Advance Agenda - Mayor Higgins 3. Info Only: LED Lights [*estimated February 23, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Mayoral Appointments: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee — Mayor Higgins 3. Admin Report: SCRAPS Update — Mark Calhoun 4. Admin Report: Sidewalk/Snow Removal - Cary Driskell 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 6. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated March 1, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Accomplishments Report (Legislative & Executive, Ops & Admin; Public Safety; P Community & Economic Development, and Public Works) — Mike Jackson 2. City Hall Update — John Hohman 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [*estimated [due Mon, Feb 8] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 20 minutes] [due Mon, Feb 15] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 55 minutes] [due Mon, Feb 22] arks & Rec; (60 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 80 minutes] March 8, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: 2016 LTGO Bond Ordinance (City Hall) — Mark Calhoun 3. Admin Report: Spokane Regional Law & Justice Commission Update — Cary Driskell 4. Admin Report: Uncovered/unsecured loads — Cary Driskell 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Mon, Feb 29] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (25 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 70 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. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. First Reading 2016 LTGO Bond Ordinance (City Hall) — Mark Calhoun 3. Admin Report: Solid Waste Collection — Eric Guth, Morgan Koudelka, Erik Lamb 4. Drug Enforcement Update — Rick VanLeuven 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 6. Info Only: Department Reports March 29, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Port District Update — John Hohman 2. City Hall Update — John Hohman 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins April 5, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. City Hall Update — John Hohman 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Draft Advance Agenda 2/4/2016 2:27:42 PM [*estimated [*estimated [*estimated [due Mon, Mar 14] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (25 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 75 minutes] [due Mon, Mar 21] (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: minutes] [due Mon, Mar 28] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: minutes] Page 1 of 2 April 12, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading 2016 LTGO Bond Ordinance (City Hall) — Mark Calhoun 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins April 19, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. City Hall Council Chambers 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins April 26, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 3. Info Only: Department Reports May 3, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. City Hall Update — John Hohman 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins May 10, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins May 17, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. City Hall Council Chambers 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Mav 24, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 3. Info Only: Department Reports May 31, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 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 AWC Conference (June 21-24) Blake Street Sidewalk (CDBG) Domestic Violence Advocacy (Police) Emergency Preparedness Intelligence -led policing Ord 15-023 Marijuana Ext/Renew (expires 6/9/16) Public Safety Oversight/Advisory Committee Pavement Preservation SRTMC Agreement (June/July 2016) TIP 2017-2022 (May/June) [due Mon, Apr 4] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] [due Mon, Apr 11] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, Apr 18] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, Apr 25] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 2] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 9] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 16] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 23 (15 minutes) (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 2/4/2016 2:27:42 PM Page 2 of 2 Spokane Operations & Administrative Services"' 4th Quarter 2015 Operations & Administrative Services 4th Quarter 2015 ADMINISTRATIVE: • False Alarm Program 1 -Year Extension Executed • County Data Processing Services Interlocal Agreement Authorized • Guaranteed Ride Horne Program Contract Executed • Community— Minded Television Contract Executed • Commute Trip Reduction lnterlocal Agreement Authorized • Reviewed Solid Waste Rate Changes and Consultant RFQ • Reviewed SCRAPS 2016 Budget • Emphasis Patrol Agreement Finalized • CAD/ RMS Letter of Authorization Finalized • Law Enforcement 2014 Settle and Adjust Review/ 2016 Estimate • SCLD Partnership with GMTV • Pre -File Diversion DWLS 3 Program Evaluation HUMAN RESOURCES: Recruiting/Employment Activity to Fill Budgeted Positions: Recruitment Filled or Recruiting Permit Facilitator Filled PT Recreation Assistant— Host Recruiting Snow Plow Operators— On Call Filled Administrative Assistant— PW Recruiting Special Projects: • Website Redesign • Successor Collective Bargaining Agreement Reached • Policy Updates Due to Changes to Personnel Systems Page 1 jUalley Operations & Administrative Services- 4th Quarter 2015 Public Information 4th Quarter 2015 MEDIA RELATIONS: Media contacts: 35 Does not include those that were subsequently referred to another City resource or multiple contacts on same request. Media releases & traffic: 63 Including: 4 calendar requests, 17 traffic alerts, 29 regular & 13 snow information Earned media stories: 74 Does not include all television/radio/web as not ail are available online Equivalent ad value of earned media stories: $35,548.53 This total is just for known broadcast coverage as not all broadcast media make copies available for online retrieval, and calculates blog coverage based on one minimum ad size. Total media stories: 113 Does not include ads, police reports, or all television/ radio/web as not all are available online. • Citizen Contacts: 54 • Media Release email distribution subscribers: 603 • Traffic Alert email distribution subscribers: 535 • Snowlnfo Email subscribers: 678 • Hot Topic Community ENewsletter Subscribers: 792 • Website Updates: 123 Areas of Significant Focus: • Wind Storm 2015 Emergency • Restaurant Launch • Snowlnfo Season Launch Page 2 Stio"kane� jUalley Operations & Administrative Services'" 4th Quarter 2015 Website Summary 4th Quarter 2015 4th Quarter 2015 October November December Year to Date Unique User Sessions 14,236 11,181 9,595 166,138 Top Five Pages Viewed Employment 3,980 2,963 1,593 52,917 Economic Development 1,138 1,843 3,318 9,445 Permit Center 1,394 1,053 696 16,666 Council 1,249 840 589 8,200 Police 1,368 817 293 17,152 Top Five "Referrer" Websites Google 6,970 5,331 3,616 84,867 Spokane County 1,108 889 576 12,558 Bing 655 411 358 3,742 Spokane Valley online 176 113 105 824 County Ideas 102 82 88 1,296 Page 3 Spokane jUa�le3' Operations & Administrative Services- 4th Quarter 2015 CENTRAL RECEPTION 4th Quarter 2015 BUSINESS Registrations: 385 New & 1,766 Reactivations Reactivations New 4th Qtr Business Licenses 0 500 1000 1500 2000 ■ 4th Qtr VISITOR VOLUME: 441 Total Visitors CALL LOG VOLUME: 1,845 Total Calls Page 4 lane jUalley Operations & Administrative Services— 4th Quarter 2015 E-GOV C.A. R. E.S. REQUESTS 4th Quarter 2015 Total C.A. R. E.S. 4th Quarter: 605 250 200 150 100 50 cSa c�` Q��0 0• 4 �� ▪ Ca Q �� oar a1 Oe' �,��5 `©Jy1 oyQt` et,1 Je,, \a�QB �� Ci �e� ea 4e c. • •t° 44 S� ` / c,C` Jva Q October November December Page 5 0001\3/4,,P' 'S AND RECREATION 'EATION ctnar• Spokane � FOURTH QUARTER REPORT ��Valley OCTOBER—DECEMBER 2015 ADMINISTRATION AND PARKS: • A new updated Memo of Understanding between the City and the Senior Association was developed. The previous MOU was over ten years old. • Fall arrived and the park facility reservation season ended October 15, with over 400 reservations made for various facilities. The park restrooms have been winterized and are closed for the season. Mirabeau Springs is turned off until spring, and the bear at Discovery Playground is in hibernation. • Contracts in the fourth quarter included: 0 Construction Agreement for the Valley Mission Dog Park Phase I Project. o Professional Services for the Discovery Playground Shade Structure Project. o Construction Agreement for the Discovery Playground Shade Structure Project. o Professional Services for the Police Precinct Security System Upgrade Project. o Agreement for CenterPlace Food Services at CenterPlace Regional Event Center. • Wind Storm 2015 hit the Spokane Valley Parks pretty hard, and it has been a lengthy process just to remove trees and debris and to start the repair work. We had 50 trees damaged or uprooted in five parks. Terrace View Park was hit especially hard with many downed trees, damaged irrigation lines, and damaged fencing. The three-year-old large play structure in the playground received extensive damage from a downed tree and will have to be replaced. • Phase I of the Valley Mission Dog Park Project was completed, creating a dog park at the corner of Mission and Bowdish. This is our City's first dog park, and many community members are anxious to start using it. Fencing and decomposed granite were installed. Phase II will consist of adding the amenities of an entry structure, water service, picnic tables, signage, waste receptacles, and landscaping. Phase II will be completed in the spring of 2016, and then we will be able to open to the public. • The Discovery Playground Shade Structure Project was completed. This improvement will allow for a colorful covering to be installed over the outdoor classroom area during the season. • The Old Mission Trailhead Project was completed. Improvements include landscaping, picnic table pad, drinking fountain, and access paving. • We coordinated with Valley Christian School for a cleanup day in the park. We are very appreciative of their eagerness and willingness to provide needed community service. • Monthly meetings with the Centennial Trail Coordinating Council have continued. • Staff presented a grant application before the Lodging Tax Committee asking for funds to expand the volleyball courts at Browns Park. We were awarded $60,650. Wind Storm 2015 Valley Mission Dog Park Phase I Old Mission Trallhead CENTERPLACE: • Staff booked 207 CenterPlace reservations during the 4th quarter of 2015. CenterPlace hosted 919 events in 2015, which is a 9% increase over 2014 and the largest number of events held in a single year to date. Wedding receptions were up 18% over 2014 and worship services were up 75%. • CenterPlace had over 125,000 total guests, with 5,287 regional visitors. This number equates to approximately $1.5 million economic impact to our city. • We completed the Flooring Replacement Project for the Fireside Lounge. The project consisted of removal of existing flooring and installing new carpet, hard flooring, and wall base. Carpet and tile squares were used and will be easier to maintain or repair in the future. The hard flooring space was expanded to allow for easier cleanup for events with food, now that Meals on Wheels uses this space for their lunches. • We participated in Spokane Valley Tourism Workshop. In conjunction with other stakeholders, this workshop was to develop strategies to provide guidance for the economic development of the City. • A Request for Proposals (RFP) for Food Services at CenterPlace was issued, to produce sales of foods and beverages, including alcoholic beverages for local and regional groups who utilize CenterPlace. We received only one response, and the contract was awarded to Cobblestone Catering & Events LLC for a five- year term to be renewed yearly. This will be Cobblestone's second year in providing food services for CenterPlace. • Staff participated in the Greater Spokane Incorporated Business - to -Business Trade Show, which is held annually at Northern Quest Resort and Casino. More than 600 businesses and exhibitors attend this event, and it is a great opportunity to showcase CenterPlace to other businesses and people in the area. • CenterPlace had the honor of hosting the Spokane Coeur d'Alene Living Magazine December Release Party. Attendees enjoyed our award-winning catering, drinks, music, and the festive, social atmosphere. RECREATION AND AQUATICS: Valley Mission Haunted Pool • 10 very hard working Valley Christian High School Volunteers took on the task of helping set up the majority of the outside props for the Haunted Pool during their Community Outreach day on Oct. 2. • 60 volunteers from Central Valley, East Valley, University High Schools, Horizon and Greenacres Middle Schools and even Mead High School, made this event possible. These volunteers did an amazing job haunting the event with enthusiasm, and several drama students worked wonders as they applied effects makeup to several of the volunteers to make the event even more scary. • 692 people dared to enter the Haunted Pool over the four nights and had a thrilling time! • The event collected over 500 lbs of canned food for the Spokane Valley Partners Food Bank. Supervisors Management School • Attended NC State University and National Recreation and Parks Association Supervisors' Management School. • Took away very valuable information that we were able to apply to our Department in terms of communication, goals and Mission and Vision. • As a direct result, the Parks and Recreation Department has been working on our Department's Mission and Vision and Values. Summer Outdoor Movie Sponsorship Brochure 2016 • 2016 Outdoor Movie Sponsorship information is available on our website. • 2015 Sponsors, Waste Management and WSECU, have committed to returning this year and we have already received interest from possible new sponsors this year. • Thanks to this sponsorship program, we added a third movie in 2016 for the community. Breakfast with Santa • 550 people attended this annually successful event at CenterPlace Regional Event Center. • A perfect example of strong partnership with Parks and Recreation and Spokane Valley Rotary. • Excellent affordable quality event for the community. • 43 outstanding volunteers from East Valley, University High School, Central Valley High School, Barker High School and Horizon Middle School served breakfast, bussed tables, did arts and crafts, games and happily engaged with the youth at the event. Cool Camp • 48 children ages 6-11 years of age participated in the Parks and Recreation Winter Break Cool Camp. • Program goals are to provide youth a safe, social, active, engaging environment during Winter Break that is affordable and convenient to their parents/caregivers. • Campers made new friends, great memories and were extremely active. • Activities ranged from Extreme Science guest visitors, to building giant snowmen and snow forts, to swimming at the YMCA, to roller skating, doing craft projects, silly games, and having many laughs. SENIOR CENTER: • The Senior Center sponsored a Fall Arts & Craft Fair with free admission in October. We had a great turnout with 52 vendors and an estimated attendance of 250. The feedback was good and they expressed how please they were with the event. • The Senior Association held its annual General Membership Meeting in November. This is to inform the membership of the budget and receive input. They also held an election of new board members. Board members are Jim Stone, Dan Petruso, Dr. Bob Numata, Gay LeBret, and Dave Bennett. • The Association collected for Coats for Kids again this year, and collected a total of 46 coats. • Two more flu shot clinics were held in the Wellness Center administered by Walgreen's and Rite Aid. They served a total of 42 participants. Walgreen's (at Sprague and Sullivan) also offers a 20% discount on the first Tuesday for members of the Senior Center. • The annual Christmas Gift Basket Silent Auction was held in December. Individuals or activity groups put together and donate baskets. It's always fun and interesting to see the creative themes that are beautifully presented. • Something new the Association tried was partnering with Panda Express. Panda Express donated 20% of each meal sold on October 24, to the Association. • The Community Colleges of Spokane ACT 2 Exercise class has grown. The class is on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and total attendance in October was 443. CCS gives $10 for each student enrolled to the Association at the end of each quarter. This also includes the Art classes that are held through ACT 2. This is the best fundraiser for the Senior Center. Numbers That Count... October November December Total Attendance 2,931 2,216 2,213 Billiards Room Participants 437 329 431 Pickleball Participants 504 572 577 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 9. 2016 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ® information ['admin. report Department Director Approval: IZI ['new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Windstorm Funding to Outside Agencies GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Following the November 17, 2015 windstorm, multiple agencies assisted City of Spokane Valley residents with food, shelter and home repairs. The City Council authorized the City Manager to contact outside agencies and seek to reimburse them for a portion of costs attributed to their efforts in aiding our citizens. The City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and the Finance Director made the final determinations. The following is a list of disbursements that were made: SNAP - $10,000 Greater Spokane County Meals on Wheels - $2,500 Spokane Valley Partners - $1,500 SNAP did note that there were additional full roof replacements that could be made if additional funds were available. Staff considered this and determined that while worthwhile and needed, the roof replacements were more of a direct allocation than a reimbursement. However, SNAP could apply in the future for outside agency funding during the City's annual award process. OPTIONS: Information only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: as noted above STAFF CONTACT: City Manager Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS: Letters of Distribution of Funding *Wane .0.01;VaHey° 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 1 cityhalt@spokanevalley.org January 21, 2016 Chris Davis Director of H using Services SNAP 212 W. 2nd Ave. Spokane, WA 99201 Dear Chris: Per our recent correspondence, the City of Spokane Valley would again like to convey its sincere gratitude to SNAP for its response and care for the needs of the citizens of our City related to the November 17, 2015 wind storm. The City recognizes that SNAP can only provide these types of services if there are sufficient funds. Therefore, in recognition of SNAP& costs in response to the wind storm, and based on your certification form, the City of Spokane Valley would like to provide..pr0,000 to help replenish your funds. Again, thank you for your organization's response to our citizens during the wind storm as it was great to see the community pull together. Sincerely, Ley � � ��►,�,�,�------ 1 Mik- Jackson City Manager ,CSI` (L,000.SC0s.(0, 1.05 Spokane Dalley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall®spokanevaltey.org December 11, 2015 Mr. Craig Howard SNAP 3102 W Ft George Wright Dr Spokane WA 99224 Re: Impact to your agency for responding to Spokane Valley citizens related to the November 17, 2015 wind storm. Dear Craig: Per our recent phone conversations, the City of Spokane Valley would like to convey its sincere gratitude to SNAP for its response and care for the needs of the citizens of our City related to the November 17, 2015 wind storm. There were a number of areas in our community that were significantly impacted, with the lives of those residents greatly disrupted. The City recognizes that SNAP can only provide those services if there are sufficient funds. The City anticipates being able to provide some funds to SNAP to help replenish your resources. The City is requesting that you provide a brief description of the services provided to our citizens, along with a reasonably accurate estimate of the costs you expended or will expend to provide assistance within Spokane Valley in responding to this event. We understand that you can only provide an estimate which will suffice for these purposes. Included with this letter is a short certification page for you to include a brief description of services and a cost estimate. We request that an authorized representative execute this and return it to the City at your earliest convenience. Again, the City of Spokane Valley would like to thank SNAP for providing assistance in our community in a time of need. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Mikerl. kson Ci anager Wind Storm November 2015 CERTIFICATION I Chris Davis, Director of Housing Services (name and title) certify that SNAP (agency) provided the following services We have received approximately 23 storm -related repair requests from City of Spokane Valley residents. We cannot help seven of them because the damages are too extensive (i.e. total roof replacement) and/or are outside of the scope of services we provide.IVe expect to receive more repair requests through the end of this year and will most likely complete 15 repairs and expended or wilt expend an estimated $ 10,000 in the City of Spokane Valley providing assistance resulting from the wind event occurring on November 17, 2015. * (signature) Dated this 21st day of December , 201 5 . *If funded, SNAP will seek reimbursement for direct charges from licensed contractors that provide client services as well as SNAP administrative and program support costs including but not limited to salaries, fringe, rent, wide area network, and general expenses. **In addition to repairs averaging approximately $600 each, we believe there is a need to replace 5 storm damaged roofs for valley residents at approximately $13,500 each (contracted labor, materials, taxes & fees) plus SNAP administrative and program support costs as described above. Spokane.0,00Valley7 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 + Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhalt@spokanevatley.org January 21, 2016 Greater Spokane C9unty Meals on Wheels Pam Almeida, Executive Director 12101 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Pam: Per our recent correspondence, the City of Spokane Valley would again like to convey its sincere gratitude to GSC Meals on Wheels for its response and care for the needs of the citizens of our City related to the November 17, 2015 wind storm. The City recognizes that GSC Meals on Wheels can only provide these types of services if there are sufficient funds. Therefore, in recognition of GSC Meals on Wheels' costs in response to the wind storm, and based on your certification form, the City of Spokane Valley would like to provide,$2,500 to help your replenish funds. Again, thank you for your organization's response to our citizens during the wind storm as it was great to see the community pull together. Sincerely, (c1 Mike Ja' son City Manager Koo 05o. oco S, to, LtI.O 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 + cityhall®spokanevalley.org December 15, 2015 Ms. Pam Almeida Spokane Valley Meals on Wheels 12101 E. Sprague Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Request for statement of financial impact to your agency for responding to citizen needs for Spokane Valley residents for the November, 2015 wind storm Dear Pam: The City of Spokane Valley would like to convey its sincere gratitude to Meals on Wheels for its response and care for the needs of the citizens of our City related to the November 17, 2015 wind storm. There were a number of areas in our community significantly impacted, with the lives of those residents greatly disrupted. The City recognizes Meals on Wheels can only provide those services with sufficient funds. The City is requesting a brief recitation of the services provided to citizens, along with a reasonably accurate estimate of the costs expended or will be expended to provide assistance within Spokane Valley in response to this event. We understand you can only provide an estimate which will suffice for these purposes. The City anticipates being able to provide some funds to Meals on Wheels to help replenish resources. Included with this letter is a short certification page for you to provide a brief description of services and an associated cost estimate that is accurate to the best of your knowledge. We request an authorized representative execute this and return it to the City at your earliest convenience. Again, the City of Spokane Valley would like to thank Meals on Wheels for providing assistance in our community in a time of need. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Mike Jac ° son City eager MEALS WHEELS GREATER SPOKANE COUNTY December 30, 2015 Mike Jackson City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mike, Thank you for the recognition of GSC Meals on Wheels' response to the Wind Storm. It was a difficult time, but it was wonderful to see the community pull together in response to the adversity. I have completed the enclosed certification. The primary expenses included losing one of our freezer compressors due to the power outage and losing approximately $1000 worth of food. We also purchased nonperishable meals for our clients for the weekend, but were able to get some State assistance to cover that expense. Thank you in advance for any help that the City of Spokane Valley can provide as we continue to recover. Best Regards, (Li1 ghtal Pam Almeida Executive Director GSC Meals on Wheels 12101 E Sprague Ave PO Box 14278 (509)924-6976 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99214 www.GSCMealsOnWheels.org Sikine Val . Wind Storm November 2015 CERTIFICATION I . Pam Almeida, Executive Director of Greater Spokane County Meals on Wheels (name and title)certify that_ Greater Spokane County Meals on Wheels (agency) provided the following services_ 1) Provided hot home delivered meals for all of our homebound clients despite not having electricity at our kitchen. 2) Provided well -fare checks for all of our clients and provided blankets for those that needed them. 3) Provided referrals and assistance to clients 4) Provided nonperishablefood for clients for the weekend and expended or will expend an estimated $ 2500 in the City of Spokane Valley providing assistance resulting from the wind event occurring on November 17, 2015. i-z;?//,4%/%i (signature) Dated this 30 day of December , 2015. CITY .0000Valley° 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org January 21, 2016 Spokane Valley Partner Ken Briggs, CEO 10814 E. Broadway P.O. Box 141360 Spokane Valley, WA 99214-1360 Dear Ken: Per our recent correspondence, the City of Spokane Valley would again like to convey its sincere gratitude to Spokane Valley Partners for its response and care for the needs of the citizens of our City related to the November 17, 2015 wind storm. The City recognizes that Spokane Valley Partners can only provide these types of services if there are sufficient funds. Therefore, in recognition of Spokane Valley Partners' costs in response to the wind storm, and based on your certification form, the City of Spokane Valley would like to provid‘$1,500 to help replenish your funds. Again, thank you for your organization's response to our citizens during the wind storm as it was great to see the community pull together. Sincerely, Mikel3c son City Manager (-29-1-67 SOlane Valley - December 11, 2015 Mr. Ken Briggs, Chief Executive Officer Spokane Valley Partners 10814 East Broadway Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206-5003 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org Re: Impact to your agency for responding to Spokane Valley citizens related to the November 17, 2015 wind storm. Dear Ken: Per our recent phone conversations, the City of Spokane Valley would like to convey its sincere gratitude to Spokane Valley Partners for its response and care for the needs of the citizens of our City related to the November 17, 2015 wind storm. There were a number of areas in our community that were significantly impacted, with the lives of those residents greatly disrupted. The City recognizes that Spokane Valley Partners can only provide those services if there are sufficient funds. The City anticipates being able to provide some funds to Spokane Valley Partners to help replenish your resources. The City is requesting that you provide a brief description of the services provided to our citizens, along with a reasonably accurate estimate of the costs you expended or will expend to provide assistance within Spokane Valley in responding to this event. We understand that you can only provide an estimate which will suffice for these purposes. Included with this letter is a short certification page for you to include a brief description of services and a cost estimate. We request that an authorized representative execute this and return it to the City at your earliest convenience. Again, the City of Spokane Valley would like to thank Spokane Valley Partners for providing assistance in our community in a time of need. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Sincere! , i,dW Mike Jacks n City Mare ger SpokaneValley .. PARTNERS food, clothing & services for self-reliance Mr. Mike Jackson, City Manager City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mike, Thanks so much to you and the rest of City Hall staff for the very supportive letter regarding our service to local residents. The "storm of the century" certainly stretched resources throughout our community; and I read with concern what the financial impact was on Spokane Valley. As someone who lives in zip code 99203, what was called "ground zero" in the press, I truly hope we do not see another anytime soon. 1 was on a volunteer chainsaw patrol one full day and without power for six nights. Here at SVP we did see some additional traffic by people just needing to warm up and get some "ready to eat" food and such. The reality is that day to day most folks coming here are in some sort of crisis. Our staff extended hours, filled in for volunteers who couldn't get in and made a lot more coffee than usual! This is how our community works, helping each other when needed. As you know, our biggest hurdle remains ongoing funding. As a donor based organization, we rebuild reserves to an extent in the last quarter and expend this surplus throughout the year. The past six years we have run a deficit budget. With recent critical capital expenditures running higher than grants to cover them, we have run our reserves down to a very low level. We are struggling to develop a 2016 budget that does not call for staff/program reductions. So, any additional support is very welcome at this time. Our Board Leadership met last evening; and the consensus was that $1,500 is a reasonable estimate of what we expended in staff time, food, clothing and other needs during the weather event. With gratitude, Ken Briggs, CEO 10814 E. Broadway o P.U. Box 141360 e Spokane Valle; WA 99214-1360 (509) 9274153 • Fax (509) 928-8463 * www.svpart.org I //V M1'/r &,5 } �fi Valley° Wind Storm November 201-5 CERTIFICATION (name and title) certify that ,-a4e 142%" 'y 7+/^74.4 e6"(agency) provided the following services j-W/wi/ly «/a/e-c,, �11c��'ifc�y 7O//d'�`,lii /./.��1'),/4`-'7)1":x)"73-} O/2,' C7 ce , .5 / ys a/?C i' �t-'ir�tr/S9 ./^4-,,7/77,2dM.SJ re'�4-f4A2 I1/<S) dr1?fC~1'/2e/4/1C-C it/Ce' c/�l rL%//1 Cf cG`'//� ,47;017'e a5 e'le; ) and expended or will expend an estimated $ f 5OO in the City of Spokane Valley providing assistance resulting from the wind event occurring on November 17, 2015. (signature) 4d9 , 20I Dated this /7 day of -/�- �e�/'/4G7' CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 9, 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: Contract for the Update of the Comprehensive Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Per RCW 36.70A.130(1), every county and city in the state is required to conduct an update of its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations every eight years. Although the City of Spokane Valley's update is due no later than June 30, 2017, the City began the process in 2014. The update of the Comprehensive Plan will be completed in three phases. For the first phase, Development of Public Participation Program and Community Visioning, the City selected Van Ness Feldman. The tasks in this phase consisted of compiling existing conditions and documents, developing the Public Participation Program, and completing the community visioning process. These tasks were completed in April 2015. The second phase, Analysis of Land Quantity and Economic Trends, consisted of preparing Land Quantity Analysis (LQA) information, preparing and analyzing existing conditions, assisting with the Citizen -Initiated Amendment Request process, conducting a Comprehensive Plan audit, and providing recommendations on the State Environmental Protection Policy Act (SEPA) Threshold Determination. These tasks were completed in November 2015. In the third phase, Development of Draft Plan and Regulations and Adoption of Final Plan and Regulations, the Consultant will develop a draft plan and regulations and assist in the SEPA environmental review process. The Consultant will assist with the completion of the final Comprehensive Plan and prepare regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has selected Van Ness Feldman to complete the third phase of the plan update. OPTIONS: Info only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Info only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The contract amount for the third phase of the Comprehensive Plan update is $336,500. STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Professional Services Agreement AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Van Ness Feldman 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update Contract No. 16-030 THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Spokane Valley, a code City of the State of Washington, hereinafter "City" and Van Ness Feldman, hereinafter "Consultant," jointly referred to as "Parties." IN CONSIDERATION of the terms and conditions contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Work to Be Performed. Consultant shall provide all labor, services, and material to satisfactorily complete the Scope of Services, attached as Exhibit A. A. Administration. The City Manager or designee shall administer and be the primary contact for Consultant. Prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall contact the City Manager or designee to review the Scope of Services, schedule, and date of completion. Upon notice from the City Manager or designee, Consultant shall commence work, perform the requested tasks in the Scope of Services, stop work, and promptly cure any failure in performance under this Agreement. B. Representations. City has relied upon the qualifications of Consultant in entering into this Agreement. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents it possesses the ability, skill, and resources necessary to perform the work and is familiar with all current laws, rules, and regulations which reasonably relate to the Scope of Services. No substitutions of agreed-upon personnel shall be made without the prior written consent of City. Consultant represents that the compensation as stated in paragraph 3 is adequate and sufficient for the timely provision of all professional services required to complete the Scope of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be responsible for the technical accuracy of its services and documents resulting therefrom, and City shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies therein. Consultant shall correct such deficiencies without additional compensation except to the extent such action is directly attributable to deficiencies in City -furnished information. C. Standard of Care. Consultant shall exercise the degree of skill and diligence normally employed by professional consultants engaged in the same profession, and performing the same or similar services at the time such services are performed. D. Modifications. City may modify this Agreement and order changes in the work whenever necessary or advisable. Consultant shall accept modifications when ordered in writing by the City Manager or designee, so long as the additional work is within the scope of Consultant's area of practice. Compensation for such modifications or changes shall be as mutually agreed between the Parties. Consultant shall make such revisions in the work as are necessary to correct errors or omissions appearing therein when required to do so by City without additional compensation. 2. Term of Contract. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect upon execution and shall remain in effect until completion of all contractual requirements have been met as determined by City. Consultant shall Agreement for Professional Services (with professional liability coverage) Page 1 of 7 complete its work by December 31, 2016, unless the time for performance is extended in writing by the Parties. Either Party may terminate this Agreement for material breach after providing the other Party with at least 10 days' prior notice and an opportunity to cure the breach. City may, in addition, terminate this Agreement for any reason by 10 days' written notice to Consultant. In the event of termination without breach, City shall pay Consultant for all work previously authorized and satisfactorily performed prior to the termination date. 3. Compensation. City agrees to pay Consultant $336,500, (which includes Washington State Sales Tax if any is applicable) as full compensation for everything done under this Agreement, as set forth in Exhibit B. Consultant shall not perform any extra, further, or additional services for which it will request additional compensation from City without a prior written agreement for such services and payment therefore. 4. Payment. Consultant shall be paid monthly upon presentation of an invoice to City. Applications for payment shall be sent to the City Finance Department at the below -stated address. City reserves the right to withhold payment under this Agreement for that portion of the work (if any) which is determined in the reasonable judgment of the City Manager or designee to be noncompliant with the Scope of Services, City standards, City Code, and federal or state standards. 5. Notice. Notices other than applications for payment shall be given in writing as follows: TO THE CITY: Name: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Phone: (509) 921-1000 Address: 11707 East Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 TO THE CONSULTANT: Name: Van Ness Feldman, Tadas Kisielius Phone: (206) 623-9372 Address: 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 6. Applicable Laws and Standards. The Parties, in the performance of this Agreement, agree to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Consultant warrants that its designs, construction documents, and services shall conform to all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. 7. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters — Primary Covered Transactions. A. By executing this Agreement, the Consultant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief that it and its principals: 1. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; 2. Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statues or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; 3. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in Agreement for Professional Services (with professional liability coverage) Page 2 of 7 paragraph (A)(2) of this certification; and 4. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default. B. Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this Agreement. 8. Relationship of the Parties. It is understood and agreed that Consultant shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of City, that City is interested in only the results to be achieved, and that the right to control the particular manner, method, and means in which the services are performed is solely within the discretion of Consultant. Any and all employees who provide services to City under this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of Consultant. The Consultant shall be solely responsible for the conduct and actions of all its employees under this Agreement and any liability that may attach thereto. 9. Ownership of Documents. All drawings, plans, specifications, and other related documents prepared by Consultant under this Agreement are and shall be the property of City, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW or other applicable public record laws. The written, graphic, mapped, photographic, or visual documents prepared by Consultant under this Agreement shall, unless otherwise provided, be deemed the property of City. City shall be permitted to retain these documents, including reproducible camera-ready originals of reports, reproduction quality mylars of maps, and copies in the form of computer files, for the City's use. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data, drawings, images, or other material prepared under this Agreement, provided that Consultant shall have no liability for the use of Consultant's work product outside of the scope of its intended purpose. 10. Records. The City or State Auditor or any of their representatives shall have full access to and the right to examine during normal business hours all of Consultant's records with respect to all matters covered in this Agreement. Such representatives shall be permitted to audit, examine, make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, and record of matters covered by this Agreement for a period of three years from the date final payment is made hereunder. 11. Insurance. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Automobile liability insurance covering all owned, non -owned, hired, and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. 2. Commercial general liability insurance shall be at least as broad as ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, stop -gap independent contractors and personal injury, and advertising injury. City shall be named as an additional insured under Consultant's commercial general liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using an additional insured endorsement at least as broad as ISO CG 20 26. Agreement for Professional Services (with professional liability coverage) Page 3 of 7 3. Workers' compensation coverage as required by the industrial insurance laws of the State of Washington. 4. Professional liability insurance appropriate to Consultant's profession. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Automobile liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of no less than $1,000,000 per accident. 2. Commercial general liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence, and $2,000,000 for general aggregate. 3. Professional liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. C. Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for automobile liability, professional liability, and commercial general liability insurance: 1. Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by City shall be in excess of Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. Consultant shall fax or send electronically in .pdf format a copy of insurer's cancellation notice within two business days of receipt by Consultant. 3. If Consultant maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, City shall be insured for the full available limits of commercial general and excess or umbrella liability maintained by Consultant, irrespective of whether such limits maintained by Consultant are greater than those required by this Agreement or whether any certificate of insurance furnished to the City evidences limits of liability lower than those maintained by Consultant. 4. Failure on the part of Consultant to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of the Agreement, upon which the City may, after giving at least five business days' notice to Consultant to correct the breach, immediately terminate the Agreement, or at its sole discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due Consultant from the City. D. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. E. Evidence of Coverage. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates to the City Clerk at the time Consultant returns the signed Agreement, which shall be Exhibit C. The certificate shall specify all of the parties who are additional insureds, and shall include applicable policy endorsements, and the deduction or retention level. Insuring companies or entities are subject to City acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies shall be provided to City. Consultant shall be fmancially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions, and/or self-insurance. Agreement for Professional Services (with professional liability coverage) Page 4 of 7 F. Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Consultant to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving at least five days' written notice to Consultant to cure the breach, immediately terminate the Agreement, or at the City's discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion of the City, offset against funds due the Consultant from the City. G. City Full Availability of Consultant's Insurance Limits. If the Consultant maintains higher insurance limits than the minimums shown above, the City shall be insured for the full available limits of commercial general and excess or umbrella liability maintained by the Consultant, irrespective of whether such limits maintained by the Consultant are greater than those required by this Agreement or whether any certificate of insurance furnished to the City evidences limits of liability lower than those maintained by the Consultant. 12. Conflicts. To comply with the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs), Consultant maintains a conflict of interest index identifying all of Consultant's current and former clients. Based on the scope of services Exhibit A, Consultant reviewed the City against Consultant's conflict of interest index. Consultant has four existing clients that required further review. These entities are listed in Exhibit D. Consultant has conducted an internal review and has concluded that it is reasonable for Consultant to represent the City of Spokane Valley and the entities listed in Exhibit D upon full disclosure and written consent. Exhibit D provides full disclosure of the representation ofthe entities listed and the Consultant's analysis ofthe potential for conflicts. By signing this Agreement, City confirms in writing its informed consent to the continued representation of the entities listed in Exhibit D. Specifically, City agrees that Consultant's continued work for entities listed in Exhibit D is on matters unrelated to Consultant's work for the City and would not materially limit Consultant's responsibilities to the City and further would not materially limit Consultant's responsibilities to the entities listed in Exhibit D. 13. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant shall, at its sole expense, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, attorney's fees, costs of litigation, expenses, injuries, and damages of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of the wrongful or negligent acts, errors, or omissions in the services provided by Consultant, Consultant's agents, subcontractors, subconsultants, and employees to the fullest extent permitted by law, subject only to the limitations provided below. Consultant's duty to defend, indemnify, and hold City harmless shall not apply to liability for damages arising out of such services caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of City or City's agents or employees pursuant to RCW 4.24.115. Consultant's duty to defend, indemnify, and hold City harmless against liability for damages arising out of such services caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents or employees, and (b) Consultant, Consultant's agents, subcontractors, subconsultants, and employees shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Consultant, Consultant's agents, subcontractors, subconsultants, and employees. Consultant's duty to defend, indemnify, and hold City harmless shall include, as to all claims, demands, losses, and liability to which it applies, City's personnel -related costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, the reasonable value of any services rendered by the office of the City Attorney, outside consultant costs, court costs, fees for collection, and all other claim -related expenses. Agreement for Professional Services (with professional liability coverage) Page 5 of 7 Consultant specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be granted it under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW. These indemnification obligations shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation, or benefits payable to or for any third party under workers' compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employee benefits acts. Provided, that Consultant's waiver of immunity under this provision extends only to claims against Consultant by City, and does not include, or extend to, any claims by Consultant's employees directly against Consultant. Consultant hereby certifies that this indemnification provision was mutually negotiated. 14. Waiver. No officer, employee, agent, or other individual acting on behalf of either Party has the power, right, or authority to waive any of the conditions or provisions of this Agreement. A waiver in one instance shall not be held to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach or nonperformance. All remedies afforded in this Agreement or by law shall be taken and construed as cumulative and in addition to every other remedy provided herein or by law. Failure of either Party to enforce at any time any of the provisions of this Agreement or to require at any time performance by the other Party of any provision hereof shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provisions nor shall it affect the validity of this Agreement or any part thereof. 15. Assignment and Delegation. Neither Party shall assign, transfer, or delegate any or all of the responsibilities of this Agreement or the benefits received hereunder without prior written consent of the other Party. 16. Subcontracts. Except as otherwise provided herein, Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for any of the work contemplated under this Agreement without obtaining prior written approval of City. 17. Confidentiality. Consultant may, from time -to -time, receive information which is deemed by City to be confidential. Consultant shall not disclose such information without the prior express written consent of City or upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction. 18. Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement is entered into in Spokane County, Washington. Disputes between City and Consultant shall be resolved in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in Spokane County. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant agrees that it may, at City's request, be joined as a party in any arbitration proceeding between City and any third party that includes a claim or claims that arise out of, or that are related to Consultant' s services under this Agreement. Consultant further agrees that the Arbitrator(s)' decision therein shall be final and binding on Consultant and that judgment may be entered upon it in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 19. Cost and Attorney's Fees. The prevailing parry in any litigation or arbitration arising out of this Agreement shall be entitled to its attorney' s fees and costs of such litigation (including expert witness fees). 20. Entire Agreement. This written Agreement constitutes the entire and complete agreement between the Parties and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements. This Agreement may not be changed, modified, or altered except in writing signed by the Parties hereto. 21. Anti -kickback. No officer or employee of City, having the power or duty to perform an official act or action related to this Agreement shall have or acquire any interest in this Agreement, or have solicited, accepted, or granted a present or future gift, favor, service, or other thing of value from any person with an interest in this Agreement. 22. Business Registration. Consultant shall register with the City as a business prior to commencement of Agreement for Professional Services (with professional liability coverage) Page 6 of 7 work under this Agreement if it has not already done so. 23. Severabilitv. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Agreement should be held to be invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Agreement. 24. Exhibits. Exhibits attached and incorporated into this Agreement are: A. Scope of Services B. Fee proposal C. Insurance Certificates D. Review of Conflicts of Interest The Parties have executed this Agreement this _ day of 20 . CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Consultant: Mike Jackson, City Manager By: Its: Authorized Representative ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Agreement for Professional Services (with professional liability coverage) Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT — A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PHASE 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES — CONSULTANT RESPONSIBILITIES and BUDGET ESTIMATE 1.0 Summary The City of Spokane Valley is updating its Comprehensive Plan in conformance with RCW 36.70A.130(5). The update consists of three major phases: 1. Phase 1 — Completed: Development of public participation program and community visioning, the Consultant compiled and analyzed existing conditions and documents, developed the Public Participation Program, and completed the community visioning process. 2. Phase 2 — Completed: Analysis of land quantity and economic trends. In this phase, the Consultant prepared Land Quantity Analysis (LQA) information, existing conditions information, assist with the Citizen -Initiated Amendment Request (CAR) process, conducted a Comprehensive Plan audit, and provided a recommendation on the SEPA Threshold Determination. The Consultant also provided assistance and guidance on population allocation issues. 3. Phase 3: Development of draft plan and regulations and adoption of final plan and regulations. The Consultant will prepare the draft Comprehensive Plan elements, any related required draft regulations, and assist in the initiation of SEPA Determination of Significance (DS) and related EIS scoping. The Consultant will then assist with the completion of the Final Comprehensive Plan, and prepare regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan. 2.0 Scope Phase 3 tasks advance the analysis of the City's opportunities and challenges to the revision, improvement, and development of the draft Comprehensive Plan (including text and map changes) and development regulations for review by the Planning Commission leading to eventual adoption of the updated Plan by the City Council. Tasks are broken into categories, with the consultant team lead designated for each sub -task. In cases where there are multiple consultants involved in a task, the lead consultant team is listed first, with the supporting consultant team listed second. The City is listed as a task lead or support in instances where City Staff is expected to have significant involvement beyond the expected level of involvement. An estimated total budget amount is summarized in the Cost Summary Table. An estimated budget amount is provided for each task. The budget reflects the level of effort needed to accomplish each task based on the current understanding of the project. Task 1: Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Elements 1.1 Project Management, Support and Coordination Task Lead Cost 1.1.1 Conduct regular check-in with City staff to communicate progress and discuss obstacles or concerns. CAI $4,500 1.1.2 Regular internal communication amongst consultant team to ensure that work is coordinated throughout the process. CAI, VNF, F&P $10,500 1.1.3 Support incorporation of elements of the EIS into Comp Plan Elements, as needed. City, CAI $2,000 1.1.4 Strategic guidance and review for draft elements to ensure consistency with updated development regulations VNF $4,000 Spokane Valley Comp Plan Update 1164195 February 4, 2016 Page 1 of 6 1.2 Plan Design and Organization 1.2.1 Develop a plan prototype that reflects the City's desired look and feel for the final document. CAI, City, VNF $8,000 1.2.2 Determine an appropriate organizational strategy for the plan and create a standard approach for the development of all elements. CAI, City $2,500 1.3 Introduction 1.3.1 Develop content for the introductory chapter based on findings from the existing conditions report and other analyses of key data. CAI, VNF $5,500 1.3.2 Integrate the Community Vision report into the introduction. CAI, City $1,000 1.3.3 Create a matrix compiling all of the plan's goals and policies and indicate where policies within different element are related to assist users with navigating the plan. CAI $3,500 1.4 Implementation 1.4.1 Lead development of preliminary short- and long- term strategies and actions to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. CAI, City $10,000 1.4.2 Support development of preliminary short- and long- term strategies and actions to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. VNF $3,000 1.4.3 Support development of preliminary short- and long- term strategies and actions to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. F&P $2,500 1.5 Transportation Element 1.5.1 Update the SRTC model with revised population/employment forecasts. Run SRTC model to develop future traffic/transit forecast F&P $8,000 1.5.2 Evaluate future level of service for roadway segments and key intersections F&P $22,500 1.5.3 Identify potential transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth and maintain existing LOS F&P $7,500 1.5.4 Develop planning -level cost estimates of transportation projects. F&P $15,000 1.5.5 Document expected revenues and costs of long-term transportation projects F&P $8,000 1.5.6 Document results in a transportation study that can be used to support SEPA review and the final updated transportation element; respond to comments from City staff F&P $11,500 1.5.7 Finalize draft Transportation Element based on comments received from SRTC, WSDOT, Department of Commerce etc. F&P $10,200 1.5.8 Review goals and policies and, where appropriate, draft language to clearly link the element with the City's economic development goals. Ensure consistency with County -wide Planning Policies (CPPB). CAI $1,000 1.6 Natural Environment 1.6.1 Review goals and policies and, where appropriate, draft language to clearly link the element with the City's economic development goals. Ensure consistency with County -wide Planning Policies (CPPB). CAI, City $1,500 1.6.2 Review goals, policies, and regulations from Shoreline Master AECOM N/A' 1 AECOM will contract separately with the City of Spokane Valley for their work in Phase 3. Spokane Valley Comp Plan Update 1164195 February 4, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Program (SMP) to be used in the Comp Plan update of the Natural Environment Element 1.7 Capital Facilities and Public Services Element 1.7.1 Provide support, as needed, for development of element content as well as goals and policies. Ensure consistency with County -wide Planning Policies (CPPs). CAI, City, F&P $4,500 1.7.2 Draft language, where appropriate to clearly link the element with the City's economic development goals. CAI $1,000 1.8 Private and Public Utilities Element 1.8.1 Provide support, as needed, for development of element content as well as goals and policies. Ensure consistency with County -wide Planning Policies (CPPs). City, CAI $2,500 1.8.2 Draft language, where appropriate, to clearly link the element with the City's economic development goals. CAI $1,000 1.9 Parks and Recreation Element 1.9.1 Provide support, as needed, for development of element content as well as goals and policies. Ensure consistency with County -wide Planning Policies (CPPs). City, CAI $2,500 1.9.2 Draft language, where appropriate, to clearly link the element with the City's economic development goals. CAI $1,000 1.10 Land Use 1.10.1 Analyze and plan for the 20 year population forecast.. Provide recommendations on policy direction and assess policy implications based on previous analysis (e.g. existing conditions report; LQA analysis) CAI, VNF, City $9,000 1.10.3 Analyze the performance of commercial corridors and selected land use designations. These are expected to include the Office, Mixed-use and Multifamily zones as well as industrial and mineral resource lands. Potential for urban infill opportunities will also be studied. CAI, City $10,000 1.10.4 Determine if the population allocation changes to the City's development goals will result in the need to revise the existing land use and zoning maps. Collaborate with City staff to determine appropriate locations for map changes and provide mapping support, as needed. City, CAI, VNF $8,000 1.10.6 Develop three land use alternatives to be evaluated through the City's EIS process, using Citizen -Initiated Amendment Request (CAR) applications and other City -determined factors as the basis. CAI, VNF, City $10,500 1.10.7 Identify policy area priorities and develop goals and policies, integrating Comp Plan Audit Workshop results and ensuring consistency with County -wide Planning Policies. CAI, City $4,500 1.10.8 Draft a brief data -rich narrative that accompanies each of the identified policy area priorities to support the associated goals and policies and link land use to the City's economic development goals. CAI $1,500 1.11 Housing Element 1.11.1 Support analysis of housing needs based on population projections and demographic trends. City, CAI $2,500 1.11.2 Identify policy area priorities, such as affordable housing, and develop goals and policies, integrating Comp Plan Audit Workshop results and ensuring consistency with County -wide Planning CAI, City $4,500 Spokane Valley Comp Plan Update 1164195 February 4, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Policies. Task Lead Cost 1.11.3 Draft a brief data -rich narrative that accompanies each of the identified policy area priorities to support the associated goals and policies and link land use to the City's economic development goals. CAI $1,500 1.12 Economic Development Element VNF $24,500 1.12.1 Present an assessment of the Spokane Valley economy based on previous work performed for the City and provide additional analysis, as needed. CAI $4,500 1.12.2 Identify policy area priorities and develop goals and policies, integrating Comp Plan Audit Workshop results and ensuring consistency with County -wide Planning Policies. The goals and policies are intended to serve as the foundation for a future strategic planning effort. CAI, City $4,500 1.12.3 Draft a brief data -rich narrative that accompanies each of the identified policy area priorities to support the associated goals and policies. CAI $1,500 1.13 Draft and Final Plan 1.13.1 Layout all draft content into the template to ensure that the full document has a consistent appearance and tone. CAI $4,500 1.13.2 Refine City -generated context and overview maps for each element that highlight relevant geographic information. City will provide a Map Package through GIS for each map to be edited. City, CAI $3,500 1.13.3 Legal review of draft plan VNF $6,000 Task 2: Draft Development Regulations Task Lead Cost 2.1 Conduct an audit of the development regulations and recommend sections of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) needing to be updated, including SVMC Titles 19, 20, 21, and 22 VNF $12,000 2.2 Revise development regulations as needed, e.g. multi -family, industrial, and/or office zones, consistent with changes to Comp Plan elements and including annexation procedures VNF $24,500 2.3 Review critical areas regulations and incorporate into the SVMC AECOM, City N/Az 2.4 Develop electric vehicle infrastructure (EVI) code language City, VNF $1,000 Task 3: SEPA and EIS coordination Task Lead Cost 3.1 Assist City staff in reviewing comments received on EIS Scoping Notice and the Draft EIS, as necessary City, CAI, VNF, F&P $4,000 3.2 Legal review of Draft EIS and provide comments VNF $6,000 Task 4: Public Meetings and Revisions Task Lead Cost 4.1 Review comments received at public meetings and make revisions as needed City, CAI, VNF, F&P $5,500 4.2 Develop meeting materials to support Planning Commission workshop City, CAI, VNF, F&P $6,500 2 AECOM will contract separately with the City of Spokane Valley for their work in Phase 3. Spokane Valley Comp Plan Update 1164195 February 4, 2016 Page 4 of 6 4.3 Attend and facilitate one workshop held by the Planning Commission to review draft Comp Plan elements and revisions to development regulations CAI, VNF $6,500 4.4 Develop meeting materials to support public open house CAF&P VNF $6,500 4.5 Develop meeting materials to support Planning Commission Study Session CAI, VNF, F&P $6,500 4.6 Attend and facilitate Planning Commission Study Session CAI, VNF $3,500 4.7 Develop meeting materials to support City Council adoption CAF&P VNF $6,500 4.8 Attend and facilitate one City Council meeting for adoption of updated Comp Plan and Development Regulations VNF, F&P $5,000 Cost Summary by Task Category Estimated Cost Consultant Team Van Ness Feldman $111,500 Community Attributes $129,500 Fehr & Peers (costs described above plus $6,300 for direct costs) $91,500 Estimated Phase 3 Total $332,500 Estimated Phase 3 Total including travel fees (Section 3.0 below) $336,500 3.0 TRAVEL FEES 1. It is anticipated that there will be four trips needed to complete Phase 3. The total estimated fee for all travel is an additional $4,000 (VNF and CAI only). Additional meeting support may necessitate additional fees. Note that this includes direct expenses only as labor costs are assumed above. 4.0 CITY RESPONSIBILITIES 1. City staff shall issue SEPA Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice. 2. City staff shall conduct EIS level review for the Comp Plan update. 3. City staff shall coordinate the EIS process with the consultant team, as needed. 4. City shall be responsible for providing and updating inventory information on capital facilities and utilities as well as parks and recreation facilities. The City will assess capacity of capital facilities and services. 5. City staff shall review stormwater regulations and revise if necessary. 6. City staff shall ensure consistency between Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and zoning code. 7. City staff shall create the required Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets for the LQA methodology, zoning, and land use. The City will create and print all maps associated with the update. 8. City staff shall manage public comment and public noticing efforts related to the comment period for the Draft Comprehensive Plan. 9. City staff shall maintain the project record and provide a copy of the index to the consultant team on a quarterly basis. 10. City staff shall maintain a public comment matrix to track all input received and shall provide a copy of the matrix to the Consultant team on a quarterly basis. Spokane Valley Comp Plan Update 1164195 February 4, 2016 Page 5 of 6 11. City staff shall maintain a mailing list of project stakeholders. 12. City staff shall complete the 60 -Day Notice of Intent to Adopt, sent to the WA Dept. of Commerce. 13. City staff shall promptly review and provide feedback for interim work products submitted by the consultant team. 5.0 SCHEDULE 1. Consultant team is planning under the population projection provided by the City. The Phase 3 scope of work and schedule do not address changes or adjustments to this figure which could affect the timing and scope of this Phase. 2. Schedule subject to regular review and adjustment based on project progress. Spokane Valley Comp Plan Update 1164195 February 4, 2016 Page 6 of 6