The URL can be used to link to this page

2016, 03-29 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, March 29, 2016 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) 6:00 p.m. DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. Adam Jackson, Henry Allen Comprehensive Plan - Water Rights, Water Districts 2. Eric Guth, Erik Lamb, Solid Waste Collection Morgan Koudelka 3. Eric Guth 4. Eric Guth 5. John Hohman, Lori Barlow 6. Mayor Higgins 7. Mayor Higgins 8. Mark Calhoun ADJOURN Washington State Department of Transportation Call for Projects: Bicycles, Safe Routes to School, etc. FASTLANE (Fostering Advancements in Shipping & Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies), and TIGER (Transporta- tion Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Grants Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies Advance Agenda Council Comments City Manager Comments Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Study Session Agenda March 29, 2016 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 29, 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: Comprehensive Plan Update specific to water rights and water districts. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70.A (Growth Management) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: As part of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update, staff reviewed the City's inventory of water supply services. This presentation reviews pertinent water district data and includes district size (population and acreage), water consumption, water rights and land capacity. Staff has prepared a power point presentation that covers all the water districts and how they relate to each other. Also provided is a supplemental informational packet that has a one-page breakdown for each water district. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Henry Allen, Development Engineer Adam Jackson, Assistant Engineer ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Supplemental Packet: 1 -page district breakdown sheets for each district. pokane" Va.11ey Informational Review: Water Purveyors of Spokane Valley March 29, 2016 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Water Districts (16 Total) sikikane .000Valley. • Carnhope Irrigation District #7 • Model Irrigation District #18 • City of Spokane Water Service • Modern Electric Water Company • Consolidated Irrigation District #19 • Orchard Avenue Irrigation District #6 • East Spokane Water District #1 • Pinecroft Mobile Home Park • Holiday Trailer Court • Spokane Business & Industrial Park • Hutchinson Irrigation District #16 • Spokane County Water District #3 (WSA 1 & 2) • Irvin Water District #6 • Trentwood Irrigation District #3 • Kaiser Aluminum - Trentwood • Vera Water & Power Spokane Valley Water Districts Map City of Millwood Holiday Trailer Court Carnhope I.D. #7 City of Spokane Water Service Orchard I.D. #6 Trentwood I.D. #3 Kaiser Alum. Spokane Business & Industrial Park City of Spokane Water Service East Spokane W.D. #1 SCW D #3 WSA 1 Pinecroft M.H. Park Modern Electric Water Co Hutchinson I.D. #16 Model I.D. #18 SCWD## WSA 2 Vera Water & Power SCW D #3 WSA 2 Spokane Valley City Limits SCW D #3 WSA2 Consolidated I.D. #19 Note: 8 of the 16 districts that serve Spokane Valley are fully contained within the city limits. 3 Residential Service Population City of Spokane Water Service Vera Water & Power Consolidated I.D. #19 Modern Electric Water Company Spokane County W.D. #3 (WSA #1 & #2) Model I.D. #18 Trentwood I.D. #3 Irvin W.D. #6 East Spokane W.D. #1 227,505 24,962 22,315 18,560 17,095 6,067 4,188 4,084 4,050 Orchard Avenue I.D. #6 Hutchinson I.D #16 Carnhope I.D. #7 Pinecroft Mobile Home Park Holiday Trailer Court Kaiser Aluminum - Trentwood Spokane Business & Ind. Park Spokane jValley 2,983 2,180 1,750 248 12 0 0 TOTALS (Incl. City of Spokane) TOTALS (Excl. City of Spokane) 2015 OFM COSV Population Est.: 335,999 108,494 93,340 Area Within City Limits Water District Name Area In City Limits Total Service In City Area Limits (By Acres) Water District Name �1,1\-„,U Acres In Total % In City City Limits Acres Limits Consolidated I.D. #19 VeraW&P SCWD #3 (WSA 1 & 2) Modern EWCo. Trentwood I.D. #3 Model I.D. #18 City of Spokane Irvin W.D. #6 Spokane B & I Park 4,132 3,949 3,641 3,309 1,263 1,011 960 949 625 12,433 10,586 6,056 3,309 1,978 1,050 48,220 949 625 33% 37% 60% 100% 64% 96% 2% 100% 100% East Spokane W.D. #1 Orchard Ave. I.D. #6 Kaiser Aluminum Hutchinson I.D. #16 Carnhope I.D. #7 Pinecroft MH Park Holiday Trailer Ct. 602 555 491 371 277 15 5 1,443 563 491 371 277 15 5 42% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Totals (Incl. Spokane) Totals (Excl. Spokane) 22,154 21,194 88,370 25% 40,150 53% Zoning Designations Map by Water District City of Millwood Trentwood I.D. #3 Holiday Trailer Cou City of Spokane Water Service Carnhope I.D. #7 Orchard I.D. #6 Kaiser Alum. Irvin W.D. #6 Spokane Business & Industrial Park SCW D #3 WSA 1 Consolidated It. #19 Modern Electric Water Co Hutchinson I.D. #16 City of Spokane Water Service East Spokane W.D. #1 trei Legend City of Spokane valley FT water Districts Industrial Residential -Commercial Park/Open Space waterbody Model I.D. #18 Vera Water & Power ~FWD ## WSA 2 Note: 8 of the 16 districts that serve Spokane Valley are fully contained within the city limits. SCWD #3 WSA 2 Water District Zoning Designations Within City Limits (By Acres) Carnhope Irrigation District #7 City of Spokane Consolidated Irrigation District #19 East Spokane Water District #1 Holiday Trailer Court Hutchinson Irrigation District #16 Irvin Water District #6 Kaiser Trentwood Model Irrigation District #18 Modern Electric Water Company Orchard Avenue Irrigation District #6 Spokane County Water District #3 Spokane Industrial Park Trentwood Irrigation District #3 Vera Irrigation District #15 Residential Industrial Commercial Parks/Open Space 184 58 53 T 9 1942 351 6 9 17 264 323 31 40 37 2 _ Oi 1018 3 1773 /1.L 34 35 425 24 2382 , 10 600 9 830 7 _-87 8 T_ -; 3028 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 Acres 7 Monthly Residential Water Rate Comparison Spokane .001*Valley Assumes 1 residence consumes 25,000 gallons per month City of Spokane (Service to COSV) $58.65 Modern Electric Water Company $22.80 East Spokane W.D. #1 $43.75 Vera Water & Power $20.13 Carnhope I.D. #7 $35.33 Irvin W.D. #6 $18.19 Orchard Avenue I.D. #6 $35.29 Median Trentwood I.D. #3 $29.28 Average Spokane County W.D. #3 (WSA #1 & #2) $27.01 Hutchinson I.D #16 $27.00 Holiday Trailer Court No Charge Model I.D. #18 $25.68 Kaiser Aluminum - Trentwood No Charge Consolidated I.D. #19 $23.00 Spokane BIP and Pinecroft MH Park are not available. $27.00 $30.51 Annual Water Right Capacity Water District Name 2014 Water Pumped (Ac -Ft) Water Right (Ac -Ft) % Water Right Used Water District Name jUalley 2014 Water Pumped (Ac -Ft) Water Right (Ac -Ft) % Water Right Used VeraW&P SCWD #3 (WSA 1 & 2) Irvin W.D. #6 Consolidated I.D. #19 East Spokane W.D. #1 Model I.D. #18 Hutchinson I.D. #16 Orchard Ave. I.D. #6 Carnhope I.D. #7 10,466 5,469 1,391 13,892 872 2,202 1,086 1,479 515 10,446 6,456 1,768 22,410 1,536 4,115 2,210 3,161 1,150 100% 85% 79% 62% 57% 54% 49% 47% 45% City of Spokane Trentwood I.D. #3 Modern EWCo. 65,077 1,552 6,301 147,570 5,420 29,061 44% 29% 22% Totals (Incl. Spokane) Totals (Excl. Spokane) 110,302 235,303 47% 45,225 87,733 52% Spokane B & I Park Kaiser Aluminum - 7,582 2 2, 644 Holiday Trailer Ct. and Pinecroft MH Park are not available. City Land Capacity vs. Water Rights: S`p`okane Residential Zoning Designations Only Walley LQA Capacity % Land % Water Water District for New Capacity Right Connections Used Used LQA Capacity % Land % Water Water District for New Capacity Right Connections Used Used Vera W & P 1,400 87% 100% SCW D #3 654 91% 85% Irvin W.D. #6 306 87% 79% Consolidated I.D. #19 1,650 83% 62% East Spokane W.D. #1 166 91% 57% Model I.D. #18 112 96% 54% Hutchinson I.D. #16 88 90% 49% Orchard Ave. I.D. #6 40 97% 47% Carnhope I.D. #7 City of Spokane Trentwood I.D. #3 Modern EWCo. 45 92% 45% 12 N/A 44% 466 75% 29% 1,073 87% 22% TOTALS 6,012 88% 52%* (*Ex. W.R. Capacity % excludes City of Spokane) DOH does not allow SBIP, Kaiser, Holiday nor Pinecroft to add any new connections; they are excluded. jou QUESTIONS? Carnhope Irrigation District #7 DOH Water System ID: Spokane VaHey 11250 Inaugural Year: DOH Residential Service Population; 1921 1,750 Water System Plan Year: 2008 1Service Area Size (in Acres} Area within City limits: DOH Service Connections: 277 Single Family: Total Service Area: 383 277 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City limits: 62 100% Commercial/Industrial: 35 [Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment DOH Total Service Connections: 4R6 Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): 2014 515 1,150 % of Water Right Consumed by District: 45 % 1. Equivalent Residential Unit (galfday) 802 (taken from Water System Plan) Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSV Limits (Data per Lard Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County (LCIA)) 451 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 connection) 45 (assume full build -out per ex. zoning) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: Max. Number of R- and ME- Connections: 496 Ex. Connections as A of Maximum Capacity: 91%. System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements Distribution System Leakage (DSL) is high. Ongoing replacement/ upgrading of all service meters (on 10 -yr cycles) and in -need areas of the distribution system. Replace 2 -port hydrants with 3 -port hydrants, Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of imater Rate Schedule Type: Declining block rate Capacity for Addt'I Pop. Growth (ppl): 112 (based on LOA ratio for DUE to pp!) Existing System Components 2 well pump stations, 0 reservoirs, 7 miles of water lines $ 35.33 Distribution System Leakage -DSL: 47 69;', (value is a 3 -yr running average) City of Spokane Water Service DOH Water System ID: Stiokane 400'.*CHH 83100K Inaugural Year: DOH Residential Service Population: 1883 227,505 Water System Plan Year: Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits: Total Service Area: 2013 DOH Service Connections: 960 Single Family (602 within COSV): 70,078 48220 Multi -Family: 4,267 Percentage of Area in City limits: 2% Commercial/Industrial: 10,906 'Total Water Pumped vse Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volurne Below: 2013 Total Water Pumped by District (ac -f* DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft % of Water Right Consumed by nistrict: 65,077 147,570 44% 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (galfday) DOH Total Service Connections: 85,251 359 (taken from Water System Plan) Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSY Limits (Data per Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County (W,4) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 602 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 12 614 Capacity for Addt'l Pup. Growth (ppl): 31 Ex. Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: 98% (based an LOA ratio for DUs to ppl) 'System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements Aging infrastructure and demand growth creates the need to rehabilitate/replace wells, pump houses, and reservoirs. New growth requires new reservoirs and pump houses to serve new areas. Also, aging water lines conrirtually need replaced. Existing System Components 7 well stations, 14 wells, 27 well pumps, 25 booster pump stations, 72 booster pumps, 34 reservoirs, and >1,000 miles of water lines. MVlontlily Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water $ 5$.65 Distribution System Leakage -DSL: Rate Schedule Type: Inclining block rate (value is a 3 -yr running average) 18.5% Consolidated Irrigation District #19 DOH Water System ID: 10220 & 10221 DOH Residential Service Population; Sj�k .0••••*Valley Inaugural Year: 1966 22,315 Water System Plan Year: 'Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits: 2009 DOH Service Connections: 4,132 Single Family: Total Service Area: 7,921 12,433 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City limits: 1,468 33% Commercial/Industrial: Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: 2014 Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): Jo of Water Right Consumed by District: 13,892 22,410 62% 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (gal/day) 220 DOH Total Service Connections: 9,609 1,449 (taken from Water System Plan) 'Land Capacity used on Existing N- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSI( Limits (Data per Lard QuantityAnaiysrs Methodology far Spokane County (LOA)) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 9,389 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: 1,650 Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 11,039 Ex. Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: 85% Capacity for Addt'I Fop, Growth (ppi): 3,965 (based on LOA ratio for DUs to ppl) System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captiai improvements Existing System Components "North" system is not treated for disinfection. Some reservoirs may not be able to meet future demand. Ongoing upsizing of mainlines req'd. Niew pressure zones to improve system. Rehab wells and provide backup power for emergency/redundancy. Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water S 23.00 Rate. Schedule Type: Deci. (Summer) & Incl. ( ++,'inter) 34 wells at 11 well sites, 8 pressure zones, 15 reservoirs, 3 boaster stations, and 168 miles of water mains. Distribution System Leakage -DSI.: 15.9% (•tip{ lie is a 3 -yr running average) East Spokane Water District #1 DOH Water System ID: Spa„omkane .000%lley 216506 Inaugural Year: 1917 d01 -I Residential Service Population: 4,050 Water System Plan Year: (Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits: 2007 DOH Service Connections: 602 Single Family: Total Service Area: 1,176 1,443 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City limits: 381 42% Commercial/Industrial: 102 DOH Total Service Connections: 1,659 Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: 2014. Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): % of Water Right Consumed by District: 872 Notes:Waternom-r,rec- A.:: -:':r 2.:r;f 1,53 from SCVda AR3 vii nic:riic _ 1.1361 ac -ft In(:u[1es 5700 aL ft afwater taken 1r;:rn r.rLtirt r::, via inkerrie agreement. 57% 1 Equivalent Residential Unit {gal/day) 560 (taken from Water System Plan) and Capacity Based on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSY Limits (Data per Lona' Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County (LQA)) Ex. Number of R- and IVIF- Connections: 1,557 Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: 166 (1 dwelling unit (DU) - 1 connection) Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 1,723 Ex. Connections as % of MVlaximum Capacity: 90% System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements Storage capacity isa limiting factor in order to meet growth demands. Booster pump upgrades, along with a new intertie with Modern, is proposed to help alleviate pumping demand on the system and its water rights. Also, ongoing mainline replac.ernent is required. Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water Capacity for Addt°I Pop. Growth (ppl): 340 (based on LQA ratio for DUs to ppl) Existing System Components 7 wells with 9 pumps, 5 pressure zones with 4 booster stations, 3 reservoirs. Length of mainlines not avaiable. $ 43.75 Distribution System Leakage -DSL: 24.2% Rate Schedule Type: Flat Overage rate (value is a 3 -yr running average) Holiday Trailer Court DOH Waiter System ID: Sptikane jUalley 336791-1 Inaugural Year: 1970 DOH Residential Service Population: 12 Water System Plan Year: Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits: Total Service Area: 1DOH Service Connections: 5 Single Family: 7 5 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City limits: 100% Commercial/Industrial. DOH Total Service Connections: (Total Water Pumped vs. Water bights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual W ter Right Allotment (ac -ft}: % of Water Right Consumed by District - 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (gal/day) DOH DOES NQT REQUIRE FILES TO BE ON -FILE FOR WATER SYSTEMS THAT DO NOT PLAN ON GROWING, CONSUMPTION DATA 15 NOT AVAILABLE. - (no Water System Plan, no data on file) Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSV Limits (Data per Laud Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County (WA)) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 7 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: Max. Number of R- and ME- Connections: 7 Ex. Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: 100© Capacity for Addtrl Pop. Growth (ppl): 0 (based on LQA ratio for DUs to ppl). System Infrastructure Details System Notes: This is a residential well from 1960s or 1970s that has been split to provide service to 6 mobile homes in addition to the original house. The owner of the well does not charge the residents any consumption charge, There is no available consumption or allottrrtetment data. Existing System Components 1 well only (unmetered) Monthty Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water No Charge Distribution System Leakage-0SL: Rate Schedule Type: N/A (value is a 3 -yr running average) N/A Hutchinson Irrigation District #16 DOH Water System ID: Spokane jUalley 351001 Inaugural Year: DOH Residential Service Population: 1909 2,180 Water System Plan Year: Service Area Size (in Acres) Are within City limits: Total Service Area: 2009 DOH Service Connections: 371 Single Family: 371 Multi -Family: 763 109 Percentage of Area in City limits; 100% Commercial/Industrial: 17 DOH Total Service Connections: 889 Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year fc'r Pumped Volume Below: Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft):. DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): % of Water Right Consumed by District: 2014 1,0886 2,210 49% 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (gal/day) 754 (takers from Water System Plan) Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSV Limits (Data per Land Quantity Analysis Methodology far Spokane County (Lal)) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 872 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 connection} Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: 88 Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 960 Ex. Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: 91% Capacity for Addt'I Pop_ Growth (ppl): 219 (based on LQA ratio for DUs to ppl) System Infrastructure Details System DeficienciesfCaptial improvements Portions of distribution system are old and undersized and need replaced, Ongoing service meter replacement (an 10 - year cycles). These improvements should help with system loss (leakage). Existing System Components 2 welts with 4 well pumps, 1 reservoir, and 12 miles of water mains. Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water $ 27.00 Distribution System Leakage -DSL: 45.E% Rate Schedule Type: Flat Overage rate (value is a 3 -yr running, average) Irvin Water District #6 DDH Water System ID: Siokane Valley 3605D Inaugural Year: DOH Residential Service Population: 1927 4,084 Water System Plan Year: Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits:: Total Service Area: 2015 [DOH Service Connections: 949 Single Family: 949 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City limits: 100% Camrnercial/Industrial: 824 1,038 164 DOH Total Service Connections: 2,026 Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: 2014. Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): 1,391 DDE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): 1,768 % of Water Right Consumed by District: 79% 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (gal/day) 449 (taken from Water System Plan) Land Capacity used on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COW Limits (Data per Land QuantifyAnalysis Methodology for Spokane County (LQA)) Ex. Nurnber of R- and MF- Connections: 1,862 (1 dwelling unit (DU) . 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: Ex. Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: 305 2,168 8E% Capacity for Addt°1 Pop. 3rowth (ppl): 615 (based on LQA ratio for DUs to ppl) [System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements Existing System Components Ongoing maintenance of system facilities. Long term upgrades 4 well pump stations and 2 reservoirs tivith and expansion to the distribution system is required for growth. A new office building and/or storage building is long term goal. Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water Rate Schedule Type: Flat Overage rate 23 miles of water lines. 18.19 Distribution System Leakage -DSL: (value is a 3 -yr running average) 9.8% Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Kaiser Aluminum Trentwood ❑01-I NArater System ID: Spokane jUalley 374506 Inaugural Year: DOH Non -Residential Service Pop.: 8U4 Water System Plan Year: Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City Limits: 'DOH Service Connections: 491 Single Family: Total Service Area: 491 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City limits: 100% Commercial/Industrial: 5 DOH Total Service Connections: Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): of Water Right Consumed by District: 2015 6,539 22,G44 29% 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (gal/day) DOH DOES NOT REQUIRE FILES TO RE ON - HAND r=0R WATER SYSTEMS THAT DO NOT PLAN ON GROWING. - (no residential uses exist in this district) Land Capacity Based on Existing R-, and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSV Limits (Data per Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County (LOA)) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: - (1 dwelling unit (DO) = 1 connection) Capacity far Additional Dwelling Units: Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: Ex. Conrrections as % of Maximum CapaLity: Capacity for Addt'I Pop. Growth (ppl): D (based ori LQA ratio for DUs to ppl) System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements Ongoing repair and rehabilitation of pumps and water lines. Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water Rate Schedule Type: N/A Existing System Components 2 active wells (and 1 inactive well) serving 2,100 LF of water lines. NOTE: Water rights are divided for two uses:324 ac -ft for domestic use and 22,320 ac -ft for industrial use. No Charge Distribution System Leakage -DSL: N/A (value is a 3 -yr running average) Model Irrigation District #18 DCH Water System ID: Spokane jUalley 555500 Inaugural Year: DOH Residential Service Population: 1910 6,067 Water System Plan Year: 2011 Service Area Size {in Acres) Area within City limits: IDOH Service Connections: 1,011 Single Family: 2,286 Total Service Area: 1,050 Multi -Family; Percentage of Area in City limits: 240 9696 Commercial/Industrial: 6 ❑OH Total Service Connections: 2,532 Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: 2014 Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): % of Water Right Consumed by District: 2,202 4,115 54. 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (galjday) 631 (takers from Water System Plant) 'Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSV Limits (Data per Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County (LQA)) Ex, Number of R- and MF- Connections: 2,526 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: 112 Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 2,638 Ex. Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: 96% Capacity for Addt'1 Pop. Growth f ppl): 251 (based on LOA ratio for DUs to ppl) 'System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements 8 miles of system piping to he replaced aver the next 20 years: budgeted >$100,000 on mainline replacement annually. Reservoir capacity is below DOH standard: automatic emergency intertie k available and additional pump capacity is available to meet high flow demands. Existing System Components 6 wells with 1 booster pump station, 2 reservoirs and 36 miles of water lines. Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water $ 25.68 Distribution System Leakage -D51: Rate Schedule Type: Inclining block rate (value is a 3 -yr running average) 4.3% 1 Modern Electric Water Company DOH Water System ID: Spokane jUalley 556008 Inaugural Year: DOH Residential Service Population: 1905 18,560 Water System Plan Year. 'Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits: Total Service Area: 2013 1DOFI Service Connections: 3,309 Single Family: 3,309 Multi -Fancily: 4,087 3,351 Percentage of Area in City limits: 100% Commercial/Industrial: 824 DOH Total Service Connections: 8,262 'Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft}: DDE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): of Water Right Consumed by District: 2015 6,301 29.061 22% 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (gal/day) 531 (taken from Water System Plan) Land Capacity Rased on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSY Limits (Data per Land Quantity Anolysis Methodology for Spokane County (LQA)) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 7,438 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dwelling units: 1,073 Max. Number of F- and MF- Connections: 8,511. Ex. Connections as Yo of Maximum Capacity: 87% Capacity for Addt`I Pop. Growth {pp# 2,324 (based on LOA ratio for MUsto ppl) System Infrastructure Details System Deficienciesf Captial Improvements Replace 1 well, rehabilitate 1 well, improve various seeti:o 1s of the distribution system to meet fire and peak demand flows. Ongoing meter and distribution network repair/replacement is also required. Existing System Components 11 at g diffferent well sites. 2 pressure reduciing valves for the 2 pressure zones, 3 rrs ryrtfc,irs. ars l 100 miles of water lines. Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water $ 22.80 Distribution System Leakage -DSL: Rate Schedule Type: Flat Overage rate (value is a 3 -yr running average) 5.0 1 Orchard Avenue Irrigation District #6 DOH Water System ID: Sptik'ane \iil ley 64000 E Inaugural Year: 1920s DOH Residential Service Population: 2,983 Water System Plan Year: F5ervice Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits: Total Service Area: 2015 IDOH Service Connections: 555 Single Family: 1,237 563 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City limits: 18 9994 Commercial/Industrial: 1 DOH Total Service Connections: 1,259 Total Water Pumped vs, Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: 2014 Tota] Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment lac -ft): '; of Water Right Consumed by District: 1,479 3,161 4796 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (gal/day) 483 (taken from Water System Planj 'Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within CO5V Limits (Data per Lond Quantity Anoflysis Methodology for Spokane County (LQA)) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 1,255 (1 dwelling knit DU} = 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: 40 Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 1,295 Ex. Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: 9710 'System Infrastructure Details Capacity for Addt'I Pop. Growth (ppl): 100 (based on LOA ratio for DUs to ppl) System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements The system operates with little redundancy due to only 2 wells and no storage tanks. 25% of the distribution system has Teak -issues and consists of cast-iron pipe that needs replaced. About 200 service meters need removed from basements arid replaced at propertly Tines. Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water Existing System Components 2 wells with 5 well pumps that serve 1 pressure one. There are 0 reservoirs and roughly 21 miles of water lines. $ 35.29 Distribution System Leakage -DSL: 13.4% Rate Schedule type: Flat Overage rate (value is a 3 -yr running average} Pinecroft Mobile Park DOH Water System ID: bkane .000Valley 67623 F Inaugural Year: DOH Residential Service Pop.: 1970 248 Water System Plan Year: [Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits: Total Service Area: N/4 JDOH Service Connections: 15 Single Family: 15 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City limits: 139 100% Commercial/Industrial: DOH Total Service Connections: 139 Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Belovf: Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): % of Water Right Consumed by District: 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (galfday) DOH DOES NOT REQUIRE FILES TO BE ON -FIFE FOR WATER SYSTEMS THAT DO NOT PLAN ON GROWING. CONSUMPTION DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE_ - (no Water System Plan, no data on file) Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and IVMF- Zoning Designations Within COSY Limits (Data per Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for$pokone County (LQA)) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 139 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dowelling Units: Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 139 Ex. Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: 100% Capacity for Addt'I Pop. Growth (pp!): 0 (based on LCCA ratio for DUs to ppl) 'System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements Monthly Cost for 25,0Q0 Gallons of Water Rate Schedule Type: Existing System Components Distribution System Leakage -DSL: (value is a 3 -yr running average) Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSY Limits Spokane Business and Industrial Park DOH Water System ID: Spokane jUalley 83027K Inaugural Year: DOH Non -Residential Service Pop.: 1942 3,500 Water System Plan Year: 1989 1Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City Limits: Total Service Area: DOH Service Connections: 625 Single Family: 625 Ivlulti-Fancily: Percentage of Area in City limits: 100% Commercial/Industrial: 252 Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): A of Water Right Consumed by District: 7,582 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (galfday) DOH Total Service Connections: 252 DOH DOES NOT REQUIRE FILES TO BE ON - RAND FOR WATER SYSTEMS TI -IAT DO NOT PLAN ON GROWING. CONSUMPTION DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE. no Water System Plan, no data on file) (Data per Land Quantity Analysis Methotiologifar Spokane County (LQA)) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: - {1 dwelling unit {DLI) = 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections E. Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: Capacity for Addt'I Pop. Growl') WO): 0 (based on LOA ratio for DUs to p[JI) System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements Monthly Cost for 25,040 Gallons of Water $ Rate Schedule Type: Existing System Components Per 1989 WSP on file at DOH: 4 wells, 2 reservoirs and 11 miles of w`?i' .r lines. Distribution System Leakage -DSL: (value is a 3 -yr running average) Spokane County Water District #3 (WSA 1 + 2) DOH Water System ID: 93350 & 93351 DOH Residential Service Population: Spokane jUalley Inaugural Year: 1986 17,095 Water System Plan Year: 2011 Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits: DOH Service Connections: 3,641 Single Family: Total Service Area: 4,852 6,056 Multi-Farnily: Percentage of Area in City limits: 1,986 60% Commercial/Industrial: Rota! Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment 318 DOI-1 Total Service Connections: 7,156 Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: 2014 Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): 5,469 Mater pumped excludes 42 ac -ft sold to 6,456 ESWD 411 via intertie - this is rare,) of Water Right Consumed by District: 85'% 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (gal/day) 611 (taken as weighted average of WSA 1 + 2) Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and Mr- Zoning Designations Within COSY Limits (Data per Land Quantity Analysis Methodology for Spokane County (LQA)) Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: Capacity for Additional Dwelling units: 6,838 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 Connection) 654 Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: Ex. Connections as a of Maximum Capacity: 7,492 91°A Capacity -for Addt'I Pop. Growth (pp!): 1,491 (based on LOA ratio for DUs to ppl) System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Ca ptial Improvements Ongoing transmission line replacement, providing an intertie between Water Service Areas 1 and 2, upgrade WSA #1 well pump, replace WSA142 reservoir and booster pump. To accommodate growth, 2 new reservoirs and 3 new booster stations are required. Existing System Components 8 ,! -tive wells (4 unactive wells also owned by district) with 6 pump stations and 16 pumps, 6 reservoirs and roughly 200 miles of wati:r lines system Wide. Monthly Cost for 25600E Gallons of Water $ 27.01 Distribution System Leakage -DSL: Rate Schedule Type: Inclining block rate 9.3% ',6 5A 141 14:4, \NSA #2: 7.3% Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSV Limits I Trentwood Irrigation District #3 DOH Water System ID: .0•0°Valley 89250 C Inaugural Year: DOH Residential Service Population: 1918 4,188 Water System Plan Year: 2009 Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits: DOH Service Connections: 1,263 Single Family: 1,46D Total Service Area' 1,978 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City Iirnits: 267 64% Commercial/Industrial: 162 DOH Total Service Connections: 1,889 'Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: 2014 Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): 1,552 5,420 % of \Vater Right Consumed by District: 293 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (gal/day) 421 (Data per Land Quantity Anai'ysrs Methodology far Spokane County (LQA)) 1,727 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 connection) 466 2,193 Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections: Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: Ex. Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: 79% Capacity for Addt'i Pap. Growth (pp!): 1461 (based on LOA ratio for DUsta ppl) 'System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements No treatment is provided at the welt sources, and ongoin8 system mainline replacement is required. Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water Existing System Components 4 well pump stations, 3 booster stations, 3 pressure zones, 4 reservoirs, 2 emergency back up wells, and 35 miles of water lines. $ 29.28 Distribution System Leakage -DSL 13.8% Rate Schedule Type: Flat Overage rate (value is approx. & based on 4 year values} Land Capacity Based on Existing it- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSV Limits 1 Vera Water & Power DOH Water System ID: .0,00Valley 914505 Inaugural Year: DOH Residential Service Population: 190 24,962 Water System Plan Year: Service Area Size (in Acres) Area within City limits: 2015 [9H Service Connections: 3,949 Single Family: 7,121 Total Service Area: 10,586 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City limits: 2,874 37% Commercial/Industrial: 408 DOH Total Service Connections; 10,403 Total Water Pumped vs. Water bights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: 2014 Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): 10,466 DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): 10,446 % of Water Right Consumed by District: 100°% 1 Equivalent Residential Unit (gal/day) 711 (taken as weighted average of WSA 1 + 2) (Data per Land Quantity Anafy.'siL Methodology for Spokane County (WA)) Ex. Number of R- and ME- Connections: 9,995 (1 dwelling unit (DU) = 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: 1,400 Max, Number of R- and MF- Connections: 11,395 Ex. Connections as %a of Maximum Capacity: 88% Capacity for Addt'I Pop. Growth (ppl): 3,328 (based on LQA ratio for DUs to ppl) System Infrastructure Details System Deficiencies/Captial Improvements Various areas of main line need upsited. An overflow collection & piping sytem project for the 4 NiG reservoir is proposed. Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water Existing System Components 9 wells with 6 booster stations and 5 reservoirs, along with 145 miles of water lines. $ 20.13 Distribution System Leakage -DSL: 12.2% Rate Schedule Type: Declining Block rate (value is a 3 -yr running average] 1 All Water Districts pokane Serving Spokane Valley 410.0 Valley DOH Water System ID: Inaugural Year: Residential Service Pop. (Excl. Spokane): 108,494 Water System Plan Year: Service Area Size (Acres, Excl. City of Spokane) Area within City limits: DOH Service Connections: 21,194 Single Family (Incl. 602 Spokane): Total Service Area: 32,858 40,150 Multi -Family: Percentage of Area in City limits: 11,800 53% Commercial/Industrial: 2,517 DOH Total Service Connections: 47,175 Total Water Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment Calendar Year for Pumped Volume Below: Total Water Pumped by District (ac -ft): DOE Annual Water Right Allotment (ac -ft): 45,225 Total W ter Pumped vs. Water Rights Allotment - 87,733 Excludes: % of Water Right Consumed by All Districts: 52° COS, 513IP, Kaiser, Pinecroft, & Holiday 1 Equivalent Residential Unit {gal/day} 870 Weighted average of reporting districts -excludes COS, Kaier, SKIP, Pinecroft, Holiday) Land Capacity Based on Existing R- and MF- Zoning Designations Within COSV Limits (Data per Land Quantity Analysis Methoc'aJogy for Spokane County («)j Ex. Number of R- and MF- Connections. 44,658 (1 dwelling unit (DLJ) = 1 connection) Capacity for Additional Dwelling Units: 6,012 Max. Number of R- and MF- Connections: 50,670 Ex, Connections as % of Maximum Capacity: 88x10 Capacity for Addt'I Pap. Growth (ppl): 13,937 (based an LCCA ratio for DUs to ppl) System Infrastructure Details System Doficienciesf Captial Improvements Monthly Cost for 25,000 Gallons of Water $ 30.51 IAveragF_ Ninthly Cost For reporting dis,:ricrs-excludes Kaiser, 551P, FFinc:L ror,. Holiday) Existing System Components Distribution System Leakage -DSL: 13,5% NVeT,htcd Average DSL of reporting districts -exclude COS, Kaier, SBIP, Pinecroft, Holiday) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 29, 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: Solid Waste Collection Services RFP Development Update PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Under Washington law, solid waste collection and solid waste collection companies are regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (the "WUTC") until such time as a City takes affirmative action to take over collection responsibilities. While regulated by the WUTC, solid waste collection companies are granted a certificate (referred to as a "G -Certificate") allowing the company to provide service within a given area, where they operate pursuant to terms and rates set forth in a tariff. G -Certificates set forth the particular collection services and rates for the solid waste collection company within a given area. When a city assumes control of solid waste collection, the G -Certificate will be cancelled for the area within the city and Washington law provides that the solid waste collection company shall be compensated for the cancellation of the WUTC G -Certificate. Pursuant to RCW 35.02.160, the solid waste collection company is entitled to a minimum of at least seven years of continued services, plus any additional time to account for additional "measurable damages." While the compensation may be made by direct payment, typically the compensation occurs through continued services for a set period of time. On November 17, 2014, the City entered into contracts for solid waste collection services with Waste Management of Washington, Inc. (WMW) and Sunshine Disposal, Inc. (SDI) to cancel their G -Certificates, extinguish any remaining rights to "measurable damages," and to allow the City to fully assume control of solid waste collection. These contracts maintain the prior services provided by WMW and SDI under their G -Certificates and terminate on March 31, 2018. With the termination date just two years away, staff has begun the process to procure long-term solid waste collection services through a competitive process. This process will allow the City to seek lower rates and additional services from the selected provider or providers. To begin the process, staff issued a request for proposals and ultimately selected Epicenter Services, LLC, from the two submittals to assist the City with procurement of solid waste collection services. Staff conducted a kickoff meeting with Epicenter on Wednesday, March 16 where we discussed project planning topics: • Public Involvement — As part of the development of the next contract, it is important to receive public feedback on existing services that they like and additional services they would like to see. Examples include additional spring pick-up, frequency of yard waste or recycling pick-up, or other event pick-up options. While we are still developing the public participation program, we anticipate using short surveys through Citywide mailers and the City's website, press releases, and comments at Council meetings on the additional services to incorporate feedback. We anticipate this process to take the next three to five months as the request for proposal (RFP) or request for bid (RFB) is developed. Public input and Council input will be incorporated into the RFP/RFB as it is received. • Service Areas — Currently, the City is broken into two service areas by line of business. WMW collects all residential and some commercial waste, and SDI collects some commercial and roll -off services. While the City may wish to combine all services into one contract, there is competitive benefit to maintain a separation by line of business (e.g., one contract for residential and one for commercial) to encourage multiple responses and to encourage the lowest rates in the responses. Staff believes that maintaining a separation of the contract by line of business is in the best interest, but has not determined the specific breakdown in the separation of lines of business. • Schedule — The current contracts expire in two years. However, Epicenter has indicated a need to have at least one year available for transition if a new provider is selected (to set up accounts, put out new carts, etc.). As a result, the anticipated schedule will require advertisement for proposals in September 2016, with selection and award in February to March 2017 to allow adequate time for proposals to be submitted, evaluated and contractor(s) selected and allow for the transition period. • City Council Process — Today is the initial discussion with City Council. We have just begun this process and will be back before Council multiple times as the proposal is ultimately developed. At the end of the process, Council will be provided with a recommendation from staff on a provider for Council's consideration and approval. Thus, today we welcome any input on the items discussed, understanding that each of these items will be discussed in more detail at future Council meetings. Next Steps? ➢ Meeting with Council on desired services. Develop survey for residents and businesses regarding desired services. ➢ Mailer, website survey, and additional public input during next three to five months (by late summer). ➢ Consultant will begin developing outline of RFP/RFB so that public input and Council input can be incorporated into RFP/RFB as it is obtained. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown with regard to future Solid Waste Collection Service rates; City has contracted with Epicenter Services, LLC, to assist with the competitive procurement process. The contract provides for the City to pay Epicenter for services up to $47,500. Costs for the consultant will be paid from the City's solid waste administrative fee collected as a part of the Sunshine Transport and Disposal contract and may be recouped in the future through either a contract administration or franchise fee assessed against the successful solid waste collection service provider. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, Public Works Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 29, 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: 2016 Call for Projects for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: The WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) issued a Call for projects for the statewide Safe Routes to School and Pedestrian and Bicycle grant programs. This call is for federal and state funding for the 2017-2019 biennium. Currently, $18.4 million is anticipated statewide for the Pedestrian and Bicycle program and $19.2 million statewide for the Safe Routes to School Program. The Safe Routes to School program solicits projects that address school traffic safety, access and mobility within two miles of a school and/or local transportation safety program servicing children in grades K-12. The purpose is to increase the number of children walking and biking to school safely. Projects may include sidewalk improvements, traffic calming and speed reduction improvements, and pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements. The application deadline for Safe Route to School program is May 13, 2016. The Pedestrian and Bicycle program solicits projects that reduce pedestrian and bicycle collisions and increase the number of people who choose to walk and bike for transportation. Projects of these types are facilities or systems to increase pedestrian/bicycle safety and/or mobility infrastructure improvements. The application deadline for the Pedestrian and Bicycle program is May 6, 2016. Staff reviewed the grant criteria for both programs and recommends the following projects under each grant program: Safe Routes to School Wellesley Sidewalk Project (north side only), McDonald to Evergreen $580,000 16th Ave Street Lighting Project, Dishman Mica to University $230,000 Mission Ave Street Lighting Project, McDonald to Sullivan $390,000 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Indiana Ave Sidewalk Project, Pines (SR -27) to STA Park & Ride $600,000 OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No financial match is required for these projects; however, the "Call for Projects" indicates that projects with matching funds will be scored more favorably. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, P.E., Senior Capital Projects Engineer; Eric Guth, P.E., Public Works Director. ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 29, 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: USDOT 2016 FASTLANE and TIGER VIII Call for Projects GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of 2016-2021 Six -Year TIP, Resolution No. 15-005, June 23, 2015; Consensus to move ahead with these grant opportunities and with consultant assistance at the March 15 Council Workshop. BACKGROUND: The USDOT issued a 2016 Call for Projects for two grant programs; the FASTLANE (Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies) and the TIGER VIII (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) competitive grant programs. Details for each grant program are listed below: TIGER VIII The USDOT issued a Call for Projects for the TIGER VIII grant program on February 23, 2016. The TIGER VIII program will fund $500M for transportation projects across the country. These capital funds will be for surface transportation infrastructure and will be awarded on a competitive basis for projects that will have a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. The City applied for TIGER grant funds in 2014 and 2015 for the "Bridging the Valley " Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Proiect without success. . Staff would like to pursue funding for this project again this year. Applications are due on April 29, 2016. FASTLANE On February 26, 2016, USDOT announced it is soliciting applications for $800 million in FASTLANE grants. The availability of the dedicated grants marks the first time in USDOT history that a program establishes broad, multiyear eligibilities for freight infrastructure, including intermodal projects across the country. FASTLANE grants will address many of the challenges outlined in the USDOT report "Beyond Traffic," including increased congestion on the nation's highways and the need for a strong multimodal transportation system to support the expected growth in freight movement both by ton and value. It is also in line with the Department's draft National Freight Strategic Plan released in October 2015, which looks at challenges and identifies strategies to address impediments to the efficient flow of goods throughout the nation. Staff evaluated the FASTLANE grant criteria and recommends that the City pursue FASTLANE grant funding for both the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation and the Pines Road/BNSFGrade Separation Proiects. Both projects improve truck and train operations, Page 1 of 4 enhance safety and emergency vehicle access, reduce noise, and are improvements to the City's overall quality of life. Applications are due on April 14, 2016. Need for Consultant Services TIGER and FASTLANE grant programs fund projects up to $100 M. Because these grants are specifically targeted to fund larger projects, the application process is much more complex. These grant applications require the submitting agency to quantify safety benefits, emissions and air quality analysis, and provide a detailed Benefit/Cost Analysis. For the City to be competitive in these types of grant applications, the City will need to hire a consultant who has the expertise and staff available to prepare these applications by the April deadlines. Staff Recommendations TIGER VIII Last year City staff reviewed our prior TIGER application with USDOT staff who stated that the project was a good project, it met the grant criteria, it scored high, and made the recommended funding short list. However, the project was not funded in either round because there were more project needs than funds available. Staff recommends that a TIGER VIII grant application be submitted for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Proiect again this year because USDOT review staff is familiar with the project and with an updated project application, with a little different presentation, may score well enough this round to receive funding. FASTLANE Because the FASTLANE grant program targets projects that address freight mobility, the City's Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation and Pines Road/BNSF Grade Separation projects are strong candidates. These projects remove several at -grade railroad crossings. Removing the train conflicts increase the efficiency of the transportation system by significantly reducing or eliminating delay time of both trucks and trains, resulting in improved air quality and safety. Staff recommends that FASTLANE grant applications be submitted for both the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation and Pines Road/BNSF Grade Separation projects. For these grant programs, projects are categorized based on size: small projects are $5 - $25 million, large projects are $25 - $100 million. A minimum of 20% of the total available grant funds must go towards projects in the small category. Unfortunately, this makes this category much more competitive. Since the large project category will likely be less competitive (fewer projects competing for the available grant funds), staff considered the potential of combining both Barker and Pines projects into a single FASTLANE grant application but decided two separate applications would be in the best interest of the City. Page 2 of 4 GRANT Options Project funding under each of the two grant programs are outlined below: USDOT 2016 FASTLANE and TIGER VIII Call for Projects ($'s in millions) TIGER VIII GRANT Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation Project Total Estimated Project Cost $29.20 FMSIB Grant Award $5.84 Federal Earmark $0.72 Subtotal $22.64 TIGER GRANT ((80% of $29.2M) -Earmark -$22.64 Fully Funded $0 FASTLANE GRANT Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation Project Total Estimated Project Cost $29.20 FMSIB Grant Award -$5.84 Federal Earmark -$0.72 Remaining Balance $22.64 FASTLANE GRANT ((60% of $29.2M) -Earmark) -$17.52 Subtotal $5.12 City Funds -$2.90 Remaining Shortfall $2.22 Pines Rd Underpass, BNSF & Trent Total Estimated Project Cost $17.20 FASTLANE GRANT ((60% of $17.2M) -$10.32 Subtotal $6.88 City Funds -$0.50 Remaining Shortfall $6.38 OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion Page 3 of 4 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Consultant services to prepare these grants are estimated to be approximately $90,000. If the City is successful in obtaining these grant funds, the City would be responsible for the local match. The local match for TIGER VIII is 20% of the total project cost. For the FASTLANE grant, the local match is 40%. However, a combination of Federal grants can fund up to 80% of the project cost and a combination of State and local funds can count for towards the local match. Staff will continue to pursue other grant funding opportunities to provide the additional matching funds. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric P. Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Project Summary Sheets Page 4 of 4 Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation Spokane Valley 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Project Description: The Project builds an overpass for Barker Road over the BNSF tracks, adds on- and off -ramps from Barker Road to Trent Avenue (SR -290), incorporates a realignment of Wellesley Ave, and provides safe passage for bikes and pedestrians across both the BNSF rail line and SR -290. In addition, the Project would eliminate train -vehicle conflicts, remove automobile delays, and improve the level -of service (LOS) rating for the intersection from "F" to "A." Benefits of Project: The Project would eliminate train -vehicle conflicts, remove automobile delays, and improve the LOS for the intersection from "F" to "A." The realignment of Wellesley Avenue mitigates congestion on SR -290 by consolidating access points for Barker and Wellesley into one interchange. The addition of bike and ADA compliant pedestrian access on the overpass encourages alterna- tive modes of transportation to nearby businesses, residences and schools. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $5,120,000 Right of Way (RW) = $1,800,000 Construction (CN) = $22,280,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $29,200,000 Pines Rd Underpass, BNSF & Trent 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Project Description: This project proposes to reconstruct Pines Road to pass under four BNSF tracks. To accommodate this Trent Avenue will also be lowered, similar to the Argonne Road underpass. This project will allow the City of Spokane Valley to request closure of the Uni- versity Road railroad crossing one mile to the west, which would further improve public safety by reducing the possibility of rail/ vehicle collisions at this intersection. This project is critical because of the projected increase in vehicular traffic in the area through 2040 and because of it's location, which is approximately half way between the two nearest crossings of the BNSF track (Argonne Rd to the West and Sullivan Rd to the East). The separation of Pines Road and the BNSF tracks will provide a vital transportation link to the businesses and residenc- es north of Trent (SR -290), south along Pines (SR -27),I-90 and further south to the Palouse. Benefits of the Project: This project eliminates rail crossing crashes at both the Pines (SR -27) and University BNSF crossing. Crossing delay is eliminated along Pines Road and along Trent (SR -290) when accessing Pines (SR -27). Better handling of road and train traffic reduces conges- tion and improves air quality. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering = $ 3,096,000 Right of Way & Construction = $14,104,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $17,200,000 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 29, 2016 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies GOVERNING LEGISLATION: 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 8 years. The City of Spokane Valley's update is due no later than June 30, 2017. In October 2015 staff updated the Council on the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) update project. The review highlighted the public participation components, including public meetings and Community Vision Report, an audit of the Plan Goals and Policies, and Existing Conditions Reports for the City's housing, land use, and transportation conditions. On March 1 the Existing Conditions reports were revisited. Staff and consultants are moving forward with the development of the Draft Plan Goals and Policies. An audit of the existing Goals and Policies was conducted by staff and the consultant team to identify those Goals and Policies to be removed, revised, or consolidated. The Draft Plan will be reorganized to improve usability and efficiency. Goals and Policies will be separated from the elements, and presented in a Goals and Policies chapter. This format will allow the City to set broader goals and include a greater variety of more specific policies without linking each policy to a discrete chapter goal. A related part of the audit was the identification of potential goal and policy additions suggested for each element. The suggested additions are meant to provide a starting point for developing the new goal and policy language, to spur additional thought into new topics the City might like to focus on, and to add necessary goals and policies to bring the Plan into compliance with changes in the GMA. The initial analysis evaluated each goal statement to determine the focus area. Policies, either existing or developed, will be aligned with the focus areas. At this time Staff would like to discuss the focus areas identified to determine if they adequately represent the City's interests, or if additional focus areas should be developed. This step is intended to create the organizing framework for the plan, but is not intended to be a review of the specific language of the Goals. That discussion will occur in the future. Staff will provide an overview of the Element Focus Areas and strategy. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman, Director and Lori Barlow, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Areas Memo: Suggested Goal and Policy additions to Comprehensive Plan Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Areas The following is a compilation of the vision and draft goals from the policy audit, along with relevant themes from the 2015 community visioning process. During the public workshops, the community reaffirmed the city's original vision in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan and offered ideas for additional areas of focus for the update. This initial analysis evaluated each goal statement to determine its focus area, highlighted in Based on this evaluation, community -generated themes and findings from the October 2015 memorandum regarding goal and policy additions, we developed a list of additional focus areas for the City to consider. The intent of this document is to help create an organizing framework for the plan's policies and identify where there are potential gaps. City Vision A community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper. Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Areas DRAFT - March 23, 2016 Land Use Element Draft Goals 1 Ensure the vitality and character of residential neighborhoods. (Residential) 2. Transform commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into vital, attractive, accessible districts that enhance community character and economic vitality. (Commercial, Industrial and Mixed -Use) 3. Promote orderly growth by identifying Potential Annexation Areas that are consistent with the Spokane County regional urban growth area (UGA) boundary. 4. Preserve and protect the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. RPcidPntial 5. Locate higher density development with major transportation corridors and near transit centers to enhance development and redevelopment opportunities. Development Opportunities) 6. Encourage protection of archaeological and historic sites and structures. (Historic Preservation) Related Community Themes Community Character • Focus on the area near the proposed new city hall • Increased sense of community identity Economic Opportunity • Focus on the importance of existing local commercial and industrial areas Housing • More and better amenities • Preservation of neighborhood character Potential Additional Focus Areas • Neighborhood/area-specific (i.e. area near proposed new city hall) • Specific sub -types (e.g. corridors, neighborhood commercial) • Growth centers (i.e. areas targeted for higher -density development) • Economic development, including employment centers and expanded uses (e.g. local production) • Connectivity (related to improved access to amenities from neighborhoods) • Sustainable development (e.g. green building, EV infrastructure, infill) Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Area DRAFT - March 23, 2016 2 Transportation Element Draft Goals 1 Design, implement, and operate the transportation system in a fiscally responsible way. (General) 2. Ensure that the transportation system is designed to preserve and enhance community character. (Community Character) 3. Use transportation system management techniques and technologies to maximize the performance of the transportation system. (System Performance) 4. Provide for safe and efficient freight mobility. (Freight) 5. Provide a connected multimodal network to allow convenient access for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, freight, and autos. 6. Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers. 7. Prioritize street maintenance and preservation to minimize costly reconstruction projects. (Maintenance) 8. Consistent with the State's 'Target Zero" safety campaign, strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero by 2030. 9. Coordinate with regional partners and identify diverse funding sources to develop, implement, and maintain a multimodal transportation system. ,r-uriuirli Related Community Themes Community Character • Increased sense of community identity Economic Development • Desire to create special places in the community • Level of Service policy works well • Focus on maintenance and technology • Improve connections and safety for other modes of travel • Improve freight movement and safety • Invest in streetscape and community character Potential Additional Focus Areas • Pollutant reduction (required by GMA) • Concurrency • Financing • Intergovernmental coordination • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Travel demand management • Design standards Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Area DRAFT - March 23, 2016 3 Capital Facilities and Public Services Element Draft Goals 1. Ensure efficient and cost effective water, sewer, and solid waste services for future growth. (Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Services) 2. Ensure efficient and cost effective public safety and emergency services. (Public Safety and Emergency Services) 3. Provide public services at a level that promotes economic growth and supports a vibrant community. ;Service Provision 4. Coordinate with special districts, other jurisdictions, and the private sector to effectively provide facilities and services. 5. Ensure the provision of stormwater facilities and related management program. (Stormwater Management` 6. Coordinate with School Districts to support the development of school sites and related facilities to meet growth. Schools) 7. Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources. (Funding) Related Community Themes Economic Opportunity • Opportunities exist around public facilities to create spaces to enhance community identity Community Character • Increased sense of community identity Potential Additional Focus Areas • Economic development (could include placemaking, as per community theme) • Fiscal sustainability • Equitable distribution of facilities and services • Environmental sustainability (e.g. waste reduction, pollution prevention) • Essential public facilities • Libraries Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Area 4 DRAFT - March 23, 2016 Housing Element Draft Goals 1. Provide a broad range of housing opportunities commensurate with the community's needs. (Options) 2. Enable a supply of housing affordable for all income levels. (Affordability) 3. Ensure housing options to meet the needs of special populations such as housing for low- income families, group homes, foster care facilities, or senior housing. (Special Populations) Related Community Themes Housing: • Housing affordability • Housing for seniors • Evaluate different housing types as an option to single-family residential • More and better amenities • Preservation of neighborhood character Potential Additional Focus Areas • Design standards • Target areas for growth (concentrating new housing near transit and amenities, supports economic development) Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Area 5 DRAFT - March 23, 2016 Utilities Element Draft Goal 1. Coordinate with utility providers to balance cost-effectiveness with environmental protection, aesthetic impact, public safety, and public health. Related Community Themes Economic Development • Desire to create special places in the community • Maintain fiscal responsibility Potential Additional Focus Areas • Equitable delivery • Economic development • Conservation/demand management • Construction coordination in ROW Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Area 6 DRAFT - March 23, 2016 Economic Development Element Draft Goals 1. Improve economic vitality and opportunities for all residents. 2_conomic Vitality) 2. Support business and employment growth across diverse set of industries and occupations. (Employment Growth) 3. Develop and maintain an infrastructure system that supports economic growth. (Infrastructure) 4. Encourage the full economic use of all industrial and commercial lands. 5. Develop and maintain a strong labor force that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace. 6. Collaborate and partner with other economic development organizations and the business community to grow a strong and healthy regional economy. 7. Balance economic development with community priorities and city fiscal sustainability. (General) 8. Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and clear direction. (Business Environment) Related Community Themes Economic Opportunity • Desire to create special places in the community • Maintain fiscal responsibility • Leverage community assets • Concern over external forces and Code Enforcement Community Character • Focus on the area near the proposed new city hall • Increased sense of community identity Transportation • Improve freight movement and safety • Improve connections and safety for other modes of travel • Invest in streetscape and Community Character Potential Additional Focus Areas • Business retention, expansion and attraction • City brand/image (should leverage community assets, create community character) • Industry strengths, including retail and tourism • Placemaking • Technology (i.e. facilitate delivery of city services and communications) Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Area DRAFT - March 23, 2016 7 Parks, Recreation and the Arts Element Draft Goals 1. Develop and maintain a diverse and accessible park, recreation, trail and open space system that meets the needs of residents and enhances community character in a fiscally responsible manner. (General) 2. Promote the expansion of art within the community. (Public Art) Related Community Themes Community Character • Increased sense of community identity • Leverage community trails to improve community character • Increased focus on parks LCOflOt (a, to tv • Desire to create special places in the community Potential Additional Focus Areas • Open space corridors • Equitable distribution of facilities • Economic development, including placemaking • Coordination (interdepartmental and intergovernmental) • Design standards Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Area 8 DRAFT - March 23, 2016 Natural Environment Element Draft Goals (from Shoreline Master Program) Other goals related to critical areas, air quality and surface water are currently being audited. 1. Assure no net loss of ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes within wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat, conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas. 2. Encourage management of critical areas in such a way that includes education, rehabilitation, preservation, protection, enhancement, mitigation and incentives for protection. 3. Designate and protect critical areas. (Critical Areas) 4. Minimize the impact on priority species from habitat alteration and other adverse impacts. (Priority Species) 5. Require the protection and enhancement of wetlands so that they may perform their natural functions and maintain their beneficial value. sands) 6. Protect groundwater and surface water resources. (Water Resources, 7. Prevent water quality degradation of the Spokane Valley/Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. Resources) 8. Collaborate with appropriate public and private entities to help restore the water quality of the Spokane River. (Water Resources) 9. Support regional efforts to improve air quality. Related Community Themes Economic Opportunity • Desire to create special places in the community • Leverage community assets Potential Additional Focus Areas • Hazard mitigation • Economic development (e.g. protecting Spokane River to support recreation uses) • Climate protection • Mineral resource lands Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update: Element Focus Area 9 DRAFT - March 23, 2016 Van Ness Feldman LLP MEMORANDUM 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104-1728 206-623-9372 vnf.com TO: John Hohman, Community Development Director, City of Spokane Valley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner, City of Spokane Valley FROM: Consultant Team DATE: October 1, 2015 RE: Suggested Goal and Policy additions to Comprehensive Plan I. Introduction A Comprehensive Plan Audit was conducted for the City of Spokane Valley, which streamlined the existing Comprehensive Plan (Task #2.5 of the Phase 2 Scope of Work). Goals, policies, and other components of the Plan were identified to be removed, revised, or consolidated to improve the Plan's effectiveness. A related part of the audit is the identification of suggested potential goal and policy additions to each element. The suggested additions are meant to provide a starting point for developing new goal and policy language, to spur additional thought into new topics the City might like to focus on in the updated Comp Plan, and to add necessary goals and policies to bring the Plan into compliance with changes to the Growth Management Act (GMA) since the City's first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2006. As discussed with the City in June, the Comprehensive Plan Audit was also an opportunity to reorganize the Plan to improve readability and efficiency. The organization of this memo matches the reorganized Comprehensive Plan and reflects the consolidation of the Neighborhoods Element (into the Housing Element and Land Use Element) and the Bike and Pedestrian Element (into the Transportation Element). Additionally, the reorganized Plan now separates the goals and policies so that the City may set broader goals and include a greater variety of more specific policies without the undue burden of linking each policy with a discrete goal. The following section outlines suggested additions by element and then explains the reason for the suggested addition. Each table differentiates whether or not the suggested additions are partially addressed or not addressed at all in the audited Comprehensive Plan. Where a topic or issue is partially addressed, the existing goal or policy is referenced in the column titled, "Partially Addressed in CP Audit." Memorandum - 2 - October 1, 2015 Suggested Goal and Policy Additions Each suggested addition is accompanied by an explanation detailing why it is recommended to be included in the updated Plan. There are various reasons for the suggestions, including consistency with the GMA, consistency with Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), relation to the public input themes developed through the public engagement process, best practices, or in some cases relation to implementing regulations, program, and/or tools, as identified by the City in the Audit documents. The information provided should assist the City in conducting further research on the suggestions. II. Suggested Additions by Element A. Land Use Element Suggested Addition Reason Not Addressed in CP Audit Partially Addressed in CP Audit Electric Vehicle Infrastructure GMA requirement per RCW X 36.70A.695(2); need to add to dev regs Target vacant properties for infill GMA Goals 1 and 2, per RCW X Policy #16 36.70A.020 Consistency with CPPB GMA requirement, per RCW X Policy #41, 44 36.70A.210(1) and RCW 36.70A.100 Essential Public Facilities GMA requirement, RCW 36.70A.200; X existing CP outlines process, but has no goals or policies goals and policies in CP reference to regs in SVMC 19.90 Designate centers for higher density development GMA Goals 1 and 2, per RCW X 36.70A.020; Public Input Theme to "Create special places in the community." Also relates to implementing tool, STA Moving Forward – A plan for more and better transit services. Transit -oriented development/Transit- supportive development Best practices—align higher densities where there is existing transit; GMA Goal 1, per RCW 36.70A.020 X Policy #65 Memorandum Suggested Goal and Policy Additions -3- October 1, 2015 Flexible parking requirements Encourage more development in X Partially Addressed in CP Audit in targeted areas (reduction areas such as neighborhood X in parking requirements to commercial and/or mixed use zones GMA recommended in urban areas: WAC 365-196-430(2)(e)(vii). X support development) (NC and CMU, specifically); GMA Concurrency policy GMA requirement: RCW X Goal 5. per RCW 36.70A.020 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(D). This is a required element to be included in the Comprehensive Plan, it is typically included in the Transportation Element, but could be in the Capital Facilities Element with a reference somewhere in the TE. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) strategies GMA requirement: RCW X Policy #29 Green building incentives Best practices—address impacts to the environment; GMA Goal 10, per X RCW 36.70A.020 B. Transportation Element Suggested Addition Reason Not Addressed in CP Audit Partially Addressed in CP Audit Policy on reducing criteria pollutants from mobile sources GMA requirement: WAC 173-420- X Multimodal level of service GMA recommended in urban areas: WAC 365-196-430(2)(e)(vii). X Concurrency policy GMA requirement: RCW X 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(D). This is a required element to be included in the Comprehensive Plan, it is typically included in the Transportation Element, but could be in the Capital Facilities Element with a reference somewhere in the TE. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) strategies GMA requirement: RCW X Policy #29 36.70A.070(6)(a)(vi); RCW 70.94.527. A description of TDM strategies does not have to be a policy and may be included somewhere else in the element. Parking policies are commonly included though. The CP Audit resulted in a recommendation to delete the original weak language policy. GMA requires a policy, which should have stronger language per our style Memorandum Suggested Goal and Policy Additions -4- October 1, 2015 C. Capital Facilities Element Suggested Addition guidelines. Not Addressed in CP Audit Partially Addressed in CP Audit Financing plan for six-year program is required, policies on financial sustainability recommended GMA recommendation: WAC X 365.196-430(2)(k)(iv). Recommend a new policy referencing financial sustainability and an emphasis on maintenance. Recommend a separate Financing Plan section of the Transportation Element. Intergovernmental coordination GMA requirement: RCW X Goal #9, Policy #29, Policy #33 36.70A.070(6)(a)(v). Safety policy —"Target/Vision Zero" Best practice; aligned with State transportation policy. Suggest policy language in addition to Goal 8. WSDOT Target Zero program linked here. X Goal #8 General approach to crosswalks Currently only called out in relation to major arterials, railroads, 1-90 and the Spokane River. X Policy #26 Greenways, bike boulevards, or other all ages and abilities facilities should be identified Best practice; Public Input Theme, "Improve connections and safety for other modes of travel." X Coordinate construction and maintenance efforts to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle facilities Best practice; Public Input Theme, "Improve connections and safety for other modes of travel." X Goal #9 C. Capital Facilities Element Suggested Addition Reason Not Addressed in CP Audit Partially Addressed in CP Audit Timeframe for facilities to maintain concurrency— recommend that a goal be set so Need to address timing X Memorandum Suggested Goal and Policy Additions -5- October 1, 2015 that the City is not committed to an unfunded mandated Reason Not Addressed in CP Audit Partially Addressed in CP Audit Require sewer to meet Regional LOS standard Table 4.3 is not clear on this point, currently says, "Public sewer required for new development." Need to state that it will meet the minimum regional standard in the Countywide Planning Policies. X X Table 4.3 Reference six-year plan and financing plan in policies. GMA requirement: 36.70A.070(3)(d); This ensures X X Land Use Element Policy #9 that near-term needs are adequately funded. Ensure Land Use Element, Capital Facilities Element, and financing plan are coordinated and consistent. GMA requirement: 36.70A.070(3)(e), could use CFP - X 2.4 from existing Comp Plan (CP version prior to audit) as a starting point. D. Housing Element Suggested Addition Reason Not Addressed in CP Audit Partially Addressed in CP Audit Design standards (control massing, appearance, etc.) Improves quality, compatibility, and aesthetics of new development; could also consider targeting certain areas of the City; consistent with Public Input Theme, "Preservation of neighborhood character." X Clustering of Housing Increases housing options and preserves open space; consistent with Public Input Theme, "Housing affordability." X Land Use Element Policy #9 Policies specific to ADUs, Cottage housing, and other types of small-scale housing Increases housing options; consistent with Public Input Theme, "Evaluate different housing types as an option to X Memorandum Suggested Goal and Policy Additions -6- October 1, 2015 E. Utilities Element Suggested Addition single-family residential." and "Housing affordability." Not Addressed in CP Audit Partially Addressed in CP Audit Affordable housing incentives, such as authorizing and/or expanding financing tools to increase affordable housing supply Incentivizes new housing and the creation of below market affordable housing; Consider programs such as the Multi - Family Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) program or other regulatory or non -regulatory tools; consistent with CPPs: "...ensure that sufficient land and densities for affordable housing are provided in locations readily accessible to employment centers." Refer to RCW X 36.70A.540 for other ideas City -owned surplus land Incentivizes affordable housing development X Fair share of affordable housing Consistent with CPPs: "...incorporate the mandates of federal and state fair housing laws, particularly as they relate to siting and development of housing for special -needs populations." X Creation of a dedicated housing fund through either partnerships or through mitigation fees on new development, to fund affordable housing projects and/or programs Effective planning tool; consistent with Public Input Theme, "Housing affordability." X Goal #2 E. Utilities Element Suggested Addition Reason Not Addressed in CP Audit Partially Addressed in CP Audit Efficient and equitable service delivery Best practices X Memorandum Suggested Goal and Policy Additions -7- October 1, 2015 Conservation/demand- management Best practices X Partially Addressed in CP Audit Coordinated construction within ROW Best practices X X Policy #2 F. Economic Development Element Suggested Addition Reason Not Addressed in CP Audit Partially Addressed in CP Audit Regional infrastructure coordination Leverages limited resources and positions the City to realize opportunities, e.g. Regional stormwater facilities to incentivize infill development X Addressed in Infrastructure funding Supports growth with limited resources X Additional technology policies Improves City services and communication X Redevelopment (partnerships, incentives, PDA, etc.) Supports new investment X Small scale manufacturing Expands employment base and utilization for industrial land X Building relationships with brokers Increases capacity to understand market conditions and realize opportunities X Development and business incentives Supports new investment in City; could also be a strategy instead of a policy X G. Natural Environment Element Suggested Addition Reason Not Partially Addressed in Addressed in Memorandum Suggested Goal and Policy Additions -8- October 1, 2015 H. Parks and Recreation Element Suggested Addition Reason CP Audit CP Audit Designate and Protect Mineral Resource Lands GMA requirement: RCW36.70A.060 and RCW X 36.70A.131 Consistency with CPPs (Parks and Open Space Policy #3) H. Parks and Recreation Element Suggested Addition Reason Not Addressed in CP Audit Partially Addressed in CP Audit Equitable distribution of parks and facilities Best practices X Require the development of parks and open space as a means to balance the impacts associated with higher density development Consistency with CPPs (Parks and Open Space Policy #3) X DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of March 24, 2016; 9:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings April 5, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Mar 28] 1. Rescue Taskforce Update — Fire Capt Cornellius, Police Sgt Whapeles (30 minutes) 2. Annual Comp Plan Amendment (CPA -2016-0001) — Karen Kendall (20 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: (a) Sr Citizens Assoc. Memorandum of Understanding; (b) Solid Waste Contract Road Wear Fee [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] April 12, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Apr 4] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-004 Uncovered loads — Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Approval of WSDOT Call for Projects — Eric Guth (10 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Comp Plan Tiny Homes Discussion — Micki Harnois (15 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] April 19, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Apr 11] ACTION ITEM: 1. First Reading 2016 LTGO Bond Ordinance 16-005 (City Hall) — Mark Calhoun (25 minutes) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Accomplishments Report — Mark Calhoun and Directors (90 minutes) 3. Port District Update — John Hohman (15 minutes) 4. Tiny Houses — Ian Robertson (Mark Calhoun) (30 minutes) 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 165 minutes] Friday, April 22, 2016; 9:30 noon; Spokane Regional Council of Governments meeting Spokane County Fair & Expo Center, Conference Facility, 404 NHavana Street April 26, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-004 Uncovered loads — Erik Lamb [due Mon, Apr 18] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-006 Annual Comp Plan Amend.(CPA-2016-0001)— K.Kendall (20 min) 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 5. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes] May 3, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Apr 25] 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) May 10, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, May 2] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading 2016 LTGO Bond Ordinance 16-005 (City Hall) — Mark Calhoun (20 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-006 Annual Comp Plan Amend.(CPA-2016-0001)—K.Kendall(10 min) 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 minutes] May 17, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, May 9] 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 3/24/2016 3:56:14 PM Page 1 of 2 May 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. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins June 7, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Mon, May 16] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 23] (5 minutes) [due Fri• May 27] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) June 14 2016, Special Mtg, Budget Workshop, 8:30 a.m.- 4:30 p.m. (no evening mtg) [due Mon, June 6] Council Chambers June 21, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins June 28, 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 July 5, 2016, Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins July 12, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins July 19, 2016, Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins July 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 August 2, 2016 — No Meeting (National Night out) *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Avista Electrical Franchise AWC Conference (June 21-24) Carnahan & 8th Intersection Domestic Violence Advocacy (Police) Drug Enforcement Update — Rick VanLeuven Economic Development Marketing Plan Emergency Preparedness Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy HCDAC Board Member Presentation Independent Investigative Counsel [due Mon, June 13] (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 20] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 27] (5 minutes) [due Tue, July 5] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, July 11] (5 minutes) [due Mon, July 18] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Ord 15-023 Marijuana Ext/Renew [unlicensed medical shops] (expires 6/9/16) Ord 16-003 Mining Ext. (expires 8/21/16) Public Safety Ad Hoc Committees Sidewalk/snow removal SVMC 2.45 Review/Discussion SRTMC Agreement (June/July 2016) TIP 2017-2022 (May/June) Trans -Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement Draft Advance Agenda 3/24/2016 3:56:14 PM Page 2 of 2