The URL can be used to link to this page

2016, 04-26 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, April 26, 2016 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION: Pastor Gary Weber of Valley Fourth Memorial Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT PROCLAMATION: (1) Older Americans' Month; (2) Day of Prayer PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on April 26, 2016 Request for Council Action Form, Total: $1,152,322.65 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending April 15, 2016: $299,620.04 c. Approval of March 15, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Workshop Meeting d. Approval of April 12, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Regular Formal Format e. Approval of April 19, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special 4:00 p.m. Meeting NEW BUSINESS: 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-004, Uncovered Loads — Erik Lamb [public comment] 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-006 Annual Comp Plan Amendment — Karen Kendall [public comment] 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-007 Zoning Map Amendment — Karen Kendall [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. Council Agenda 04-26-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 5. City Hall Bid — Eric Guth 6. Comprehensive Plan, Tiny Homes — Micki Harnois 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): 8. Department Monthly Reports CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meetin,i 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 211 and 41 Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1st 311 and 5t'—' Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 04-26-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 •,1\m„ S4i�1'an reclamation City of SpOone valley, Washington OCderAmericans' ,Month "Blaze a 'rail" WHEREAS, Spokane Valley includes citizens ages 60 and older; and WHEREAS, Spokane Valley is committed to valuing all individuals and recognizing their ongoing life achievements; and WHEREAS, the older adults in Spokane Valley play an important role by continuing to contribute experience, knowledge, wisdom, and accomplishments; and WHEREAS, our older adults are active community members involved in volunteering, mentorship, arts and culture, and civic engagement; and WHEREAS, recognizing the successes of community elders encourages their ongoing participation and further accomplishments; and WHEREAS, our community can provide opportunities to allow older citizens to continue to flourish by: • emphasizing the importance of elders and their leadership by publicly recognizing their continued achievements; • presenting opportunities for older Americans to share their wisdom, experience, and skills; and • recognizing older adults as a valuable asset in strengthening American communities. Now therefore, 1, Rod Higgins, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council and the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, do hereby proclaim May 2016 as Older Americans' Month And I urge all citizens to take time this month to recognize older adults and the people who serve and support them as powerful and vital citizens who greatly contribute to the community. Dated this 26th day of April, 2016. L.R. Higgins, Mayor o"aft.., Spokane Valley WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, 'I~ rothrmation City of SpOone Valley, Wasfiington Day of Trayer Civic prayers and national days of prayer have a long and venerable history dating back to the First Continental Congress in 1775; and The Declaration of Independence, our first statement as Americans of national purpose and identity, made "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the foundation of our United States of America and asserted that people have inalienable rights that are God-given; and The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of state legislatures to open their sessions with prayer and the Supreme Court and U.S. Congress begin each day with prayer; and In 1952, President Harry S. Truman declared a National Day of Prayer and signed into law an annual observance thereof passed by Joint Resolution of the United States Congress. In 1988 President Ronald Reagan amended the law by fixing the date of the National Day of Prayer as the first Thursday of May. Every President since 1952 has signed a National Day of Prayer proclamation. The National Day of Prayer is an opportunity for Americans to join in united prayer to acknowledge dependence on God, to give thanks for blessings received, to request healing for wounds endured, and to ask God to guide our leaders and bring wholeness to the United States and its citizens; and It is fitting and proper to give thanks to God by observing a day of prayer in Spokane Valley when all may acknowledge blessings and express gratitude for them, while recognizing the need for strengthening religious and moral values in our State and nation. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Rod Higgins, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council and the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, do hereby proclaim Thursday, May 5, 2016 as a Day of Prayer in Spokane Valley and I encourage Spokane Valley citizens to observe the day in ways appropriate to its importance and significance. Dated this 26th day of April 2016. L.R. Higgins, Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 26, 2016 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS TOTAL AMOUNT 04/07/2016 38087-38120; 405160019 $548,432.05 04/08/2016 38121-38147 $74,408.40 04/08/2016 5389; 5437; 5446-5447; 5449-5451; 5458; 38148-38149 $341,711.32 04/11/2016 6551-6558 $2,429.00 04/14/2016 38150-38165 $14,588.51 04/15/2016 38166-38195 $92,385.04 04/15/2016 38196 $200.00 04/18/2016 5448, 5460, 5461, 5464, 5465 $77,549.33 04/21/2016 6559-6561 $619.00 GRAND TOTAL: $1,152,322.65 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists 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 #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 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 04/07/2016 12:28:11 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38087 4/7/2016 004278 ARCHITECTS WEST INC 38088 4/7/2016 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG 38089 4/7/2016 000101 CDW-G 38090 4/7/2016 002837 CENTRAL PRE -MIX CONCRETE CO 38091 4/7/2016 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 38092 4/7/2016 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 38093 4/7/2016 001888 COMCAST 38094 4/7/2016 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 38095 4/7/2016 002604 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 38096 4/7/2016 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 38097 4/7/2016 002385 DKS ASSOCIATES 8482 EXPENSE CMP6652 13-2231948 606178503 606179754 606179916 606181024 606182269 606182432 52557 APRIL 2016 44613769 78442971 RE 46 JG6446 L002 0060107 Fund/Dept 313.000.215.594 001.018.014.514 001.090.000.518 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.543 Description/Account Amount 0215 -CITY HALL DESIGN & CN ADN Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : IT SUPPLIES ECOLOGY BLOCKS Total : Total : SERVICES PW ACCOUNT 02356 SUPPLIES: PW SERVICE AT MAINTENANCE SHOP SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SERVICE AT MAINTENANCE SHOP Total : 001.013.000.513 WEB HOSTING 001.090.000.518 INTERNET CITY HALL 001.032.000.543 001.090.000.548 303.303.167.595 303.303.060.595 Total : Total : MARCH 2016 FLEET FUEL BILL Total : COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0( Total : SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Total : 38,457.38 38,457.38 175.00 175.00 835.63 835.63 141.32 141.32 103.59 91.28 219.84 91.28 91.28 255.95 853.22 391.32 391.32 82.22 82.22 1,203.02 1,203.02 1,006.63 1,006.63 686.33 686.33 ARGONNE CORRIDOR SIGNAL & D 2,579.63 Page: 1 vchlist 04/07/2016 12:28:11 PM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 38097 4/7/2016 002385 002385 DKS ASSOCIATES (Continued) Total : 2,579.63 38098 4/7/2016 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 4249044 101.000.000.542 FUEL FOR MAINTENANCE SHOP & 449.50 Total: 449.50 38099 4/7/2016 003261 FEHR & PEERS 106156 001.058.051.558 PHASE 3 7,006.62 Total : 7,006.62 38100 4/7/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 45372 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 70.55 45373 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 93.50 45374 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 90.10 Total : 254.15 38101 4/7/2016 000007 GRAINGER 9061544905 101.043.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 4.16 9064016398 101.043.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 206.64 Total : 210.80 38102 4/7/2016 000917 GRAYBAR 984232202 001.090.000.518 SUPPLIES: IT 89.59 Total : 89.59 38103 4/7/2016 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 600486981 001.090.000.548 SCHEDULE 572E3651 830.28 Total : 830.28 38104 4/7/2016 000265 JACKSON, MIKE 4-2016 CELL PHONE 001.013.000.513 4-2016 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 45.00 APRIL 2016 001.013.000.513 AUTO ALLOWANCE 300.00 Total : 345.00 38105 4/7/2016 000012 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS INV003107504 313.000.215.594 CLASSIFIED UNIT 360.00 Total : 360.00 38106 4/7/2016 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY SPORO1761524 101.000.000.542 SERVICE 1996 INT'L #207 593.47 Total : 593.47 38107 4/7/2016 004632 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS 42855699 001.076.305.575 TELECOM SERVICES 1,149.65 Total : 1,149.65 38108 4/7/2016 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC April 2016 001.090.000.518 CITY HALL RENT APRIL 2016 36,221.75 Page: 2 vchlist 04107/2016 12:28:11 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 3 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38108 4/7/2016 000193 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL I (Continued) 38109 4/7/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 38110 4/7/2016 003407 RIGHT! SYSTEMS INC 38111 4/7/2016 002520 RWC GROUP 38112 4/7/2016 000230 SPOKANE CO AUDITORS OFFICE 38113 4/7/2016 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 38114 4/7/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 38115 4/7/2016 000202 SRCAA 38116 4/7/2016 002597 TWISTED PAIR ENTERPRISES LLC 38117 4/7/2016 001887 VALMONT 38118 4/7/2016 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 829002463001 829040298001 829586903001 831004639001 141059 26747N MARCH 2016 3550.114 110100119 110100120 42000257 51503162 8066 3302016 CD289000425 50050 Fund/Dept 001.032.000.543 101.042.000.542 001.032.000.543 001.032.000.543 001.090.099.594 101.000.000.542 001.058.056.558 001.013.015.515 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.016.000.554 001.016.000.523 001.090.000.553 001.011.000.511 303.000.207.595 303.303.155.595 Description/Account Amount OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW Total : 36,221.75 Total : RUCKUS WIRELESS ACCESS POI' SUPPLIES: PW RECORDING FEES JUDGMENT EXTENSION 4.17 464.90 30.72 65.00 564.79 7,271.75 Total : 7,271.75 Total : Total : Total : ENGINEERING REMAINDER FOR 2 ENGINEERING JAN & FEB 2016 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICE APRIL MARCH 2016 HOUSING INVOICE Total : 2ND QTR 2016 ASSESSMENT Total : BROADCASTING COUNCIL MEETIN Total : ANCHOR BOLTS POSTAGE PAID 15.52 15.52 553.00 553.00 110.00 110.00 2,561.36 74,586.28 43,017.41 110,241.18 230,406.23 29,108.00 29,108.00 1,820.00 1,820.00 291.32 Total: 291.32 1,647.46 Total : 1,647.46 Page: 3 vohlist 04/07/2016 12:28:11PM Voucher List Page: 4 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 38119 4/7/2016 002558 WEATHERNET LLC 2014-13704 101,000.000.542 WEATHERNET SERVICE NOV 2015 330.00 2014-19121 101.000.000.542 WEATHERNET SERVICE DEC 2015 330l0 2014-19287 101.000.000.542 WEATHERNET SERVICE JAN 2016 330.00 2016-10487 101.000.000.542 WEATHERNET SERVICES FEB 201 330.00 201849828 101.000.000.542 WEATHERNET SERVICE MARCH 21 330.00 Total : 1,650.00 38120 4/7/2018 000706 WSAPT TREASURER 405160019 4/5/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 4-2016 CONFERENCE 4-2016 CONFERENCE001.058.057.558 001.058.057.558 SPRING CONFERENCE 4'2O10:K4: 4-2U18SPRING CONFERENCE: C!- Total : 175.00 175.00 350.00 APRIL 2016 001.016.000.512 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 180J21.47 Total : 180,721.47 35 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank tota: 548,432.05 35 Vouchers in this report Total vmuchers: 548,432.05 Page: 4 vchlist 04/08/2016 2:00:37PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38121 4/8/2016 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY 38122 4/8/2016 001081 ALSCO 38123 4/8/2016 003300 CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL 38124 4/8/2016 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION #19 38125 4/8/2016 000823 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES 38126 4/8/2016 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 38127 4/8/2016 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY 38128 4/8/2016 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 38129 4/8/2016 004926 LE CATERING CO 38130 4/8/2016 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO 38131 4/8/2016 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO RCB1201053 SVC1117359 LSPO1745757 Mar 2016 Mar 2016 268616 March 2016 25988 Mar 2016 Contract 1 Contract 10 Contract 8 Contract 9 March 2016 20039189 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.011.000.511 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.300.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.099.575 001.076.099.575 101.042.000.542 001.076.300.576 Description/Account Amount SECURITY MONITORING AT CENTE SECURITY CAMERA WORK Total : FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC Total : SUPPLIES: COUNCIL UTILITIES: CP Total : Total : BOILER CERTIFICATION: PRECINC Total : WATER CHARGES FOR EDGECLIF Total : BUSINESS SHOWCASE BOOTH: CI Total : UTILITIES: PARKS Total : CATERING INVOICE: ACTION COA( CATERING INVOICE: INLAND EMPII CATERING INVOICE: COLUMBIA EL CATERING INVOICE: CENTRAL PRI Total : UTILITIES: MAR 2016 PW Total : LABOR CHARGE AND 4" TURBINE Total : 115.50 132.07 247.57 20.39 20.39 129.67 129.67 66.64 66.64 64.50 64.50 65.85 65.85 350.00 350.00 166.00 166.00 1,010.11 153.24 4,044.90 1,000.00 6,208.25 8,721.15 8,721.15 1,864.86 1,864.86 Page: vchlist 04/08/2016 2:00:37PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Pag —2— Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38132 4/8/2016 000283 NRPA 38133 4/8/2016 001860 PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 38134 4/8/2016 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC 38135 4/8/2016 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER 38136 4/8/2016 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 38137 4/8/2016 004943 SMARTLITE 93303-2016 J024433 43374 10-1246379 6544208 7039561 7102684 7102697 7117960 147066 38138 4/8/2016 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM March 2016 38139 4/8/2016 001083 STANDARD PLBG HEATING CONTROLS 54293 38140 4/8/2016 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOLUT 8010294378 38141 4/8/2016 001832 SWISHER 38142 4/8/2016 002110 TARGET MEDIA NORTHWEST 38143 4/8/2016 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 1096604 April 7 2016 59102839 Fund/Dept 001.076.000.576 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 001.090.000.518 001.076.099.576 001.076.099.576 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 105.000.000.557 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.018.013.513 001.076.300.576 Description/Account Amount MEMBERSHIP - GROUP PACKAGE Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : EMBROIDERY FOR CP STAFF UNIF Total : ROSAUERS Total : 895 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE DE-ICE FUTURE CITY HALL SITE WINDSTORM REPAIR AT PARKS WINDSTORM CLEANUP: PARKS MONTHLY SERVICES AT PRECINC- Total : ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : 2016 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB Total : MARCH 2016 MONTHLY MAINT: PR Total : ANSWERING SVC CENTERPLACE Total : JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: CP Total : POSTAGE FOR HOT TOPIC SPRINC Total : J3033-1 MONTHLY DRINKING WATI 425.00 425.00 116.96 116.96 278.82 278.82 49.94 49.94 530.46 119.58 15,044.08 23,044.40 693.46 39,431.98 550.00 550.00 948.75 948.75 605.46 605.46 39.88 39.88 923.35 923.35 7,690.83 7,690.83 28.50 Page: vchlist 04/08/2016 2:00:37PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38143 4/8/2016 001472 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES (Continued) 38144 4/8/2016 003649 TROPHIES UNLIMITED 483572 38145 4/8/2016 000167 VERA WATER & POWER April 2016 38146 4/8/2016 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0275035-2681-9 0275036-2681-7 0275037-2681-5 38147 4/8/2016 000066 WCP SOLUTIONS 27 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 27 Vouchers in this report 9488271 Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 402.402.000.531 001.076.305.575 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 Description/Account Amount Total : NAME TAGS FOR CP EMPLOYEES Total : UTILITIES: APRIL 2016 Total : WASTE MANAGEMENT: MAINT SH( WASTE MANAGEMENT: CENTERPI WASTE MANAGEMENT: PRECINCT Total : JANITORIAL SUPPLIES FOR CENTI Total : 28.50 21.20 21.20 3,112.67 3,112.67 173.27 738.83 283.09 1,195.19 1,084.99 1,084.99 Bank total : 74,408.40 Total vouchers : 74,408.40 Page: vchiist Voucher List 04/08/2016 3:44:14PM Spokane Valley Page: Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5389 4/5/2016 000164 LABOR & INDUSTRIES Ben66510 001.231.17.00 LABOR & INDUSTRIES: PAYMENT 23,198.08 Total : 23,198.08 5437 4/5/2016 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Ben66512 001.231.15.00 PERS: PAYMENT 97,809.48 Total : 97,809.48 5446 4/5/2016 000682 EFTPS Ben66514 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 37,781.83 Total : 37,781.83 5447 4/5/2016 000164 LABOR & INDUSTRIES Ben66524 001.231.17.00 LABOR & INDUSTRIES: PAYMENT 347.74 Total : 347.74 5449 4/5/2016 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben66516 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 34,946.06 Total : 34,946.06 5450 4/5/2016 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL/ Ben66518 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 7,413.71 Total : 7,413.71 5451 4/5/2016 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC P1 Ben66520 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,453.68 Total : 1,453.68 5458 4/5/2016 000682 EFTPS Ben66526 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 1,210.00 Total : 1,210.00 38148 4/5/2016 000120 AWC Ben66506 402.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS: PAYMENT 123,996.31 Ben66522 001.231.16.00 HEALTH PLANS (COUNCIL): PAYMENT 10,868.27 Total : 134,864.58 38149 4/5/2016 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYEES Ben66508 001.231.21.00 UNION DUES: PAYMENT 2,686.16 Total : 2,686.16 10 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 341,711.32 10 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 341,711.32 Page: vchlist 04/11/2016 7:42:04AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page9 Bank code: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6551 4/11/2018 004954 ABRAMS, LINDA PARKS REFUND 001.23710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MB 384.00 Total : 384.00 6552 4/11/2016 001871 CHRIST CHURCH PARKS REFUND 001.23710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 205I0 Total : 205.00 6553 4/11/2018 004957 KNIGHT, KELSEY PARKS REFUND 00123710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND MIRABEAU ME, 488.00 Total : 468.00 6554 4/11/9016 004958 LIFEVANTAGE PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSITREFUND: ROOM 109 52.00 Total : 52.00 6555 4/11/2016 004955 SHILLAM, JILL PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MB 488.00 Total : 468.00 6556 4/11/2016 004958 TUNICK, TRENEE PARKS REFUND 001.23710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 500l0 Total : 500.00 6557 4h1/2010 OO4859UNION GOSPEL MISSION PARKS REFUND 001.23710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MB 300.00 Total : 300.00 6558 4/11/2016 004838 WHALEN, KIM PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: RM 110 52.00 Total: 52.00 8 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank tota: 2,429.00 8 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 2,429.00 vchlist 04/14/2016 12: 45:18 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38150 4/14/2016 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 38151 4/14/2016 003624 DEHN, SHELLY 38152 4/14/2016 004538 DOWGIN, MATT 38153 4/14/2016 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 38154 4/14/2016 004960 EMPIRE STORAGE LLC 38155 4/14/2016 002308 FINKE, MELISSA 38156 4/14/2016 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 38157 4/14/2016 003877 HATCH, CALEB 38158 4/14/2016 001944 LANCER LTD 38159 4/14/2016 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS INC 38160 4/14/2016 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 38161 4/14/2016 000661 SPECIALTY HOME PRODUCTS INV013331 Expenses Expenses 351307 APR -2016-0040 Mar 2016 March 2016 4th Qtr 2015 Expenses 0458608 28054 7139365 BLD -2016-0607 Fund/Dept 001.016.000.521 001.018.016.518 001.013.015.515 001.076.305.575 001.032.000.322 001.076.301.571 001.076.301.571 001.090.000.550 001.013.015.515 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.076.300.576 001.058.059.322 Description/Account Amount JANITORIAL SVCS: MARCH 2016 Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : RECYCLING COLLECTION AT CP Total : PERMIT REFUND: APR -2016-0040 Total : INSTRUCTOR PMT INSTRUCTOR PMT Total : 2015 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : BUSINESS CARDS NAME PLATE Total : Total : WATERFALL REPAIR AND MAINT - I 2,501.87 2,501.87 121.47 121.47 21.85 21.85 27.50 27.50 3.00 3.00 1,957.50 327.00 2,284.50 5,821.50 5,821.50 10.80 10.80 37.23 37.23 16.85 16.85 1,804.42 Total : 1,804.42 PREMIT REFUND:BLD-2016-0607 74.96 Total : 74.96 Page: vchlist 04/14/2016 12:45:18PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page:1/ Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38162 4h4/2018 003312 TAYLOR.CHELS1E 38163 4d4/2016 00187VERA WATER &POWER 38164 4/14/2018 002651 WOODARD, ARNE 38165 4/14/2016 000487 YMCAOFTHE INLAND NW 16 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 16 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersgned, do certify underpenalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnshed, the services rendered, or the abor performed as descrthed herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane ValIey, and that 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Expenses April 2016 Expenses Jan -Mar 2016 Fund/Dept 001J018.014.514 001.076.300.576 001.011.000.511 001.078.302.576 Description/Account Amount EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : UTILITIES: APRIL 2016 PARKS Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : OPERATING EXPENSES FOR PERI Total : 470.55 470.55 135.03 135.03 131.98 1,125.00 1,125.00 Bank total : 14,588.51 Total vouchers : 14,588.51 Page: vchlist 04/15/2016 12:53:OOPM Voucher List Spokane Valley 12 Page: •-4 -'' , Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38166 4/15/2016 000197 ACRANET Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 838 001.018.016.518 EMPLOYEE BACKGROUND CHECK Total : 38167 4/15/2016 003263 ALL SURFACE ROOFING &, WATERPRO( 5824 38168 4/15/2016 004439 BIRCH COMMUNICATIONS INC 38169 4/15/2016 002572 CINTAS CORPORATION 38170 4/15/2016 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 38171 4/15/2016 002920 DIRECTV INC 38172 4/15/2016 000278 DRISKELL, CARY 38173 4/15/2016 001701 DUFFEY, DAN 38174 4/15/2016 003697 ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE LLC 38175 4/15/2016 001926 FARR, SARAH 38176 4/15/2016 003621 FAUROT, TAMARA 38177 4/15/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 21021569 606183534 101.223.40.00 001.076.305.575 101.000.000.542 RE-313-ATB60314092 303.303.155.595 RE-313-ATB60314113 303.000.201.595 28227445725 EXPENSES EXPENSES 13772218 EXPENSES EXPENSES 45369 45370 45371 101.042.000.543 001.013.015.515 001.018.014.514 001.090.000.586 001.018.014.514 001.058.057.558 303.000.207.595 313.000.215.594 313.000.215.594 RETAINAGE RELEASE Total : PHONE SERVICE AT CENTERPLAC Total : SUPPLIES: PW ACCOUNT 2356 Total : SULLIVAN RD W BRIDGE REPLACE ITS INFILL PROJECT - PHASE 1 Total : CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENAN Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SCRAPS INTERNET SERVICE Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION 112.00 112.00 1,023.50 1,023.50 214.12 214.12 103.24 103.24 117.56 30.47 148.03 52.99 52.99 379.18 379.18 560.41 560.41 104.94 104.94 81.00 81.00 10.02 10.02 155.20 85.85 85.85 Page: -1--- " vchlist 04/15/2016 12:53:OOPM Voucher List Spokane Valley / Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38177 4/15/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 38178 4/15/2016 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 38179 4/15/2016 000007 GRAINGER 38180 4/15/2016 000917 GRAYBAR 38181 4/15/2016 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO 38182 4/15/2016 003185 LAMB, ERIK 38183 4/15/2016 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER LLP 38184 4/15/2016 003090 NORTH 40 OUTFITTERS 38185 4/15/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. (Continued) 45405 45408 45434 45435 Mar 16 1042 9068531228 9070851267 984372975 600488833 EXPENSES 499 - GENERAL 068592/3 830828890001 831408633001 831553047001 832233207001 832233565001 834181231001 834896388001 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.058.056.558 LEGAL PUBLICATION 001.011.000.511 GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 101.043.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 101.043.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 001.090.000.518 SUPPLIES: IT 001.090.000.548 SCHEDULE 572DD016 Total : 140.80 95.20 80.75 118.15 761.80 4,010.88 Total : 4,010.88 Total : Total : Total : 001.013.015.515 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : 001.013.015.515 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 101.042.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 001.058.057.558 001.090.000.518 001.032.000.543 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.018.014.514 001.018.016.518 Total : Total : DISPOSABLE CAMERAS FOR FLEE OFFICE SUPPLIES: IT OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR Total : 11.22 20.90 32.12 213.94 213.94 745.84 745.84 44.62 44.62 1,677.70 1,677.70 52.37 52.37 99.00 19.87 6.26 43.37 26.87 29.94 11.73 237.04 Page:—t---- vchlist 04/15/2016 12:53:OOPM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: -3— Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38186 4/15/2016 000058 OMA 38187 4/15/2016 000881 OXARC INC 38188 4/15/2016 003587 PACE, ED 38189 4/15/2016 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 38190 4/15/2016 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 38191 4/15/2016 002835 SCS DELIVERY INC 38192 4/15/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 38193 4/15/2016 000391 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DIST. #1 38194 4/15/2016 002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS INC 38195 4/15/2016 004740 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST 30 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 30 Vouchers in this report A500163 R405646 EXPENSES 5502936301 44840 44851 44852 8282 14500823 Q1-2016 236176 833752654 Fund/Dept 001.018.016.518 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.519 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 001.090.000.566 001.229.45.00 101.000.000.542 001.013.015.515 Description/Account Amount NEW HIRE PHYSICALS FOR MARC Total : CYLINDER RENTAL Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : POSTAGE METER SUPPLIES Total : WINTER RESPONSE 2016 2016 STREET & STORMWATER MA 2016 STREET & STORMWATER MA Total : PACKAGE DELIVERY FOR COUNCI Total : 1ST QTR LIQUOR/EXCISE TAX Total : Total : Q1-2016 FIRE FEES SUPPLIES: PW Total : SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES 150.00 150.00 106.06 106.06 17.16 17.16 110.86 110.86 1,554.82 6,653.95 50,082.74 58,291.51 100.00 100.00 6,008.06 6,008.06 16,237.00 16,237.00 32.63 32.63 766.02 Total : 766.02 Bank total : 92,385.04 Total vouchers : 92,385.04 Page: vchlist 04/15/2016 1:25:05PM Voucher List Spokane Valley %5 Page: —4— Bank _4-- Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38196 4/15/2016 000658 SPOKANE CO SUPERIOR COURT 3550.114 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 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.013.015.515 JUDGMENT EXTENSION Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 Page: vchlist Voucher List Page: 04/18/2016 11:09:19AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5448 4/20/2016 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben66716 001.231.50.03 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMENT 1,119.29 Total : 1,119.29 5460 4/20/2016 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PLAN Ben66718 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 33,226.00 Total : 33,226.00 5461 4/20/2016 000682 EFTPS Ben66720 001.231.11.00 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 34,647.60 Total : 34,647.60 5464 4/20/2016 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 457 PL< Ben66722 001.231.18.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: PAYI 7,372.37 Total: 7,372.37 5465 4/20/2016 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EXEC P1 Ben66724 001.231.14.00 401 EXEC PLAN: PAYMENT 1,184.07 Total : 1,184.07 5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 77,549.33 5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 77,549.33 Page: vchlist 04/21/2016 7:46:30AM Voucher List Page Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6559 4/21/2016 004965 CARTER, CAROL PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND COUNSELOR IN TRAININ( 85.00 Total : 85.00 6560 4/21/2016 004964 FRACZ, CRISSA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 REFUND SUMMER DAY CAMP 324.00 Total : 324.00 6561 4/21/2016 003655 TRENTWOOD CONGREGATION OF, JEH PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 3 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref 3 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 Bank total : 619.00 Total vouchers : 619.00 Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 26, 2016 Department Director Approval : Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ['information ❑admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Pay Period Ending April 15, 2016 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN; BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Gross: $ 198,159.39 $ Benefits: $ 101,460.65 $ Total payroll $ 299,620.04 $ Council Total $ 198,159.39 $ 101,460.65 $ 299,620.04 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 DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington March 15, 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 Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney John Hohman, Comm. & Economic Dev. Dir. Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Rick Van Leuven, Police Chief Lt. Matt Lyons Morgan Koudelka, Sr Administrative Analyst John Pietro, Analyst Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. Councilmember Gothmann requested a Question of Personal Privilege to set clear that his comment made at the March 8, 2016, Council meeting regarding the manner in which the City made its decision concerning the dismissal of Mike Jackson was legal. Mr. Gothmann read his statement for the record (included). Overview: Deputy City Manager Calhoun briefly went over the agenda topics for the meeting, stating that we will try to hold to the schedule and if we are not able to answer all of Council's questions today, we can bring answers back to Council at a future meeting. He also pointed out that the Work Plan and Business Plan are included with the agenda packet materials but they will not covered today. 1. Legislative Update — Briahna Murray Ms. Murray informed Council that the legislative session ended March 10th and the legislature has not yet come to an agreement on its supplemental budgets. As a result, the Governor called for a thirty -day session. She said there were twenty-seven bills vetoed and ten signed into law with no other actions scheduled. Only 8.5 percent of the proposed bills passed, she said, one of the lowest in history. Ms. Murray briefly updated Council on some of its top priority items and other items that came about during session of interest to Spokane Valley. Nuisance Abatement Cost Recovery: cities can recover $2000 on first priority liens through property tax statements on nuisance properties where abatements are involved. She said the bill, nearly three years in the making and supported by Spokane Valley, is very close to passing and she said she is hopeful the governor will sign the bill. Barker Rd transportation funding: she said she is continuing to meet with the legislature and requesting funds and that the next funding opportunity will be through the transportation futures account. She said midway through the transportation revenue package all money that is saved to the practical solutions effort on various projects will be put into one account and projects can compete for funds within the one account so she said there is Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 1 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT hope to get more funding when that occurs. Marijuana Regulation: House Bill (HB) 2693, which she and others testified against, died in committee; it would have created a marijuana lounge endorsement on a retailer's license. Senate Bill (SB) 6375 would have provided for the jurisdictional option to license and regulate marijuana lounges. She said a Seattle city attorney argued that without clubs or lounges folks who live in non-smoking apartments would have no place to smoke; however, it died in committee. HB 1438 preempts city authority to ban marijuana retail, processing and production; it passed committee but did not progress further. HB 2998 will eliminate local bans on retail and reduces marijuana tax. She said some legislators think if local jurisdictions cannot ban retail operations, tax revenues would increase and provide the state with more money to help balance its budget. Water Rights: SB 6215 converts water rights that are for agriculture or dairy purposes but used for municipal water rights to municipal water rights. She said the City signed in support of the legislation and the bill passed the Senate but died in the House Agriculture and Water Committee. She said opposition came from environmental groups and tribes that believe the existing water right transfer change system through the Department of Ecology would be ideal in addressing this situation rather than alternative legislation. She said if this is something important to the City, we can add it to the legislative agenda for next year. Gender Segregated Facilities: SB 6443 repeals the Human Rights Commission rule change and prevents any future rule change on the topic of gender segregated facilities. She said her office worked with the City to submit a letter of support to the Commerce and Labor committee but the bill died by one vote in the Senate, 25-24. SB 6548 limits access to gender segregated facilities to only those with a matching gender but makes an exception for a child or person with a disability accompanied by a guardian. She said the bill went to a public hearing but did not pass out of committee. Liquor Revenue: SB 6425 and HB 2438, both supported by the City, would implement a phase-in approach for increasing revenue distributions to local governments. She said they would remove the 2012 liquor revenue cap and restore distributions to a 50/50 share in 2023. She said that while neither bill fully passed chambers, legislation is an on-going effort to restore state -shared liquor revenues. County Commissioner Legislation: HB 2610 increases the number of County Commissioners from three to five. She said the City had no position on this bill but it impacts the region. The bill passed in the House but died in the Senate, having a public hearing but not voted out of committee. She said in the coming weeks the legislature will work to come to an agreement on the budgets and the governor will decide what he will do with the bills on his desk. Councilmember Wood asked if the water rights bill will come up again next year. Ms. Murray said she is not sure but she flagged it as an agenda item for Council if they want to bring it up on its legislative agenda. She said if doing so, we would want to check with Senator Padden, the bill sponsor, to see what his interest level is moving forward with the bill and added that it is discouraging when good legislation does not pass but sometimes it takes more than one year. Deputy City Manager Calhoun asked if there was any damage to other liquor revenues. Ms. Murray said liquor legislation will proactively restore City revenues but they are also still trying to ensure no other liquor revenues are taken. She said MRSC lost their funding which is funded out of liquor revenues, the basic law enforcement training bill would have increased the City's share of its cost to train law enforcement officers from twenty-five percent currently to fifty or seventy-five percent based on the number of officers going through the academy. She said no reductions were included in the budget for state -shared revenue so they were successful in cutting off those cuts. Mayor Higgins asked what the final disposition is on MRSC funding. Ms. Murray said the proposal suggests MRSC be fully funded out of liquor revenues but the operating budget has not been agreed upon and she said she is "fairly confident" the final budget agreement will not include that cut. City Attorney Driskell said that MRSC may not receive any funding at all in 2017. Ms. Murray said when the legislature meets in January of 2017 they will develop their 2017-2019 budget and can again consider all proposed cuts. Ms. Murray said that half of the Senate and all of the House are up for reelection in November so this can be pivotal in determining what the 2017 legislature looks like. Additionally, she said, the McCleary Supreme Court decision regarding K-12 education requires the legislature fully fund education by 2018. This means the 2017 legislature needs to tackle that funding issue and to do so, the state will need a significant amount of revenue, whether making reductions or increasing revenues in some manner, and she said it is still unclear how they will handle it. Councilmember Gothmann inquired as to the efforts to challenge the McCleary Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 2 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT decision in the higher courts. Ms. Murray said it is currently at the state Supreme Court level and there has been significant legislative pushback arguing it is a breach of judicial and legislative authority with no formal challenge or court action. She said it has been at the Supreme Court level for quite some time, and has gone to sanction arguments. The legislature passed a bill that outlines a series of workgroups and deadlines to come to resolution prior to the 2017 session. Councilmember Wood asked if "fully funded" has been defined and she said there are multiple perspectives on what is meant by "fully funded" but they have a definition for "basic education" adopted in a bill around 2009-ish and that bill is what the McCleary court decision looked at in determine whether basic education was being provided. Ms. Murray said she would send the case information to Council. 2. Continue to work with state and federal legislators for possible financial assistance for the Barker Road Bridge Grade Separation — Eric Guth, Mark Calhoun Public Works Director Guth went through the slide presentation and said there are two grant opportunities for the Barker Bridge grade separation, the FAST Act-FASTLANE grant and the TIGER Grant. He said there are also future smaller grants to supplement these two larger grants. He said the City's top projects that meet the grant criteria are the Barker Road Overpass and Pines Road Underpass. The Barker Overpass project goes back ten years and SRTC has received thirty percent of the funding for design and one -hundred percent of the funding for environmental clearance; however, he said over the last several years we have tried for additional federal funding to move forward but have been unsuccessful. In 2013, he said staff met with BNSF and Union Pacific railroads and discussed consolidating the tracks together on the same corridor, creating some overpasses and eliminating some of the grade separations, but the railroads do not share that idea to combine the tracks. Mr. Guth said in 2014 staff applied for the TIGER VI grant for the Barker Overpass project but were unsuccessful after making the first cut. In 2015, staff applied for the TIGER VII grant for the Barker Overpass but were again unsuccessful although we received positive feedback on our application. It was suggested that we get a letter of support from the Federal Rail Administration and he said staff will do that for future applications. He said we hired HDR as our consultant for the TIGER VI application and we used that application again for the TIGER VII grant and utilized a consultant for financial help on the application. He said with the two opportunities for grants now he proposes we submit the Barker Overpass and Pines Underpass for the grants. He said the Barker project has some funding already and we still need approximately $21 million. We have no federal funding secured for the Pines Underpass project, estimated to cost approximately $18 million. Mr. Guth described the two grants and said FAST Act (Fixing Americas Surface Transportation) FASTLANE (Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies) is a five-year program with $4.5 billion available over the five years. He said eligible projects include highway freight and rail projects, bridge projects, grade crossing and grade separation projects. He said the desire and focus of the projects is on movement of freight and criteria looks at who it benefits, how many people, and if there is a national or metropolitan area benefit. Councilmember Gothmann asked if our two projects benefit moving rail freight. Mr. Guth confirmed that the projects benefit rail and truck traffic. He said our projects would fall into their Small Project category where the minimum is $5 million up to $100 million. Councilmember Wood asked if we can bundle projects and Mr. Guth responded that we can but they estimate that if we bundled all of our projects, Barker, Pines, Park and Sullivan, we would be around $80 million, which still falls short of the Large Project category minimum requirement. He said larger projects are not as competitive as small projects so we tried to meet the qualifications to make a larger project. Councilmember Gothmann asked if can tie in with Idaho as a way to meet the $100 million threshold and Mr. Guth said he has not looked into that but that he can. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested we consider the Union Pacific crossing at Pines if we are looking at bundling projects. Mr. Guth said he would look into that for the call that comes out next year. He said the FASTLANE grant funds up to sixty percent of the total project and can be supplemented with other federal funding up to another twenty percent. He said it then requires a local match, which can also include other local or state funding. He said the grants can be used for planning and engineering, Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 3 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT development, right-of-way and construction. Requirement considerations for small projects include the project cost-effectiveness and mobility effect on the state or region; he said he believes we meet the criteria. He said merit criteria deal with economics and mobility in our area. Other review criteria include partnership innovations such as collaborating with a broad range of stakeholders such as the County, State, and rail partnerships, to show we are working together. Mr. Guth said the Barker grade separation project is estimated to cost $29 2 million and that we have secured federal grants in the amount of $6,560,000, the City's match is $2,909,000 from REET 301 and 302 funds and the Capital Reserve fund 312. He said assuming we receive the FASTLANE grant for sixty percent of the project cost that would leave $2.2 million needed to complete the project where they would look at other grant funding options. Councilmember Hafner asked what the City's REET status is; Mr. Calhoun said that will be covered in the next agenda item. Mr. Guth said the Pines Underpass project cost is $17.2 million and no grants have been secured yet. Assuming we receive a FASTLANE grant at sixty percent, the remaining amount needed is $6.4 million. He said we would look for other grants to supplement the FASTLANE grant and that once awarded the City has eighteen months that we could use to apply for additional grants but we would need to move forward with obligated construction funds by September 2019. Councilmember Grafos asked how long the City has to say yes or no on projects if we are short on funds. Mr. Guth said eighteen months and that once we enter 2019 we would have to know if we will move forward with the project or not. He said not all of the particulars of the funding have been published yet so staff is still familiarizing itself with this but he said he will provide more information with regard to timing flexibility as we move forward through the process. Mr. Guth said staff recommends that we apply for FASTLANE grants for both projects, but he said one concern with bundling projects is the City match funds required and whether we would be able to come up with the matching funds. He said it will be competitive and because we have not applied for grant funds for Pines before and because of the time constraint, he would like to hire a consultant to help with the application and that is not in the budget. He said he received a quote from one consultant of just under $80 thousand for both projects, two applications under FASTLANE and one application under TIGER. If Council is interested in pursuing the grant for this project, he said we would need to get a consultant hired right away without two more touches by Council. Deputy City Manager Calhoun said that from a budgetary perspective we can see if there are funds in the current budget and with Council concurrence could come back later in the year with a budget amendment to pay for the remainder. He said for the Barker project we are looking for consensus from Council to move forward with hiring a consultant and submitting applications due to the time constraint. It was the consensus of Council to move forward with hiring a consultant and submitting the grant applications for the FASTLANE grant. Mr. Guth said we can look at bundling projects in subsequent years. He recapped that going forward we will hire a consultant, get the applications moving forward, and in the meantime bring the proposed projects back to Council to discuss and get public input, move forward with the application submittal, and if necessary bring back a budget amendment in the fall to address the cost of the consultant. Mr. Guth said the TIGER grant is $500 million for transportation and intermodal across the country. TIGER grants cover eighty percent of the project cost but no other federal money can be applied so the City needs to make a twenty percent match and the project must be greater than $5 million. He said approximately six percent of the total applications are funded, most are only partially funded meaning less than the eighty percent is funded, and the most successful projects have a thirty-five percent match component. He said projects that compete well are ready, have a strong local match, strong partnerships and a clear impact to the region or metropolitan area. Funds will need to be obligated by September 30, 2019. He said selection criteria include safety, quality of life, state of good repair, environmental sustainability, innovation and partnerships, readiness and cost -benefit analysis. Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 4 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT Mr. Guth said that if we use a TIGER grant for the Barker Overpass project, with an estimated cost of $29.2 million less the secured grants of $6,560,000, a City match of $1,640,000, a TIGER grant at eighty percent of the project is $21 million. Mr. Calhoun said if we receive this grant it would free up $2.2 million in REET funds that we could put toward other projects such as the Pines Underpass project. Mr. Guth said currently, there are no City funds put toward the Pines project. Mr. Guth said staff recommends we apply for a TIGER grant using the Barker Overpass project again because we already have funding partnerships and because we have applied for the grant using this project in the past, he said it could be to the City's advantage. He said the grant will be more competitive and he would like to hire a consultant to help with the application and updating the financial piece. Mr. Calhoun pointed out the Pending/ Potential Projects worksheet in the packet with regard to Bridging the Valley and said that it shows the project costs and grants secured and gets updated throughout the process. He said another City funding source is the Capital Reserve Fund 312 where each year fifty percent of the remaining General Fund balance was to the 312 fund, providing City funds for capital projects. 3. Develop a strategic plan for funding and completion of all grade separation projects — Mark Calhoun, Chelsie Taylor, Erik Lamb Deputy City Manager Calhoun said as an extension of the grade separation projects we are looking at taxes currently assessed. Finance Director Taylor went through the handouts in the agenda packet and said we are assuming a bond has a thirty-year repayment period and 4.5 percent interest rate and for this discussion, she is limiting the conversation to the bold, outlined portions of the worksheet. Mr. Calhoun said this is not a proposal, but is a "What if' Council decided not to focus on the grant funding for the projects and issued bonds instead. She said the first sheet is assuming the retail sales tax revenues increase and the second sheet is assuming a property tax rate increase voter passed bond. She said in the case of the Pines Underpass project, our annual bond payment would be just over $1 million so sales tax revenue in Spokane Valley would need to increase $126 million in order to make that bond payment. If using a property tax solution, she said for the same project to make the annual bond payment we would need a tax rate increase of $0.1389 cents per $1,000 assessed value per year for thirty years. Mr. Calhoun said currently we have a strong investment rating but the deeper we go into debt, it lowers our credit rating and increases our interest rate. Councilmember Grafos asked and Mr. Calhoun confirmed that for this assumption, we would need to increase our gross sales by 5.2 percent with no change in the operating costs of the City to repay the bonds. Ms. Taylor said the 2016 banked capacity is $490,992 so if we committed the banked capacity to a bond payment, we could issue about $7.8 million in bonds at 4.5 percent interest rate over thirty years. Ms. Tayler said our banked capacity represents approximately $0.06 cents per $1000. Mr. Calhoun said that we will delve deeper into banked capacity at upcoming meetings. Deputy City Attorney Lamb discussed additional revenue source options, starting with Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs) which he said is a quasi -municipal corporation that can be formed. He said the City can assume the powers of the TBD or it can sit as the legislative body for the TBD. He said revenue sources through a TBD come from additional sales taxes, property taxes, vehicle tabs, and impact fees. Those revenue sources are then turned into bonds for large projects. He said Spokane, Liberty Lake and Lincoln Heights all have TBDs. Other revenue sources to look at include Developer Contributions with benefits that include impacting only those causing the issues rather than the whole city, however, he said one of the limitations is that TBDs only address the impacts from new development and they do not fix issues incurred from previous development. He said the size and scope of a project is a challenge because a major development can be 500 homes or units and that will not generate a large amount of money to tackle issues such as the grade separation crossings. Another challenge is timing because the money only comes in at the time of development. Mr. Lamb said that Impact Fees are GMA authorized fees that can be used for public streets and transportation, but they cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies or to pay the full cost of new facilities. He said they are adopted by schedule, can be Citywide or limited to a particular area, and involve an extensive rate analysis to determine the rates for various types of Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 5 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT development. The schedule is useful to developers in determining fees they will need to pay. He said Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) are a smaller -scale financing tool assessing those who will benefit from the improvement. Property owners benefitting from the project pay for their portion of the benefit and the City pays the balance of the general benefit. Councilman Gothmann said a quiet zone project sounds like an opportunity to utilize this revenue source and Mr. Lamb confirmed. He said an LID is initiated by citizens or by Council. He said LIDS are not used very commonly because it is a time consuming and extensive process to go through and can be contentious if the property owners do not like their assessments. He said Developer Contributions for Direct Impacts of Development have constitutional and statutory restrictions and the fee needs to be proportional to the impact. He said the City currently utilizes developer fees but they generate tens of thousands of dollars rather than hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Councilmember Wood said he does not understand how an LID would be used for a quiet zone. Mr. Lamb said an LID creates a district with designated boundaries and properties within those boundaries that benefit from a project are assessed for the cost associated with the benefit. The assessed amount becomes a lien on the property and the property owner pays the fee annually over time. He said petitions can be used for citizens to either initiate or block an LID. Mr. Calhoun said we have an extensive amount of information regarding quiet zones on our website. He said that as an example, if a project benefits 100 people and costs $100 thousand, the City fronts the cost and does the project. Upon completion, the City issues local improvement bonds for $100 thousand and takes a lien on the 100 homes, sends bills to the property owner who makes annual payments over the life of the bond and the City releases the bonds. If the resident does not pay the City, the City initiates foreclosure proceedings. He said it is a common form of financing projects in many cities. Councilmember Wood asked if quiet zone can extend from city limit to city limit. Public Works Director Guth said one issue is that horns are required going in and out of the rail yard but if we go through all the federal requirements and make the improvements we could have quiet zones at all the crossings. Councilmember Grafos said if the City utilized an LID for a quiet zone, the key would be how large the LID district is to determine how large the impact fee is to the property owners and asked if that would be the first step. Mr. Lamb concurred and said the bigger the district means more people can challenge the LID but also means there are more people to offset the cost for those improvements. Councilmember Pace asked if the City has the authority to increase the number of signatures required on a petition for an LID or who determines the percentage of signatures needed. Mr. Lamb said Council authorizes the formation of a district and as part of that decision Council could determine if it wanted to make a requirement for a higher number of petitioners at that time. Finance Director Taylor discussed the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue projection amounts. She said in 2017 the dollar amount for Pavement Preservation increases significantly and the contributions to the Pavement Preservation fund from the Civic Facilities Replacement fund will be depleted in 2016, the balance of which will be picked up by REET funds. She said that will impact the fund balance, going from $3.3 million in 2015 to less than $200 thousand by the end of 2020. Mr. Calhoun said the Pavement Preservation Program committed funds are healthy through 2020. He said the 2016 figure may be low for the projected REET amount and that the thing to consider with REET is that it is "reliably unreliable" so staff is conservative with its projections as REET trends with the economy. He said REET funds are also used for construction matches as well as pavement preservation, so the more REET funds contributed to pavement preservation, the less funds are available for construction matches. Councilmember Hafner asked if we are still budgeting six percent for pavement preservation and Mr. Calhoun confirmed that we are. Ms. Taylor said the utility tax revenue available to the City include a six percent tax for electricity, gas, steam and telephone. She said utility taxes with no rate limits are allowed for sewer and stormwater, solid waste, water and cable television. Currently the City only imposes a utility tax of six percent on telephone providers and the revenue is designated for use in the street fund but there are no statutory limits on how the revenue is used. Councilmember Gothmann said some electrical providers in Spokane Valley consider themselves municipalities and we cannot tax them. City Attorney Driskell said if a utility provider is quasi -municipal entity they would be treated differently with respect to a utility tax when Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 6 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT compared to a privately owned utility, but a decision from the state Supreme Court likely changes that dynamic so he said he would not rule electrical utility taxes out at this point. Councilmember Hafner asked what the reduction in revenue is due to cell phones. Ms. Taylor said it is decreasing at an average annual rate of approximately 4.92 percent. Mr. Calhoun said staff is looking to get an audit whereby there would be no out-of-pocket cost for the audit, but the auditor would take fifty percent of the unpaid tax revenues. Mayor Higgins called for a break at 10:30 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:40 a.m. 4. Pursue a sustainability plan in connection with the City's Pavement Preservation program to include sustained funding in both the Street Operating Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311 to address concerns beyond the year 2020 — Eric Guth, Chelsie Taylor Deputy City Manager Calhoun said this topic deals with pavement preservation and street operating and management funds. The delta is the amount of money suggested we put toward pavement preservation and the amount we actually commit The suggested amount is $6.8 million per year and currently we are at $4.2 million per year, which he said is a substantial amount. Public Works Director Guth said IMS scans portions of our streets every two years so for the most part they are able to capture the full city in a four-year term. They put the information into a software program that details out a priority list, comparing each street in different categories against each other to come up with a priority list for each type of improvement. He said when scanning the streets, it shows the cracking, rutting and other deteriorations and treatments necessary. The streets having a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 45-65 are in need of replacement, streets with a PCI of 65-75 can be repaired with overlay or patching, and streets with a PCI of 75-85 need minor rejuvenation treatments. He said the PCI results for 2015 are based on an area that was scanned and the bulk of those streets are in good condition with greater than thirty percent rated excellent and less than eight percent rated poor. To keep the system at today's level, the consultant recommends $6.8 million annually in preservation. He said the current PCI level is 71. Funding sources include a grant fund average of $1 million, average pavement preservation funds of $2.3 million, and average maintenance funds of $900 thousand totaling $4.2 million that we are currently funding, leaving a gap of $2.6 million per year underfunded. He said this program is heavily funded by REET funds and after 2017, the general fund and street fund will only contribute $1 million and the balance of that $2.3 million will come from REET. He said the City may need to find alternative funding sources or new revenue to replace or supplement the REET funds. Finance Director Taylor said she is addressing the $2.3 million coming out of the general fund (six percent) for pavement preservation. The 2013 and 2014 contributions were $282 thousand, in 2015 contributions dropped to $206 thousand and in 2016 to $67 thousand due to challenges experienced in the street fund. She said the total expenditures have been fairly constant and we are projecting the ending fund balance in 2020 will be approximately $5.5 million. Mr. Calhoun said in 2015, the fund balance is $2.6 million but we are projecting that by 2020 the fund balance will be $5.5 million. He said the question to consider is, Is the Council comfortable with $4.2 million per year or does it want to go with the recommended $6.8 million and what can the City afford? Mayor Higgins asked how dependable the $6.8 million figure is and if the world will end if we stay at our current level of funding. Mr. Guth said this is a guide with predictions of weather, travel habits, vehicle mixes, and other types of wear and tear on the roads and he said it is an indication that we are not meeting the full need. He said our focus has been on arterials and not residential streets and the recommendation is for all of our streets. He said we are not in dire need but he does not disagree that the PCI level will decrease over time if we do not fund the program at $6.8 million per year. He also pointed out that with the County's sewering of the Valley we benefitted because several of our streets were repaved and that helped bring our PCI levels up to our current status. Councilmember Hafner said we are a driving community and citizens do not walk to most places and preventative maintenance is important. Councilmember Grafos said he thinks we should increase the funds each year for pavement preservation because the streets continue to deteriorate. Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 7 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Gothmann said now that the market has improved it is a good time to put more money toward pavement preservation. Councilmember Pace said he agrees we should increase funds to $6.8 million but look at who pays for it and that the revenue source aligns with who benefits from it. Ms. Taylor said in looking at street fund 101 and assuming the phone utility tax decreases at an annual rate of 2.2 percent and that the preservation contribution from the street fund remains the same as the 2016 budgeted level through 2020, the end fund balance in 2020 will be $318 thousand, which is not a sustainable path for the street fund. She said we are looking at utility taxes and we may need alternative revenue sources, such as a tax, to keep the fund going. Future revenue sources could be TBDs, or a tab fee of $20 per vehicle would add about $1.4 million. She said these funds would be used at the discretion of Council and if the funds were committed to fund 311 that would decrease the need for REET funds by one-half. If they were committed to the street fund, they would significantly increase the 2020 end fund balance to $3.5 million. 5. Continue and expand, where possible economic development efforts, including construction of the new City Hall. Complete retail and tourism studies, develop and implement strategies — John Hohman Community Development Director Hohman said he is here today to talk about the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP), Economic Development (ED) Initiatives, and Economic Development Infrastructure plans. He said when he started five years ago as the director, Economic Development was not part of Community Development. A couple years ago the department was restructured to add focus to Economic Development without increasing staff. He said they identified they could leverage technical staff for this program and over the last few years they have been working on a large recruitment with Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI) and he said they are now looking to formalize the program in a written manner. He said the plan will identify goals and strategies, and meet Council expectations and goals and the objectives and needs of the community. He said the Economic Development Initiatives include the marketing program, a retail and tourism enhancement study, and facility studies. He said they put out an RFQ to market the city for a 5 -year strategic marketing plan, including branding and forming a clear message of what Spokane Valley is. He said we received nine submittals, five that are from firms local to our region and four firms outside of our region. Staff will conduct interviews with some of the firms and bring a final selection back to Council for approval. Mr. Hohman moved on to the Retail Improvement Strategies and said retail targets include auto dealers, local production retailers, better recruitment of restaurants and special events, and niche grocery/food stores. He said their next steps are to meet with retailers, develop an inventory of spaces and properties for retail recruitment, and consider hiring a retail recruiter to fill identified gaps and target specific areas. Councilmember Pace said the strategies and action items look encouraging but he said we need to look at a balance between property rights and good things for the City. Councilmember Wood said he is not sure why the Valley does not have any high -scale restaurants and it seems downtown (Spokane) draws all of the upscale restaurant business so he would like to see what we can do to bring in quality restaurants. Mr. Hohman said they will be looking at ways to provide venues that will draw full-service and higher quality restaurants into the Valley. Mr. Hohman said with regard to the Tourism Enhancement Study, challenges identified by our stakeholders are that there is no distinct community identity or City brand, no central activity core, limited restaurants, few minor local attractions, and no regional draw. Opportunities for tourism include a multipurpose sports facility, creating a defined center by encouraging a concentration of businesses that attract shoppers, and promoting the City as a gateway to other destinations such as Mt. Spokane. Councilmember Gothmann said Valleyfest draws 45 thousand people per year and we could work with them to increase tourism. Mr. Calhoun mentioned the interlocal with Central Valley School District, Liberty Lake and Spokane County for the Plante's Ferry Improvement and Liberty Lake Ballfields. He said we received five responses to the RFP and selected CSL International for the study and anticipate completion of the study the end of April, 2016. Mr. Hohman said the Comprehensive Plan update will have a strong focus in ED and will incorporate goals, policies, and strategic actions identified. He said the ED Infrastructure Plan will be a formal approach in how we handle developing infrastructure and putting ED efforts at the forefront. He said infrastructure needs identified in the Mirabeau area Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 8 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT include sewer, pump stations, force mains, gravity collection systems, streets, and water. He said the County is moving forward with the first phase of a sewer system from Sullivan Bridge to Euclid and heading east along the Central Pre -Mix pit to just east of Tshirley. He said he hopes to have more detail put into the plans by the end of the year. Mr. Calhoun said the ED plan is encouraging because it is looking at ways to grow the economy rather than looking for revenue sources. 6. Evaluate and discuss increasing costs to public safety, including law enforcement. Seek long-term solutions to keeping costs in check while better serving the community — Morgan Koudelka, John Pietro, Cary Driskell, Chief Van Leuven, Lt. Matt Lyons Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka said this was a Council goal for 2015 and again in 2016 and it is a large contract that takes up most of the public safety costs. He said the first couple agreements had an eighteen -month termination clause and in the 2010 negotiations the County and Sheriff wanted a longer cancellation term from the City due to costs associated with their investment in equipment and staff; Spokane Valley makes up half of their cost and revenues. He said the process for termination is still eighteen months; however, if we start a term we must finish it and our current four-year term ends at the end of 2017. If we gave notice toward the end of 2017, our obligation is eighteen months, but once we enter into a new term, we would be obligated to complete the four-year period. He said a transition plan is required. He said when we first incorporated it was important to citizens that we have our own identity so we have contract terms that allow us to have distinct identification such as patches for our uniforms and distinctive logos and paint schemes on our cars. Councilmember Gothmann said there are other cities that contract for police services that have citizens who do not feel having a separate community identity is important. Mr. Koudelka said that identifying items increase cost to the City, such as letterhead, patches, and paint schemes on cars. City Attorney Driskell said we looked at what it would take to modify the contract (section 15) and what formalities we would have to follow. He said we have an independent contractor relationship with the Sheriff's department which he says is important in that we are paying for the service and we do not tell them how to do their job which limits the City's liability. We tell them the City's policing priorities and they enforce the law as the Sheriff instructs them to do. If the Sheriff's department or County is sued, the City is not generally included in the lawsuit. He said we need to be careful in what we tell them we want done so as not to breach the independent contractor relationship. Councilmember Gothmann said one liability solution is to do what we are currently doing which is contracting with the County for services. Councilmember Grafos said he does not think the police department is part of our identity and thinks our city is more than a police uniform. Mr. Driskell said if we want to modify the contract, it needs to be in writing and authorized by the Council, signed by the County Commissioners and the Sheriff and Spokane Valley. Mr. Koudelka said if we want to change the number of dedicated officers, we are able to do that because it is identified in the contract that we can do that. Councilmember Hafner asked if there are any red flags we need to discuss in the current agreement. Mr. Calhoun said in the past, any issues have been handled by the City Manager, the Sheriff and the Police Chief. Chief Van Leuven said they have quarterly meetings to discuss issues. Chief Van Leuven discussed the uniforms and said the deputies assigned to Spokane Valley precinct will wear the Sheriff's uniform identified with a blue Spokane Valley patch on the left shoulder. He said if Spokane Valley did not have separate identifiers, the presence of similar cars and uniforms gives the impression of a larger force. He said the Class A uniform costs $137.01 and officers normally need a couple of each in long sleeve and short sleeve depending on the time of year. The Class B uniform is a field uniform and he said two sets cost $252.12. Jumpsuits, which relieve some back strain due to equipment taken from the utility belts, cost between $519 and $595. He said deputies assigned outside of Spokane Valley that are transferred to Spokane Valley or work overtime shifts within the City, maintaining uniformity and Spokane Valley identity would require outfitting an additional sixty or so deputies with Valley uniforms for an additional cost of $54,508.80. Councilmember Grafos said he would like to poll Council to see if there is a problem with going to the same uniforms as the Sheriff. Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 9 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Wood said he would need to think about it. Councilmember Hafner said the identifying uniforms do not matter to him. Chief Van Leuven said with regard to patrol vehicles, in 2011 we switched to Ford Explorers and the manufacturer changed the color in 2014 to a slightly darker blue. The County Sign Shop produces the striping on the cars at a savings of $500 per vehicle and are able to stripe a car in just over an hour. In 2015, he said we obtained three lease return vehicles with just over 30 thousand miles on them for approximately $12 thousand each. Councilmember Hafner asked what the current condition of the fleet is. Chief Van Leuven said the shop staff keeps our fleet in very good condition; he said we have a lot of vehicles but they are in good shape. For emergency response, the cars need to be pursuit -rated so cars with high miles need to replaced. He said currently we have four unmarked cars that they are looking to rotate out and will be replaced in 2016 with Spokane Valley marked SUVs. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked what the plan is for identifying the Sheriff's cars and Chief Van Leuven said the cars will remain green and white and they have no plans to change them. Mayor Higgins called for a lunch break at 12:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1:10 p.m. Chief Van Leuven said in 2014 a Power Shift plan was approved and it has been a great success, it has increased the morale of officers, improved service to citizens and enhanced efficiencies, especially during peak call time. Lt. Lyons said the staffing levels have hindered them from fully implementing the Power Shift, but the difference is profound. He said the response time is considerably less during peak calls and it is a priority and goal to get the Power Shift fully running. Councilman Gothmann asked if staff is low due to recruitment and Lt. Lyons said recruitment and the retention of staff are their biggest challenges. Lt. Lyons said in the early 1990's upwards of a thousand people took the civil service test in Spokane County and now it is difficult to get one -hundred people interested. He said added to that, a larger number of applicants are disqualified due to not being able to pass the background checks and other criteria. He said our numbers match those of other jurisdictions statewide, and the competition is fierce for eligible candidates. Retention is difficult because people find the job too stressful and others go where the money is. To access a larger and better quality pool of applicants, we were able to join and contract with Public Safety Testing (PST) so people in other jurisdictions can test for Spokane Valley openings without having to travel here. He said PST does all the marketing to colleges and other agencies. Spokane County Sheriff's department sends a team to the testing sites to help recruit by pointing out the benefit to working for the Sheriff and Spokane Valley. PST updates their list sixty-eight times per year so we continue to work from the top of the list for candidates. He said we are also taking the recruiting team to military transitions and colleges to talk with students in eastern Washington, Idaho and Montana and he said they will be targeting the west side of the state this spring. He said negative publicity has also hurt the retention and recruitment of officers. Washington State has higher levels of certifications and requirements that can make it stressful to get into this field. He said in 2013, forty-eight new deputies were hired, of which thirty-five remain. Mr. Koudelka said the County CEO suggested a joint meeting to come up with solutions to alleviating shortages. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked where most recruits are coming from and what the trends are. Chief Van Leuven said they are looking for laterals and offer $3,000 incentive to laterals but King County offers $6,000 to laterals. He said there are career -change hires and they try to balance laterals and new hires; they have recruited many from North Idaho and they have a great training post but they are in the same situation we are in that they have a lower pay so their officers transfer to Spokane and our officers transfer to the west side. Chief Van Leuven said they have six districts that are served "twenty-four/seven." He said the call load for Spokane Valley is typically higher than the unincorporated areas. Lt. Lyons said Spokane Valley does not subsidize costs to unincorporated areas because there is too much activity in the Valley and the calls are tracked in the Computer Animated Dispatch (CAD) system. He said the CAD system does not extrapolate how many deputies go on a service call, the system is antiquated and contains so much data Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 10 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT that he cannot get to that number. However, he said it is much more often that unincorporated officers are coming in to Spokane Valley to assist rather than the other way around. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about the take-home cars and how it impacts starting shifts. Lt. Lyons said the unincorporated area has had the take-home cars for quite some time and in March of 2015 they started the program with Spokane Valley officers. Under the old system, he said a deputy would need to find a car and if it was during a shift overlap there may not be a car yet. They would then load the car and get it warmed up or cooled down before leaving, which takes up to twenty minutes at the beginning and end of each shift. With the take-home car program, they pick up an additional forty to forty-five minutes per shift and he said that during major events they are able to get everyone out at once without having to scramble for vehicles. During Ice Storm he said they had to rent vehicles to get extra force out. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked how many officers live within our city limits and Lt. Lyons responded approximately forty percent. Chief Van Leuven said officers are required to have their radio and gun on when driving to and from home and are required to respond to calls. He said the take-home car program provides an additional presence in neighborhoods and communities and increase the morale and accountability of officers and they take better care of their vehicles. Councilmember Hafner asked about the new CAD system and if it will allow them to determine how many officers are responding to calls in Spokane Valley. Lt. Lyons said that is his understanding and currently if an unincorporated officer responds to a call in the Valley and s/he is the primary officer, he can find that information in the CAD system but he cannot extract who else responds to the call. Chief Van Leuven said officers with take-home vehicles must live within twenty miles of the city limits of Spokane Valley. He said there are several reasons people might see Spokane Valley vehicles outside of the city limits, such as officers driving to and from work, to and from the training center, or follow up investigations outside of the city limits; driving to hospitals, jails, or court; or providing backup assistance to other agencies or special incidents. He said they are always striving for efficiencies and cost savings strategies include SCOPE stations that logged 31,973 hours in 2015 saving $727,516.00, buying lease return vehicles, applying in-house car decals, eliminating studded tires, using shared resources, and contracting out the records division to Spokane Police department. He said forensics is a joint accredited team, and the Power Shift has reduced overtime. Councilmember Gothmann said 1.6 percent of crimes are unsolvable because we do not have the manpower. Lt. Lyons said we have not been able to keep the Power Shift consistently filled. Mr. Koudelka said the chart for commissioned officers by function does not capture all units and the number moves around from year to year. He said the chart shows 107.5 full time employees (fte) and we typically use half of the shared services. The largest unit is patrol, then property and drug crimes, and traffic. He said the support functions do not utilize officers. He said staff compared law enforcement of Spokane Valley with other cities of our size, as well as Spokane, Lakewood, and Federal Way that also contracted for services when it incorporated. He said the average number of officers per 1000 for other cities is 1.43, whereas Spokane Valley is 1. He said Spokane Valley costs include IT, HR, facility maintenance, and support, and said we tried to capture the same costs with other jurisdictions in the comparison. Ideally, he said we are looking to have officers proactively patrolling for one-third of their time, although there is no specified standard, we are shooting for eight -hundred calls per officer to allow for that extra time. He said Spokane Valley is not like other jurisdictions and we are fiscally conservative. Mayor Higgins called for a break at 2:15 p. m. The meeting reconvened at 2:35 p. m. Mr. Koudelka said there has been an increase of 1.15 percent over the last five years in our public safety services contract. He said there have been reductions in vacant positions and no COLA increases. The contract is a four-year term that auto renews and has an eighteen -month termination notice requirement. He said we started this contract in 2003 and in 2010 agreed to a new contract that added an administrative lieutenant, a school resource officer and two patrol officers. It also eliminated corporals and created a dedicated property and drug crime unit, created a Power Shift to address high call loads, and eliminated duplicative jail charges. He said they are negotiating a credit for the public safety building and garage Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 11 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT charges in recognition of the Valley precinct, and negotiating a reduction in the commissioned officer charge in recognition of vacant positions. He said the detention services contract has seen an average increase in cost of 0.81 percent over the last five years, primarily due to a reduction in our usage percentage. Our usage has decreased and some of that decrease was intentional with the new relicensing program and pre -file diversion program, but we are looking into other factors to see where the decrease is coming from. He said Electronic Home Monitoring was brought back with cost control measures including usage of alternatives to incarceration when appropriate, evaluating housing options and increasing our revenue from other agencies. The District Court contract has seen our usage go down nearly 7 percent and he said we are currently evaluating the contract. It has a termination notice of 180 days but is subject to RCW 3.50.810 requiring notice at least one year prior to February 1 of the year in which all district court judges are subject to election. The next election will be in 2018, meaning notice would have to occur by February 1, 2017. He said we replaced outdated weighted cost measures with local workload analysis, a new methodology that accounts for civil, small claims, and mental health cases, placing a larger share of cost allocation to cases that are not the City's responsibility, pre -file diversion, true diversion for electronic tickets, and pursuing a court budget that is reflective of the workload. The Public Defender contract reflects an average reduction of 2.58 percent over the last five years. The contract auto renews each year with a 180 -day termination notice. He said caseload standards provide for 400 cases per public defender to be able to provide an adequate defense. In 2015, it looked as though they would need to hire two public defenders but it was proposed to hire two prosecutors instead and implement pre -file diversions enabling us to save money. He said the average reduction to the contract for Prosecutor services is 0.09 percent. He said our cost in 2014 was lower than it was in 2010. The agreement is for one year, it auto renews and has a 180 -day termination notice. He said the challenges with this contract include an increase in supervisory costs and additional attorneys added in 2015. We negotiated methodology that spreads the costs among all departments and funds that utilize services and resolve land -use cases without going to court to lower costs. The Animal Control contract has had an average cost reduction of 2.11 percent since 2004. We started a new interlocal agreement in 2014 for a regional system and new shelter. He said Spokane County is the provider and the contract's end date is 2033; the contract has a termination notice of 180 days but the City would still be obligated to debt service. He said the license revenue is lower than anticipated which is a challenge, and we negotiated a fixed rate with a CPI cap. Mr. Koudelka said the Pre -Trial services contract determines if someone is eligible for a public defender. He said the costs for this contract have increased 6.09 percent and our usage has increased 2.37 percent since 2010. The agreement started in 2005, auto renews and has a 180 - day termination notice. He said there have been large cost increases due to additional functions and increase in usage. The Emergency Management contract has had an average increase 3.57 percent; we are under contract until it is terminated and it requires a 180 -day termination notice. He said the contract for Probation services auto renews annually and requires a 180 -day termination notice. The current agreement allows the County to keep all probation fees in return for providing the service. Mr. Koudelka listed some of the cost comparisons with other Washington cities within twenty percent population of Spokane Valley for the public safety contract services as they are listed on the updated hand-out (included). In comparing revenues with Spokane, Spokane received $203 million compared to $45 million received by Spokane Valley. He said Spokane has a higher levy rate because they offer fire and library services and pointed out the significant difference in utility sales taxes with Spokane Valley ninety percent lower than Spokane. He said other areas of significant difference include fines and penalties, interest and investments, and lodging tax. Overall, he said Spokane Valley's revenue is forty- two percent lower than Spokane. In comparing us to other cities, some have a B&O tax, we are similar to the average in property tax revenues and he said the majority of cities have parking enforcement and an admissions tax that Spokane Valley does not have. 7. Work toward completion of the Comprehensive Plan update — John Hohman= Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 12 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT Community Development Director Hohman said coming up on the advance agenda on March 29 they will discuss the water rights districts and getting information out about those water service providers. He said staff has reviewed annual reports of each water district. He said they will also begin a multipart discussion on the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and will go into more detail, breaking it into smaller pieces. He said on April 5th they will discuss tiny homes and he said they will take a similar approach with tiny homes as they did with the bee -keeping approach they took. When the Mirabeau traffic study is completed, they will bring an update to Council. He said in the next two to three months they will schedule a joint workshop on the Comprehensive Plan between the Planning Commission and Council and he said there may be other topics to bring forward but this will keep them busy. 8. 2017 Budget Calendar — Mark Calhoun, Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor pointed out the calendar in the packet materials and said she has asked directors to keep their increase to one percent not including payroll. She said the Council Budget Workshop is June 14, 2016 and we are scheduled to adopt the budget on October 25, 2016. 9. Council Brainstorming Brainstorming items that will try to include on future agendas include: 1. Street Preservation plan to level out the PCI 2. Filling the Power Shift — increasing our percentage of solvable crimes 3. Legislative Agenda a. Barker b. Water Rights c. Reduce B & O Tax d. Reform L & I to reduce costs to business e. Become a Right to Work State f. Encourage State to Restore Liquor Tax Revenue 4. Grow Economy to Increase Revenues a. Bring Activities into Valley b. Attractive Parks and a Water Feature at Edgecliff 5. Address Quiet Zones 6. Address Parking and Landscaping Regulations in Comprehensive Plan 7. Consider Tax Increase Options It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn at 3:40 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Special Meeting Workshop: 03-15-2016 Page 13 of 13 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Dean Grafos, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem ABSENT: Rod Higgins, Mayor Staff Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director John Hohman, Comm & Eco. Dev. Director Erik Guth, Public Works Director Mike Basinger, Eco.Dev. Coordinator Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Andrew Fouche gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, staff and audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Mayor Higgins. It was moved by Councilmember Pace, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Mayor Higgins from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Councilmember Pace, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmembers Grafos, Gothmann and Wood had no report. Councilmember Pace reported that he attended the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting and that he continues to oppose any ballot measure for an additional sales tax; and said he went to the Chamber of Commerce Government Relations meeting. Councilmember Hafner said he also attended the STA meeting where they discussed having a police presence at the plaza; said they discussed the controversial additional sales tax for a Central City line for a high -transit system from Browns through the business section up to the University, then to the Community Colleges, and that it really is a City of Spokane Project; went to the Health District Board meeting where they talked about vaping regulations and some proposed legislative changes concerning sampling of different types of vapors; and that they are continuing their goal of hiring a new health district officer. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he went to the Chamber of Commerce meeting and they discussed the types of issues that come up when the legislature is in session, when there are limited days in which to respond, and they are working to determine how best to respond in those situations. MAYOR'S REPORT n/a Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-12-2016 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT PROCLAMATION n/a PUBLIC COMMENTS: Deputy Mayor Woodard invited public comments. Mr. David Wiyrick spoke about his concern for and support of a citizen review board, and read excerpts from his handout, copies of which were distributed to Council. 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 April 12, 2016 Request for Council Action Form, Total: $2,286,767.24 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending March 31, 2016: $431,952.70 c. Approval of March 8, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Regular Formal Format d. Approval of March 22, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Regular Formal Format e. Approval of March 28, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting f. Approval of March 29, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting g. Approval of March 29, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Regular Study Session Format h. Approval of April 5, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format It was moved by Councilmember Pace, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-004, Uncovered Loads — Erik Lamb It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann to advance Ordinance No. 16-004, adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 7.10, relating to the transportation of waste materials, to a second reading. After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, Deputy City Attorney Lamb and Legal Intern Caleb Hatch went over the proposed ordinance, and explained the difference in penalties between a class 2 and a class 3 civil infraction. Council agreed to include a class 3 infraction rather than a class two, and that will be so noted when this comes back for a second reading. Deputy Mayor Woodard invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 3. Motion Consideration: Approval of WSDOT Call for Projects — Eric Guth It was moved by Councilmember Pace and seconded, to approve the Deputy City manager to authorize staff to apply for WSDOT's Pedestrian and Bicycle Program and Safe Route to School grant funds for the projects outlined above with no matching funds. Director Guth explained the process and the proposed projects as well as the financial impacts, including the scenario of needed funds should the City go with a 10% or a 20% match. Mr. Guth noted that seventeen schools now have beacons, with thirteen placed at elementary schools and four at middle schools; and said the remaining twelve or thirteen needed areas are mostly middle schools, with possibly one high school. Discussion turned to available REET (real estate excise tax) funds and whether to include a 10 or 20% match when applying for these grants. Mr. Calhoun mentioned the REET analysis included in the packet materials, and that there has been so much committed to the Barker project and the Sullivan/Euclid intersection, that we are reaching our saturation point; and he mentioned that an alternate source would be when we close out the books at year-end, and move any fund balance in excess of 50% into the capital reserve fund for a variety of specific projects. After Council discussion on matching funds, it was moved by Councilmember Hafner and seconded to amend the motion to accept all five grant application proposals with 10% matching funds. It was mentioned that the likelihood of receiving all grants is slim. Deputy Mayor Woodard invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation to amend the motion: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Grafos, Gothmann, Pace and Hafner. Opposed: Councilmember Wood. Motion Carried. Vote on the fully amended motion to approve the Deputy City Manager to authorize staff to apply for WSDOT's Pedestrian and Bicycle Program and Safe Route to School grant funds for the projects outlined Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-12-2016 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT above with 10% matching funds. In Favor: Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Grafos, Gothmann, Pace and Hafner. Opposed: Councilmember Wood. Motion Carried. 3a. Proposed Resolution 16-007 Restrictions on Spokane River Use — Cary Driskell It was moved by Councilmember Hafner and seconded to approve Resolution 16-007 regarding restrictions on use of the Spokane River relating to the Sullivan Road bridge construction project. City Attorney Driskell explained that last February, Council approved Resolution 16-006 placing restrictions on access to the River and closing the section of the river in the vicinity of the Sullivan Road bridge when unsafe conditions occur, specifically from 100 feet east of the easternmost edge of the northbound bridge to 500 feet west of the easternmost edge; and that this resolution would change that area to start from the Old Mission Trail takeout, which is about 1,100 yards from the easternmost edge of the northbound road bridge, to 500 feet west of the easternmost edge, as noted in the newer resolution. Deputy Mayor Woodard invited public comment. Krisinda Marshall asked if this is just for the river or includes the Centennial trail. Mr. Driskell explained that due to the water level and speed, as well as the construction, the area creates a hazard for people navigating through the waters, and that the Centennial Trail has been addressed by contractor. There were no further public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Deputy Mayor Woodard invited public comments; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 4. Accomplishments Report — Mark Calhoun The report started with an explanation from Mr. Calhoun of the 2015 Council Goals and the work done in association with each goal, and included an update on the November wind storm; he explained the Legislative and Executive departments, including the number of Council meetings and committees Council serve on; and moved into the City Clerk's Office with public record requests and information on records management. Sr. Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained about the contract administration; followed by an explanation of their respective departments and areas of expertise from Public Information Officer Branch, Human Resources Manager Whitehead, Finance Director Taylor, Deputy City Manager Calhoun for IT services, and City Attorney Driskell. Deputy Mayor Woodard called for a recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at approximately 7:45 p.m., at which time the remainder of the Accomplishments Report was given by Police Chief VanLeuven, Community and Economic Development Director Hohman, and Public Works Director Guth. Council thanked staff for the presentation and their continued work over the year. 5. Comprehensive Plan, Tiny Homes Micki Harnois Previously removed from the agenda; to be brought back at a future meeting. At 8:47 p.m. it was moved by Councilmember Hafner, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. 6. Comprehensive Plan Goals, Follow-up Report - John Hohman Director Hohman explained that staff wanted to take a step back and give Council more of an overall review prior to getting into the details of the comprehensive plan; said the previously discussed Retail and Tourism studies help populate strategies and the focus areas as we move forward on the comprehensive plan, and as we move forward, he said that Economic Development Coordinator Mr. Mike Basinger will be working with other staff on this endeavor, and will be the lead staff person. Mr. Basinger said that although he just became the lead person for this issue, he has been involved with the Comprehensive Plan process almost since our City's incorporation. It was explained that focus areas refer to specific issues in each comp plan element that the City wants to analyze further, and some things for Council to consider while evaluating the focus areas include whether the focus areas adequately reflect the community's priorities, and if there Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-12-2016 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT are any missing focus areas. Mr. Basinger said the goal is to keep the comp plan lean and understandable and to make sure Council's priorities are incorporated into the plan; said we must, of course, adhere to GMA (Growth Management Act) requirements, but that the idea is to keep the plan driven and guided by the City's vision. He explained that the PowerPoint slides are organized by comp plan elements identified by focus areas, with general statements identifying priorities. Councilmember Gothmann said he noticed with some other cities, that their bike plans are readily available on their website and not just in a book, and Mr. Basinger agreed, and said staff is also examining our website for functionality, that they want to make it mobile friendly and to upgrade our GIS system as well; said the retail improvement strategy has shown we need to capitalize on our assets like the Trail and to make connections to retail; and that the overall goal is to update the comp plan with strategies and actions for a unified vision of the City. 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Calhoun apologized again for the microphone problems, and extended thanks to IT Specialist Bing and the members of Twisted Pair video -recording crew for their assistance with additional microphones. It was moved by Councilmember Hafner, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-12-2016 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Tuesday, April 19, 2016 Attendance: Councilmembers: Staff: Rod Higgins, Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Ed Pace, Councilmember Sam Wood, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Council Pro Tem ABSENT: Dean Grafos, Councilmember Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmembers Grafos and Hafner. EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately one hundred and twenty minutes to discuss potential litigation and that no action will be taken upon return to open session. [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)]. Council adjourned into executive session at 4:04 p.m. At 5:27 p.m., Mayor Higgins declared Council out of executive session, at which time it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. L.R. Higgins, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Minutes: 04-19-2016 Page 1 of 1 Approved by Council: Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action April 26, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 16-004 adopting code provisions requiring waste materials that are transported within the City to be covered or otherwise secured. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 70.93.097. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council heard an administrative report on December 1, 2015. Council heard a second administrative report on March 22, 2016. The first reading of Ordinance No. 16-004 took place on April 12, 2016. BACKGROUND: State law requires that cities having a manned waste transfer station adopt a local law making it unlawful to transport waste materials on public rights-of-way unless those waste materials are covered or otherwise secured from coming out of the vehicle and littering the right-of-way. Further, State law authorizes those cities to collect a fee for anyone arriving at a transfer station with an uncovered or unsecured load. The City of Spokane, through the Regional Solid Waste System, provided transfer station services in Spokane Valley until November 2014, and enforced its own uncovered/unsecured load provision. Spokane Valley established its own solid waste system in November 2014 and has determined that RCW 70.93.097 requires that the City adopt Code provisions addressing these issues since it has contracted with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc. for the use of the University Transfer Station. On December 1, 2015, staff presented an administrative report on the need for City code amendments to comply with RCW 70.93.097. During that report, Staff discussed proposed code amendments that would closely track RCW 70.93.097. The proposed amendments also included additional language making it illegal to transport hazardous materials or biomedical waste in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. Regulating hazardous materials or biomedical waste is not necessary under the statute, but some jurisdictions have a similar provision to have a tool to address instances when it comes up. The proposal also included the authority for the City to collect a fee from any self -haulers who arrive at the Sunshine University Transfer Station with an uncovered load. As discussed at that administrative report, the fee amount is not specified in State law, and so is subject to the discretion of the local legislative body. At the administrative report, Council requested additional information on what fee levels other cities have, how they are enforced, and other potential options in lieu of a fee. In response, Staff has reviewed code provisions from other cities to determine how comprehensive various approaches are. Jurisdictions impose a wide range of fees from $5 upwards to $25 for initial violations, and increased amounts for repeat offenders. Further, staff contacted several jurisdictions regarding implementation and enforcement of their fees. Generally, other jurisdictions indicated challenges in imposing fees regularly. Several do not enforce fees, or give warnings or other educational materials in lieu of fees. Those that enforce fees indicated that there are often difficulties and enforcement often leads to angry customers. Staff also met with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc., to discuss possible options at the University Transfer Station. Through our discussion with Sunshine, they indicated that it does not appear to be a major issue for self -haulers dumping at the University Transfer Station. On March 22, 2016, staff presented an administrative report with suggested revisions. The City is still required to adopt regulations prohibiting the transportation of uncovered or unsecured waste loads, so the revised proposal continued to track RCW 70.93.097 and makes it illegal to transport waste without securing or covering it. However, in lieu of imposing a required fee, the revised proposal provided that Council may impose a fee to be collected at the University Transfer Station at such time and in such amount as it may determine necessary through modification to the City's adopted fee resolution. Since there will not be an immediate fee, staff recommends creating appropriate educational materials (e.g., brochures or website materials) that can be distributed by Sunshine at the University Transfer Station to those who do not have secured or covered loads. Staff included mock-ups of an example website and examples of brochures that other jurisdictions distribute. Further, staff recommends working with Sunshine on tracking the number of haulers that do not have secured or covered loads in order to determine whether a fee may in fact be needed and what amount might be appropriate; at which time, staff would return to Council and Council could establish such fee as it may deem appropriate. The remainder of the revised proposal tracks the original proposal and includes the additional language making it illegal to transport hazardous materials or biomedical waste in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. Finally, in order to enforce the new provisions, the proposal provided for penalties of violations. Some cities make a violation a misdemeanor, while some make it an infraction. A class 2 civil infraction carries a penalty of $125, but with statutory assessments (additional fees) it comes to approximately $265, and a lower, class 3 civil infraction carries a penalty of approximately $120. The proposed penalty for illegally transporting hazardous or biomedical waste is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or up to $1,000 fine. This is proposed due to the higher risk of harm to the public if there is a violation. Council gave consensus to proceed to a first reading. The first reading took place on April 12, 2016. The language of the proposed ordinance tracked the proposed language from the presentation on March 22, 2016. The proposed ordinance contained suggested penalties for violations in order to enforce the new proposal of either a class 2 or class 3 civil infraction. Council directed that it would prefer making the lower, class 3 civil infraction penalty, which carries a penalty of $50, but with statutory assessments it comes to approximately $120. Staff drafted a proposed ordinance that incorporates the suggested approach. Council is now considering proposed Ordinance No. 16-004, which tracks the proposed language presented on April 12, 2016 with the incorporated language that the ordinance will carry a class 3 civil infraction penalty as directed by Council at the April 12, 2016 presentation. OPTIONS: Adopt with or without further amendments or modifications. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 16-004, adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 7.10, relating to the transportation of waste materials. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 16-004. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 16-004 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 7.10, RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE MATERIALS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. 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;" and WHEREAS, the City entered into an agreement with Sunshine Recyclers, Inc., dated as of June 4, 2014, to provide comprehensive solid waste transfer, transport, and disposal services for the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City approved the Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan, effective November 17, 2014, that designates the Sunshine Transfer and Disposal Station as the City's designated disposal system, open to use by all City residents and the solid waste collection companies collecting solid waste within the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 70.93.097, a city having a manned waste transfer station is required to adopt an ordinance making it unlawful to transport waste materials on public rights-of-way unless those materials are covered or otherwise secured to prevent spillage from the vehicle; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that RCW 70.93.097 requires that the City adopt provisions addressing the transportation of waste materials; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines that adoption and implementation of Chapter 7.10 Spokane Valley Municipal Code is in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare and environment for the City and its residents. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption of New Code Provision. A new Chapter 7.10 to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code is hereby adopted as follows: SVMC 7.10 — TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE MATERIALS 7.10.010 Transportation of waste. Pursuant to RCW 70.93.097, as now adopted or subsequently amended, it is unlawful for any person to operate any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is transporting waste materials upon the public rights-of-way of the City unless the waste material being transported is covered or otherwise secured to prevent the waste materials from escaping from the vehicle, except pursuant to SVMC 7.10.020. 7.10.020 Exemption. A vehicle which is transporting uncovered waste materials as prohibited pursuant to SVMC 7.10.010 shall be exempt from any monetary penalty if that waste is otherwise secured or is unlikely to spill from the vehicle. Pursuant to RCW 70.93.097, as now adopted or subsequently amended, a vehicle transporting sand, dirt, or gravel in compliance with the provisions of RCW 46.61.655 shall not be required to secure or cover a load. 7.10.030 Additional fee for uncovered load at transfer station. The City shall impose and charge a fee to any vehicle arriving at any City owned, operated, or contracted transfer station with an uncovered or Ordinance 16-004, Transport of Waste Materials Page 1 of 2 DRAFT unsecured load of waste material in violation of chapter 7.10 SVMC, which shall be in addition to any regular fees associated with dumping waste materials at the transfer station, at such time and in such amounts as the Council may hereafter determine necessary pursuant to an adopted fee schedule. 7.10.040 Transportation of biomedical or hazardous waste. It is unlawful for any person to transport biomedical or hazardous waste in such a fashion that said waste endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. 7.10.050 Violator liable for all cleanup costs. Any person or company responsible for a violation of chapter 7.10 SVMC shall be responsible for the cleanup and removal of any waste materials on public or private property. Failure to remove such waste materials within a time period specified by the City may result in the City undertaking the removal for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. In that event, the person(s) or company(s) responsible for the deposit of the waste materials shall be responsible for all actual costs of abatement and all expenses incurred in attempting to collect the abatement costs. 7.10.060 Penalties. A. Any person found in violation of SVMC 7.10.010 shall be found to have committed a class 3 civil infraction, and shall be subject to the monetary penalties set forth in RCW 7.80.120, as adopted or subsequently amended, and any applicable statutory assessments. B. Any person found in violation of SVMC 7.10.040 shall be found to have committed a misdemeanor, and shall be subject to the penalties set forth in SVMC 1.10.010(A), as adopted or subsequently amended. 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 April, 2016. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Date of Publication: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 16-004, Transport of Waste Materials Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 26, 2016 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ information Department Director Approval ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance No. 16-006 for Comprehensive Plan Amendment — CPA -2016-0001 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On April 5, 2016 the City Council agreed to move the amendment forward to an ordinance first reading. BACKGROUND: CPA -2016-0001 is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR), with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification, to a Light Industrial (LI) designation, with a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning classification. If approved, the site will receive a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation. The Planning Commission (Commission) held a study session on February 11, 2016 followed by a public hearing on February 25, 2016. During deliberations the Commission discussed the merits of the proposal. Issues discussed included the fact that parcel 35121.5201 was not included in the amendment, the future use of the seven parcels proposed to be amended, and the impact to surrounding properties. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council, and the Commission voted 7 to 0 in favor of the motion. The findings and recommendations were presented at the March 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting with a consensus of 6 to 0 to approve. The amendment was presented to the City Council as an administrative report on April 5, 2016. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February 5, 2016 and February 12, 2016. The site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign on February 10, 2016. Individual notice was mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the amendment on February 8, 2016. SEPA REVIEW: Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21C) a Determination of Non- significance was issued for the proposed amendment consistent with the SVMC Title 21 — Environmental Controls. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second ordinance reading scheduled for May 10, 2016 with or without further amendments; or take other action as appropriate. 1 of 2 MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 16-006 adopting Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2016-0001 to a second reading. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Power Point Presentation 2) Ordinance 16-006 with Attachment A 3) Signed Findings and Recommendation dated 3-10-16 4) Staff Report with exhibits 5) Responses from Avista requested by PC for 2-25-16 meeting 6) Approved PC Meeting Minutes 2-11-16 7) Approved PC Meeting Minutes 2-25-16 8) Approved PC Meeting Minutes 3-10-16 2 of 2 spcikane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT valley -.. NIN� [ I/ISION 1st Ordinance Reading April 26, 2016 Privately Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment File No. CPA -2016-0001 spcikane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . Valley PlAWI DIVISION Environmental Decision iy( c .O Ln Ln E O V c fa a Voted 6-0 to recommend approval of CPA -2016-0001 .4/ Administrative Report V 0 V 4-1 Ordinance 1st Reading Ordinance 2nd Reading COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT valley Fal°-,'iev.. Me - J k NjeLiii ( t _ City of Spokane Light Industrial 2.1.005 9. 35122_0434 rv,1 e rJ Low Density Residential 11 r Carlisle Ave 71.c: !;•522.C.,i Light Industrial montgomery:Ave_—__ _ h.+ • r 110 - _ to I i 01. - ReSi itIO SPOKANE VALLEY ra 35133.2501 3 51.7.: 2 OS • ,"-!":1•1 u 0 Corridor Mixed Use A 45077 GC[32 Ind -3024 1:31) Ld • kr• iailana 3 COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT valley ta. z 0 City of Spokane Light Industrial — 1 rw cr 4ln r'l Iry IV i 35 L22_04.04 .•"'"' -'-'-e. ,,,„ 4..,.- ,..--,-1.- ....,-,, ,,......., , C.1 ',.-- .....4...., .,,,N-9, ::... ' - . . . . . , . ..zk. . . . . . . .„..._ .,.....*' w.,,,,....:::4..„ ;`,, ,......:4:: -", 3912E 231,. ..% 1$02 ...---k-N---...'.7..-:-',. S•_.5 P, 0' ICZWN E rmans:tield Light Industrial ,,---.... ---.41---.... -., O7.4.,..,„:„...„.,,,,, ici,:•:,,..,,:z:1,... ,,,4 .:,-, 35 Li .2501........`--. --....„....., Z...--...zs ;e;123 -.;:---,:- Ok51:23.061 '1•';,;:,--z,...„-..,:.,::::-..s,„:2_-_....-L.----.7:...,_,.--...-...._,.....---..%:'.P.A0..„7:::::. iVe •,-N'SZ----',---'-zz..-`&7':','N'z''-`,..z: -..‘'''-z.,.---'" --''..,--,.`',`,..,,--,..„--c::',1"::,N— ev :->---..• -.\-'.r';: N=$,,z.,: , ,,,,.1-<%.„.-„:,,,z .---- - Fail, jeW-Ave „--1 - =56, LLIII ' „- 7. -- 111 11 Lill pa r i etta - Ave 1 I Single -Family Residential Suburban (R-2) R-2 —;' It M on tgo m eryi Av.i----7-- co __J .1-1 –ir -.1 r E ...,,:;„..,.. _ = _ -,-. el. n .1 - L EY _ 11 ' ,77-:---F4 -11.-- IL.— E1 -"' Ti -L !11.:-.2---%Z4NS:;--:°;-- a_ 1 ra m riuo gkv Corridor Mixed Use 45077 0002 iidi ',003.-111 I' C" • sp�ln COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT valley CPA -2016-0001 5 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 16-006 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN CPA 2016-0001; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, through Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 06-010, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and related maps (collectively, and as subsequently amended, the Comprehensive Plan); and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A.130); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Economic Development Director based upon citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted public participation guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides that amendment applications for the Comprehensive Plan shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 06-010, has been amended by Ordinance No. 07-026, Ordinance No. 08-011, Ordinance No. 09-008, Ordinance No. 09- 039, Ordinance No. 10-007, Ordinance No. 11-001, Ordinance No. 11-007, Ordinance No. 11-009, Ordinance No. 12-014, Ordinance No. 12-018, Ordinance No. 13-008, Ordinance 14-005; and Ordinance 15-006; and WHEREAS, an application was submitted by the applicant or owner to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein; and WHEREAS, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2016, the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) was notified of the City's intent to adopt amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2016, the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2016, after reviewing the environmental checklists, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and Ordinance 16-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA -2016-0001 Page 1 of 6 DRAFT WHEREAS, on February 5, 2016 and February 12, 2016, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2016, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2016, notice of the Commission hearing was posted on the subject property; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2016, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2016, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2016, the Commission voted to forward CPA -2016-0001 to the Council with a recommendation for approval with written findings of fact setting forth the basis for recommending approval to Council; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2016, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2016, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Comprehensive Plan as described in CPA -2016-0001. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council hereby approves the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map. The Council hereby makes the following findings applicable to the proposed amendment: 1. The amendment is comprised of seven parcels owned by Avista Corporation. 2. Avista owns and operates a Natural Gas Service Center, including equipment and maintenance storage yard, located west of the proposed amendment area. 3. On January 13, 2016, the SRTC was provided notice of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 4. On January 14, 2016, Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Ordinance 16-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA -2016-0001 Page 2 of 6 DRAFT 6. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist, and a threshold determination was made for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 7. On February 5, 2016 a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 8. The procedural requirements of SEPA and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. 9. On February 5, 2016 and February 12, 2016, notice for the proposed amendment was published in the Spokane Valley News Herald. 10. On February 8, 2016, individual notice of the site-specific map amendment was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject sites. 11. On February 10, 2016 the subject property was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign and a description of the proposal. 12. The procedural requirements in SVMC 17.80.140 for the amendment process, including public participation, notice, and public hearing requirements have been met. 13. On February 25, 2016 the Commission held a public hearing on CPA -2016-0001. 14. The Commission and Council have reviewed the proposed amendment to evaluate the cumulative impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). There were no other proposed amendments requiring concurrent review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). 15. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. Development will be evaluated for compliance with all applicable environmental regulations in effect. 16. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. Additionally, previously contaminated soils have been removed by the new land owner, Avista, and homes removed. 17. The properties located west, north and south of the amendment have a Light Industrial (LI) land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning designation. The amendment is adjacent and contiguous to properties of the same or higher zoning classification. 18. The amendment does not introduce a new designation into the neighborhood, but reduces the immediate conflict between the light industrial and low density residential uses by utilizing a street right-of-way as a separation between the uses. 19. The site is surrounded to the west and south by storage yards associated with a light industrial use and a more intense use north at Felts Field Airport. There are existing single family residences across Elizabeth Road to the east of proposed amendment area. 20. The site-specific amendment is located within the Airport Hazard Overlay (AO) (SVMC 19.110.030). The City's regulations are intended to protect the surrounding community while preserving the economic vitality of Felts Field Airport. Development may be limited based Ordinance 16-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA -2016-0001 Page 3 of 6 DRAFT upon the AO standards related to use, noise and height. The proximity to Felts Field provides benefits for a non-residential use impacted by noise and restricted residential density. 21. The City addresses the adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning A level of service standard is identified for each of the city services. Policy CFP -9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. This is implemented through chapter 22.20 SVMC. 22. The site is located at the intersection of two local access streets (Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road) and each lot has direct access to a public street. Transportation concurrency will be evaluated at the time of development. Sewer is provided by Spokane County Utilities and is available to the site. The site is located within the Orchard Avenue Irrigation District service area. Based on the preceding, the proposal meets concurrency requirements. 23. Due to the size of the property, the proposed amendment would not significantly impact population density and does not require population analysis. Employment would not contribute to an increase in population density, and removing the site from a residential designation would have a marginal impact city wide. 24. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 2 — Land Use; Chapter 3 — Transportation; Chapter 7 — Economic Development; and Chapter 10 — Neighborhoods. 25. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The change to Light Industrial (I-1) will provide opportunities for technology and low -impact industrial uses similar to those that presently exist to the north, south and west of the amendment area which are designated LI under the Comprehensive Plan. The area is served by Spokane County Division of Utilities for sewer and Orchard Avenue Irrigation District for water. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 provides emergency first responders. 26. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals will be met: a. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner b. Provide for economic development adjacent to similar zoned parcels and utilizes land for infill development within an urban area. c. Consistent with the intent of the light industrial designation to provide a transition between heavy industrial and less intense uses. d. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. 27. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 28. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 29. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan were considered and the proposed amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Ordinance 16-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA -2016-0001 Page 4 of 6 DRAFT a. Goal LUG -1 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. b. Policy LUP-1.2 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent nonresidential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. c. 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 areas. d. Goal LUG -12 Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industrial areas. e. Goal EDG-7 Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. f Policy NP -3.3 Encourage commercial development that is designed and scaled in a manner that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. 30. The proposed amendment complies with the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140H (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 31. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (maps). Section 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as set forth below and in Attachment "A" (maps). File No. CPA -2016-0001 Proposal: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to a Light Industrial (LI) designation with a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning classification. Applicant: Avista Corporation; PO Box 3727, MSC -21; Spokane, WA 99220-3727 Amendment Location: Parcel numbers 35121.5501, 35121.5502, 35121.5601, 35121.5602, 35121.5901, 35121.6001, and 35121.5101; located SW of the intersection of Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road, further located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 43 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Decision: The request is approved. Section 5. Copies on File - Administrative Action. The Comprehensive Plan (with maps) is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City's Department of Community Development. Ordinance 16-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA -2016-0001 Page 5 of 6 DRAFT The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scrivener's errors. Section 6. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. 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 as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of May, 2016. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Ordinance 16-006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - CPA -2016-0001 Page 6 of 6 Comprehensive Plan Map CPA -2016-0001 City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from LDR to LI; subsequent zoning change from R-2 to I-1 ti FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA -2016-0001 March 10, 2016 A. Background: 1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) includes art annual amendment cycle that runs from November rim November 1' of the following year. The Planning Commission Considers applications received prior to November l;`, typically in late winter/early spring of the following year, with a decision by City Council typically in late spring/early summer. 2. For the 2016 Comprehensive Platt annual amendment cycle, the City received one privately initiated request for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment, designated as CPA -2016-0001. Sites approved fora Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use designation. The City did not initiate any Comprehensive Plan text amendments. As it is the lone proposed amendment, there are no other amendments to consider concurrently and cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.80.140(1-1), the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA -2016-0001: 1. The aniendment is comprised of seven parcels, all owned by Avista Corporation. 2. Avista owns and operates a Natural Gas Service Center Including equipment and maintenance storage yard lccated west of the proposed anie:tdment area. 3. On January 13, 2.016, the Spokane Regional Transportation Council was provided notice of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 4. On Jenuary 14, 2016, the Depattnent of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the prrIpi)scd Compreheisive Plan map amendment. 6. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist, and a threshoiri was made for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. A Dc teniriri:sli.: i:. f 1 (DNS) was issued for the proposed Comprehensive :Hain rr,iLi~dreent on Fe.::ruary 2016. 7. The PlanningCommission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Spokane Valley ivtunicipal Code (SVMC) Title 21 have been fulfilled. 8. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the requirements for the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including public participation, notice and public hearing requirements. 9. On February 5, 2016 and February 12, 201 6, notice for the proposed amendment was published in the Spokane Valley News Herald. 10. On February 8, 2015 individual notice of the site-specific map amendment was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject sites. 11. On February 14, 2016 the subject sites were posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign and a description of the proposal. ]2. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to evaluate the cumulative impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). There wenf.(. nog orf +' Ii • Prt''t: l ts4dThe amcnements requiring concurrent review pursuart:.ti} : e 1 ' =., '.. ] () . ). review wasconsistent with the annual amendment proces..: SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A ROA/ (Growth Marragerzent Act). Plan ningCom rrii m Findings and Ream rnemini inn CPA -2016-0011 Page 1 a13 13. On February 25, 2016 the Planning i a public hearing on CPA -2016- 0001 14. The public health, welfare, arid be served by the proposed ..1:11 Tin! t I 1 :1-1 opport inifies for high teelanolo., irdiiriiI 1 h. (...%1"7!l tic north_ and west of mr7nt 17,LSig%Liti.N.i I- I tirii.lc:• omprehensiveIai The area is servo,' Spokane County Div siori of UtilitiL,,,L.,; For sewei, id Orchard Avenue Irrigation District for water. Spokane County Fire Di-riici No. 1 provides emergency first responders._ 15. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth Management Act (GMA) chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning goals would be met: a. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient mermen b. Provides for economic development adjacent to similar zoned parcels and utilizes land for infill development within an urban area. c, Consistent with the intent of the light industrial designation to provide a transition between heavy industrial and less intense ases. d. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan, 16. The proposed amendinett does not -espond to i. instantial change in conditions beyond the proper:). 0.4m....1 -'s eunt7ol, I ovr•civer, a Compr_diciTisive Plan amendment in 2014 from Low Density Re.,-.;47:._-nCril (I DR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CIVIL') occurred one and one huilblock south &.:-.,o;.:iated with the City's regional an shelter_ 7 I he prop.1.i amendmenl does not correct a mapping error. 1i..! dCF2S not addre;s deficiency in the Comprehensive C. Factors: 1. There Kt::n kriov.1: pkysical c[1;11-;_LIrHics tl n dev.e.loping the proper.y. under the :proposed des4taiiori. This is .1 Li ure development will be evaluated for compliance with all crn..irolime-11. 1.,...11.1,-.c-richts at the Line of development and in accordance with recitiremeras then ,n There arc no known critical areas associated with the site, soli sLJd as...vciland.,;., r:sli and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geolo*ii11,.- The sii is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and thor., ar ii known surface water qualit,' or quantity iSSUeS. Additionally, previously con soils have been removed by the new land owner, Avista, and homes removed. 3, The properties located west: north and south of the arnendrnc2in have an 1-1 Imisi use designation, in the Comprehensive Plan and a Light industrial zonin2., designation. TIw. amendment is adjacent and contiguous to properties of th:L: 'same or higherlnin classification. 4. Thn amendment does not introduce a new desigEntion into the neighborhopc, the immediate conflici Oc-.iween the light indir.1/4'.111.il] :111(1 IOW density 7"CSi(IL '1!.:.L".'; kit izing a street rig11.-01-wziy as a sQpar1r1 I .1.7LISCS, •c, The sire is surrouna'd to the west E.LISCI UiLi1 101-aue yards associated with a light industrial Use' arid a -in lc intense use ioi Field A7,1 -port.. There arc existing smile tarii 1cro-:,s.E.1 he:abet h :o oast oI proposed .irtlend ment area. 15. the fic amerdn,:in is located within 1112 Airport Hazard Overlay (AO)(...SVMC: 19.1 10.("601. Thc City's tegolw.ions are intended to Forcer -.lie surrounding cornmunky while the economic vitality Of Felts Held Airport. Development inlay be. hrnitcd bas:c!(.1. 1,4%•in the AO Standards related to use, noise ant! IieihL. The proximity 10 Nanning Comrriisticn Findings and ReoJrnmeirdal[01 CPA -2016-00i Fi 2 ::;-; cslts Field provide,. }c--.. _II,, for a non-roicleiniai tis impacted by noise and restricted iti;idtn:i;il densit4, I:1L olL le,. on a citywide basis `.,lii.olgh planllIIi . A 1c:4t:' }: tit'r'4'IC:e sL:!nd;icd i'.i iden1ilied fir tach of the city CFP -9.1 i.J t l c C'il l l'S1_. 1 i.:ll::�'•J , Ea ' I � _ �, 1':.f. Illnlerita Ei �',71"a'tlri�:nC�' i:3a11a+e,ement sysIi'r`'i .ui transportation. ti4:;,4'I", aid ,''aler Biel it cs. This. is im171einenter, through SVN1C Chapter 22,20 Ganctrrlv,lt w . 8. The site is located at the intersectiol: of two local access streets It:tah Avenue and Elizabeth Road) and each lot is direct access to a puhl:c Street. Transportation Concurrency has been deferred by the City's Traffic Engineer inter until the time of development. Sewer is provided by Spokane County Utililie t1 , lk avaiiao e. to clic. sate, The site is located within the Orchard Avenue Irrigation District service area. Based on the preceding, the proposal meets concurrency requirements. 9. Due to the size of the property, the proposed amendment ri.}I ill .i I Bari: i Impact population density and does not require population {.n:.lysis. 1.11]'lt, r"Ille :lt h 11 ,1,1 not Contribute to an increase in population density, and rL llk,)L;ng 111` site Irulil a ]t;s]u 11rial designation] would have a marginal impact city wide. 10. The proposed amendment is generally consistent wii.11 the folloio. i:1± chapters of the Comprehensive Peart: Chapter 2 — Land Use; Chaptcl _, Tr,n4.pmr:iiion; Chapter 7 — Economic Development; and Chapter 10 — Neighborhoods. T11. Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.$0.140(1-1)—Comprehe:-isive Ilan_ Arnendr.nent A11prcival Criteria for CPA -201,6-0001_ Propclsrl1 2016 Comprehensive Plan anlcnc.1 eLit CPA -]0I 6-01-M1 1 is cc ni4stent with ..he goals alit pc+lieics ol Ct1i: rcllt.nsivc Plan, and will promote Ih., p..17.1le: 1i. li-, safety, yr :i'.r:, tier] protect^,an cif tl:e environ]licrlt, D. Recommendation: TF c Spnkane Valley Planning Commission rcconinne]lda ene City Cc}unc;i] approve proposed 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA -2016-000 I. Approved this 101]' day of March, 2016. ;-leather Graham, Chaiinnan ATTEST Dea na Horton, Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Findings and I2acummrndatio t CPA -2016-4031 Page 3 or 3 S""oka e p _valley COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION FINAL STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CPA -2016-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: February 4, 2016; revised February 18, 2016. HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 25, 2016, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. Project Number: CPA -2016-0001 Application Description: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to a Light Industrial (I-1) designation with a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning classification. Location: Parcel numbers 35121.5501, 35121.5502, 35121.5601, 35121.5602, 35121.5901, 35121.6001, and 35121.5101 located SW of the intersection of Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road, further located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 43 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington Applicant/Owner: Michelle Anderson, Avista Corporation; PO Box 3727, MSC -21; Spokane, WA 99220-3727 Owner: (Parcel 35121.5101) Chad and Jasmine Jones; 6724 East Utah Avenue; Spokane Valley, WA 99212-1430 Date of Application: October 27, 2015 Date Determined Complete January 13, 2016 Staff Contact: Karen Kendall, Planner, (509) 720-5026, kkendall@spokanevalley.org APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 Environmental Controls. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Comprehensive Plan Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Aerial Map Exhibit 5: Amendment Application Exhibit 6: Agency comments Staff Report CPA -2016-0001 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a privately initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to a Light Industrial (I-1) designation with a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning classification. Avista is the current property owner of six parcels (35121.5501, 35121.5502, 35121.5601, 35121.5602, 35121.5901 and 35121.6001), Avista is purchasing parcel 35121.5101 and included in proposed amendment. Parcel 35121.5201 located directly south of parcel 35121.5101 has not been included in the site-specific amendment as it is not owned by AVISTA. The application meets the procedural criteria, even if parcel is not included. Avista owns approximately 10 acres west of site-specific amendment area for their natural gas service center. Avista has provided several reasons to support their application which include the following: • A growing need for more natural gas services spurring a need to expand the adjacent Natural Gas Service Center equipment and maintenance yard to accommodate for the increase capacity of materials. • The expansion of equipment storage yard will enable existing and future natural gas lines to be better served. • The current natural gas facility, accessed from Dollar Road, has served the community and existed in the area for over 20 years and has been designed and operated to be compatible with the existing residential uses. 1. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Size and Characteristics: The combined, area of all parcels is 5.3 acres. The site is relatively flat with residential landscaping including trees and bushes. There are no critical areas in the amendment area or vicinity. Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning: Single -Family Residential Suburban District (R-2) Existing Land Use: Single-family residences exist on 5 of the 7 lots. Two residences have recently been removed from site by the current property owner. 2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING, AND LAND USES: North Comprehensive Plan — City of Spokane Light Industrial Zoning — City of Spokane Light Industrial Existing Land Uses — railroad, Felts Field Airport , Skyway Cafe and airplane hangers South Comprehensive Plan — Light Industrial (I-1), Low Density Residential (LDR) and Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Zoning — Light Industrial (I-1), Single -Family Residential Suburban District (R-2) and Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) Existing Land Uses — Landscape material storage yard, SCRAPS, single-family residences. East Comprehensive Plan — Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning — Single -Family Residential Suburban District (R-2) Existing Land Uses — Single-family Residences West Comprehensive Plan — Light Industrial (I-1) Zoning — Light Industrial (I-1) Existing Land Uses —AVISTA Natural gas service center, and storage, equipment and maintenance yard Page 2 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2016-0001 B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA 1. Findings: Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal on February 5, 2016. The determination was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, the application, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 19, 21, and 22, a site assessment, public and agency comments, and other information on file with the lead agency. 2. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21 have been fulfilled. C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide zone map amendments if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed Light Industrial (I-1) designation is intended to serve high technology and low -impact industries as well as office and commercial uses as ancillary uses. These uses presently exist in the vicinity of the amendment area to the west, north and south. The amendment area is located within the service boundaries of Spokane County Division of Utilities and Orchard Avenue Irrigation District. Other utilities such as electricity, telephone and garbage are to be provided by franchise utility providers in conformance with applicable City standards and requirements. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 is the fire protection service provider for the City of Spokane Valley, and the police service provider is the City of Spokane Valley. Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road intersect at the northeast corner of the property. Both streets are identified in the City of Spokane Valley Arterial Street Plan as local access streets. Safety related to fire, police and road access is currently present to serve the amended area. The amendment area is not covered by critical areas or designated natural resources. Avista discovered contaminated soil on one parcel and has removed contaminants, cleaned and restored site. The public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment are promoted by standards established by the state and the City's regulations. Page 3 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2016-0001 (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the City. The proposed amendment provides for economic development adjacent to similar zoned parcels and utilizes land for infill development within an urban area. The proposed land use designation is consistent with the intent of the light industrial designation to provide a transition between heavy industrial and less intense uses. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; Analysis: One significant change has occurred in the area of the proposed amendment. A parcel north of Trent Avenue and Bradley Road located approximately one and one half blocks south of the amendment area received approval in 2014 through a comprehensive plan amendment (CPA -2014-0002) to change the designation from LDR to CMU to expand the regional animal shelter, SCRAPS. Existing conditions of the area to the north, south, and west are established industrial uses within their respective zones. The proposed seven parcels presently exist as established single family uses. Located east across Elizabeth Road are established single family uses. (4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. (3) (5) Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: (1) The effect upon the physical environment; Analysis: There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. This is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements. (2) The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; Analysis: There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; Analysis: Residential and light industrial height standards vary by five feet from 35 feet in residential and a maximum of 40 feet in light industrial. The following table provides a comparison of the development standards for each zone: Page 4 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2016-0001 * Exception for properties adjacent to a residential use or zone shall maintain a 20 foot setback along the side and rear. AVISTA would like to expand the equipment storage yard located to the west into the proposed amendment area. Expansion of the storage yard is a less intense use compared to other light industrial uses permitted and would have a minimal impact on traffic and noise. However, the application review should consider the uses allowed in the light industrial zone since the property may be redeveloped or sold. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. The use of fencing and screening will provide visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. The site-specific amendment is located within the Airport Hazard Overlay (SVMC 19.110.030). The City's regulations are intended to protect the surrounding community while preserving the economic vitality of Felts Field Airport. Considerations are placed upon adjacent uses, noise and height. The proximity to Felts Field provides benefits for a non-residential use impacted by noise and restricted residential density. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. A level of service standard is identified for each of the city services. Policy CFP -9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. This is implemented through SVMC Chapter 22.20 Concurrency. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. Found contaminated soils have been removed and sites acquired by the new land owner, Avista, have been cleaned and or homes removed. Avista has served the community in its current location for over 20 years. The site has been designed and operated to be compatible with the existing residential uses. Avista's equipment and material storage is a minimum depth of 100 feet located along the west property line adjacent to existing residences included in the amendment area. There is minimal intensity to current operations adjacent to the existing single family use. The expansion to existing operations would add benefit to the neighborhood as proposed operations and disturbance are less intense compared to other light industrial uses. Avista's application notes development will provide Page 5 of 9 Zone Maximum Building Height Maximum Lot Coverage Minimum Lot Width Minimum Lot Depth Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Existing R-2 35 ft. 50% 80 ft. 90 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. Proposed I-1 40 ft. N/A N/A N/A 20 ft. 0ft.* 0ft.* * Exception for properties adjacent to a residential use or zone shall maintain a 20 foot setback along the side and rear. AVISTA would like to expand the equipment storage yard located to the west into the proposed amendment area. Expansion of the storage yard is a less intense use compared to other light industrial uses permitted and would have a minimal impact on traffic and noise. However, the application review should consider the uses allowed in the light industrial zone since the property may be redeveloped or sold. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will ensure compatibility with the existing residential neighborhood. The use of fencing and screening will provide visual separation and physical buffers between land uses. The site-specific amendment is located within the Airport Hazard Overlay (SVMC 19.110.030). The City's regulations are intended to protect the surrounding community while preserving the economic vitality of Felts Field Airport. Considerations are placed upon adjacent uses, noise and height. The proximity to Felts Field provides benefits for a non-residential use impacted by noise and restricted residential density. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; Analysis: The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. A level of service standard is identified for each of the city services. Policy CFP -9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. This is implemented through SVMC Chapter 22.20 Concurrency. At the time of development, an additional SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s) on the physical environment and transportation. Currently the site is served with all utilities and improved public roads. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. Found contaminated soils have been removed and sites acquired by the new land owner, Avista, have been cleaned and or homes removed. Avista has served the community in its current location for over 20 years. The site has been designed and operated to be compatible with the existing residential uses. Avista's equipment and material storage is a minimum depth of 100 feet located along the west property line adjacent to existing residences included in the amendment area. There is minimal intensity to current operations adjacent to the existing single family use. The expansion to existing operations would add benefit to the neighborhood as proposed operations and disturbance are less intense compared to other light industrial uses. Avista's application notes development will provide Page 5 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2016-0001 landscaping, screening and restrictions of onsite operations to access Elizabeth Road. The regional benefit speaks to increased natural gas services. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: As shown in Figure 2.1 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, 5.1 percent of the land in the City is designated for Light Industrial. Light and heavy industrial categories total 20.3 percent of the total land uses, which is larger than all the office, commercial and mixed use categories combined at 15.3 percent. The Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends report prepared in September of 2015 states there is a rising demand for industrial areas with an increased demand possible in the future. Light Industrial does not affect density within the City of Spokane Valley. The current and projected population density in the area; and Analysis: The current density within the single family residential suburban district (R-2) is four dwelling units per acre, except restrictions are placed upon density being located in the Airport Hazard Overlay. If development did occur to meet all development standards a maximum of 23 residences are allowed within the amendment area totaling 5.3 acres. Currently two single family residences have been removed from the site following the land purchase by Avista. There are a total of 5 residents remaining and four of which are under ownership by Avista at the consent of former owner. This does not result in displacement of residences. The amendment would have a marginal impact on population density and does not demand population analysis since there is no increase in density. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The amendment will have minimal impact on other aspects of the plan since the amount of property that would move from a residential 2. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations a. Findings: The proposal is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) with a Single -Family Residential Suburban (R-2) zoning classification to Light Industrial (I-1) designation with a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning classification. Future development on the site will be subject to the provisions in SVMC Titles 19, 20, 21 and 22. (7) (8) Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.030 (B) all site specific zoning map amendments must meet all the following criteria: a. The requirements of SVMC 22.20, Concurrency; Spokane County Utilities provides sewer throughout the City of Spokane Valley. Specific sewer requirements would be addressed at the time of development however sewer facilities exist in the area and are available to the site. Orchard Avenue Irrigation District is the water purveyor for this area. Water requirements will be coordinated with the water district at the time development is proposed. Each parcel has direct access to a public local access street. The proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements. b. The requested map is consistent with the Comprehensive plan; Page 6 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2016-0001 As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. c. The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare; As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare. d. The map amendment is warranted in order to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zoning district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; The map amendment is not being sought to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. However the amendment may inadvertently address a need for additional unused industrial space as described in the Existing Conditions Housing and Economic Trends report prepared September of 2015 stating, `However vacancies have decreased substantially from over 20 percent to less than 10 percent ....at some point new space may need to be developed. " Existing conditions of the area to the north, south, and west are established industrial uses within their respective zones. The proposed seven parcels presently exist as established single family residences. e. The property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include corner touches and property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher zoning classification; The properties located west, north and south of the subject property have a Light Industrial (I-1) land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning designation. The subject property meets the requirement. f. The map amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; The site is surrounded to the west and south by storage yards associated with light industrial use and a more intense use north at Felts Field Airport. There are existing single family residences across Elizabeth Road to the east of proposed amendment area. The proposed expansion of an existing use to the west would not create new and different operations than presently occurring. Residences located east of Elizabeth Road will be buffered by the existing public street. Existing land uses are compatible, or will be made compatible, with the application of development regulations at the time of development. g. The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole; The amendment will allow a range of low intensity commercial uses up to light industrial assembly, manufacturing and processing as proposed uses. If development occurred individually on the seven lots there may be more impacts of several light industrial uses on each lot verse a consolidation of the amended area into one parcel. The currently property owner of six lots is Avista. Avista is purchasing parcel 35121.5101. b. Conclusion(s): Pursuant to RCW 36.70a.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to the shoreline master program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board. Page 7 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2016-0001 The proposed amendment is consistent with SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan a. Findings: The Light Industrial designation provides for expansion of adjacent property to the west and consistent with the development that is occurring on adjacent properties. It will provide an opportunity for additional light industrial uses serving as a transitional category between heavy industrial and other less intense land use categories. The amendment does not introduce a new designation into the neighborhood, but reduces the immediate conflict between the light industrial and low density residential uses by utilizing a street right-of-way as a separation between the uses. The amendment is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Goal LUG -1 Preserve and protect the character of Spokane Valley's residential neighborhoods. Policy LUP-1.2 Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent nonresidential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. 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 areas. Goal LUG -12 Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industrial areas. Goal EDG-7 Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Policy NP -3.3 Encourage commercial development that is designed and scaled in a manner that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan. 4. Adequate Public Facilities a. Findings: The Growth Management Act (GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy. The area is currently served with public water and sewer. Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road will provide transportation access. As previously stated both roads are classified as local access streets according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley Police Department will provide police service. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development. Page 8 of 9 Staff Report CPA -2016-0001 D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Findings: Public hearing noticing was mailed on February 8, 2016, the site was posted on February 10, 2016 and the notice was published in the Valley News Herald (local newspaper) on February 5, 2016 and February 12, 2016. Staff has not received any public comments as of the date of staff report. 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted at this time. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Findings: Staff routed the initial proposal to agencies on January 13, 2016 and received no comments. Two comments have been received following the notice of public hearing sent to agencies on February 8, 2016 by Spokane County Division of Utilities and Spokane Tribe of Indians (see Exhibit 6). Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Liberty Lake, Community Development No City of Millwood No City of Spokane, Planning Services No City of Spokane Valley Police Department No Spokane County, Building and Planning No Spokane County, Division of Utilities - Info Svc Yes 2-10-16 Spokane County, Clean Air Agency No Spokane County, Fire District No. 1 No Spokane County, Fire District No. 8 No Spokane County, Regional Health District No Spokane Transit Authority (STA) No Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) No Washington State Dept of Ecology (Olympia) No Washington State Dept of Ecology (Spokane) No Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife No Washington State Department of Natural Resources No WA Archaeological & Historic Preservation No Avista Utilities No East Valley School District #363 No Century Link No Comcast No Orchard Avenue Irrigation District #16 No Spokane Tribe of Indians Yes 2-17-16 2. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. Page 9 of 9 co O O1 rsJ O m Frederick Ave W U1 N w u1 0 35013.0201 ZL n ` 1.a , Fairv��4e�,�w1�A,,iieAveve Qllr r° u1"mt !�1��` 35111.0001 -� Grace Ave,fTc?. CPA -2016-0001 Vicinity Map 35015.0002 A 35115.9017 35122.0013 pec c 2,950.2 0 Knox Ave 0 m� -Bridgeport Ave1---n m i r9 !I 173 ro n l 'r F o m - , O 0 ' Iv 0 33 73 73 73 CU • a Fucli - ell a Ave R a 70 73 o_ .00 POI ellta utikec*c 3 , m ro T 73 d • O w 0- 0 0 ro J_.-- �I{ 1 Li Lc` m0. � ii ro A R Pt! uJi0yaa5 73 2 77 ' Fairview Ave P.le - ' \pati - Marietta Ave -10 ry 33 rt; Carlisle Ave r7 w r"--," 7] 0- 73 a ❑� oop2ad ve ACene Ave o- q5 R`�o Shannon Ave 4.71—H171 03 e ✓ v. ru y �. Pr -0 rt, A M 3° P CL 73 CL ' Fa r. -.'-''n 0 A 0 - Frederick Frederick A ocn Fairview Ave ▪ cc Grace Ave a ro Buckeye A'F CC vi 76c1_7" Bi ckeye Ave a w ev. 0- 7 v, ro York Ave,.,„.,0- ,-, "' R Jackson Aveco. 0.,'R gym:. T.; Carlisle AVe..` a 730. Av FT Liberty Ave Dalton Ave T1� Frederick �-,--n� �r MILLWOOD^ Grace Ave , r; +na,`ana t_n Indiana Ave _LI i t SPOKANE VALLEY Nora Ave Augusta Ave Ave cc a) a R {Montgomery 'MansfieldoAvea cc a+_ Michielli Ave a ck- M• ission Ave co 0 0 • sr) Off' o a ti' � 4 m m Ln Ln • m Sharp Ave r1 0 .g yy aa Dean Ave Mallon Ave N 3 :v m 0 73 b51'62 y a mT T Z 45182.9178 1,4715.10 2,950.2 Feet %7 R - Broadway ,Ave s -r 1 1 1 1 ULUJ ! L' '.UL -L, = 1 I 0 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 35111.0001 35111.0186 35115.0102 35115.0202 35122.0013 SPOKANE CPA -2016-0001 Comprehensive Plan Map 35122.0405 35122.0404 tki-e so,(V" Fl, Light Iiidush ia1 L. riLI, Mansfield Ave 35123.0414 m _ Av ml Knox Ave F rD I 35123.0614 •-c tel Me 1F�a 4 a' Pal I 1,475.1 7„ 3 1153 115 4.00 im Baldwin Ave D1 ro Trent Ave 0 7 737.55 m 1 .t 1 35123.2402 35123.2401 35123.2501 0 35123.2603 35123.2705 • 1,475.1 Feet N CD fir d N N m N N m 35122.0164 405 ma: m a rD a o L,-Fai°'diew_Ave _ � f a Marietta -Ave IMO 1 35125.2303 a. - SPOKANE VALLEY_ 's .I, 0 00 +High N Corridor Mixed''LTse 45077.0002 - 0 3tj'L Indiustrial 1 IS 1 e 11 r Low Density Residential Buckeye Ave Carlisle=Ave: Montgomery Cr -cc - C a^iO a 7 — 0 aack Density Residentia 04 MOM Mom NMI .111111.11 IMMO MOM MEM n rD m a Ave -.1114 i 08351,,a`ang L 35124.15 e aa' PVA--- Ra�1C o �� Ind ia4 I llA Baldwin Ave MP PO Nora Ave 0 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 35111.0001 35111.0186 35115.0102 35115.0202 35122.0013 SPOKANE CPA -2016-0001 Zoning Map 3512 2.0405 35122.0404 m 00 •-•"- # • a• `�� \\ • ti \ \m te\ 1,475.1 1�'~�351230• 20\�= 35123:2402 F Mansfield Ave 41 Knox A• ve 35123.2401' U.) O 111 sik ro Ell S: P.:O' K, ' E .35173.2 \�♦ \\�X5173 J603\ O VA ZION MI III • ai°:�iew-Ave - t e Marietta Ave IMOmil IMMO LEY__ ro 35123.0614.�� `a e Ave ��\��• �\ \�\ ��`\\▪ A\\� • �� O Carlisle_Ave` 11111. a 3523270511 gas 1 Tre• nt Ave 0 yam`\\ •�\i\`� � �`N R �\\› G • 35114.0027 \ ald\' Ave tUS m. )171 0 290 45077.0002 0 7371.55 1,475.1 Feet Efie Buckeye Ave 1111 own MEI mom moms OJ m -n-_ Montgomery. e —_1441-1 2\\O` .h 35\2410g`` Inman 0 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Nord .Ave • �J .2_indiana7Ave Tve l i 1-4J_1 CPA -2016-0001 2014 Aerial Map 35111.0001 MOW, MOIL 410„,- ' 19 FairviewAve Art 12v 35122.01113 keye1Ave 35122.0405 35122.0404 35.11 6A'' Carlisle Ave 35115.0202 35123.0614 35114.0027 1,475.1 Trent Ave Baldwin Ave 0 35123;2501' 35123:2603 Montgomery Ave w11111E 45077.0002 35123:2705 Iz:* ®Aa' R ana. Av Baldwin Ave 737.55 1,475.1 Feet 0 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Sp" kane jValley� COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION STAFF USE ONLY 11 " Date Submitted: I (/ 1 r -I Received by: Z. Fee: 1 U/) PLUS #: File #: ( 'k4 "moi .trif PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION OCT 2 6 2015 ® SSPCKA:.EV . LPy Map Amendment; or 111 Text Amendment D`-. ; ii (5F uOMMUN APPLICANT NAME: Robin Bekkedahl, Avista Corporation MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 3727 MSC -21, 1411 East Mission Avenue CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99220 PHONE: 509.495.8657 FAX: 509.495.4852 CELL: EMAIL: Robin.Bekkedahl@avistacorp.com PROPERTY OWNER : Avista Corporation MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 3727 MSC -21, 1411 East Mission Avenue CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99220 PHONE: 509.495.8657 FAx: 509.495.4852 CELL: EMAIL: Robin.Bekkedahl@avistacorp.com SITE ADDRESS: 2403, 2415, 2425, 2503, 2509, & 2513 North Elizabeth Rd. PARCEL No.: 35121.5501, .5502, .5601, .5602_5901, and .6001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING DESIGNATION: R2 PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: I1 BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): Avista Corporation owns approximately 10 acres adjacent to the subject property to the west for use as its natural gas service center. As the demand for natural gas in the Greater -Spokane Area continues to grow. the need for additional space to store and maintain equipment at the natural gas service cento: continues to grow. Avista requests a comprehensive plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial for 3.75 acres adjacent to this facility to provide additional storage and services for Avista's natural gas service center. PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 SSOkane` _Valley• COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III -- AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) 1, e lr `' *C.:6)7t 4:0---- (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfull/and to the_best of m'y knowledge. (2- (Sicdnature) :3 STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE NOTARY SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this .9 NOTARY SEAL z. NCTr PUBLIC; z ;. • ,. If. f#, , (Date) day of (alC/ , 20 %3' NOTARY NATURE Notary Public in6e-4" and for the State of Washington Residingat: 011/0/(//11 / 1-F�T Gav0 My appointment expires: /0 -)?(3/-? LEGAL OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize regarding this application. to represent me and my interests in all matters PL -06 V1.0 Page 4 of 4 Karen Kendall City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11703 E. Sprague Ave, Ste B-3 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Subject: Dollar Road Comprehensive Plan Amendment Change to Application January 12, 2016 Dear Ms. Kendall Per our conversation 12/30/15, I am forwarding you information to update our recently submitted SEPA application and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 1. Please note that I, Michelle Anderson will be the primary Avista Contact for this project and not Robin Bekkedahl. My contact information is as follows: Michelle Anderson Sr. Environmental Specialist 1411 E. Mission Ave. PO Box 3727 MSC -21 Spokane, WA 99220-3727 Michelle,anderson©a avistacorp.com Phone: 509-495-2011 and cell: 509-220-0045 2. The following property will be added to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application that was submitted to your office on October 26, 2015. Parcel Number: 35121.5101 Site Address: 6724 E Utah Ave Parcel Size: 68,859 sqft This property has a current Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential with a R2 zoning designation. Avista Corporation is requesting that it be changed to Light Industrial with a zoning designation of 11. The total acreage of property that would be included in the amendment would change from 3.75 acres to 5.33 acres. The property is currently owned by Chad and Jasmine Jones but is in the process of being purchased by Avista Corporation. The sale is expected to be complete by around February 1, 2016. I have attached a revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application listing the Jones as the property owner with their notarized signature on the back. The landowner contact information is listed below: Chad and Jasmine Jones 6724 E Utah Ave Spokane Valley, WA Chad Jones: 509-714-7276 Jasmine Jones: 509-714-7253 Jasmine's email: rwinsjazz@yahoo.com I appreciate your help with this process. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or concerns. Sincerely, Michelle Anderson Sr. Environmental Specialist Phone: (509) 495-2559 Enclosure: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Spokane 1 .I. Va11ey STAFF USE ONLY COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION Date Submitted: Received by: Fee: PLUS #: File #: PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION Map Amendment; or [] Text Amendment APPLICANT NAME: Michelle Anderson, Avista Corporation MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 3727 MSC -21, 1411 East Mission Avenue CITY: Spokane STATE: WA Zip: 99220 PHONE: 509.495.8657 FAX: 509.495.2559 CELL: 509-220- 0045 EMAIL: michelle.anderson@avistacorp.com PROPERTY OWNER : Chad and Jasmine Jones MAILING ADDRESS: 6724 E Utah Ave. CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: PHONE: 509-714-7276 FAX: CELL: EMAIL: rwinsjazz@yahoo.com SITE ADDRESS: 6724 E. Utah Ave. PARCEL No.: 35121.5101 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING DESIGNATION: R2 PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: I1 BRIEFLY EXPLAIN REASON FOR MAP OR TEXT AMENDMENT (attached full explanation on separate sheet of paper): Avista Corporation owns approximately 10 acres adjacent to the subject property to the west for use as its natural gas service center. As the demand for natural gas in the Greater -Spokane Area continues to grow, the need for additional space to store and maintain equipment at the natural gas service center continues to grow. Avista requests a comprehensive plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial for 1.5 acres adjacent to this facility to provide additional storage and services for Avista's natural gas service center. PL -06 V1.0 Page 3 of 4 V.7 -1) Sfiokane Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III -- AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) Sr();tir., 'rr'+_I.FY ;`N swear or affirm that the above responses are �, 1 S , (print name) made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. STATE OF WASHINGTON) NOTARY (Date) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this £/(,V / fz day of , 2011 NOTARY SEAL ,',ttlM 47. `�I w ,�LIAR Ar o NOTARY • PUBLIC rO... AS,\\ rt`. Il►►►II!ltttt� N TA Y SIG ATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: (2-V /d 0_,4/7‘,,/ Rel My appointment expires: �> ) —,72z)gle LEGAL, OWNER AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I,� Wil ✓LZ'� ��QJ�-- , owner of the above described property do hereby authorize Ai/f,i)-7g regarding this application. to represent me and my interests in all matters PL -06 V1.0 Page 4 of 4 S"` okane P Valley COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of legal owner or applicant) I, ' CI1;» 3 c'AI Py' , (print name) swear or affirm that the made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this NOTARY SEAL %%% Z:9-‘= �21. m = o/• 0; Spolane 1_ 1. Va11ey' [11 Avista Dollar Road Facility Comprehensive Plan Amendment Low Density Residential to Light Industrial October 2015 One (1) copy of a narrative describing the following: 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive plan Map Amendment. 2. Describe how the proposed changed meets the approval criteria below; a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; and e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific factors; a. The effect upon the physical environment; b_ The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; d_ The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation and schools; e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region; f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density, and the demand for such land; g. The current and projected population density in the area; and h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. 1. State the reason for the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Avista Corporation owns approximately 10 acres adjacent to the subject property to the west for use as its natural gas service center. As the demand for natural gas in the Greater -Spokane Area continues to grow, the need for additional space to store and maintain equipment at the natural gas service center continues to grow. Avista requests a comprehensive plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial for 3.75 acres adjacent to this facility to provide additional storage and services for Avista's natural gas service center. 2. Describe how the proposed change meets the approved criteria below: a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Avista owns the adjacent property on which they operate their natural gas service center, which maintains gas lines in the Greater -Spokane Area. The proposed amendment will enable Avista to better service existing and future natural gas lines as new lines are installed in the future. At least one of the properties proposed for the amendment contained minor soil contamination. Upon purchasing the parcel, Avista Corporation removed the contaminated soils to Graham Road. Incorporating this property into the Light Industrial category of the comprehensive plan will ensure that proposed uses, such as natural gas material storage is properly reviewed and regulated by proper authorities and that adequate environmental mitigation measures are Page 1 of 4 crrr cx• �►pol�r�� _ 4 01*Valley' implemented. Outdoor storage areas will be paved and protective measures such as paving, and stormwater treatment will be implemented to protect the groundwater and environment. b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. Much of RCW 36.70A is directed at ensuring cities and counties adopt planning goals, regulations, guidelines, and procedures. This proposal will conform to all applicable processes adopted by the City of Spokane Valley to implement this RCW. The few specific planning goals of RCW 36.70A.020 that this proposal conforms to include: This proposal promotes economic development, as it allows Avista Corporation to expand its current operation and serve the Spokane Area. - This proposal maintains and enhances natural resource-based industries. - This proposal protects the environment - This proposal is situated in a location where adequate public facilities and services exist. 36.70A.070 states, "A commercial, industrial, residential, shoreline, or mixed-use area shall be subject to the requirements of (d)(iv) of this subsection, but shall not be subject to the requirements of (c)(ii) and (iii) of this subsection. (B) Any development or redevelopment other than an industrial area or an industrial use within a mixed-use area or an industrial area under this subsection (5)(d)(i) must be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. (C) Any development or redevelopment in terms of building size, scale, use, or intensity shaft be consistent with the character of the existing areas. Development and redevelopment may include changes in use from vacant land or a previously existing use so long as the new use conforms to the requirements of this subsection (5)". Avista's proposed use will principally be designed to serve the existing and projected population. The proposed development will be compatible with adjacent building sizes, scale and use. The Dollar Road facility has existed in this area for over a period of 20 years and has been designed and operated to be compatible with the existing residential uses. Prior to Avista ownership, this land has been formerly owned and operated by the railroad. In comparison to Avista's use, the railroad had a more intense industrial use among the surrounding neighborhood. The Dollar Road facility has improved and redeveloped this area to be a more compatible land use within the neighborhood and keeping the character of the neighborhood. c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. The regional demand for natural gas has continued to grow. These expanding demands have necessitated Avista to expand their existing natural gas service center to respond to this increased demand. d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error. This is not the situation with this application. Page 2 of 4 Spokane *Valley e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. This is not the situation with this application. 3. Describe how the proposal addresses the following specific factors: a. The effect upon the physical environment. Through the development permit process, there will be much greater review of the design and development of this area. Currently, there are non conforming and unregulated storage and dumping on portions of the subject property, prior to Avista's ownership. Avista has demonstrated a progressive approach to ensuring their uses does not negatively impact the neighborhood as well as proactively mitigating potential environmental concerns from the previous industrial uses. Future development and use of this property will be reviewed by the City of Spokane Valley and other agencies. b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes. This proposal will have no effect on open space, streams, rivers or lakes. c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposal will be designed and developed to be compatible with adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. The Avista Natural Gas Service Center is currently situated adjacent to the proposed site. This site provides for natural gas equipment storage and maintenance. There are no intense industrial uses on the subject property or on the proposed property. The eastern property line will be heavily screened with a fence and landscaping to reduce visual impacts to the adjacent properties. Elizabeth Road and its right-of-way will increase the eastern buffer between the two land use designations beyond what presently exists. This proposed property will be incorporated into the existing natural gas service center and all vehicular traffic to this site will be from Dollar Road and/or Utah Avenue, eliminating vehicular incompatibility with neighboring uses. d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities, including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. There are currently adequate community facilities to serve this site without negatively impacting existing properties. All vehicular traffic to this site will be from Dollar Road and/or Utah Avenue, eliminating vehicular incompatibility with neighboring uses. The proposal will have no impact on public transportation, parks, recreation, or schools. e. The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. Neighborhood benefits include Avista cleaning up existing contaminated soils on the subject property and having a far less intense industrial use on the property. The regional benefits of expanding Avista's natural gas service center includes enabling Avista to expand and improve its natural gas service to the region as well as natural gas fueling stations for the Avista fleet. The overall benefit also extends to cleaner air quality by reducing hydrocarbon vehicles and using natural gas vehicles. f. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed use type and density, and the demand for such land. Page 3 of 4 Sp�olne ,sValley. The addition of 3.75 acres of Tight industrial land use to the City of Spokane Valley will not significantly impact the quantity of land planned for the proposed use. Designating this property Light Industrial is an extension to the existing gas service center. This light industrial use has Tess impact in comparison to the railroad uses. The demand for this type of land use is needed because as the demand increases for natural gas as an energy source, natural gas service centers are needed. g. The current and projected population density in the area. The proposal reduces the number of low density residential dwellings within Greater Spokane County by six. This is insignificant in the projected population density equation. h. The effects upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 2.5.5 Industrial Designations of the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan states, "Providing for industrial land is important for the economic health of Spokane Valley. Industrial businesses help drive the local economy and create an economic multiplier effect throughout the region. Providing an adequate supply of usable land with minimal environmental constraints and infrastructure in place helps ensure that Spokane Valley will be an attractive place for industrial businesses to locate and prosper. The Light Industry designation is a planned industrial area with special emphasis and attention given to aesthetics, landscaping, and internal and community compatibility. Uses may include high technology and other low -impact industries. Light Industry areas may incorporate office and commercial uses as ancillary uses within an overall plan for the industrial area. Non -industrial uses should be limited and in the majority of cases be associated with permitted industrial uses." The proposed comprehensive plan amendment will provide industrial land that is important for the economic vitality of Spokane Valley and region. The development of this property will give emphasis and attention to perimeter aesthetics, landscaping, and community compatibility while incorporating this land into an existing permitted industrial use. The current zoning codes provide the necessary performance standards so the adjacent residential uses will not be impacted. Page 4 of 4 To: Karen Kendall (City of Spokane Valley - Community Development) CC: From: Jim Red (Spokane County - Division of Utilities) Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 Planning/Building #: Subject CPA -2016-0001 Stage: Comprehensive Phase: Address AO01 The Comprehensive Plan Amedment lies within the Spokane County Sewer Service Area. Any new use will be required to connect to sewer. Permits and plans will be required. There are uses on the parcels that are connected to sewer. If these are to be demolished, abandonment permits will also be required. February 17, 2016 Karen Kendall Planner RE: CPA 2016-0001 Ms. Kendall: Thank you for inviting the Spokane Tribe of Indians to be a consulting party is greatly appreciated. We have reviewed the ground disturbance permit forwarded to our office for the project mention above; we are concerned that the project area potentially contains cultural resources, which would be impacted by the proposed ground disturbing action. Recommendation: Cultural Survey. However if any artifacts or human remains are found upon excavation activity this office is to be notified and the immediate area cease. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Should additional information become available our assessment may be revised. Again thank you for this opportunity to comment and consider this a positive action that will assist us in protecting our shared heritage. If questions arise, please contact me at (509) 258 — 4315. Sincerely, Randy Abrahamson Tribal Historic Preservation Officer FEBRUARY 17, 2016 Spokane Valley Planning Commission 11707 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley WA 99206-6110 Dear Sir/Madam, This document is written in response to questions generated at the Spokane Valley Planning Commission meeting held on 2-11-2016 for CPA -2016-0001. Avista is pleased to respond to the questions and we are always available by phone or e-mail if further clarification is needed. Question 1: Provide history and background regarding Avista pursuing purchase of Parcel #35121.5201. 2011-2014- Avista sent two rounds of letters to all property owners on the west side of Elizabeth road informing them of our interest in purchasing their property. Minimal interest was received back from owners at that time. March 2015- A 3rd round of letters to all property owners was sent out again in March of 2015 offering to purchase their properties, and the majority of owners responded back to begin negotiations with Avista. The owner of parcel 35121.5201 contacted us in late March to discuss the possibility of selling, but the asking price was considerably higher than we could pay. Negotiations were cordial and friendly through the entire process, but we were ultimately unable to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement. Shortly after the initial discussions with the owner of parcel 35121.5201, we were informed that the owner had decided to discontinue negotiations with us, and to sell the property to his children, which he did shortly after that. November 2015- A letter of interest was sent to the new owners of parcel #35121.5201 (the previous owners children), informing them that we were still interested in purchasing their newly acquired property, and that we were willing to negotiate with them to arrive at an acceptable agreement. Three phone messages were left with the new owners asking for a meeting to discuss the proposal. The new owners finally contacted Avista in late November, but the new owner's asking price was considerably higher than possible to arrive at a deal. December 2015- The owner of parcel #35121.5201 discontinued negotiations with Avista. We are still open to future negotiations to purchase the property if the owner chooses. VISTA' Question 2: When will purchase of Parcel #35121.5101 (owned by Jones) be finalized? Answer 2: The Real Estate Department of Avista will close the transaction by the end of February. There were numerous old vehicles that were on the property that needed to be moved before funding could occur. As of today the vehicles have been moved and deed will be recorded at the end of February. Question 3: Provide details on parcel where contaminated soils were found. Describe the process of discovery and how it was remediated. Answer 3: The contaminated soil was discovered at 2425 N. Elizabeth Road. When Avista purchases a piece of real estate a level 1 ESA Survey is performed as part of our due diligence. Through our ESA survey it was determined that there was an old neighborhood trash pit located on the back half of the property. Avista hired Test America to outline the physical size of the site and perform an analysis of the soils. Some low level lead based paint was discovered and Avista contracted with Tilton Excavating and Test America to remove the contaminants. Several loads of garbage and debris was taken to the Graham Road Hazardous Waste Facility and disposed of. Soils were monitored until the results came back clean. Washing machines, bicycles, bedframes, and old car parts were a small sample of the items that were removed. It is our assessment that this was a neighborhood dump site for many years. I am attaching documentation of the site discovery and subsequent clean-up process. The site was ultimately remediated below WA state levels for unrestricted land use (MTCA Method "A".) During windstorm 2015 a tree located at 2425 N. Elizabeth blew down impacting an Aivsta power pole. The transformer attached to the pole ultimately landed on Elizabeth Street. A cleanup of non PCB containing transformer oil was completed by Avista. Warm regards, Karen Kendall Michelle Anderson PROJECT MANAGERS Original Gas Service Center, purchased in 1990's Ten acres purchased in 2009 for Fleet facility and stormwater swale ti .`4 4 itt - VP - - _ This lot sold to a family member in 2015. Not interested in selling to Avista,parcel # 35121.5201. _S1061(111 Triangular sliver purchased in 2015 7 lots purchased in 2015 west side of Elizabeth road Ziij From: Staton. Rod To: Karen Kendall Subject: FW: MTCA Site Discovery and Notification -2425 E. Elizabeth, Spokane Valley WA 99212 Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:58:25 PM From: Booth, Kevin Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 1:34 PM To: plei461@ecy.wa.gov Cc: Soyars, Darrell Subject: MTCA Site Discovery and Notification -2425 E. Elizabeth, Spokane Valley WA 99212 Mr. Lienart, Here is notification for a new cleanup site at 2425 E. Elizabeth, Spokane Valley WA 99212 MTCA Site Discovery and Notification Location: A refuse pile to the west of the residence located at 2425 E. Elizabeth. Site Discovery Date: July 13, 2015 Discovery and identification of hazardous substance: Prior to purchase of the subject property, Avista contracted with AECOM to complete a Phase I ESA. As a result of the Phase I, a limited Phase II was recommended for the site. The Phase II was completed on July 30, 2015.Based on field observations and analytical results of the Phase II ESA, concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, PAHs and VOCs in the test area were not present at concentrations exceeding laboratory MRLs or MTCA Method A cleanup values. However, lead was detected at concentrations exceeding MTCA Method A cleanup levels in shallow soil at three locations within the test area. Lead concentrations were between 320-420 ppm and thus did not exceed MTCA Method C for industrial land use. Analytical testing suggests that the impact was limited in areal extent and did not migrate vertically. The vertical extent of contamination was based on a review of metal test results in the companion samples collected from native soil within the test area. Circumstances of the release: It is not known when or how the refuse pile was placed on this site. Remedial actions completed and planned: Avista purchased the subject property during August 2015 and removal of the refuse pile was completed in early September 2015. Between 400-600 tons of contaminated material was delivered to the Graham Road Landfill in Medical Lake, WA. A summary report detailing the remedial action will be forwarded to Ecology within the next few months. Please call with any questions. Kevin Booth 1 Avista Corp. 509-495-4738 1 509-990-5915 (Ce11) 1 509-777-5892 (Fax) kevin.booth@avistacorp.com A. COM October 19, 2015 Mr. Kevin Booth Avista Corporation MSC -21 P.O. Box 3727 Spokane, Washington 99220-3727 RE: Letter Report - Limited Confirmation Sampling N. 2425 Elizabeth Road Spokane Valley, Washington AECOM Project No: 60432346 Dear Mr. Booth, This letter report documents findings of the Limited Confirmation Sampling performed by AECOM on behalf of Avista Corporation (Avista). The activities described in this report were conducted at 2425 N. Elizabeth Road, in Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington during August and September 2015, The general site location is shown on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. In response to recognized environmental conditions (RECs) resulting from the historic dumping observed on site and reported in the Phase I ESA (AECOM, June 2015) AECOM conducted a Limited Phase II ESA in July 2015. The results of the Phase II ESA indicated that lead concentrations in multiple soil samples collected from the soil mixed with waste exceeded Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method A cleanup criteria for unrestricted site use. No other potential contaminants of concern were detected at concentrations exceeding MTCA Method A criteria. As a result of this assessment, Avista contracted directly with Tilton Construction and Excavation to conduct remedial activities at the site. These activities included excavation of the trash and contaminated fill, transport and disposal of the material to Waste Management's Graham Road facility, a Sub -Title D landfill located near Medical Lake, Washington. AECOM was requested to assist with the cleanup action by assisting the contractor in identifying the limits of the excavation, differentiation of fill and native soil, and in responding to general questions raised during the project. Additionally, AECOM collected confirmation samples from the limits of the excavation to confirm that the remedial objectives were obtained. On September 2, 2015 the first confirmatory sampling event was completed. A total of nine multi - aliquot samples were collected from the side walls and bottom of the excavation. Figure 2, Site Plan shows the general locations where confirmatory soil samples were collected. Soil samples were transported to Test America's Spokane laboratory for rush analysis of lead by EPA Method 6000-7000. Soil sample results indicated that the soil samples collected from the side walls and from the bottom of the central and eastern portions of the site contained concentrations of lead at AECOM 528 Spokane Falls Blvd, Suite 503 Spokane, WA 99202 Tel: 509.928.4413 Fax: 509.928.4415 www.aecom.com less than the MTCA Method A cleanup level of 250 milligrams per kilogram (mg\kg). One sample (S-9) collected from the bottom of the western -most portion of the excavation exceeded Method A criteria with a lead concentration of 320 mg\kg. Additional soil removal was completed from the western -portion of the excavation and an additional confirmation sample (S -9R) was collected on September 11, 2015. The results of this sample were less than MTCA Method A criteria (14 mg\kg) and excavation was completed. Table 1, Confirmatory Soil Sample Results shows the lead concentrations in the confirmatory soil samples. Table 1. Confirmatory Soil Sample Results Sample ID Lead mg\kg S-1 74 S-2 68 S-3 17 S-4 48 S-5 85 S-6 80 S-7 28 S-8 52 S-9 320 S -9R 14 BOLD = Exceeds MTCA Method A Cleanup Requirements of 250 mg\kg In summation, a total of 586.38 tons of construction debris, trash and lead -contaminated soil were removed from the unpermitted dump site located at 2425 N. Elizabeth Road in Spokane Valley, Washington. Based on our observations while on site and the results of the confirmatory soil samples collected from the limits of the remedial excavation it is our opinion that the remedial objectives of the project have been obtained. Limitations The conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based solely upon AECOM's environmental evaluation of the site, and the subsurface exploration data, as identified in our previous report. The conclusions are intended exclusively for the purpose stated herein, at the 2425 N. Elizabeth, Spokane Valley, WA. It should be recognized that this study was not intended to be a definitive investigation of contamination at the subject property and the conclusions provided are not necessarily inclusive of all the possible conditions. It is possible that currently unrecognized subsurface contamination may exist at the subject property. Opinions and recommendations presented in this report apply to site conditions and features as they existed at the time of AECOM's site explorations and those reasonably foreseeable. They cannot necessarily apply to conditions and features of which AECOM is unaware and has not had an opportunity to evaluate. It is a pleasure to be of service to you. If you have questions, please contact the undersigned at (509) 944-3815. Sincerely, AECOM Gary D. Panther, LG Project Geologist FIGURES Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — Laboratory Analytical Reports Attachment B — Soil Disposal Receipts FIGURES asaden`a Pal Camp Sekani ES /VERWAY-AVE E GLASS AVE' x E IBERTY+AVE E UTAH AYE z ^. Site E BUCKEYE AVE -�-Orchard Avenue E CARLISLE AVE AYE E MARIETTA AVE E JACKSON AVE x E INDIANA AVE Parkwater Orchard Park ti! E GRACE AVE E BUCKEYE AV! E KNOLL AVE 1�►}- Univ of Phoenix -Eastern E KORA AVE Wahington•Ca!Lnp E MISSION AVE E AUGUSTA AVE RAL pD pVE_ Yardley LJ S' E BRO DA WAYAVE E SHARP AVE E DESMET AVE DEAN AV ti E MALLON AVE E CATALDO AVE E BROADWAY A' EAIK!4VE Source: USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle, Spokane NE, Washing on, 2014 0 2,000 4,000 Scale in Feet SPOKANE .--VALLEY z E ibi+4RiNGrnu . ,r Figure 1 Site Plan ACCOM 2425 North Elizabeth Road Spokane, Washington 60432346 03.ai Slab -on -Grade ;�--=— TP2. Y j .1-13t5�5 *I 1 TP3 1 , Pipes _•.- i , S-7 TP6 S-6 T • 1 -11. S 9R L k * i\- S-3 ' T , S-8 P4 TP7 I S-9 ,----�--- .' S-5 S-4 a. 2425 N Elizabeth Road Legend - - Subject property boundary * Test pit location Composite soils sample location r= c c Approximate extent of remedial exvacation x Fence Dirt pile Approximate Scale in Feet cts o CC m} N P Z $¢' Sample Pb Sample Collection Concentration ID Date (ppm) - S-1 9/2/2015 74 S-2 9/2/2015 68 S-3 9/2/2015 17 S-4 9/2/2015 48 S-5 9/2/2015 85 S-6 9/2/2015 80 S-7 9/2/2015 28 S-8 9/2/2015 52 S-9 9/2/2015 320 S -9R 9/11/2015 14 Samples analyzed by TestAmerica, Inc. i in Spokane, WA BOLD = Exceeds MTCA Method A Cleanup Requirements Source: Google Earth Pro, aerial dated 7/2/2013 Figure 2 Site Plan A=COM 2425 North Elizabeth Road Spokane, Washington Chairman Stoy called pledge of allegiance. staff were present: Kevin Anderson Heather Graham James Johnson Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stay Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, February 11, 2016 the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and Cary Driskell, City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the February 11, 2016 agenda as presented The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the December 10, 2015 minutes as they were presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 28, 2015 minutes as they were presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Staff had no reports. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Election of 2016 Officers: Ms. Horton explained she would accept nominations for position, hand out ballots if there were more than one nomination for the position, announce the voting, declare a winner and then hold the next election with the same process. Only members who have served on the Commission for more than one year are eligible to serve as chair and vice chair, a member cannot serve in either positon for more than two consecutive years. Ms. Horton called for nominations for the positon of chair. Commissioner Anderson nominated Commissioner Graham, who accepted the nomination. Commissioner Kelly nominated Commissioner Phillips, who accepted the nomination. Ms. Horton handed out ballots, the Commission filled out the ballots, they were collected and Ms. Horton read the results: Commissioner noting: Cast Vote for: Anderson Graham Graham Graham Johnson Graham Kelley Phillips Phillips Graham Stathos Graham Stoy Graham. Commissioner Graham was declarred the Chair of the Commission for 2016. Ms. Horton then called for nominations for the position of vice -chair. Commissioner Anderson nominated Commissioner Stoy, who accepted the nomination. Hearing no other nominations. Commissioner Stoy was declared the vice -chair. 02-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 B. Study Session: CPA -2016-0001, A privately proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, near Elizabeth and Utah, requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial. Planner Karen Kendall gave a presentation regarding the privately proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The proposal is to change seven parcels owned by Avista located along Elizabeth Road from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Light Industrial (LI). Avista owns the parcel to the west of the request, on which they have an equipment yard. Commissioner Graham said there is a parcel, addressed 2527 N. Elizabeth, which has not been included in the proposal. She asked why that parcel was not part of the proposal and would it be was considered an island. Ms. Kendall stated she knew the property owner had been contacted however did not participate in the request. Ms. Kendall said it would be up to the Commission if they felt they should recommend including the parcel. Commissioner Stay asked if the parcel were occupied, Ms. Kendall responded she was not aware. However, Commissioner Anderson stated he had done research to note that the property had changed hands in 2015. Commissioner Anderson said Avista started buying property in 2014. Commissioner Anderson commented there was only one line in the staff report which mentioned the fact that the extra property was not part of the proposal. Ms. Barlow asked Commissioner Anderson how he would like staff to address the subject. Commissioner Anderson stated he would not have allowed the proposal to be processed at all. Ms. Barlow stated she was confused as to why Commissioner Anderson would feel non- inclusion of the one parcel would invalidate the entire request. Commissioner Anderson stated the proposal properties were purchased as R-2 zoning, (LDR), and he would not allow the non - included parcel to be surrounded by LI on three sides. Commissioner Johnson stated it was already LI at the rear of the property. Commissioner Anderson agreed all the parcels currently exist as single family and light industrial uses. Commissioner Anderson said he would not allow LI on the other two sides, just because someone wants to do it. Commissioner Kelley asked if there was a way to contact the single parcel owner and ask them why they are not participating. Ms. Barlow stated that property owner would be contacted and probably already had been, as part of the public notification procedures. Ms. Kendall stated the notices for the public hearing had gone out to the surrounding 400 foot radius of the proposal which was mailed on Monday, February 8, 2016. A sign was posted on the property on Tuesday, February 9, 2016. Ms. Kendall said she was aware Avista's real estate department had contacted the property owner with a proposal to purchase the property, but at this time the parcel was not included in the Comprehensive Plan request. Ms. Kendall stated she would contact the applicant and ask them to address this subject at the public hearing. Commissioner Kelley asked Commissioner Anderson if the excluded parcel was included in the request, would it change his perspective on the proposal. Commissioner Anderson said if the property owner of excluded property, came in and said they were ok LI all the way around their property, then he might look at the proposal differently. There was no explanation in any of the paperwork which said what Avista had done about this lone parcel in the middle of the request, Commissioner Anderson was concerned because the property just changed hands recently.. Commissioner Stathos asked if Avista had contacted this single property owner prior to the property being sold in 2015. Ms. Kendall stated she was not aware of any of Avista's negotiations, but could contact the applicant and ask them to address it in their comments at the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson stated he was aware of a previous proposal for this area and the two parcels to the north were not included in the previous request. Now the farthest one is included, but the next one in is not. Ms. Kendall stated Avista waited to submit the proposal until the real estate transaction for the property addressed as 6724 E. Utah was completed. It is close to being finished and will be complete by the time this request is finished. However they wanted to get make the deadline for submitting the request in 2015 and not have to wait another year. Commissioner Johnson asked if 6724 E. Utah was added after the request had been submitted. Ms. Kendall stated the request had been amended to add the seventh parcel (6724 E. Utah). Commissioner Johnson asked if this amendment would make a valid request. Ms. Barlow responded the application and request was valid at submittal, and the request to add the additional parcel was a valid amendment to the application. Ms. Barlow said she would like to clarify a couple of things before moving forward. The parcel at 2527 N. Elizabeth, which is not included in the request, would not be considered an island. There 02-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 is LDR across the ROW from it, so it would not be isolated. Ms. Barlow said in the case of private property rights the City places a high amount of deference to private property rights. However, zoning is a legislative authority, and when making decisions for the good of the City, the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council and ultimately the Council's decision, has the authority include pieces of property like this one in the request. Ms. Barlow said there is a set of criteria outlined in the staff report which should be used for the basis of the decision being made. Should the City be challenged, a legal team would use this criterion to determine if the result was a legally defensible decision. Commissioner Graham asked for the definition of an island since staff did not feel the parcel (2527) would be considered one. Ms. Barlow said an island would be completely surrounded and this would not be completely surrounded on all sides. Mr. Driskell stated the argument would be the City creating spot zoning and this would not be considered spot zoning. The parcel (2527) is still contiguous with the zoning across the right-of-way, and the rest of the parcels abut the LI zoning behind them, which is in complete accordance with the City's regulations. Commissioner Anderson said LUG -10 was quoted in the findings in the staff report, along with the findings related to LI, however in his opinion the Commission members should be able to see under LUG -1 LUP 1.2, LUP 1.7 and LUP 12.1 which address land use on private property to give a comparison. Ms. Barlow said she respected private property rights, but from a professional standpoint it would not make any sense to leave the one parcel as LDR and change the others. Commissioner Johnson said for him it would make a difference if 6724 E. Utah sale were to be finalized. Ms. Barlow said there would be no reason to think it would not be finalized. Commissioner Anderson said if 2527 N Elizabeth stayed a residential property it would damage the person's personal property value. Ms. Barlow said she felt that statement was subjective, but based on that, any change of the properties around it would have a similar effect on that parcel. Commission Stoy asked if residential was allowed in an LI zone. Ms. Kendall stated a new residence would not be allowed in a LI zone. However according to the City's nonconforming regulations Spokane Valiey Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.20.060(A)(5) Existing legally established single-family residential uses located in any nonresidential zoning district shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use. Ms. Kendall shared the development regulations would require buffering if 2527 N Elizabeth remains as R-2 and Avista chose to develop any buildings up against the property line. Buffering could be in the form of a sight obscuring fence and landscaping. This would be required if there was a building proposed. but not if they are just using it for storage. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a site obscuring fence in place now between the properties and the parcel to the west. He said the parcel at 6610 E. Utah changed ownership in 2008. Staff explained since the conditions on the property have not changed, there would be no trigger for the landscaping requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be access restrictions for Elizabeth or could the approval be conditioned to restrict access from Elizabeth, should the property ever be sold. Ms. Kendall stated the access would be controlled at the time of development. It would depend on whether or not the parcels were combined, and it would be determined based on the City's Street Standards. Ms. Kendall said the applicant has stated they are proposing to expand their yard and are not proposing any access from the proposed lots. Access would be only from the existing access from their yard on Utah. Ms. Barlow did not feel as if the Street Standards would allow access, however would defer to the Development Engineers to confirm this. Mr. DriskelI said it would be fair to include a recommendation for this proposal to the City Council for them to consider. Ms. Barlow said the proposal should be looked at not only with consideration to the surrounding property owner's rights, but also considered the property owner who is making the request. There must be a balance in the considerations. Commissioner Graham clarified that buffering is required when a commercial building is put up against a property line, a fence and landscaping, when "adjacent" to a residential zone. However adjacent does not qualify across the ROW when it comes to a landscaping requirements. Ms. Kendall said the setbacks for landscaping requirements would be 20 feet from a zone or a use, 02-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 which would not be as great as the ROW. Comrttissioner Graham said she was trying to determine if the word adjacent was used in the same manner in the code. Ms. Barlow said the SVMC 19.30.030(B)(5) states, Property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include comer touches and property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher zoning classification; this is where the City applies the zoning criteria standard. Commissioner Graham wondered why this same adjacency would not be applied to the need for buffers. Ms. Barlow said this language comes from the "Changes and Amendments" section of the SVMC. The landscaping buffers are in another section of the code and there is a discrepancy in the way the two adjacencies are defined. However they should be defined differently, because there should not be a five foot wall of screening running along the ROW. Buffers are developed for side and rear yards to protect residential private space. Screening in the front yard addresses different issues, such as security issues along the ROW. Commissioner Stathos asked if hazardous materials would be allowed in a LI zone. Ms. Kendall stated there are some, however these properties are located in the Airport Overlay Zone which further restricts what uses and materials can be allowed in this zone. Commissioner Stathos also wondered what the emergency response time was in the area. Ms. Barlow said the Fire Department was routed notice of the application and generally addresses any concerns through this process. Ms. Kendall indicated the fire department had not commented. Ms. Barlow said this generally means the provider has no concerns. Staff stated they would contact the fire department by the public hearing. Commissioner Stathos wondered if there was a requirement for a specific response time for hazardous materials. Commissioner Johnson confirmed the staff report said the property could support 23 homes if all of the lots were consolidated and the lots were completely empty. Commissioner Stay asked how wide the ROW was on Elizabeth and Utah. Staff will get answers for the next meeting. The public comment period is 15 days from the date of the public mailing. SEPA notice was done 3-4 weeks ago. No public comment had been received to date. Commissioner Graham said she had read there had been soil contamination on site, and she wanted to know what and where it was. Ms. Kendall said she did not know what the contamination was, but she would request the information. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Anderson noted the Planning Commission meetings are not on the City calendar on the City's website. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary Chair Graham called pledge of allegiance. staff were present: Kevin Anderson Heather Graham James Johnson Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stoy APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, February 25, 2016 the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Stoy moved to accept the February 25, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the February 11, 2016 minutes as they were presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelley reported he attended the Trader's Club meeting. The other Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Staff had no reports. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Public Hearing: CPA -2016-0001, A privately proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, near Elizabeth and Utah, requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial. Chair Graham opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Planner Karen Kendall gave a presentation regarding the privately proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. CPA -2016-000L The proposal is to change seven parcels owned by Avista located along Elizabeth Road from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Light Industrial (LI). Avista owns the parcel to the west of the request, on which they have a natural gas equipment yard. Avista proposes to expand their natural gas storage facility in this area. Ms. Kendall noted she had received one comment letter from Mark Zink, 2420 N. Elizabeth. Ms. Kendall said she had some answers to questions from the study session. She said one question was the width of the right-of-way (ROW) the width of Utah is approximately 30 feet wide, Elizabeth is approximately 40 feet wide with 30 feet of pavement. Ms. Kendall said another question was regarding approaches. The City's street standards would apply at the time of development, but each parcel could have a maximum of two approaches but would need to meet the standard. Ms. Kendall said the parcels may be small enough they could only have one approach. Only if access was taken off of Elizabeth would frontage improvements be necessary including curb, sidewalks and swales. Ms. Kendall contacted the Spokane Valley Fire Dept. regarding response times, they indicated when a call comes inthey notify the closest truck for any emergency response call. This would be any emergency call which came into the department. The department does have a haz-mat response unit, but it for larger spills. Commissioner Johnson asked if there were no approaches installed along Elizabeth, then what kind of improvements would be required. Ms. Kendall responded she could not tell at this time, this would be something which would be determined at the time of future development and would depend on what was being proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Stoy asked if the parcels would have to be aggregated into one. Ms. Kendall stated it would not be required. 02-25-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Ron Staton, Avista Facilities Manager: Mr. Staton said Avista purchased the property which fronts Dollar Road in the mid 90's and began transitioning the natural gas storage to this facility because of over -crowding at the Mission location. In 2008 and 2009 Avista purchased the adjoining properties and built a fleet maintenance building. In 2014 and 2015 Avista sent letters to the property owners along Elizabeth to inquire if they were interested in selling. Seven of the lots were sold to Avista along Elizabeth Road, one property owner was not interesting in selling. Avista also purchased a triangle shaped piece in the middle of their property. Avista is proposing to change the zoning to Light Industrial. They are going to use the property for storage of natural gas pipe. Mr. Staton said this was a non -project related request, meaning Avista does not have a specific project coming up in which they need a place to store extra pipe. Avista is out of room in their Mission Avenue storage area and need more room to grow their operations. They need more room to be able to store all the pipe, allow for contractors to come and maneuver in the yard with room to grow for future growth. Mr. Staton said. Avista was not opposed to all of the properties in the row. including the one they did not purchase being zoned the same. Mr. Stators said Avista works with the building and planning departments to be a good neighbor and make improvements which are required when developing a property. Mr. Staton commented on the improvements Avista had made on Utah. Mr. Staton said one of the properties had a dump site on it, which Avista spent $65,000 to clean up. Mr. Staton said Avista is a quiet neighbor, the crews come in and leave the yard around 7:30 in the morning, they return around 3:30 in the afternoon, and there are is nothing going on at the property at night. He said Avista has no desire to build along Elizabeth Road. All of the trucks exit the current facility out of Utah or Dollar and travel out of the neighborhood on those roads. Commissioner Anderson asked if there is no project what will happen to the property. Mr. Staton replied the purchases came about because the site was running out of room to store natural gas piping. Avista would like to install some asphalt and begin to store additional pipe on it. They are going to acquire the proper permits and do whatever is necessary to make this possible. Commissioner Johnson asked about the soil testing and lead levels. Mr. Staton responded Avista had removed 68 dump truck loads of old bike parts, washing machines, car parts and other old metal painted items, along with a lot of other debris. Mr. Staton felt the lead levels were from the old lead based paints from the old parts in the `neighborhood dump.' Commissioner Stoy asked if there was enough room on the site for Avista's needs. Mr. Staton said they felt this should be enough storage space for the next 20 years, there is no natural gas stored on the site, only pipe, meter assembly sets, meter repair, gas lines. Commissioner Stathos asked if they would continue to only store piping on the property. Mr. Staton replied Avista has an internal. environmental department and it is very important to them to be in compliance with all the required standards. Commissioner Graham asked about a curvyproperty line between the fleet maintenance facility and the Elizabeth Road properties, and were there any other places where Avista was storing natural gas piping. Mr. Staton said the curvy line is a piece of property purchased from the railroad, there are nothing other natural gas pipe storage facilities except one in northern Idaho. Chair Graham then asked for testimony from the public. Mark Zink, 2420 N Elizabeth Road: Mr. Zink said he was concerned about what would happen along Elizabeth Road, but that Mr. Staton had answered most of his questions. He said he was aware of the improvements which had occurred on Utah and he was happy with that. He wondered what kind of a timeline there would be for the improvements. Mark Shollenberger, 2205 N Bradley Road: Mr. Shollenberger said the only access would be on to Utah and down Dollar Road. He said that is not true, that every morning and every night, the trucks are coming down Bradley. Dollar Road is backed up and so they use Bradley to get around the problem. Mr. Shollenberger said he had brought this up when the SCRAPS facility was being proposed. He said there used to be a sign which said no trucks allowed, however someone hit it and the county came out and instead of putting it back up, they just took it away. He says he has called code enforcement and they have done nothing about the many dead cats, dogs and squirrels caused by the trucks coming down the road. He is concerned that this will just increase the number of trucks coming from Avista, along with Mutual Materials and Standard Battery. 02-25-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Buddy Meagley, 2504 N Elizabeth Road; Mr. Meagley stated his daughter was buying the property which was the one piece Avista did not own. His was concerned the rezoning would make the property taxes go up. He also stated he would not be very happy if he had to look at the yellow pipe all the time. Ron Staton, Avista Facilities Manager: Mr. Staton said he would be calling the facility manager and have the drivers stop driving down Bradley. He would support the reposting of the `no trucks' sign on Bradley as well. Mr. Staton said he will be happy to comply with whatever standards are necessary as they move forward. They do not have a large project moving forward, other than replacing old pipe which was put down in the 70's. He also said there is a brick house on the corner and there will be someone living in it until May. During the study session the sale on the corner property was not final, Mr. Staton said the sale was completed this day and all the cars had been removed from the property. Having no one else who wished to test, Chair Graham closed the public testimony at 6.•55 p.m. Commissioner Stoy moved to recommend approval of CPA -2016-0001. Commissioner Graham asked if the fleet maintenance property was bought and improved in 2009 why wasn't a fence put along the properties on Elizabeth. Planner Christina Janssen explained that at the time of the development, the `curvy' piece of property between the Elizabeth Road properties and the fleet maintenance property was owned by the rail road and so it was not required at that time. Commissioner Johnson said, if this were not approved for Light Industrial but was combined for residential, there could be 23 homes built upon the same ground and that would be worse than what Avista wanted to do to it. Commissioner Johnson said he felt that the recommendation should be to straight line the recommendation and not jog around the one parcel. Commissioner Phillips said, if the zoning was different on the one parcel, Avista would have to fence around it, if it was the same zoning, then they would not. Commissioner Stoy asked if the zoning was changed to be a straight line for all the lots, would the landscaping buffers and setback apply because it was a residential use on the property. Ms. Barlow said the code protects the zones, not the individual uses. Commissioner Philips said he would ordinarily be in favor of including the extra lot in the request but in this case he would prefer to go around it to protect the buffers would apply. Commissioner Kelley said he would be in favor of including the other parcel in the request. Commissioner Graham said she was not in favor of blanket zoning, and would rather leave the other lot as R-2. She said she had concerns about the project but would support it if the other commissioners did. She said she was glad to hear Avista was willing to put up a fence, but knows they need a place to store the pipe. Commissioner Johnson said he would support the one lot remaining residential. Commissioner Kelley said he had changed his mind and he would support the one lot remaining residential. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, the motion passed. B. Study Session — CTA -2015-0006 proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.85 Marijuana Uses, 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A Definitions Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated the Commission had discussed the changes to the state marijuana regulations in order to bring the medical marijuana businesses under regulation. The state has aligned the regulations for `medical' to be more in line with those of the recreational marijuana. Commissioner Anderson said he understood that there will be no `medical' marijuana, there will only be compliant and non-compliant marijuana. He offered the retail stores will require a special license, training, labeling and tracking for the compliant marijuana. Commissioner Graham confirmed the five collectives currently selling `medical' marijuana can apply for a retail license or they must stop doing business as of July 1 this year. Mr. Lamb also confirmed with the current moratorium in place, the state did not issue the City any new retail opportunities. Based on the way the state was allocating new stores around the state, Mr. Lamb said he expected without the moratorium, the City would probably have been given three more retail stores to accommodate the 02-25-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 change in regulations for the compliant marijuana. People could apply for the new licenses, however priority would be given to those who have been running a collective. The current recommendation from the Planning Commission was to not allow any additional retail stores or any more producers or processors and to ban any kind of club. Commissioner Kelley confirmed the Commission also wanted to expand the buffers to the maximum allowable between. retail stores, should in the future the state say the cities cannot prohibit marijuana stores. There was discussion of the taxes collected from the marijuana; the City last year received S75,000 in excise taxes from marijuana, along with any sales taxes. These funds are not ear -marked for any specifically, except 10% at the state level is to be used for education. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was anything in the state being looked at like this related to home grown alcohol, Mr. Lamb was not aware of any. Commissioner Anderson said he would consider allowing additional compliant marijuana stores, but no more recreational marijuana stores. He also felt that the compliant marijuana should be required to be separated from the recreational by a physical barrier. Commissioner Johnson said Mr. Lamb explained there would be no legal basis for the City to require an operation to be compliant only or to require a retail store to separate their complaint and non-compliant operations with a physical barrier. Mr. Lamb said if the Commissioners wanted to allow additional `medical' or compliant stores they would need to allow more retail operations which allowed recreational as well. Commissioner Johnson said this would be a fine way to help with control of younger patients, but people of age were going to be able to go into a store and purchase whatever they would want to. He feels prescription drugs were a larger problem and there should be a clear perspective on what is trying to be accomplished. Commissioner Kelley commented the state of Massachusetts is trying to develop a prescription drug program. Commissioner Graham stated that as a school nurse she feels there is a transition from marijuana to other drugs. She feels there is a transition taking place now from marijuana to heroin. She feels the mistake being made is not providing enough education. She said she is seeing an upswing in children using e -cigarettes and underage drinking. Ms. Barlow stated there is an opportunity, if the Commissioners would like to take it, for the Commission to tour a producing/processing facility as well as a retail operation. If there is interest staff can set up a special meeting and make arrangements to facilitate this field trip. Thursday March 3, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. was agreed upon for the field trip. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Chair Graham Deanna Horton, Secretary Date signed Chair Graham called pledge of allegiance. staff were present: Kevin Anderson Heather Graham James Johnson Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stoy, absent excused APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, March 10, 2016 the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections Commissioner Stoy was excused from the March 10, 2016 meeting. Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the March 10, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the February 25, 2016 minutes as they were presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported the city of Liberty Lake is holding a Planning Short Course on April 27, 2016. She said if any of the Commissioners are interested in attending to let Ms. Horton know and she would assist them in their registration. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. COMMIISSION BUSINESS: A. Planning Commission Findings: CPA -2016-0001, A privately proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, near Elizabeth and Utah, requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial. Planner Karen Kendall reviewed the Planning Commission's findings from the public hearing held February 25, 2016, an the privately proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, CPA -2015-0001. The Planning Commission found the proposed amendment was consistent with the approval criteria in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140(H), it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission findings for CPA -2016-0001. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, the motion passed B. Study Session -- CTA -2015-0006 proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.85 Marijuana Uses, 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A Definitions Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated the Commission had previously discussed the changes to the state marijuana regulations in order to bring the medical marijuana businesses under regulation. The state has aligned the regulations for `medical' to be more in line with those of the recreational marijuana. Mr. Lamb reviewed the proposed changes to the SVMC. The definitions have been updated to reflect the current state RCW's. Also, they will be current when the state updates its definitions as ours will be updated by reference. Section 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix has been updated to remove any `S' which means permitted with supplemental conditions. These uses are no longer permitted, but the reference to SVMC 19.85 in the "supplemental conditions" will still exist to direct users to SVMC 19.85 for reference on additional marijuana regulations. Also, existing lawful uses will be legal nonconforming uses which will still be allowed to continue. 03-10-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Section 19.85 has been updated to reflect the Commission's desire to prohibit any new production, processing and retail sales in the City. A section has been added to address the collectives, which allows home grows for individuals with a medical endorsement. There is a restriction for combustible type of processing in a home grow situation. Home growing is limited to residential R- 1 through R-4 zones only. Mr. Lamb said the public hearing is set for April 14, 2016. Commissioner Anderson raised a question regarding taxes. Mr- Lamb explained the excise tax on marijuana sales is 37%, which does not include sales tax. The City is allocated an amount of the excise tax based on the number of retail stores the City has. Last year the City received approximately $75,000 from the marijuana sales. An authorization card gives a patient relief from those taxes. Commissioner Anderson asked if that included the sales tax as well, Mr. Lamb said he would have to check into that. Commissioner Kelley shared an article from the Seattle Times, written by Bob Young, from Monday February 15, 2016. He said he had read this article and it addressed the use of unacceptable pesticides some growers have been using on marijuana plants. Commissioner Kelley said he brought the article because he had brought up pesticides during the tour and wanted to bring the information and share it with the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Kelley said there is no way to know right now which pesticides are safe, and he feels there should be a 'slow go' philosophy. He said until these safety issues can be worked out the City should not rush into allowing more businesses before the safety issues are known. Commissioner Anderson shared a spreadsheet he created after trying to understand the compliant vs. recreational and when an authorization card was needed. Commissioner Graham said she was surprised at how close the retail shop, which the Commission visited on March 3, 2016, was to a bar. She wanted to know if it was possible to place a restriction on how close a retail store was to a marijuana retail shop. She also wanted to know if a retail shop was required to "not sell" to someone who appeared to be impaired. Mr. Lamb confirmed it was possible to restrict the location of a retail shop, but he would need to check regarding selling to someone who was impaired. Commissioner Johnson asked why it would be a problem if a retail shop was next to a bar. Many times there is a bar next to a bar, and this is not much different, except you can't consume the product on site. He offered one of the sites visited was employing just over 100 people and they would like to double that figure, but they can't because of our current moratorium. They also would not be able to do it with the way the regulations are currently drafted. I le felt that cigarettes and alcohol were more of a gateway to harder things and much easier to get than marijuana. The companies which were visited were clean, generating jobs and revenue for the City. He felt this was important as well. Commissioner Johnson acknowledged Commissioner Graham, being a school nurse, probably saw worse issues in the school system than he did. But funds to provide education, education materials, teachers, and nurses, was under high demand all around the state. Commissioner Kelley said just because the state approved marijuana doesn't mean we should open the floodgate. He said the people in the community can make a living, people can buy it here, but he felt there should be no more allowed in the City until there is a better understanding of it. The Commissioners asked about chemical extraction, Ms. Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner, said currently there have been no requests for chemical extraction in the City. Chemical extraction would not be allowed in a residential zone. Ms. Barlow asked if the Commissioners felt there was benefit from the held trip xvhich toured a marijuana producer/processor and retail shop. The majority of the Commissioners agreed they found some benefit in the tour, they learned things they had wondered about, i.e.: size of plants, how they are processed, and how it is packaged and sold and gained a better understanding of the use as a business. However, Commissioner Kelley indicated he was disappointed in the experience. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. 03-10-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Chair Graham q--Acite-)L__\) Deanna Horton, Secretary Date signed CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 26, 2016 Department Director Approval Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ information ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance No. 16-007 for Official Zoning Map Amendment — CPA -2016-0001 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.140 and 19.30.010 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On April 5, 2016 the City Council agreed to move the amendment forward to an ordinance first reading. BACKGROUND: CPA -2016-0001 is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map with a subsequent Zoning Map amendment request. The zoning will change from Single -Family Residential Suburban District (R-2) to a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning classification. The Planning Commission (Commission) held a study session on February 11, 2016 followed by a public hearing on February 25, 2016. During deliberations the Commission discussed the merits of the proposal. Issues discussed included the fact that parcel 35121.5201 was not included in the amendment, the future use of the seven parcels proposed to be amended, and the impact to surrounding properties. A motion was made to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council, and the Commission voted 7 to 0 in favor of the motion. The findings and recommendations were presented at the March 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting with a consensus of 6 to 0 to approve. The amendment was presented to the City Council as an administrative report on April 5, 2016. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on February 5, 2016 and February 12, 2016. The site was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign on February 10, 2016. Individual notice was mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the amendment on February 8, 2016. SEPA REVIEW: Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21C) a Determination of Non- significance was issued for the proposed amendment consistent with the SVMC Title 21 — Environmental Controls. OPTIONS: Move to advance to a second ordinance reading scheduled for May 10, 2016 with or without further amendments; or take other action as appropriate. 1 of 2 MOTION: Move to advance Ordinance No. 16-007 adopting amendment to official zoning map for CPA -2016-0001 to a second reading. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Ordinance 16-007 with Attachment A 2) Refer to RCA for Ordinance 16-006 for associated attachments 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 16-007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CITY ZONING MAP AS DESCRIBED IN CPA -2016-0001; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-015, the City of Spokane Valley (City) repealed and replaced certain titles of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) with Titles 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 SVMC, which included the "City of Spokane Valley Zoning" map (the Official City Zoning Map) on September 25, 2007; and WHEREAS, the SVMC amendments adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 07-015, including the Official City Zoning Map, became effective on October 28, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (chapter 36.70A RCW) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A130); and WHEREAS, amendments to the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) may be initiated by the Planning Commission (Commission), the City Council (Council), citizens, or by the Community and Economic Development Director based upon citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; and WHEREAS, zone changes under consideration with the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments are to be considered pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140; and WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, the City adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending the Comprehensive Plan and area -wide rezones; and WHEREAS, the SVMC provides that amendment applications for the Comprehensive Plan shall be received until November 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the Official City Zoning Map has been amended by Ordinance 07-027, Ordinance No. 08-012, Ordinance No. 09-006, Ordinance No. 09-009, Ordinance No. 09-040, Ordinance No. 10-008, Ordinance No. 11-002, Ordinance No. 11-008, Ordinance 11-010, Ordinance No. 12-015, Ordinance 12- 019, Ordinance 13-009, Ordinance 14-006, and Ordinance 15-007; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Official City Zoning Maps for the purpose of beneficially using the property described in CPA -2016-0001 and herein; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2016, the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) was notified of the City's intent to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2016, the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) was notified pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 of the City's intent to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and Ordinance 16-007 Zoning Map Change — CPA -2016-0001 Page 1 of 5 DRAFT WHEREAS, on February 5, 2016, after reviewing the environmental checklist, staff issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2016 and February 12, 2016, notice of the Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2016, notice of the Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2016, notice of the Commission hearing was posted on the subject property; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2016, the Commission conducted a study session to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2016, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony, and a staff report at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2016, the Commission voted to forward CPA -2016-0001 to the Council with a recommendation for approval with written findings of fact setting forth the basis for recommending approval to Council; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2016, Council conducted a briefing to review the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2016, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2016, Council considered a second ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley do ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Official City Zoning Map, as described in CPA -2016-0001. Section 2. Findings. The Council acknowledges that the Commission conducted appropriate investigation and study and held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Official City Zoning Map, and the Council hereby approves the amendment to the Official City Zoning Map. The Council hereby makes the following findings applicable to the amendment proposed in CPA -2016-0001: 1. The amendment is comprised of seven parcels, all owned by Avista Corporation. 2. Avista owns and operates a Natural Gas Service Center, including equipment and maintenance storage yard, located west of the proposed amendment area. 3. On January 13, 2016, the SRTC was provided notice of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 4. On January 14, 2016, Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 16-007 Zoning Map Change — CPA -2016-0001 Page 2 of 5 DRAFT 5. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 6. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist, and a threshold determination was made for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 7. On February 5, 2016 a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The procedural requirements of SEPA and Title 21 SVMC have been fulfilled. 8. On February 5, 2016 and February 12, 2016, notice for the proposed amendment was published in the Spokane Valley News Herald. 9. On February 8, 2016 individual notice of the site-specific map amendment was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject sites. 10. On February 10, 2016 the subject property was posted with a "Notice of Public Hearing" sign and a description of the proposal. 11. The procedural requirements in SVMC 17.80.140 for the amendment process, including public participation, notice, and public hearing requirements have been met. 12. On February 25, 2016, the Commission held a public hearing on CPA -2016-0001. 13. The Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to evaluate the cumulative impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). There were no other proposed amendments requiring concurrent review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act). 14. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing the property under the proposed designation. Development will be evaluated for compliance with all applicable environmental regulations in effect. 15. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas. The site is not located within the shoreline jurisdiction and there are no known surface water quality or quantity issues. Additionally, previously contaminated soils have been removed by the new land owner, Avista, and homes removed. 16. The properties located west, north and south of the amendment have an LI land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning designation. The amendment is adjacent and contiguous to properties of the same or higher zoning classification. 17. The amendment does not introduce a new designation into the neighborhood, but reduces the immediate conflict between the light industrial and low density residential uses by utilizing a street right-of-way as a separation between the uses. 18. The site is surrounded to the west and south by storage yards associated with a light industrial use and a more intense use north at Felts Field Airport. There are existing single family residences across Elizabeth Road to the east of proposed amendment area. 19. The site-specific amendment is located within the Airport Hazard Overlay (AO) (SVMC 19.110.030). The City's regulations are intended to protect the surrounding community while preserving the economic vitality of Felts Field Airport. Development may be limited based Ordinance 16-007 Zoning Map Change — CPA -2016-0001 Page 3 of 5 DRAFT upon the AO standards related to use, noise and height. The proximity to Felts Field provides benefits for a non-residential use impacted by noise and restricted residential density. 20. The City addresses the adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning A level of service standard is identified for each of the city services. Policy CFP -9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. This is implemented through chapter 22.20 SVMC. 21. The site is located at the intersection of two local access streets (Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road) and each lot has direct access to a public street. Transportation concurrency will be evaluated at the time of development. Sewer is provided by Spokane County Utilities and is available to the site. The site is located within the Orchard Avenue Irrigation District service area. Based on the preceding, the proposal meets concurrency requirements. 22. Due to the size of the property, the proposed amendment would not significantly impact population density and does not require population analysis. Employment would not contribute to an increase in population density, and removing the site from a residential designation would have a marginal impact city wide. 23. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the following chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 2 — Land Use; Chapter 3 — Transportation; Chapter 7 — Economic Development; and Chapter 10 — Neighborhoods. 24. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by the proposed amendment. The change to Light Industrial (I-1) will provide opportunities for high technology and low -impact industrial similar to those that exist to the north, south and west of the amendment area. The area is served by Spokane County Division of Utilities for sewer, and Orchard Avenue Irrigation District for water. Spokane County Fire District No. 1 provides emergency first responders. 25. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error. 26. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 27. The proposed amendment complies with the approval criteria contained in SVMC 17.80.140H (Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones). 28. The Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. Section 3. Property. The properties subject to this Ordinance are described in Attachment "A" (map). Section 4. Map Amendments. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and RCW 35A.63.100, the Official City Zoning Map, as originally adopted through Ordinance No. 07-015 and as subsequently amended, is hereby amended as set forth below and in Attachment "A" (map). The Zoning Map amendment is generally described as follows: File No. CPA -2016-0001 Proposal: The application is a privately initiated site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Ordinance 16-007 Zoning Map Change — CPA -2016-0001 Page 4 of 5 DRAFT Residential (LDR) with a Single-family Residential Suburban District (R-2) zoning classification to a Light Industrial (LI) designation with a Light Industrial (I-1) zoning classification. Applicant: Avista Corporation; PO Box 3727, MSC -21; Spokane, WA 99220-3727 Amendment Location: Parcel numbers 35121.5501, 35121.5502, 35121.5601, 35121.5602, 35121.5901, 35121.6001, and 35121.5101; located SW of the intersection of Utah Avenue and Elizabeth Road, further located in the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 25 North, Range 43 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington. Council Decision: The request is approved. Section 6. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the SVMC, or any other law, rule, or regulation referenced in the attached Zoning Map(s) is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability, or interpretation of the Zoning Map(s), then such provision of the SVMC, or other law, rule, or regulation is hereby adopted by reference. Section 7. Map - Copies on File -Administrative Action. The Zoning Map is maintained in the office of the City Clerk as well as the City Department of Community and Economic Development. The City Manager or designee, following adoption of this Ordinance, is authorized to modify the Zoning Map in a manner consistent with this Ordinance, including correcting scrivener's errors. Section 8. Liability. The express intent of the City is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the permit applicant and their agents. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 9. 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 10. 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 as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of May, 2016 ATTEST L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 16-007 Zoning Map Change — CPA -2016-0001 Page 5 of 5 Zoning Map r N. Amendment Area E -Carlisle Ave CPA -2016-0001 City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Request: Change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from LDR to LI; subsequent zoning change from R-2 to I-1 ti CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 26, 2016 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: City Hall Bid Results PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Multiple meetings, Council retreat 02-17-15; Administrative Report 03-17-15, Motion Consideration 03-24-15, Study Session 09-15-15, Motion Consideration 09-29-15, Interior Discussion 11-18-15, Heating and Cooling Discussions on 12-1-15 and 12-15-15, Interior and Exterior Discussion 12-29-15, General updates on 01-19- 16 and 02-02-16, Final design discussion on 02-16-16 and Approval of City Hall Plan authorization to proceed with bid process on 02-23-16. BACKGROUND: City Council and staff have been working since early 2015 on the design of the new City Hall building. The project was advertised for bid on March 18 and March 25. The bid opening was held Thursday afternoon, April 21, 2016. The bid includes the Base Bid plus 9 Additive Alternates. The Alternates are numbered 1-5 and 7-10. A previous planned Additive Alternate 6 was incorporated into the Base Bid. The Bid Tabulations will be provided to Council as soon as they become available and will be discussed at the Council meeting. This item is for discussion only to review the bids received. A formal recommendation for award of the bid is scheduled for May 3, 2016. OPTIONS: Discussion only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Throughout discussions surrounding the City Hall project we have discussed a total cost of $14.4 million which is anticipated to cover the cost of land acquisition, design, construction and furnishings. Based upon discussions with our architect we believe the Base Bid will in and of itself be within the $14.4 million budget, however depending upon the alternatives selected by Council it is conceivable the project might exceed that amount. When Council makes the final bid award on May 3, 2016 including both the base bid and any alternatives selected, City staff will provide information that includes both the total project cost as well as the estimated impact on the related bond payment relative to the $507,500 annual payment estimate that we have included in our operating budget. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, CIP Manager Eric Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulations to be provided as soon as available. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 26, 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: Administrative report — Tiny Houses GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Staff has compiled information regarding the latest tiny house trends, regulations and siting tools as information for the Council to consider as the Comprehensive Plan Update process continues. Currently, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code addresses RV's, Accessory Dwelling Units, and to a certain extent park model homes. Tiny homes, tiny home communities, and cottage housing were not considered during the 2008 development regulations update. In order to address smaller house option inquiries from the public, the current zoning regulations are being reviewed. A memo has been prepared that describes types of tiny houses and tools for siting tiny home developments and how several jurisdictions are regulating them. The document is attached for your review. Staff will present an overview of the housing alternatives, pertinent regulations, including a comparison of City requirements to that of other jurisdictions, and discuss tiny house issues. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Planner ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation, Memorandum with attachments 1. Staff Memo April 6, 2016 2. Presentation Stio'kane��Y 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director From: Micki Harnois, Planner Date: April 6, 2016 Re: Tiny Houses This memorandum provides information on tiny houses, and other emerging trends of alternative housing including, but not limited to, how they are defined, the demand, and process or regulations applicable from the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). Demand: There has been an emerging demand for smaller than typical housing. "Empty nesters" or those who desire a simple lifestyle are seeking a smaller house size. Others may be potential first-time home buyers or may be experiencing low income and require a dwelling that is affordable. Smaller houses are also appealing for the elderly who can't continue to maintain their existing home and yard but are still independent, and nonprofit groups are utilizing the movement as a solution for the homeless. Tiny Homes: The tiny house movement has gained a lot of attention due to popular TV shows such as Tiny House Nation and Tiny House Hunters. Often times the tiny house is perceived to be a catchall for smaller than typical housing options. However, the most common type of tiny house is constructed similar to an RV - it's a vehicle structure, with electric systems, water tanks and sewage tanks that operate for a while before they need support systems. Generally they are not designed for permanent occupancy. In order to use the structure for full time occupancy it must meet the residential building code and or manufactured housing code standard. However, changing state building codes, such as WAC 51-16-030 Exemptions for indigent housing guidelines, are giving deference to individual communities to choose options to provide housing for indigent persons so long as certain criteria is met. In some jurisdictions tiny homes have been a solution to the homeless and the poverty-stricken population as far as a safe and sanitary alternative. Other jurisdictions have allowed tent cities located on church parking lots to be relocated to public land and owned and operated by a non- profit organization. SVMC CODE: The ability to use the tiny home for permanent occupancy on a traditional residential lot is related to a requirement for a permanent foundation and connections to utilities. Wheels, and sometimes axles, are removed. Tiny homes can be placed in RV Parks while remaining on wheels. Generally, it is required to be placed on a permanent foundation and connect to water, Page 1 of 4 sewer and electric systems. This converts the unit to a stationary unit and makes the utility systems safe for long term use. SVMC allows tiny homes on wheels in a manufactured home park as they are similar to a self-contained recreational vehicle. They are not allowed on a single- family residential lot for longer than 30 days. Currently the SVMC does not address development standards for the placing of tiny homes in regard to lot size, e.g. Although in regard to park model homes for example, they are not allowed on an individual residential lot as they do not meet the standards of a manufactured home due to the fact that they measure less than 24 feet wide and 36 feet long as defined in the SVMC. The existing character of the neighborhood should also be considered. Will they fit in? Tiny House Communities: Tiny house communities or entire neighborhoods of tiny houses are emerging as solutions to affordable housing and lifestyle alternatives. Most tiny house communities constructed so far have been created to address homeless issues or other specific issues. The Olympia -Quixote Village and Fuller Center Village are examples of tiny house communities. Olympia -Quixote Village The 30 cottage village was previously built for homeless adults. All residents pay 30% of their income (minimum $50/month) in rent and sign a lease agreement. There is no option to buy a dwelling in this development. Each 144 square foot house is equipped with a single captain's bed, a table, a sink and a toilet. A community building is on-site that contains a shared kitchen, dining area, living room, showers, laundry and office and meeting space. There is also a community garden in the open space among the houses. Fuller Center Villages There are 23 cottage village contains homes that range in size from 133 square feet (a single bedroom that sleeps two) to 258 square feet (three bedrooms, including a futon in the living room that will sleep eight) The units are available to rent and eventually the tenant may pursue owning the tiny house. The future homeowner may either continue to live in the village or move their home off-site. The complex consists of an outdoor recreation area, greenhouse, fish pond and a community center. There are various tools for siting tiny home developments: 1) A new zoning district or overlay zone for tiny house subdivisions 2) A Planned Unit Development (PUD) - A PUD allows a slight deviation from the development requirements in regard to such standards as lot size and building setbacks, e.g. to encourage the development of a variety of housing types. Lots in a PUD may be sold. 3) A manufactured home park (MHP) MHPs allow houses that are considered recreational vehicles regardless of the length of time it is located on-site. The lot is rented to the home owner. The RV must be self-contained or there is a facility in the park for sanitary services. This would be a suitable location for those houses that cannot be placed on a permanent foundation or not equipped to connect to utilities. 4) A designated area for tiny house villages on church property. This option has been suggested by a local developer. However, this could be accomplished by amending the permitted use matrix. Page 2 of 4 Other examples of tiny house types: Park model homes Park model homes are a temporary, recreational vehicle that is built on a chassis, mounted on wheels, and may be connected to utilities to operate the trailer's fixtures and appliances. Lofts or overhead storage with a maximum ceiling height of five feet are not included in the park model home's square feet. With the park owner's or manager's permission, park trailers may be sited in manufactured home parks if they have the ability to hook up to sewer and water or the park has an existing facility for toilets and showers. Staff has received many inquiries from the public in regard to being able to place park model homes on individual lots. The attraction is that they are smaller in size and have efficient floor plans. Park model homes do not exceed 400 square feet in size. The minimum dimensions are intended to protect the character of the neighborhood by insuring structures are at least consistent with smaller dwelling footprints. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) ADUs are an affordable housing alternative for seniors, single parents or persons with disabilities who might otherwise have difficulty finding homes within the city that support independent living. These units can either be attached to a dwelling unit or detached, but can only be placed on property where there is an existing residence. An attached ADU could be created within a residence or an addition to a residence. The SVMC criteria require that each ADU must be a minimum of 300 square feet in size and limits the units to a maximum of two bedrooms. The units must be designed to match the appearance of the primary dwelling unit in regard to exterior materials, roof pitch, trim and windows. ADUs- Chapter 19.40.100 in the SVMC describes the criteria for ADUs which are allowed in all of the single-family residential zones (R-1 to R-4). Cottages Cottage housing supports the diversity of housing, increases the variety of housing types for smaller households and provides the opportunity for small, detached single-family dwelling units within existing neighborhoods. Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) defines cottage housing as, "generally a grouping of small, single family dwelling units clustered around a common area and developed with a coherent plan for the entire site." They are often used as a type of infill development on small sites, within existing developed areas. Advantages of cottage housing include higher densities than typical single-family neighborhoods, with minimal impacts to adjacent residential areas and for some an increased sense of privacy as compared to multi- family living. However, while it does represent a reduction in living and maintenance costs, since maintenance costs are typically shared, it does represent an increase in density which can be controversial. The SVMC does not contain development regulations for the cottages specifically, but the Planned Residential Development regulations could be utilized so long as the final density is not greater than 20% than the underlying zoning district. Other jurisdictions: All of the city codes that have been researched allow for the placement of accessory dwelling units in the residential zones. Park model homes are being placed in manufactured home parks in Spokane and Spokane Valley. New cottages that are placed around open space are becoming Page 3 of 4 popular as they create a sense of community. As far as the tiny house communities, Quixote Village was the only example to be found in the northwest for the homeless. Portland, OR and Seattle, WA are allowing similar types of villages but the dwellings are made of recycled materials. There are no other local Fuller Center projects listed on their website. Table of jurisdictions and allowed housing types Page 4 of 4 Park Model Homes ADUs Cottages Tiny house communities Everett x x Spokane Valley in MHP x Spokane In MHP x x Spokane County x Kent x Olympia x Page 4 of 4 SI"ane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Val ley City Council April 26, 2016 Tiny Houses S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley Emerging trends of alternative housing Demographics • Empty nesters • Those who want a simple lifestyle • First time home buyers • Elderly who can't maintain home and yard but are still independent • Nonprofits who are finding a solution for the homeless Types of Alternative Housing • "Tiny House" • Park model homes • Accessory dwelling units • Cottages S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley What is a tiny house? • The most common type of tiny house is similar to an RV in that it is a vehicle structure, with electricity, water tanks and sewage tanks and usually on an axle and wheels S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley Tiny Houses LIVING AREA 133 sq ft 16' 2750BH r5.-4* 16' 165CPH FULLER SINGLE LEVEL 84" WIDE X 16'-0" LONG TINY HOME PLAN OPTION *2 DESIGNED EY: LEGACY DESIGN HOMES LLL MICHAEL R. TINSLEY: OWNER 8 DESIGNER: 02-15-16 S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley SVMC regulations —tiny houses • Allowed in RV parks • Allowed in manufactured home parks • Treated as a recreational vehicle • Not allowed on a single-family residential for more than 30 days S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley New Code - Exemptions for indigent housing guidelines Cities and counties are permitted the option of adopting exemptions from the state building code requirements for buildings whose character of use or occupancy has been changed in order to provide housing for indigent (impoverished) persons (WAC 51-16-030) SI"ane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Val ley Other emerging Alternatives • Park model homes • Accessory dwellings (ADUs) • Cottages Quixote Village Layout • Located in Olympia, WA • 144 Sf in size • Built for homeless adults • Owned by a nonprofit organization • Residents pay a minimum rent and there is no option to buy dwelling 8 S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley Quixote Village -Olympia 9 SI"ane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Fuller Center Tiny House Village Concept Recreation Area Church or Ranch Property Community Center Aquaponic Farm 10 Fuller Center Tiny House • 258 sf three bedrooms • Units are available to rent —then own • Homeowner can remain in village or move the house off-site 11 SI"ane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • DIVISION -70 Other tiny house villages Portland (from recycled material) Seattle 12 S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley Park Model Home • Temporary RV • Can be placed in manufactured • home park parks • Not allowed on single lot as do not meet manufactured home dimensions • Maximum —400 sf in size 13 S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley Accessory Dwelling Unit A structure that is subordinate and incidental to the main or primary dwelling unit located on the same property, providing complete, independent living facilities exclusively for a single housekeeping unit, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation (SVMC) Comprehsneive Plan Amendments SI"ane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .000 Val ley SVMC Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units • Can be either attached or detached from a primary residence • Must be a minimum of 300 square feet in size • Have a maximum of two bedrooms • Must be on a foundation • Have similar appearance as the primary dwelling unit in regard to exterior materials, roof pitch, trim and windows. • Is allowed in all single-family residential zones S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley Existing Accessory Dwelling Units Detached S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley Tiny Cottage Village • Clustered around an open space • The SVMC has no development regulations for cottages 17 S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley Cotta:es and open spaces 18 S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley Siting tools for tiny home developments • Anew zoning district or overlay zone • A Planned Unit Development • A manufactured home park • A designated area for tiny house villages on church property — suggested by developer 19 S COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT al ley Discussion: • Are these housing types consistent with Council focus? • Are there other housing types that Council would like to discuss? • Is more information needed? Next Steps: • Bring Back additional information for Council if requested; • Continue the Comp Plan update process building in goals, policies and development regulations to support a diverse range of housing alternatives that include "Tiny Houses" and other options to be determined; 20 To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of April 20, 2016; 11:30 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 Mav 3, 2016, Special Meeting: 5:00 p.m. 1. Motion Consideration: City Hall Bid Award Eric Guth Mav 3, 2016, 6:00 p.m. Studv Session Meeting: Joint Council & Planning Commission —2-3 hours Comprehensive Plan Discussion — John Hohman, Tadas Kisielius 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. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-007 Zoning Map Amendment — Karen Kendall (5 minutes) 5. Admin Report: HCDAC Report — Christine Barada, Tim Crowley (30 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 7. Info Only: (a); (b) Amended 2016 TIP; (b) Draft 2017-2022, six -yr TIP [*estimated meeting: 75 minutes] May 17, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. STA Report on Proposed Fare Increase — Beth Bousley, and Brandon Rapez-Betty 2. Draft Amended 2016 TIP — Steve Worley 3. Draft 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP — Steve Worley 4. 2016 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [*estimated Mav 24, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2016 Amended Budget — Chelsie Taylor 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 3. First Reading Ordinance to Amend 2016 Budget — Chelsie Taylor 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 5. Info Only: (a) Dept Reports; (b) 2017 Stormwater Mgmt Program Plan Update [*estimated May 31, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Public Safety Ad Hoc Committee — Cary Driskell 2. 2017 Stormwater Mgmt Program Plan Update — Eric Guth 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [*estimated [due Mon, May 9] (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 65 minutes] [due Mon, May 16] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 40 minutes] [due Mon, May 23] (20 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) meeting: 40 minutes] June 7, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due May 27] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2016 TIP — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP — Steve Worley (15 minutes) 3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 4. Second Reading Ordinance to Amend 2016 Budget — Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Stormwater Management Program Plan Approval — Eric Guth (10 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 4/21/2016 2:20:37 PM Page 1 of 2 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 21-24: AWC Conference 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. Proposed Resolution Amending 2016 TIP — Steve Worley 2. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP — Steve Worley 3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 5. Info Only: Department Reports July 5, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Review LTAC Council Goals and Priorities — Mark Calhoun 2. 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, Study 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: Consensus on LTAC Council Goals and Priorities — Mark Calhoun 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 4. Info Only: Department Reports August 2, 2016 — No Meeting (National Night out) August 9, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: 2017 Budget Estimates Revenues & Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING Annexation Avista Electrical Franchise Carnahan & 8th Intersection Domestic Violence Advocacy (Police) Drug Enforcement Update — Rick VanLeuven Economic Development Marketing Plan Emergency Preparedness Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy [due Mon, June 13] (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 20] (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 27] (25 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue, July 5] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, July 11] (5 minutes) [due Mon, July 18] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 2] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) ISSUES/MEETINGS: Independent Investigative Counsel Law Enforcement Contract Review Ord 16-003 Mining Ext. (expires 8/21/16) Sidewalk/snow removal SVMC 2.45 Review/Discussion SRTMC Agreement (June/July 2016) Draft Advance Agenda 4/21/2016 2:20:37 PM Page 2 of 2 Spokane Walley City of Spokane Valley Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 Page Title 1 Cover Sheet 2 Pre -Application Meetings Requested 3 Online Applications Received 4 Construction Applications Received 5 Land Use Applications Received 6 Construction Permits Issued 7 Land Use Applications Approved 8 Development Inspections Performed 9 Code Enforcement 10 Revenue 11 Building Permit Valuations Printed 04/01/2016 06:55 Page 1 of 11 l��Ol.il .0 00.0 Valley Pre -Application Meetings Requested Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 A Pre -Application Meeting is a service provided to help our customers identify the code requirements related to their project proposal. Community Development scheduled a total of 9 Pre -Application Meetings in March 2016. 15 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Land Use Pre -Application - Commercial Pre -App Meeting Commercial Pre -App Land Use Pre -Application Meeting Monthly Totals Annual Total To -Date: 33 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Se 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 Oct Nov Dec 0 0 0 0 5 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Printed 04/01/2016 06:55 Page 2 of 11 Spokane v�►tley. Online Applications Received Community Development Online Applications Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 Community Development received a total of 223 Online Applications in March 2016. r 300 200 100 0 Jan Feb MI Trade Permit Sign Permit Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Right of Way Permit Reroof Permit Demolition Permit Approach Permit ME Seriesl Approach Permit Demolition Permit Reroof Permit Right of Way Permit Sign Permit Trade Permit Monthly Totals Annual Total To -Date: Printed 04/01/2016 07:00 517 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 101 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 30 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 55 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 189 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 1 of 1 Spokane uai1ey Construction Applications Received Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 Community Development received a total of 596 Construction Applications in March 2016. 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New IN Other Construction Permits Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New Commercial - Trade Residential - Trade Residential - Accessory Demolition Sign Other Construction Permits Monthly Totals Annual Total To -Date: Printed 04/01/2016 06:59 1,368 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 4 2 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 20 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *28 *25 *37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *109 *114 *139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *3 *4 *7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *8 *13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *144 *247 *326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 329 443 596 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 4 of 11 0 0 0 *Includes Online Applications. I��Ol.ile ,� P Malley° Land Use Applications Received Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 Community Development received a total of 72 Land Use Applications in March 2016. 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary )I Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits oundary Line Adjustment • hort Plat Preliminary ong Plat Preliminary inding Site Plan Preliminary inal Platting r oning Map/Comp Plan Amendment tate Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) dministrative xception/Interpretation ther Land Use Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 52 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 onthly Totals 37 64 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 04/01/2016 06:59 173 Page 5 of 11 .00 Valley, Construction Permits Issued Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 Community Development issued a total of 523 Construction Permits in March 2016. 600 400 200 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New ® Other Construction Permits Commercial - New Commercial - TI Residential - New Commercial - Trade Residential - Trade Residential - Accessory Demolition Sign Other Construction Permits Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2 4 14 16 9 8 19 17 27 25 20 34 104 113 125 2 6 12 2 4 6 6 12 6 120 182 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monthly Totals 296 367 523 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 04/01/2016 06:57 1,186 Page 6 of 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 Valley Land Use Applications Approved Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 Community Development approved a total of 67 Land Use Applications in March 2016. 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary fin Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Polity Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits Boundary Line Adjustment Short Plat Preliminary Long Plat Preliminary Binding Site Plan Preliminary Final Platting Zoning Map/Comp Plan Amendment State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Administrative Exception/Interpretation Other Land Use Permits M Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 50 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 onthly Totals 29 51 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Total To -Date: Printed 04/01/2016 06:57 147 Page 7 of 11 .010 Valley Development Inspections Performed Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 Community Development performed a total of 1294 Development Inspections in March 2016. Development Inspections include building, planning, engineering and ROW inspections. 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2015 . 2016 Jan Fe Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 764 960 1,294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 801 974 1,063 1,243 1,421 1,761 1,625 1,145 1,053 1,059 934 777 601 633 996 1,281 1,323 1,296 1,415 1,225 1,310 1,483 971 1,027 0 0 Printed 04/01/2016 06:58 Page 8 of 11 Totals i��a.Ile p_Malley, Code Enforcement Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 Code Enforcement Officers responded to 46 citizen requests in the month of March. They are listed by type below. Please remember that all complaints, even those that have no violation, must be investigated. 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Complaint, Non -Violation Environmental ' General Nuisance Property 1 Complaint, Non -Violation Environmental General Nuisance Property Monthly Totals Annual Total To -Date: 87 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 21 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 23 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Printed 04/01/2016 06:58 Page 9 of 11 .010 Valley Revenue 2016 Trend 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Community Development Revenue totaled $383,912 in March 2016. 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -} 2016 2015 - Five -Tear Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr $213,319 $191,658 $383,912 $0 $77,272 $72,713 $144,159 $149,274 $188,707 $202,096 $153,853 $116,015 $132,681 $131,066 $97,315 $74,775 $108,328 $161,174 $187,199 $123,918 $117,453 $162,551 $162,864 $99,587 $181,791 $99,627 $102,195 $1,581,462 $74,628 $66,134 $198,571 $160,508 $282,086 $152,637 $117,776 $127,540 $153,838 $149,197 $84,442 $97,689 $1,665,046 $158,912 $51,536 $102,538 $106,496 $184,176 $409,592 $277,553 $102,021 $129,174 $133,561 $98,386 $66,559 $1,820,504 $34,204 $60,319 $177,737 $173,932 $268,672 $223,888 $123,137 $103,703 $113,731 $112,542 $108,948 $51,745 $43,842 $77,247 $80,774 $118,237 $84,684 $106,909 $88,247 $83,949 $167,076 $78,237 $95,172 $58,881 May Jun Jul Aug Sep $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Oct Nov Dec $0 $0 $ Totals $788,889 $75,414 $1,540,565 Printed 04/01/2016 06:58 Page 10 of 11 1,552,558 .000 Valley Building Permit Valuation 2016 Trend 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Community Development Monthly Report 01/01/2016 - 03/31/2016 Community Development Building Permit Valuation totaled $55,604,555 in March 2016. 60, 000, 000 40, 000, 000 20, 000, 000 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -+- 2016 2015 Five -Year Trend Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec $7.96M $28.14M $55.60M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $0.00M $6.76M $4.80M $6.38M $9.26M $18.09M $18.98M $11.21M $7.48M $10.66M $9.92M $4.89M $3.48M $2.93M $10.71M $8.07M $18.60M $6.73M $7.53M $5.05M $8.06M $5.15M $14.42M $5.86M $5.07M $3.18M $2.45M $9.90M $8.92M $34.58M $7.44M $6.37M $9.47M $12.01M $7.74M $3.60M $6.30M $25.49M $1.92M $3.59M $7.30M $22.22M $41.88M $32.91M $6.52M $8.11M $14.22M $7.25M $2.54M 173.95M'! $0.72M $2.95M $5.29M $5.32M $24.39M $33.08M $7.91M $9.89M $6.47M $8.78M $3.76M $1.66M p110.22M'. $1.46M $5.95M $5.03M $6.15M $2.53M $4.98M $3.83M $3.45M $21.54M $4.46M $3.97M $1.85M Totals $0.00M . $91.70M 111.90M $98.18M 111.96M Printed 04/01/2016 06:58 Page 11 of 11 sooka<� jUalley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 i Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 ! cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager From: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director c. Date: April 12, 2016 Re Finance Department Activity Report — March 2016 Following is information pertaining lo Finance Department activities through the end of March 2016 and included herein is an updated 2015 Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures through the end of December. At this point we anticipate no further changes to the 2015 figures reported herein but it's always possible we'll receive an extremely late invoice that would force us to recognize the related expense. Subsequent Finance Activity Reports will focus on 2016 operations. 2015 Yearend Process In March we have continued to work on closing the books for 2015. This process typically continues through March because we continue to receive additional information pertaining to both revenues and expenditures (particularly construction related activity). We are now beginning the process of preparing our annual financial report which will be finished by the end of May. We hope to have the State Auditor's Office on site by early June to begin the audit of 2015. 2015 Windstorm Costs and FEMA Grant Reimbursement The total 2015 costs related to the response and cleanup of the 2015 Windstorm last November came in at about $169,000. Additional costs necessary to repair City parks to their prior condition are expected to be about $100,000 during 2016, and we expect these costs to be included as a budget amendment to the 2016 Budget. Of the total windstorm related costs, $60,381 was expended out of the Winter Weather Reserve Fund #122. The City is eligible to participate in a FEMA grant reimbursement program related to the 2015 Windstorm, and we expect the City to recover a portion of the total amount expended on the windstorm. We plan to replenish the Winter Weather Reserve Fund #122 for the $60,381 spent once we receive reimbursement from FEMA. City Hall Bond Process — 2016 LGTO Bonds We anticipate the total City Hall project cost will be $14.4 million with $6.3 million covered with cash set aside specifically for this purpose plus an additional $8.1 million in net limited tax general obligation bond proceeds that will be repaid over a 30 -year period in roughly equal annual installments. The $14.4 million is anticipated to cover the cost of the land acquisition, design, construction, furniture and fixtures. in order to issue bonds, the City Council must consider and adopt a bond ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of the 2016 LTGO Bonds. The bond ordinance will come before Council on the following dates: P:1FinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELNINARY No 4.docx Page 1 • March 22 • April 19 • May 10 Administrative report on the 2016 LTGO Bond Ordinance 1St reading of the 2016 LTGO Bond Ordinance 2nd reading of the 2016 LTGO Bond Ordinance 2017 Budget Development The process of developing the 2017 Budget calendar was initiated. This involves setting up schedules for the 2017 Budget, 2016 Budget Amendment, 2017 Outside Agency process, 2017 Lodging Tax award process, 2017 property tax levy, and fee resolution process. We also began updating worksheets that will ultimately be reviewed by Council at a June 14, 2016 workshop. Budget to Actual Comparison Report A report reflecting 2015 Budget to Actual Revenues and Expenditures for those funds for which a 2015 Budget was adopted (and amended on October 27) is located on pages 5 through 18. It's important to keep in mind that the figures included are preliminary and, though we don't anticipate any material changes, the figures may change if we receive invoices related to 2015 expenditure activity. We've included the following information in the report: • Revenues by source for all funds, and expenditures by department in the General Fund and by type in all other funds. • A breakdown between recurring and nonrecurring revenues and expenditures in the General Fund, Street O&M Fund and Stormwater Fund. • The change in fund balance including beginning and ending figures. The beginning fund balance figures are those that were reflected in our 2014 Annual Financial Report. • Columns of information include: o The amended 2015 Budget as adopted. o December 2015 activity. o Cumulative 2015 activity through December 2015. a Budget remaining in terms of dollars. o The percent of budgeted revenue collected or budgeted expenditures disbursed A few points related to the General Fund #001 (page 5): Recurring revenues collections are currently at 102.81% of the amount budgeted with 100.00% of the year elapsed. • Property tax collections have reached 11,280,147 or 100.03% of the amount budgeted. Receiving more revenue than was actually assessed is a result of the assessor collecting delinquent taxes from previous years. Property taxes are paid to Spokane County in two installments each year on April 30 and October 31 and are then remitted to the City primarily in May and November with lesser amounts typically remitted in June and December. In January we received one final payment related to 2015 collections that is reflected herein. • Sales tax collections finished the year at $18,209,568 which was $581,168 or 3.30% greater than the amount budgeted. • Gambling taxes are at $418,691 or 93.90% of the amount budgeted. Gambling taxes are paid quarterly with fourth quarter payments due by January 31. Effective July 1, 2015, the gambling tax rate on card games was reduced from 10% to 6%. • Franchise Fee and Business Registration revenues are typically received in the month following a calendar year quarter. These revenues reached $1,210,692 which was $64,692 or 5.65% greater than the amount budgeted. • State shared revenues are composed of State of Washington distributions that include items such as liquor board profits, liquor excise tax, streamlined sales tax mitigation and criminal P:lFinancelFinance Activity Reports1Council Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.docx Page 2 justice monies. Most of these revenues are paid by the State in the month following a calendar quarter. These have collectively finished the year at $2,011,629 which is $242,729 or 13.72% greater than the amount budgeted. The balance in excess of the budgeted amount is primarily due to shared liquor revenues that were restored during the 2015 State Legislative session as well as shared marijuana taxes. • Fines and forfeitures revenues are composed of monthly remittances from Spokane County with payments made in the month following the actual assessment of a fine and false alarm fees. These have finished the year at $1,360,910 or $146,190 (9.7%) less than the amount budgeted. • Community Development service revenues are largely composed of building permit and plan review fees as well as right of way permits. These revenues finished the year at $1,479,949 which is $154,849 or 11.69% greater than the amount budgeted. • Recreation program fees are composed of revenues generated by the variety of parks and recreation programs including classes, swimming pools (in -season), and CenterPlace. They have finished the year at $654,254 which is $90,754 or 16.11% greater than the amount budgeted. Recurring expenditures finished the year at $35,561,992 or $2,730,315 (7.13%) less than budgeted. Fund Balance / Reserves The fund balance at December 31, 2015, was anticipated to be $21,615,329 but actualy finished the year at $25,527,005. The difference of $3,911,676 is the result of: • Recurring revenues are $1,073,345 greater than budgeted. • Recurring expenditures are $2,730,315 less than budgeted. ■ Non-recurring expenditures are $108,016 less than budgeted. Investments (page 19) Investments at December 31 total $48,512,577 and are composed of $43,506,574 in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool and $5,006,003 in bank CDs. Total Sales Tax Receipts (page 20) Total sales tax receipts reflect State remittances through December and total $20,581,821 including general, criminal justice and public safety taxes. This figure is $874,145 or 4.44% greater than the same 12 -month period in 2014. Economic Indicators (pages 21 — 23) The following economic indicators provide information pertaining to three different sources of tax revenue that provide a good gauge of the health and direction of the overall economy. 1. Sales taxes (page 21) provide a sense of how much individuals and businesses are spending on the purchase of goods. 2. Hotel / Motel taxes (page 22) provide us with a sense of overnight stays and visits to our area by tourists or business travelers. 3. Real Estate Excise taxes (page 23) provide us with a sense of real estate sales. Page 21 provides a 10 -year history of general sales tax receipts (not including public safety or criminal justice) with monthly detail beginning January 2007. ■ Compared with calendar year 2015, 2016 collections have increased by $250,285 or 8.54%. • Tax receipts reached an all-time high in 2015 at $18,209,568, besting the previous record year of 2014 when $17,440,083 was collected. P;1FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reparts120161201 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.docx Page 3 Page 22 provides a 10 -year history of hotel/motel tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2007. • Compared with calendar year 2015, 2016 collections have increased by $5,457 or 10.07%. • Collections reached an all-time high in 2015 of $581237, exceeding the previous high set in 2014 of $549,267. Page 23 provides a 10 -year history of real estate excise tax receipts with monthly detail beginning January 2007. • Compared with calendar year 2015, 2016 collections have decreased by $11,619 or 5.82%. • Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at nearly $2.6 million, decreased precipitously in 2008 and 2009, and are slowly gaining ground. Debt Capacity and Bonds Outstanding (page 24) This page provides information on the City's debt capacity, or the dollar amount of General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds the City may issue, as well as an amortization schedule of the bonds the City currently has outstanding. • The maximum amount of G.O. bonds the City may issue is determined by the assessed value for property taxes which for 2016 is $7,748,275,097. Following the December 1, 2015, debt service payment the City has $6,375,000 of nonvoted G.O. bonds outstanding which represents 5.49% of our nonvoted bond capacity, and 1.10% of our total debt capacity for all types of bonds. Of this amount: o $5,250,000 remains on bonds issued for the construction of CenterPlace. These bonds are repaid with a portion of the 1/10 of 1% sales tax that is collected by the Spokane Public Facilities District. o $1,125,000 remains on bonds issued for road and street improvements around CenterPlace. The bonds are repaid with a portion of the real estate excise tax collected by the City. Street Fund Revenue Sources (pages 25 and 26) The last two charts reflect a history for the two primary sources of revenue in Street Fund #101. These include: • Page 25 provides a 10 -year history of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2007. o Compared with calendar year 2015, 2016 collections have increased by $28,902 or 9.70%. The increase is due primarily to increased motor vehicle fuel taxes that were approved by the State Legislature in 2015 and were effective beginning in August 2015. o Tax receipts peaked in 2007 at just approximately $2.1 million, and subsequently decreased to a range of approximately $1,857,000 to $1,940,000 in the years 2011 through 2015. • Page 26 provides a 6 -year history of Telephone Utility Tax collections with monthly detail beginning January 2009 (the month in which the tax was imposed). o Compared with 2015, 2014 collections have decreased by $34,655 or 8.87%. a Tax receipts peaked in 2009 at $3,054,473 and have decreased each year since due to what we suspect is the reduction in land lines by individual households. a The 2016 Budget was adopted with a revenue estimate of $2,340,000. We will watch this closely as we progress through the coming months. PAFinancelFinance Activity ReportslCauncil Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.doex Page 4 P:IFinance\Finance Activity Reports'wCouncil Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 #001 -GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Property Tax 11,277,100 760,029 11,280,147 3,047 100.03% Sales Tax 17,628,400 2,929,528 18,209,568 581,168 103.30% Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 1,468,700 249,564 1,523,588 54,888 103.74% Sales Tax - Public Safety 820,100 138,782 848,665 28,565 103.48% Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 445,900 87,051 418,691 (27,209) 93.90% Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1.146,000 298,225 1,210.692 64,692 105.65% State Shared Revenues 1,768,900 538,213 2,011,629 242,729 113.72% Fines, Forfeitures and Penalties 1,507,100 196,488 1,360,910 (146,190) 90.30% Community Development 1,325,100 108,748 1,479,949 154,849 111.69% Recreation Program Fees 563,500 8,665 654,254 90,754 116.11% Miscellaneous Department Revenue 95,900 5,173 112,232 16,332 117.03% Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 131,200 25,040 140,920 9,720 107.41% Transfer -in -#101 (streetadminj 39.700 3,3C8 39,700 (0) 100.00% Transfer -in - #105 (Wm tax -CP advertising) 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 100.00% Transfer -in - #402 (storm admin) 13,400 1,117 13,400 0 100.00% Total Recurring Revenues 38,261,000 5,379,932 39,334,345 1,073,345 102.81% Expenditures City Council 513,114 28,888 367,280 145,834 71.58% City Manager 688,363 67,805 665,170 23,193 96.63% Legal 461,839 44,723 458,766 3,073 99.33% Public Safety 24,153,492 1,561,908 22,568,438 1,585,054 93.44% Deputy City Manager 691.303 73,970 672,801 18,502 97.32% Finance / IT 1,203,879 91,852 1,062,307 141,572 88.24% Human Resources 243,317 20,389 235,600 7,717 96.83% Public Works 921,914 64,524 738,727 183,187 80.13% Community Development - Administration 261,094 20,162 250,570 10,524 95.97% Community Development - Econ Dev 298,276 24,081 238,902 59,374 80.09% Community Development - Dev Svc 1,424,944 135,791 1,385,124 39,820 97.21% Community Development - Building 1,380,902 103,927 1,193,448 187,454 86.43% Parks & Rec -Administration 271,372 20,024 261,255 10,117 96.27% Parks & Rec - Maintenance 844,642 131,144 834,344 10,298 98.78% Parks & Rec - Recreation 226,174 18,338 237,342 (11,168) 104.94% Parks & Rec - Aquatics 496,200 4,783 488.288 7,912 98.41% Parks & Rec - Senior Center 91,985 7,771 85,376 6,609 92.81% Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 824,997 86,781 811,547 13,450 98.37% Pavement Preservation 920,000 76,667 920,000 (0) 100.00% General Government 1,710,200 317,728 1,422,409 287,791 83.17% Transfers out -#502 (insurance premium) 325,000 27,083 325,000 0 100.00% Transfers out - #310 (bond pmt>$434.6 lease pr 67,600 5,633 67,600 0 100.00% Transfers out - #310 (city hallo&m costs) 271,700 22,642 271,700 0 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 38,292,307 2,956,615 35,561,992 2,730,315 92.87% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures (31,307) 2,423,316 3,772,353 3,803,660 Page 5 P:\FinancelFinance Activity Reports%Council Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 #001 • GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget Revenues Transfers in - #106 (Repymt of Solid Waste) 40,425 0 40,425 0 100.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 40,425 0 40,425 0 100.00% Expenditures Transfers ot.t - #309 (park grant match) 115,575 8,333 115,575 0 100.00% Transfers DIA - #107 (move PEG cash) 267,300 0 267,333 (33) 100.01% General Government - lT capital replacements 120,000 8,343 97,455 22,545 81.21% Genera! Government - City Hall Remodel 23,300 0 12,842 10,458 55.11% City Manager (2 scanners) 3,000 0 3,000 0 100.00% Public Safety (const offices for unit supervisors) 25,000 0 0 25,000 0.00% Community & Econ Dev (comp plan update) 250,000 1,943 206,704 43,296 82.68% Parks & Rec (upgrade dial-up modem at pools) 10,000 0 1,955 5,045 19,55% Parks & Rec (replace CP lounge carpet) 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 100.00% Parks & Rec (CenterPlace 10yr anniversary) 7,400 0 7,938 (538) 107,28% Parks & Rec (CenterPlace Roof Repairs) 36,000 2,512 13,883 22,117 38.56% Parks & Rec (Windstorm Park Clean-up) 0 38,045 38,045 (38,045) 0.00% Police Depa-tment - CAD/RMS 309,700 84,232 294,575 15,125 95.12% Police Depa-tment - (gate motor replace) 4,300 0 4,253 47 98.90% Police Depa-tment - (radar recorder) 4,600 0 4,600 0 100.00% Transfers out - #312 (13 fund bat >50%) 1,783,512 0 1,783,512 0 100.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 2,967,687 151,409 2,859,671 103,016 96.36% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (2,927,262) (151,409) (2,819,246) 108,016 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (2,958,569) 2,271,908 953,107 3,911,676 Beginning fund balance 24,573,898 24,573,898 Ending fund balance 21,615,329 25,527,005 Page 6 P:IFinancelFinance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reportsl201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #101 -STREET FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed 2015 100.4% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget Revenues Motor Vehic a Fuel (Gas) Tax 1,859,900 333.702 1,935,629 75,729 104.07% Investment Interest 3,000 742 3,212 212 107.05% Insurance P-emiums & Recoveries 0 0 4,319 4,319 0.00% Utility Tax 2,565,100 358,707 2,257,184 (307,916) 88.00% Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 0 9,647 (353) 96.47% Total Recurring Revenues 4,438,000 693,151 4,209,990 (228,010) 94.86% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 677,297 93,424 738,381 (61,084) 109.02% Supplies 111,500 4,211 116,660 (5,160) 104.63% Services & Charges 2,122,808 268,111 2,044,331 78,477 96.30% Snow Operations 520,000 219,678 465.232 54,768 89.47% Intergovernmental Payments 748,000 126,020 727,591 20,409 97.27% Interfund Transfers -out -#001 39,700 3,308 39.700 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers -out -#501 (non -plow vehicle 12,077 1,006 12,077 (0) 100.00% Interfund Transfers -out - #311 (pavement presence 206,618 17,218 206,618 (0) 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 4,438,000 732,977 4,350,589 87,411 98.03% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 0 (39,826) (140,599) (140,599) NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grants Miscellaneous 0 0 0 11,200 0 11,200 0 11,200 0.00% 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 0 11,200 11.200 11,200 0.00% Expenditures Capital 45,000 (64,691) 25,875 19,125 57.50% Pavement marking grinder 8,000 0 6,019 1,981 75.23% Interfund Transfers -out -#303 0 123,955 123,955 (123,955) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 53,000 59,264 155,848 (102,848) 294.05% Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures (53,000) (48,064) (144,648) (91,648) Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (53,000) (87,890) (285,247) (232,247) Beginning fund balance 1,705,244 1,705,244 Ending fund balance 1,652,244 1,419,997 Page 7 P:IFinancelFinance Activity ReportstCouncil Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xisx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS -continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #103 - PATHS & TRAiLS Revenues Motor Vehic:e Fuel (Gas) Tax 7,800 1,407 8,164 364 104.67% Investment Interest 0 17 62 62 0.00% Total revenues 7,800 1,425 8,226 426 105.46% Expenditures Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.00% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 7,800 1,425 8,226 426_ Beginning fund balance 29,828 29,828 Ending fund balance 37,628 38,054 #104 - TOURISM FACPLiTIES HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel Tax 178,700 54,526 182,236 3,536 101.98% Investment Interest 0 76 111 111 0.00% Total revenues 178,700 Expenditures Capital Expenditures 0 Total expenditures 54,502 182,347 3,647 102.04% 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures 178.700 54,602 182,347 3,647 Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 178,700 182,347 #105 - HOTEL / MOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel Tax Investment Interest 550,000 83,886 581,237 31,237 105,68% 300 126 484 184 161.35% Total revenues 550,300 84,012 581,721 31,421 105.71% Expenditures interfund Transfers -#001 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 100.00% interfund Transfers - #309 (Volleyball Cis) 68,000 0 68,000 0 100.00% Tourism Promotion 502,000 141,243 484,968 17,032 95.61% Total expenditures 600,000 171,243 582,968 17,032 97,16% Revenues over (under) expenditures (49,700) (87,231) (1,247) 14,390 Beginning fund balance 209,949 209,949 Ending fund balance 160,249 208,702 Page 8 P.1FinancelFinance Activity Reports',Council Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 (SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued #106 - SOLID WASTE Revenues Sunshine Administrative Fee Grant Proceeds Total revenues Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget. 125,000 31,250 125,000 0 100.00% 26,800 0 0 26,800 0.00% 151,800 31,250 125,000 26,800 82.35% Expenditures Interfund Transfers - #001 40,425 0 40,425 0 100.00% Supplies 0 0 153 (153) 0.00% Services & Charges 111,375 0 30,377 80.998 27.27% Waste to Resources Activities 0 8,924 18,511 (18,511) 0.00% Total expenditures 151,800 8,924 89,465 62,335 58.94% Revenues uvei (under) expenditures 0 22,326 35,535 (33,535) Beginning fund balance 7,339 7,339 Ending fund balance 7,339 42,874 #107 - PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG Contribution Transfers in - #001 92,000 19,876 81,806 10,194 88.92% 267,300 0 267,333 (33) 100.01% Total revenues 359,300 Expenditures PEG Reimburse - CMTV PEG COSV Broadcast Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 19,876 349,139 10,161 97.17% 12,000 0 0 12,000 0.00% 68,400 5,443 47,957 20,443 70.11% 80,400 5,443 278,900 0 14,432 47,957 301,182 0 32,443 59.65% 278,900 301,182 #120 - CENTER PLACE OPERATING RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest Interfund Transfer Total revenues Expenditures Operations Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 0 0 (22,282) 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 300.000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Page 9 P:1FinancelFinance Activity ReportsZouncil Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget #121 -SERVICE LEVEL STABILIZATION RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment interest 8,200 2,543 8,590 390 104.76% Interfund Transfer 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues Expenditures Operations Total expenditures Revenues aver (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance #122 - WINTER WEATHER RESERVE FUND Revenues Investment Interest lnterfund Tra-nsfer 8,200 2,543 8,590 390 104.76% 0 a a a a.00% 0 0 0 a 0.00% 8,200 2,543 8,590 390 5,453,199 5,453,199 5,461, 399 5,461,789 800 247 833 33 104.15% 0 0 0 0 0.00% Subtotal revenues 800 247 833 33 104.15% Expenditures Windstorm expenses - street clean-up 500,000 60,381 60,381 439,619 12.08% Total expenditures 500,000 60,381 60,381 439,619 12.08% Revenues over (under) expenditures (499,200) (60,134) (59,548) Beginning fund balance 504,020 504,020 Ending fund balance 4.820 444,472 (439,586) #123 - CIVIC FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Revenues Investment I'rterest 1.300 271 1,323 23 101.74% ]nterfund Transfer #001 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 1,300 271 1,323 23 101.74% Expenditures Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0.00% Transfers out - #31 1 (pevernent preservation) 616,284 51,357 616,284 0 100.00% Total expenditures 516,284 51,357 616,284 0 100.00% Revenues over (under) expenditures (614,984) (51,086) (614,961) 23 Beginning fund balance 1,174,070 1,174,070 Ending fund balance 559,086 559,109 Page 10 P:1Finance\Finance Activity ReportslCouncil Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS #204 • DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District Interfund Transfer -in - #301 Interfund Transfer -in - #302 Total revenues Expenditures Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace Debt Service Payments - Roads Total expenditures Budget Year Elapsed 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget 373,800 274,400 373.800 0 100.00% 82,150 6,846 82,150 0 100.00% 82.150 6,846 82,150 0 100.00% 538,100 288,092 538,100 0 100.00% 373,800 38,305 374,083 (283) 100.08% 164,300 14,014 164,017 283 99.83°/ 538,100 52,319 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 Beginning fund balance 4,049 Ending fund balance 4,049 235,773 Page 11 538,100 0 100.00% 0 0 4,049 4,049 P-1Finance\Finance Activity Reports',Council Monthly Reports 1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Cornparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 1010% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #301 - CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 1 -Taxes 800,000 71,477 1,065,789 265,789 133.22% Investment Interest 1,000 503 1,654 654 165.36% Total revenues 801,000 71,980 11,067,442 266,442 1.33.26% Expenditures Interfund Transfer -out - #204 82,150 6,846 82,150 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer -out - #303 569,413 12,187 567,113 2,300 99,60% lnterfund Transfer -out - #311 (pavement presen 251,049 0 251,049 0 100.00% Total expenditures 902,612 19,043 900,312 2,300 99.75% Revenues over (under) expenditures (101,612) 52,937 167.131 264,142 Beginning fund balance 1,426,957 1,426,957 Ending fund balance 1,325,345 1,594,088 #302 SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues REET 2 - Taxes Investment literest 800,000 216,313 1,065,789 265,789 133.22% 1,000 492 1,662 662 166.23% Total revenues 801,000 216,805 1,067,451 266,451 133.26% Expenditures Interfund Transfer -out -#204 82,150 6,846 82,150 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer -out - #303 413,271 130,872 331,099 82,172 80.12% Interfund Transfer -out - #311 (pavement preser4 251,049 0 251,049 0 100.00% Total expenditures 746,470 137,718 664,298 82,172 88.99% Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 54,530 1,325,144 79,087 403,153 1,325,144 1,379,674 1,728,297 Page 12 184,279 P:1Finance\Finance Activity ReportsCouncil Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 201512 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining %a of Budget #303 STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 10,321,343 1,940,178 8,223,959 (2,097,384) 79.68% Developer Contribution 364.378 62,544 363,894 (484) 99.87% Miscellaneous 0 0 50 50 0,00% Transfer -in -#101 0 123,955 123,955 123,955 0.00% Transfer -in -#301 569,413 12,197 567,113 (2,300) 99.60% Transfer -in -#302 413,271 130,872 331,099 (82,172) 80.12°4 Transfer -in - #312 Sullivan Rd W Bridge 500.000 34,508 42,730 (457.270) 8.55% Investment Interest 0 11 38 38 0.00% Total revenues 12,168,405 2,304,264 9,652,838 (2,515,567) 79.33% Expenditures 060 Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06-31 1,214,829 3,321 1,248,474 (33,645) 102.77% 123 Mission Ave -Flora to Barker 252,570 5,209 37,956 214,614 15.03% 141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 10,000 330 9,848 152 98,48% 142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 120,494 4,230 17,771 102,723 14.75% 149 Sidewalk Infill 93,190 0 8,177 85,013 8.77% 155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement 7,846,931 2,116,180 6,482,244 1,364,687 82.61% 156 Mansfield Ave. Connection 1,172,716 7,986 712,689 460,027 60,77% 159 University Rd /1-90 Overpass Study 40,852 0 2,842 38,010 6.96% 166 Pines Rd. (5R27) & Grace Ave. Int. Safety 101,110 (30,853) 47,322 53,788 46.80% 167 Citywide Safety Improvements 260,576 104,228 315,032 (54,456) 120.90% 177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study 55,556 0 19,332 36,224 34.80% 191 Vista Rd BNSF Xing Safety Improvements 300 0 190 110 63.29% 196 8th Avenue - McKinnon to Fancher 400 0 396 4 99.11% 201 ITS Infill Project Phase 1 (PE Start 2014) 56,056 30,049 37,884 18,172 67.58% 205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements 51,428 6,461 13,132 38,296 25.53% 206 Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project 357,714 3,215 304,933 52,181 85.24% 207 Indiana & Evergreen Transit Access 85,000 3,225 3,345 81,655 3.94% 211 Trent Lighting Replacement 96,535 34,989 100,649 (4,114) 104.26% 220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell St Preservation 18,473 0 15,555 2,918 84.21% 221 McDonald Rd Diet (16th to Mission) 56,800 7,229 7,229 49,571 12.73% 222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates 4,500 0 0 4,500 0.00% 223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF & Trent 10,000 0 2,000 8,000 20.00% 224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation 162,375 0 133,069 29,306 81.95% 234 Seth Woodard Sidewalk Improvements 0 6,204 6,204 (6,204) 0.00% xxx N. Sullivan Corridor ITS Project 0 0 0 0 0.00% Construction - Small Works 0 123,955 123,955 (123,955) 0.00% Contingency 100,000 0 0 100,000 0.00% Total expenditures 12,168,405 2,425,959 9,650,228 2,518,177 79.31% Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 (121,695) 2,609 (5,033,744) Beginning fund balance 72,930 72,930 Ending fund balance 72,930 75,539 Note: Work performed in the Streei rojecis Fund for preservation projects is for items such as sidewalk upgrades that were bid with the pavement preservation wvrr. Page 13 P:IFinancelFinance Activity Reports.Council Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budge) Year Elapsed = 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #309 - PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 90.000 1,106 1,560(88,440) 1.73% Interfund Transfer -in -#001 115,575 8,333 115,575 (0) 100.00% Interfund Transfer -in - #105 (Brown Volleyball CI 68.000 0 68,000 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer -in #312 (Appleway Trail) 554,650 524,812 524,812 (29,838) 94.62% Investment Interest 500 241 813 313 162.56% Total revenues 828,725 534,493 710,760 (117,965) 85.77% Expenditures 176 Appieway Trail - University to Pines 540,600 483 524,569 16.031 97.03% 203 Browns Park Volleyball Courts 244,200 0 241,481 2,719 98.89% 208 Old Mission Trailhead Parking Improvements 0 0 68 (68) 0.00% 212 Edgecliff Park Restroom Sewer Project 0 6,923 0 0 0.00% 217 Edgecliff picnic shelter 106,450 0 104,257 2,194 97.94% 225 Pocket dog park 98,975 100,358 108,436 (9,461) 109.56% 227 Appieway Trail - Pines to Evergree 104,050 919 1,803 102,247 1.73% 231 Mission Trailhead landscaping 47,100 41,466 47,066 34 99,93% 232 Shade structure at Discovery Playground 38,000 36,341 36,341 1,559 95.63% xxx City entry sign 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total expenditures 1,179,375 186,490 1,064,019 115,356 90.22% Revenues over (under) expenditures (350,650) 348.003 (353,259) (233,322) Beginning fund balance 451,720 451,720 Ending fund balance 101,070 98,461 #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest 1,200 577 2,113 913 176,11% Interfund Transfer -in -#001 339,300 28,275 339,300 0 100.00% Interfund Transfer -in -#312 58,324 0 58,324 0 100.00% Total revenues 398,824 Expenditures Capital (City Hall Land Acquisition) 1,128,200 Professional Services 12,100 28,852 399,737 913 100.23% 0 1,128,118 82 99.99% 0 8,621 3,480 71.24% Total expenditures 1,140,300 0 1,136,738 3,562 99.69% Revenues over (under) expenditures (741,476) 28,852 (737,001) (2,648) Beginning fund balance 1,919,550 1,919,550 Ending fund balance 1,178,074 1,182,549 Note: The fund balance includes $839, 285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres et the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,235 10. Page 14 P: 1FinancelFinance Activity ReportsCouncil Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget #311 - STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 2011+ Revenues Interfund Transfers in -#101 206,618 17,218 206,618 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in -#123 616,284 51,357 616,284 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in -#301 251,049 0 251,049 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in -#302 251,049 0 251,049 0 100.00% Interfund Transfers in- #001 920,000 76,667 920,000 0 100.00% Grant Proceeds 971,032 6,433 835,224 (135,808) 86.01% Investment Interest 0 1,004 3,390 3,390 0.00% Total revenues 3,216,032 152,678 3,083,614 (132,418) 95.88% Expenditures Pre -Project GeoTech Services 50,000 41,432 41,432 5,568 82.86% Pavement Preservation 2,565,050 0 0 2,565,050 0.00% 179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2 0 0 2,851 (2,851) 0.00% 180 2013 Street Preservation Pti3 0 0 209 (209) 0.00% 186 Adams Road Resurfacing 0 0 388 (388) 0.00% 187 Sprague Ave Preservation Project 0 0 2,915 (2,915) 0.00% 188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project 0 466 888,634 (888,634) 0.00% 202 Appleway Street Preservation Project 0 0 226 (226) 0.00% 211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley 0 20,613 454,799 (454,799) 0.00% 218 Montgomery Ave Street Preservation 0 303 308,223 (308,223) 0.00% 220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell Street Preservation 0 513 294,057 (294,057) 0.00% 224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation 0 5,140 361,004 (361,004) 0.00% 226 Appleway Resurfacing Park to Dishman 0 6,959 6,959 (6,959) 0.00% 229 32nd Ave Preservation 0 11,806 34,660 (34,660) 0.00% 233 Broadway Ave St Presery - Sulliv to Moore 0 2,626 4,051 (4,051) 0.00% Total expenditures 2,615,050 89,859 2,400,408 214,642 91.79% Revenues over(under)expenditures 600,982 62,819 683,206 (347,061) Beginning fund balance 1,922,013 1,922,013 Ending fund balance 2,522,995 2,605,219 #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 1,783,512 0 1,783,512 0 100.00% Investment Interest 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total revenues 1,783,512 0 1,783,512 0 100.00% Expenditures Transfers out - #303 - Sullivan Rd W Bridge 500,000 34,508 42,730 457,270 8.55% Transfers out - #309 -Appleway Trail 540,600 524,812 524,812 15,788 97.08% Transfers out - #309 - Appleway Trail (Pines to E 14,050 0 0 14,050 0.00% Transfers out - #310 - City Hall Land 58,324 0 58,324 0 100.00% Transfers out - #313 - City Half Constr 5,162,764 0 5,162,764 0 100.00% Total expenditures 6,275,738 559,320 5,788,630 487,108 92.24% Revenues over (under) expenditures (4,492,226) (559,320) (4,005,118) (487,108) Beginning fund balance 8,581,715 8,581,715 Ending fund balance 4,089,489 4,576,597 #1313 - CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION FUND Revenues Transfers in - #312 5,162,764 0 5,162,764 0 100.00% Total revenues 5,162,764 Expenditures Professional Services 702,400 113,821 362,138 5,162,764 0 100.00% 340,263 51.56% Total expenditures 702,400 113,821 362,138 Revenues over (under) expenditures 4,460,364 (113,821) 4,800,627 Beginning fund balance 0 0 Ending fund balance 4,460,364 4,800,627 Page 15 340,263 51.56% (340,263) P:1Finance\Finance Activity Reports%Council Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 • STORMWATER FUNIJ RECURRING ACTIVITY Budget Year Elapsed 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining of Budget Revenues StormwaterManagement Fees 1,880,000 156,291 1,861,368 (18,632) 99.01% investment interest 1,500 727 2,455 955 163.65% Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Recurring Revenues 1,881,500 157,0° 8 1,863,823 (17,677) 99.06% Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 488,101 34,963 392,941 95.160 80.50% Supplies 15,900 619 30,240 (14,340) 190.19% Services & Charges 1,097,468 156,705 1,086,479 10,989 99.00% Intergovernmental Payments 27,000 16,085 30,176 (3,176) 111.76% Interfund Transfers -out - #001 13,400 1,117 13,400 (0) 100.00% Total Recurring Expenditures 1,641,869 209,488 1,553,236 86,633 94.60% Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 239,631 (52,470) 310,586 70,955 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 389,674 0 423,332 33,658 108.64% Interfund Transfers -in - #403 120,000 0 120,000 0 100.00% Developer Contributions 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Revenues 509,674 0 543,332 33,658 106.60% Expenditures Capital - various projects 875,340 0 230,247 645,093 26.30% VMS Trailer 16,000 0 15,546 454 97.16% 166 Pines Rd. (SR27) & Grace Ave. Int. Safety 0 34,844 34,844 (34,844) 0.00% 188 Sullivan Rd Preservation 0 0 50,680 (50,680) 0.00% 193 Effectiveness Study 0 0 192,638 (192,638) 0.00% 198 Sprague, Park to University LID 0 0 10,453 (10,453) 0.00% 199 Havana - Yale Diversion 0 0 4,887 (4,887) 0.00% 200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion 0 0 3,540 (3,540) 0.00% 206 Sprague/Long Sidewalk Project 0 0 25,967 (25,967) 0.00% 211 Sullivan Trent to Wellesley 0 464 143,255 (143,255) 0.00% 218 Montgomery Ave. St Preservation 0 0 87,314 (87,314) 0.00% 220 Houk-Sinto-Maxwell St Preservation 0 0 77,361 (77,361) 0.00% 224 Mullan Rd Street Preservation 0 0 16,427 (16,427) 0.00% Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 891,340 Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures 35,307 893,159 (1.819) 100.20% (381,666) (35,307) (349,827) 31,839 Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures (142,035) (87,777) (39,240) 102,795 Beginning working capital 1,933,564 1,933,564 Ending working capital 1,791,529 1,894,324 Note: Work performed in the Stormw, ter Fund (or preservation projects is for stormwater improvements that were bid with the pavement preservation work. Page 16 P:IFinance\Finance Activity Reports',Council Monthly Reports120162016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xisx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 ENTERPRISE FUNDS - continued Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget % of December December 31 Remaining Budget #403 - AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA Revenues Spokane County 500,000 236,677 533,593 33,593 106.72% Grant DOE - Broadway SD Retrofit 1,260,000 0 433,773 (826,227) 34.43% Grant revenue 0 0 602,830 602,830 0.00% Total revenues Expenditures lnterfund Transfer -out - #402 197 Broadway SD retrofit Total expenditures 1,760,000 236,677 1,570,196 (189,805) 89.22% 120,000 0 120,000 0 100.00% 1,080,000 0 530.308 549,692 49.10% 1,200,000 0 650,308 549,692 54.19% Revenues over (under) expenditures 560,000 236,677 919,887 (739,496) Beginning working capital 1,773 1,773 Ending working capital 561,773 921,660 Page 17 P:1FinancelFinance Activity Reportsi.Council Monthly Reparts1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4,xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Budget to Actual Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 37, 2015 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Transfer -in - #001 Transfer -in - #101 Transfer -in - #402 Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures Vehicle Acquisitions Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital Budget Year Elapsed = 2015 100.0% 2015 Budget Actual Actual thru Budget December December 31 Remaining % of Budget 19,300 1,608 19,300 0 100.00% 12,077 1,006 12,077 0 100.00% 4,167 347 4,167 0 100.00%❑ 1,000 429 1,449 449 144.91% 36,544 3,391 36,993 449 101.23% 30,000 0 23,790 5,210 79.30% 30,000 6,544 1,235,794 0 3,391 23.790 13,203 1,235,794 6,210 79.30% 1,242,338 1,248, 997 (5,761) #502 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Revenues Investment Interest 0 2 8 8 0.00% Interfund Transfer - #101 0 0 0 0 0.00% Interfund Transfer - #001 325,000 27,083 325,000 (0) 100.00% Total revenues 325,000 Expenditures Auto & Property Insurance Unemployment Claims Miscellaneous Total expenditures Revenues aver (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital 27,086 325,008 8 100.00% 325,000 0 284,112 40,888 87.42% 0 1.105 14,722 (14,722) 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 325,000 0 168,209 1,105 168,209 25,981 298,834 26,174 168,209 26,166 91.95% 194,383 (26,157) SUMMARY FOR ALL FUNDS Total of Revenues for all Funds 74,208,705 10,299,842 72,658,709 Per revenue status report 74,208,705 10,299,842 72,658,709 Difference 0 (0) 0 Total of Expenditures for all Funds Per expenditure status report 78,056,137 8,028,042 70,249,355 78,056,137 8,028,042 70,249,354 0 (0) 0 Total Capital expenditures (included in total expenditures) 20,048,270 2,800,532 16,045,456 Page 18 P:\ inance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY Ne 4.xtsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Investment Report For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 Beginning Deposits Withdrawis Interest Ending 001 General Fund 101 Street Fund 103 Trails & Paths 104 Tourism Facilities Hotel/Motel 105 Hotel/Motel 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 Winter Weather Reserve 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 301 Capital Projects 302 Special Capital Projects 303 Street Capital Projects Fund 304 Mirabeau Point Project 307 Capital Grants Fund 309 Parks Capital Project 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 311 Pavement Preservation 312 Capital Reserve Fund 402 Stormwater Management 403 Aquifer Protection Fund 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 Risk Management *Local Government investment Pool 4/11/2016 $ 44,184,763.71 $ 3,003,008.62 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 49,187.772.33 2,298,092.10 0.00 0.00 2,298,092.10 (3,000,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (3,000,000.00) 23,717.99 2,994.78 0.00 26,712.77 $ 43,506,573.80 $ 3,006,003.40 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 48,512,577.20 matures: 6128/2016 rate.' 0.40% 11/4/2016 0.50% Balance Earnings Budget Total LGIP* [3B CD 2 BB CD 3 Investments $ 44,184,763.71 $ 3,003,008.62 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 49,187.772.33 2,298,092.10 0.00 0.00 2,298,092.10 (3,000,000.00) 0.00 0.00 (3,000,000.00) 23,717.99 2,994.78 0.00 26,712.77 $ 43,506,573.80 $ 3,006,003.40 $ 2,000,000.00 $ 48,512,577.20 matures: 6128/2016 rate.' 0.40% 11/4/2016 0.50% Balance Earnings Budget Current Period Year to date $ 31,833,139.23 $ 18,704.82 $ 73,378.47 $ 65,000.00 1,518,133.87 742.22 3,211.56 3,000.00 35,573.63 17.39 61.94 0.00 155,319.48 75.94 110.81 0.00 257,110.76 125.70 484.05 300.00 300,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,201,470.20 2,543.01 8,590.23 7,300.00 504,534.77 246.67 833.23 700.00 553, 880.18 270.79 1,322.61 1,700.00 956,772.90 503.19 1,653.57 1,000.00 1,078,996.49 492.10 1,662.31 1,000.00 22,895.29 11.20 37.81 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 492,150.21 240.61 812.80 500,00 1,181,086.10 577.44 2,113.36 '1,900.00 2,052,592.76 1,003.52 3,389.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,486,399.44 726.71 2,454.80 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 877,410.86 428.97 1,449.05 1,000.00 5,111.03 2.49 8.44 0.00 $ 48,512,577.20 $ 26,712.77 $ 101,574.91 $ 85,900.00 Page 19 P:\Finance\Finance Activity Reports\Council Monthly Reports1201612016 03 31 - 2015 12 PRELIMINARY No 4.xisx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Receipts For the Twelve -Month Period Ended December 31, 2015 Month 4/11/2016 Difference Received 2014 2015 $ °k February 1,891,031.43 1,962,820.56 71,789.13 3.80% March 1,324,975.84 1,358,307.78 33.331.94 2.52% April 1,357,736.39 1,401,618.35 43.881.96 3.23% May 1,636,894.44 1,655,903.08 19.008.64 1.16% June 1,579,545.34 1,557,740.48 (21.804.86) (1.38%) July 1,653, 343.86 1,886,262.22 232.918.36 14.09% August 1,751,296.73 1,944,085.56 192 788.83 11.01% September 1,772,033.14 1,894,514.58 122.481.44 6.91% October 1,754,039.63 1,765,807.42 11 767.79 0.67% November' 1,802,029.08 1,836,885.94 34.856.86 1.93% December 1,619,010.52 1,683,925.38 64.914.86 4.01% January 1,565,739.35 1,633,949.35 68.210.00 4.36% 19,707,675.75 20,581,820.70 19,707,675.75 20,581,820.70 874.144.95 4.44% Sales tax receipts reported here reflect remittances for general sales tax, criminal justice sales tax and public safety tax. The sales tax rate for retail sales transacted within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley is 8.7%. The tax that is paid by a purchaser at the point of sale is remitted by the vendor to the Washington State Department of Revenue who then remits the taxes back to the various agencies that have imposed the tax. The allocation of the total 8.7% tax rate to the agencies is as follows: - State of Washington 6.50% - City of Spokane Valley 0.85% - Spokane County 0.15% - Spokane Public Facilities District 0.10% - Criminal Justice 0.10% - Public Safety 0.10% 2,20% local tax - Juvenile Jail 0.10% * - Mental Health 0.10% - Law Enforcement Communications 0.10% * - Spokane Transit Authority 0.60% * 8.70% * Indicates voter approved sates taxes in addition to the .85% reported above that the City receives, we also receive a portion of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety sales taxes. The distribution of those taxes is computed as follows: Criminal Justice: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 10% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the County and the cities within the County. Public Safety: The tax is assessed county -wide and of the total collected, the State distributes 60% of the receipts to Spokane County, with the remainder allocated on a per capita basis to the cities within the County. Page 20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Sales Tax Collections - February For the years 2007 through 2016 January February P:1FinancetFinance Activity ReportstTax Revenue\Sales Tax120161sales tax collections 2016.xlsx 2007 1 2008 1 2009 { 2010 1 2011 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1,759,531 1,729,680 1,484,350 1,491,059 1,460,548 1,589,887 1,671,269 1,677,887 1,732,299 1,863,225 3/25/2016 2016 to 2015 Difference $ oh 130,926 7.56% 1,155,947 1,129,765 1,098,575 963,749 990,157 1,009,389 1,133,347 1,170,640 1,197,323 1,316,682 119,359 9,97% Collected to date 2,915,478 2,859,445 2,582,925 2,454,808 2,450,705 2,599,276 2,804,616 2,848,527 2,929,622 3,179,907 250,285 8.54% March 1,196,575 1,219,611 1,068,811 1,018,468 1,015,762 1,067,733 1,148,486 1,201,991 1,235,252 0 April 1,479,603 1,423,459 1,134,552 1,184,137 1,284,180 1,277,621 1,358,834 1,448,539 1,462,096 0 May 1,353,013 1,243,259 1,098,054 1,102,523 1,187,737 1,174,962 1,320,449 1,400,956 1,373,710 0 June 1,428,868 1,386,908 1,151,772 1,123,907 1,248,218 1,290,976 1,389,802 1,462,558 1,693,461 0 July 1,579,586 1,519,846 1,309,401 1,260,873 1,332,834 1,302,706 1,424,243 1,545,052 1,718,428 0 August 1,516,324 1,377,943 1,212,531 1,211,450 1,279,500 1,299,678 1,465,563 1,575,371 1,684,700 0 September 1,546,705 1,364,963 1,227,813 1,191,558 1,294,403 1,383,123 1,466,148 1,552,736 1,563,950 0 October 1,601,038 1,344,217 1,236,493 1,269,505 1,291,217 1,358, 533 1,439,321 1,594,503 1,618,821 0 November 1,443,843 1,292,327 1,155,647 1,139,058 1,217,933 1,349,580 1,362,021 1,426,254 1,487,624 0 December 1,376,434 1,129,050 1,070,245 1,141,012 1,247,920 1,323,189 1,408,134 1,383,596 1441,904 0 Total Collections 17,437,467 16,161,028 14,248,244 14,097,299 14,850,409 15,427,377 16,587,617 17,440,083 18,209,568 3,179,907 Budget Estimate 17,466,800 17.115,800 17,860,000 14,410,000 14,210,000 14,210,000 15,250,000 16,990,000 17,628,400 18,210,500 Actual over (under) budg (29,333) (954,772) (3,611,756) (312,701) 640,409 1,217,377 1,337,617 450,083 581,168 (15,030,593) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 99.83% 94.42% 79.78% 97.83% 104.51% 108.57% 108.77% 102.65% 103.30% n1a % change in annual total collected 5.36% (7.32%) (11.84%) (1.06%) 5.34% 3.89% 7.52% 5.14% 4.41% rola % of budget collected through February 16.69% 16.71% 14.46% 17.04% 17.25% 18.29% 18.39% 16.77% 16.62% 17.46% % of actual total collected through February 16.72% 17.69% 18.13% 17.41% 16.50% 16.85% 16,91% 16.33% 18.09% nld Chart Reflecting History of Coltections through the Month of February 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,00D 1,000,000 500,000 February 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 • February • January Page 21 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Hotel/Motel Tax Receipts through - February Actual for the years 2007 through 2018 January February P:\Finance\Finance Activity ReportstTax RevenuelLodging Tax120161105 hotel motel tax 2016.xlsx L 2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 2011 1 2012 ( 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 4/512016 2016 to 2015 Difference 25,137.92 28,946.96 23,280.21 22,706.96 22,212.21 21,442.32 24,184.84 25,425.40 27,092.20 31,887.27 4,795 17.70% 25,310.66 24,623.06 23,283.95 23,416.94 22,792.14 21,548.82 25,974.98 26,013.62 27,111.00 27,773.00 662 2.44% Total Collections 50,448.58 53,570.02 46,564.16 46,123.90 45,004.35 42,991.14 50,159.82 51,439.02 54,203.20 59,660.27 5.457.07 10.07% March 29,190.35 27,509.99 25,272.02 24,232.35 24,611.28 25,654.64 27,738.65 29,383.93 32,998.14 0.00 April 37,950.53 40,406.02 36,253.63 39,463.49 38,230.49 52,130.37 40,979.25 48,245.81 50,454.72 0.00 May 31,371.01 36,828.53 32,588.80 34,683.32 33,790.69 37,478.44 40,560.41 41,122.66 44,283.17 0.00 June 36,267.07 46,659.88 40,414.59 39,935.36 41,403.41 43,970.70 47,850.15 52,617.83 56,975.00 0.00 July 56,281.99 50,421.37 43,950.26 47,385.18 49,311.97 52,818.60 56,157.26 81,514.48 61,808.87 0.00 August 51,120.70 50,818.35 50,146.56 54,922.99 57,451.68 57,229.23 63,816.45 70,383.93 72,696.67 0.00 September 57,260.34 60,711.89 50,817.62 59,418.96 58,908.16 64,298.70 70,794.09 76,099.59 74,051.29 0.00 October 43,969.74 38,290.46 36,784.36 41,272.35 39,028.08 43,698.90 43,835.57 45,604.07 49,879.71 0.00 November 36,340.64 35,582.59 34,054.79 34,329.78 37,339.36 39,301.22 42,542.13 39,600.06 42,376.17 0.00 December 31,377.41 26,290.11 27,131.43 26,776.84 32,523.19 30,432.13 34,238.37 33256.28 41,509.90 0.00 Total Collections 461,578.36 467,089.21 423,978.22 448,544.52 457,602.66 490,004.07 518,672.15 549,267.46 581,236.84 59,660.27 Budget Estimate 400,000.00 400,000.00 512,000.00 380,000.00 480,000.00 430,000.00 490,000.00 530,000.00 550,000.00 550,000.00 Actual over (under) budg 61,578.36 67,089.21 (88,021.78) 68,544.52 (22,397.34) 60,004.07 28,672.15 19,267.46 31,236.84 (490.339.73) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 115.39% 116.77% 82.81% 118.04% 95.33% 113.95% 105.85% 103.64% 105.68% n/a % change in annual total collected 10.67% 1.19% (9.23%) 5.79% 2.02% 7.08% 5.85% 5.90% 5.82% n/a % of budget collected through February 12.61% 13.39% 9.09% 12.14% 9.38% 10.00% 10.24% 9.71% 9.86% 10.85% % of actual total collected through February 10.93% 11.47% 10.98% 10.28% 9.83% 8.77% 9.67% 9.37% 9.33% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of February 70,000.00 60,000.00 50,000.00 40,000.00 30,000.00 i 20,000.00 10.000.00 . 0.00 2007 2008 2009 2010 February 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 • February e January Page 22 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 1st and 2nd 114% REET Collections through February Actual for the years 2007 through 2016 January February P.1Finance1Finance Activity ReportslTax RevenuelREET120161301 and 302 REET for 2016.xlsx 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 f 2016 228,896.76 129,919.79 145,963.47 159,503.34 55281.25 59.887.08 64,128.13 46358.75 56,898.40 61,191.55 96,140.79 45,180.53 64,121.61 36,443.36 56,114.56 155,226.07 67,048.50 103,507.94 4;5/2016 2016 to 2015 Difference 104,446.46 8,306 8.64% 83,583.39 (19,925) (19.25%) Collected to date 358,816.55 305,466.81 100,461.78 124,008.69 100,571.49 102,473.31 212,124.47 128,240.05 199,648.73 188,029.85 (11,618.88) (5.82%) March 263,834.60 133,513.35 73,306.86 86,204.41 95,879.78 71,729.67 72,171.53 81,72370 165,867.91 0.00 April 211,787.08 128,366.69 81,155.83 99,507.19 79,681.38 86,537.14 90,376.91 105,448.15 236,521.17 0.00 May 222,677.17 158,506.43 77,463.58 1090624.89 124,691.60 111,627.22 116,164.91 198,869.74 165,748.39 0.00 June 257,477.05 178,202.98 105,020.98 105,680.28 81,579.34 124,976.28 139,112.11 106,675.77 347,420.87 0.00 July 323,945.47 217,942.98 122,530.36 84,834.48 79,629.06 101,048.69 128,921.02 208,199.38 217,374.58 0.00 August 208,039.87 133,905.93 115,829.68 72,630.27 129,472.44 106,517.19 117,149.90 172,536.46 202,525.05 0.00 September 165,287,21 131,240.36 93,862,17 75,812,10 68,019.83 63,516.73 174,070.25 152,322.59 179,849.27 0.00 October 206,442.92 355,655.60 113,960.52 93,256.02 61,396.23 238,094.79 117,805.76 123,504,75 128,832.69 0.00 November 191,805.53 147,875.00 133,264.84 72,021.24 74,752.72 104,885.99 78,324.02 172,226.74 129,869.62 0.00 December 179,567.77 96,086.00 71,365.60 38,724.50 65,077.29 74,299.65 75,429.19 117,681.62 157,919.41 0.00 Total distributed by Spokane County 2,589,681.22 1,986,762.13 1,088,222.20 962,304.07 960,751.16 1,185,706.66 1,321,650.07 1,567,428.95 2,131,577.69 188,029.85 Budget estimate 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 760,000.00 800,000.00 950,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,200.000.00 1,600,000.00 1.600,000.00 Actual over (under) budget 589,681.22 (13,237.87) (911,777.80) 202,304.07 160,751.16 235,706.66 321,650.07 367,428.95 531,577.69 (1,411,970.15) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 129.48% 99.34% 54.41% 126.62% 120.09% 124.81% 132.17% 130.62% 133.22% n/a % change in annual total collected 5.22% (23.28%) (45.23%%) (11.57%) (0.16%) 23.41% 11.47% 18.60% 35.99% n/a % of budget collected through February 17.94% 15.27% 5.02% 16.32% 12.57% 10.79% 21.21% 10.69% 12.48% 11.75% % of actual total collected through February 13.86% 15.38% 9.23% 12.89% 10.47% 8,64% 16.05% 8.18% 9.37% n/a Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of February 400,000.00 350,000.00 300,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 i 2007 ■ February 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 February January Page 23 H:\Finance Activity Reports\2015\debt capacity.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Debt Capacity 2/17/2016 2015 Assessed Value for 2016 Property Taxes Voted (UTGO) Nonvoted (LTGO) Voted park Voted utility 1.00% of assessed value 1.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value 2.50% of assessed value 7,748,275,097 Maximum Debt Capacity Outstanding as of 12/31/2015 Remaining Debt Capacity kIQ Utilized 77,482,751 116,224,126 193,706,877 193,706,877 581,120,631 0 6,375,000 0 0 6,375,000 77,482,751 109,849,126 193,706,877 193,706,877 574,745,631 0.00% 5.49% 0.00% 0.00% 1.10% Bonds Repaid Bonds Remaining 2014 LTGO Bonds Period Ending CenterPlace Road & Street Improvements Total 12/1/2014 12/1/2015 12/1/2016 12/1/2017 12/1/2018 12/1/2019 12/1/2020 12/1/2021 12/1/2022 12/1/2023 12/1/2024 12/1/2025 12/1/2026 12/1/2027 12/1/2028 12/1/2029 12/1/2030 12/1/2031 12/1/2032 12/1/2033 225,000 175,000 135,000 125,000 360,000 300,000 400,000 260,000 660,000 185,000 190,000 230,000 255,000 290,000 320,000 350,000 390,000 430,000 465,000 505,000 395,000 300,000 245,000 225,000 180,000 130,000 165,000 130,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 315,000 320,000 365,000 395,000 430,000 465,000 500,000 155,000 545,000 0 430,000 0 465,000 0 505,000 0 395,000 0 300,000 0 245,000 0 225,000 0 180,000 0 130,000 0 165,000 5,250,000 1,125,000 6,375,000 5,650,000 1,385,000 7,035,000 Page 24 R\FinancelFinance Activity Reports\Tax RevenuelMVFT120161motar vehicle fuel tax collections 2016.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax Collections - February For the years 2007 through 2016 January February Collected to date 2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 1 2011 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 4/5/2016 2016 to 2015 Difference 172711 165598 133,304 161,298 154,792 159,607 146,145 152,906 152,598 163,918 11,320 7.42% 162,079 149,799 155,832 145,869 146,353 135,208 145,998 148,118 145,455 163,037 17,582 12.09% 334,790 315,497 289,136 307,167 301,145 294,815 292,143 301,024 298,053 326,955 28,902 9.70% March 156,194 159,316 146,264 140,486 141,849 144,297 135,695 131,247 140,999 0 April 175,010 165,574 161,117 161,721 165,019 153,546 156,529 156,269 157,994 0 May 173,475 162,281 156,109 158,119 154,700 144,670 151,595 156,850 156,259 0 June 183,410 176,085 173,954 168,146 158,351 159,827 167,479 161,965 164,872 0 July 178,857 166.823 169,756 164,221 165,398 160,565 155,348 157,805 168,205 0 August 183,815 171,690 179,012 176,869 153,361 164,050 173,983 172,308 186,277 0 September 191,884 176,912 175,965 175,067 173,820 171,651 195,397 173,299 174,505 0 October 180,570 165,842 163,644 164,475 158,889 153,022 133,441 160,539 161,520 0 November 181,764 193,360 167,340 168,477 160,461 162,324 164,303 165,871 181,771 0 December 159,750 142,230 144,376 143,257 124,714 138,223 142,140 141,298 153,338 0 Total Collections 2,099,519 1,995,610 1,926,673 1,928,005 1,857,707 1,846,990 1,868,053 1,878,475 1,943,793 326,955 Budget Estimate 2,000,000 2,150,000 2,050,000 1,900,000 1,875,000 1,897,800 1,861,100 1,858,600 1,858,600 2,004,900 Actual over (under) budg 99,519 (154,390) (123,327) 28,005 (17,293) (50,810) 6,953 19,875 85,193 (1,677,945) Total actual collections as a % of total budget 104.98% 92.82% 93.98% 101.47% 99.08% 97.32% 100.37% 101.07% 104.58% n/a % change in annual total collected 6.25% (4.95%) (3.45%) 0.07% (3.65%) (0.58%) 1.14% 0.56% 3.48% n/a % of budget collected through February 16.74% 14.67% 14.10% 16.17% 16.06% 15.53% 15.70% 16.20% 16.04% 16.31% % of actual total collected through February 15.95% 15.81% 15.01% 15.93% 16.21% 15.96% 15.64% 16.02% 15.33% nla Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of February 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2007 2008 2009 February 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ■ February ✓ January Page 25 1"+ Fk O O 0 Ln 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Chart Reflecting History of Collections through the Month of o 1 o c) [n D o o cc, cY c ani 13 o) a o n y c n n c -o(fl •-c c) c aa1 °o ▪ w v ro CD Cr 0 c so 0 Q N 0 ▪ C O W Ca CS T w -n oo O w L' rn_ SD a.- co M N 2 C> c o C7. n EIT° 0 , c .0 tz'" - 0 ▪ • c n f➢ • ro y a m a' 6. N D2 ro y c m al a 0) CC W 3 11} 07 .A C.11 01 N O v N 0 W N A Cn is N N co W C)) Cn N N 0) W co c CP 0) 0O 1 0 a C.) (0 CO 0) O 0) CO N 0 CO CO (0 (0 d O CO 4 O (0 CZ 4 w CO (0 (0 (0 CO Cu 0 C7 N N W CO in W C7 0) V o N 0)00) c' Co 07 O N N N N - CO CP CA CO CD CO 0 O 70 0 0 C] 0 O 0) N N N Pa N Na N N Na ❑) 01 Cn F+ 0) 0) CO 44 V W CO A N _CD 0 OO t0 N Cn C7 CO W (-7 -.1N. 0) 0) V-4 Co Co C7 W W-4 V Na cn () CO C) CO -+ A N N N N N N N N N N CO 44 co A 44 Cn 0) CD 01 Cn C CA V CO 0) 0) 0) 4 01 44 44 C7 CO -• N 0 Cu D CO A 0 --J CD C7 -4 CA C(O co U) co V (n CO O — 1 CO C7 6l A Ln N 7) N N CO NJ N A) N N CO A CO .? A 44 co 0) Co A 0) 0 V (D N (0 0) CoCJs _ N — CA a O CD U in 44 44 -4 V 0) (C) CO 0) CO CO CS) -+ Cf) CD - co 01 —s co N N N N N N Na N N Na Pa N N Na N N 0) N N co (J1 07 V Co CA A V CO A CO V -' CTI in - co 0) Ja CO -a 44 0) 0) --* CO (D Cn N (0 CO N (77 CD CO N N_ N _N N N_ N --4 N_ Na 4 (D N N co N CP CD -4 co co co A W O [0 4n a) [D O 0) no CA -co OD 44Ln C7 N V 0) V 0) V (D N CO CO CO O Co Sa. Na N -4 -' N N N N N N C7 -4 CO (D CD 0 --1 -+ C7 O N W W (0 V1 Cn Q 0 D) Co C] -44 V 0) 0) N O O N ✓ (37 Ch CO 44 in [7P W O rl A V CO 01 -4 (0 0 Co 0) N -4 CO V CO Co Co C0 W Co v W Cn W 0) C:11 O V V "P A A N V GJ -'7 ( A [ri A V co W CP V CO -+ Cn co co W Na CD CO -4 N A N O -4 Co O C7 0 C7 0) C7 0 0) C7 0) a;ep o} P91091100 4X N V (P C7 0 W A 1 ✓ W A A. CO (O N A W a 0 W 0 A 0) V W C7 W (O O (0 (0 W W Cn D) W CO W D ) Cn U 9) CO CO ry Co V W W A N N 01 0) A O 0) A Na - 4 N N N W - W W CCA y Na -r 0) CO O CO - CO N_ Na CA V -on N CO N N C7 -> CO 0 CO V co V co -4 N 1 N - V m 01 J.). A (J1 CO V Co CO N y C!) 1 V L) CCs -0. CO N 44 (0 Ni N W O A G N O (D N 0 7') CO N O N N 0 0) 0) .P. N C7 (71 N 0 W fA 0 �_ -m F' m N • C 0 o :: 717 • rn • TC < C p r- m o 4 p S a) a co !1] g I.OZ o3 91•OZ inancelFinance Activity Reports\Tax RevenuelTelephone Tax12416\telephone utility tax collections 2016.xlsx :aALLVIL SINIIAJQV UQ 0 n a o c, o pa Pa H • a.a v CY — y 5 o CA H C4 dt•. 0 �z Cd 2 -- o po 0- to cra v as opa o' cv � N '•a H O A) bQ O A' o o a 0 cr a. pao o v ro -t• H . o uta N nCC$.n v) H H Pd v O0 .t H +� v � -t c � Baa ( 0 r -r o n 4� o'.° e v, r, o 0 ) - cn — v, g a• ° �o 00 0 rr• (D O \0 01 00 W �. Q v, N 01 w 00 acs O' P., = U� o_ o v, N v HH -t O— O �' 'o cn �i N p. Q" v, n 0°� �• v pa OC) an t n. '0 O� o n. .. o — •— v, wr�J N n E x o— c - O wooer J R 0 pa V) a Pa o.. o cA --' o c, :s4u3piau! (IVO :s4u3piau! (IVO :9102 a .uq, j :SIOZ uaaeyAT 5 O C 4 STOZ gaauhl jiodag SitpuoN 910Z '81 ivadV Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police as uunx dip Alndat'unouieJ 3aeyv CD • Volunteer Value ($22.14 per hour) $50,960.75 for March 2016 TOTALS West Valley* University Trentwood tt East Valley* Central Valley Location + CM 24 N J 19 N w O # Volunteers 1,827.25 603.0 393.75 01 320.25 240.0 74.25 Admin Hours O J 29.0 CT 04 — 206.0 J L.E. Hours -P J N O `O v, v, O v, v, 2,301.75 632.0 461.25 N 330.75 446.0 153.75 Total Hours J 00 O o o co o p, G C • Chi o c;' w o o o o• ,..5 c7 0 o a 0 0 O 0 0 CD March 2016 Volunteers Hours per Station • • • • • • • • • leallow sJolaauaJo p.ieog *g.drO.J.S In the month of March, S.C.O.P.E. participated in: SHERIFF'S COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT (SCOPE): P !43 `r[arew at"Bl AI cr C cr o • c O • O tTirp • C4 • Ua CD rs • c D CA Pa 1L 0 crcrStaLL tt n r CD • Q CSD A• D O Q.. Q.., c'D L!f rC� � O (D • C)" Er- �C UQ • 0 0 Ura CD cr CD 0 r -t 0 Q.. cn CD O CxD 0 cD cD papume uanna1UTA CD cr He also attended the monthly Spokane Regional Law and YTD Total March February ti Pp 'C" City of Spokane Valley SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT Pp o Pp TRAINING HOURS March 0 It -1 N N N n 0 0 w O\ N N N :—' O a, •v, w 'v, '— 0 x Owl co 168 N N # of Disabled Infractions Issued TOTAL O O O O # of Warnings Issued N O O O O # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued YTD - TOTAL March February January 'C" ;l O June O TRAINING HOURS March 0 CA -1 N N N n W w VI �O &D N O O N N 0 C./1 20 39 Owl b d 168 (-4-) O C TOTAL SIVIS INIDId 1N LV'I adODS 0 CD n fD p- VD _, - C CPC IN, C -i $1,2-v g CD 0 2 oo C o v, mss' v, CD C O a, 0 Cr c�D o cp C4v 0 0 rp aLL 5. O "s CD Az p t -s 0 cv ,.0 C cv 0 Q..cry 0Q..cPt ".vi CD 2 0 p : s A: .a q ~ _ c0 0 E c C2 ( c G't" 0 (rq CD • O V) Total Dec. 00 C Oct. 'C" Aug. July June May • March 0 Spokane Valley Graffiti Report 257 w O w O N a1 v, 1 41.--.1 VI 01 N O O N N N �- 1 1 N 1 •O 13 1 N 2013 .0 1 1 N 01 N 01 — N 13 w�- O -- 01 w 2014 00 -O OI 01 01 OT cn OT 14 1 00 LA NJ0 LA 13 2016 Czn 5• ; x� c' 5-c' o CZ 2 64 �8 6 cD o 9 N 5 �0C� AZ v C v, AZ A) o 0 cA 0 ate' AZ c� cv cc, 0 Cr- " o �••s = p a,- �-s `C �] y U4 (rD v t Q O, `C ¢• C 0 nIu AZ 0 cn aL y v �/-- ¢"cCAO "� C "�1 `C CSD A� Q, CD N p A I cn 0 0, p) O p ,7 g • CSD �, ¢, 0 Q o O a, C �i 0 0 `C CD ,- A) Q., r'�-.. �-+ p, 'i '5 v, "! CD v, • oo v xCD c 0 AZ Aa ' ?ro CD C 0 ,cu� ELv•ro4 C O O �., O C`c mCC.CCOCrr. tC�: i (CC C p c n ODO.OC cn a Q P, v .y .� O CD CM r v y c4 cn �Q, 0 arc,cn csMC�P" 5 Q„ Uo c„ ,„ cm aL p [ O a SN CO U4 RsO n C. CN CO..C0 -, -r . CDC! v g 0° 5-` 5 O CO ^. cn 5 n CD C ri p " ^ pa C _ CD ti .0 a O CcD ' v Cr70 nO v 0 CoO.. 0. O o O cv`-C O, o.v 000"c14.=0 v acI AZ CM cn PD CD cn pa -tv0C.r v CWr�C0r�` " g v, p� v 00 'b cv OO CO.. 'aCC,r AZ O¢V .! `C fiS-t vv ` 7 n 'C ¢ g" 5• - `O wal,C C fi`v pa CHn�• CD CD ¢ aL CD 1-1 CE `CC�, ¢, .r mo0 y Aa pa'o — "! • CD 0 CD CD ('-5'1 CG ' h " Op �/' N r -F.. 00 CD ti 0 $4 p C �� pa � 2DP R �' '.ter `� A� Pa - p - • CD CD td O5.i1• U4 .a CD Q„ CD '`�' CD CrD c0•D ' O ..! •.y .� Pa 0, U4 `c I°iCD C ... UQ '�,s' UIQ �" 0 v !� CD ,• y `C 'O CD AZ 0 tlj Q- o CDpl •CSD A's c�! a c' v CD �i 0O A� �s J A� (�D CD '�'C V CD O.. IN `C CD C O CDD • �, 0 �. v, c�D _' O � CD 0 $. U-4 - '0 UQ 0 0 O , d Q- ti o CD CD v O cm O • Q, Uro 0 CD v 0 ° �' O C Q., Ura c - U4 `C O., 5 . t., . CD CD y 5. CD o O A� ¢" v ` P' C .fir ¢, fir ��' (�r�D (�D /� 0 >y '� CSD `C C1'... y7R 05- ¢, '� y R CD '� U4 `c 'C v CD 'a • �r n '`moi• a CD CD CD CD O O `C O v 'C !�� CD ¢, L/) �O (�D ¢' ~ (�D �' h aL (yD O CD o .fir Cdo cr CSD moi • 0 $fir 0 --S CD ,-eV, ,c 0 c' '-r — CD O.. 0 0 0 CD Ai Q., U4 o '-` k7 V,J P .. .. 5' O., o o \C CD P :SJOI.Ly2IadO YTD Total n p) January Spokane County 1 O O U1 N N :"' 18 1 O O cn W '- O N # of Disabled Infractions Issued 01 01 c CD O O 5• U4 cn O O O O # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued " CDRcr CD5. cO'� _ CCO O O Z'O+Cv'�p! O' r r ~C�D 5 •�R� "! C ��O r 'C • CD •v' c"cr ^ p i/) O -OSC�cy7 ( c, OCD CD s,Q� . A O 0 0 i$CD ^ rD 0 ( •;-,s .t �' Al . v O CC~D .' CD �al.S_�. UQQ°�C Pa �E. C CDQ. N amcn OPa Un�p,p, ,ca 44 y �".5N CD .0 t..al_r fi SUQ O °' CA� �.Ov•`'0 an � A, � r�7 nv 'a rh O ' Aa O °Pa ,- C 'a v' p '+ c 0 CD • WO OO O �c('D �p v) 7 ° -'CD ° °Ccr O c0• — S��Q r Q,UQ p�cC• rte. CD •-t! A� C�Zv O O Q. US� ''' 'O pa r, v . �, ncD �.n 0 ! C\O O O et iTCIP C•• CDSS U4' ,-• 0• c — o 0 o .'c E¢O °O 'd ! pn(O O � 0 O O Cr v 0 y v• O ,ml Oy C "! Cv. `C °O Z, •!,-r- CCicD A9 c,-12 ! • CD O �7 O cam !¢.`C bq vVCA a 5. ,Rcc�s 4 c -s emC v OA'C p � Pa OOO-s "'!OC0C0 Os CD CCAUQ a SD �xO FL '0O• p , 0Ct� E �O ',-7 .0' O 0Q O Q. O 0 Aa 7 0a444 r .Oy OOv r,,, 0' pHvvQ. n al- •-t=1 n QC CD 7UQ �!fa.. CD . C'a 0 00UQ b � CCy 5'¢•:—,Cr' 0' d C •55a.' CS�s P.' p, cO cn UQ y Aa C ,.' CD CC�al- • •i o-rlCr • p° C��0 � "0nO � rpO ! � �• _. y 0 O vv O CD �O . U O c "cn ,-, cA• O ' O fi ncy bCcRU �O ' _. CD d UCOC'•,4c4 c4 � A, - •O Q Zt CM ,-' O CD O Q t D C;.AA •• O ^ c4 . n0 'C CD UQ `C O ' OUQ ` C• O . ,-hC) O craC' C0 C O . CO H 'Td A, 0 UQ - 'CQ. -O O.O A, Cy C'd R Ob9 O ¢, 0N v •r • al., p -' 0 0 Pa 00CD •-•v):Q0 V� O C�,.•0. y O vp , •! Q. CO c7 . pa 0Q O 0 pc°~h5. ?�'�pp¢y CFO O. '! '1:1 n`C $1,-0CD �� •'-, . CD v'O -0 c ° 't O -A� ,' •! O al- �. p `-C F-14T�D UQ ��• S Pa nW � T bQ CD CO n CD O ' 0 CS�' C•Di O v C p HcSr H n v'vrh N CAl • 0 cO OCDcD OP - E5 C Qtrl C'd �CD •! Al 'y Q. 0 cl)." C�vI-iCO;-°'O n CC� 'vL/CS CD C cl) pCDCC 'h -h O ' C'..O '" --,7 v Q, TQiO `- til .O' 0 `-C�e oa a °° ��rR' •�� J �' o o `C � ° p' 7,ovrD CD •—• cf)�o Cr al- ti $7,') cv i ******************** fan c 1 �LIJ Ci) 9t0? .LAT Jagwalde 1— lum CPA`' Ai E1 5 0 Fa 0 O1 CrE 910? `yITtaunF 9TOZ rt,1#t Bevy Sheriff's Training Center 6011 N Chase Rd Spi kan c radySeM• SJrLO)•io 030N311$4033)# St NO11V211S1J3U-321d W O m m m c TIwdxeIeJe=j e,i769L0809Z61. '' O C 0 N 0 0 0a O '-h �' v C D O C g c-' v CD C D v n Cc 0 cn 'a a - o .S C N 0 UQ cD a ".S CD -t O c'--'• F ¢" O 0- O --: 6:11 lt• O Z ttCDS CI,r o . �� va �wp°� � M CD 0* M c �� inn (r - CD. i ysem-asJ noo-uopon pe-Jaaeoq-s}}uags 0 (D • CC) 4 n Pa '. 0 y' Pa O C4 Cd h CD PD CD o c4 1 �••0 0d 0 al.,ITJ 0CD c. o O �o., 00 pa i.c/90-o P' -. o.u* �a c? , Pa * td� z_•5. pa O cra c pa -t trl c — CD Pa '+. cD O 0 0 '+ Q,. ,-t pa v �' o uta 6 ~' CAD Incidents by Cities (Only incidents handled by Spokane County Sheriff's Office) Date Range: 3/1/2016 to 3/31/2016 AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW Regional Intelligence Group 9 RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV TOTALS CAD Incidents Self Initiated Incidents Drug Self Int (Patrol) Traffic Stops Traffic Stops (ARST/CIT/IN) TS (Warrants) Calls for Service Alarms Accidents Accidents (ARREST/CIT) Drug Calls DV DUI DUI (Arrest) Pursuits Suspicious Activity Vehicle Recovered 911 Abandon Line Shoplifting All Arrests (ARREST/CIT/IN) Crime Check Reports 41 177 258 17 10 1 35 214 89 12 3,557 9 705 5,088 5 10,218 34 76 166 6 3 0 21 148 30 1 1,305 5 636 1,858 4 4,293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 7 12 43 66 0 0 0 3 50 15 0 597 2 245 996 0 2,029 3 8 19 0 0 0 1 18 1 0 227 0 73 422 0 772 O 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 12 20 0 43 7 101 92 11 7 1 14 66 59 11 2,252 4 69 3,230 1 5,925 O 2 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 138 0 1 101 0 249 0 11 2 2 0 0 1 1 5 1 131 0 14 196 0 364 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 12 O 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 2 44 0 53 O 0 3 0 1 0 0 8 3 3 123 3 9 230 1 384 O 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 71 0 2 81 0 163 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 26 0 32 0 6 6 33 0 0 1 1 18 8 3 448 1 53 669 0 1,247 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 3 28 0 54 O 23 6 5 0 0 0 18 0 0 144 0 9 250 0 455 O 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 52 0 54 5 10 30 1 1 0 1 27 4 0 333 0 106 664 1 1,183 O 0 14 0 5 0 0 19 12 4 433 4 7 574 0 1,072 Printed 4/14/2016 2:34:41 PM Rptool Page 1 of 1 RMS Crimes by Cities (Only incidents handled by Spokane County Sheriff's Office) Date Range: 3/1/2016 to 3/31/2016 Regional Intelligence Group 9 AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML MW RF SCO SPA SPK SV WAV TOTALS BURGLARY 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 75 0 1 81 0 168 FORGERY 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 48 0 1 67 0 124 MAL MISCHIEF 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 128 0 5 157 0 304 NON -CRIMINAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 3 15 0 27 PROP OTHER 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 6 3 0 77 0 33 120 1 250 RCRVD VEH 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 1 38 0 79 STL VEH 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 38 0 0 47 0 89 THEFT 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 111 1 1 227 0 351 VEH OTHER 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 15 0 0 18 0 35 VEH PROWL 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 74 0 2 72 0 156 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 0 0 41 1 5 0 0 18 14 2 611 1 47 842 1 1,583 ASSAULT DOA/SUICIDE DV KIDNAP MENTAL MP PERS OTHER ROBBERY TEL -HARASS TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES ADULT RAPE CHILD ABUSE CUSTINTFER IND LIBERTY RAPE/CHILD RUNAWAY SEX OTHER STALKING SUSP PERSON TOTAL SEX CRIMES O 0 4 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 54 1 5 94 0 172 O 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 26 0 0 19 0 47 O 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 34 1 3 73 0 117 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 O 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 17 0 1 36 0 57 O 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 11 0 0 10 0 24 O 0 7 0 1 0 0 12 8 3 216 3 26 317 1 594 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 7 0 12 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 0 11 O 0 15 0 4 0 0 28 14 3 365 5 36 567 1 1,038 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 11 0 17 O 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 O 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 2 0 10 0 26 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 O 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 22 0 0 44 0 71 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 7 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 O 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 8 56 0 100 O 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 80 2 9 131 0 234 DRUG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 4 20 0 31 TOTAL ITF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 4 20 0 31 TRAFFIC 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 188 0 58 302 0 564 TOTAL TRAFFIC 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 188 0 58 302 0 564 UIBOC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 TOTAL OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 0 0 72 1 9 0 0 51 36 6 1,249 8 154 1,863 2 3,451 Printed 4/14/2016 2:58:04 PM Rpt003 Page 1 of 1 Francis el lesle Wel lesle Mirabeau Bucke e Indiana Mission Mission Catald Broadway untr /i sta Hartson horpe Commercial Burglary Low Medium - High 0.75 1.5 Miles I i 1 Map Produced: 14 Apr 2016 2016 March Commercial Burglary Hotspots Prepared By: Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane County Sheriff Francis el lesle Wel lesle T LL E Mirabeau Eu lid r Bucke e ibert Lake India a Mission Mission ntr ista Hartson 2 rt Residential Burglary Low Medium 1L J -High 0.5 I Miles I i I Map Produced: 14 Apr 2016 2016 March Residential Burglary Hotspots Prepared By: Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane County Sheriff 0.5 I Miles I i I Map Produced: 14 Apr 2016 2016 February & March Stolen Vehicle Hotspots U Prepared By: Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane County Sheriff Francis ro aumb‘a rh ork6 ct I lesle s Wellesley a mer Z) rick 0 Eu lid Mirabeau Bucke e om India a Mission ae Catald Mission 0 due CI) "T- i 4h 0 V 2nd 1 3rd Hartson 8th h v 2 25- 32nd 40th 'e//e -(erre horpe C E Vehicle Prowling Low Medium High O 1 O 2 C 3 0 4+ 0 0.75 1.5 Miles I i 1 Map Produced: 14 Apr 2016 2016 March Vehicle Prowling Hotspots Prepared By: Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane County Sheriff Francis I lesle E Eu lid Lake 29t} 0 I 0.75 I.5 Miles Map Produced: 14 Apr 2016 2016 March Traffic Collision Hotspots Prepared By: Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane County Sheriff Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls Regional Intelligence Group 9 February January March Apri May June July August September October November December — 2013 2014 2015 — 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 2746 2383 2882 2928 3166 3195 3491 3529 3127 3016 2753 2773 2014 2702 2550 2992 2935 3369 3291 3847 3593 3279 3069 2715 2884 2015 2995 2658 3209 2971 3473 3639 3819 3817 3652 3552 2997 3110 2016 2966 2871 3230 Printed 4/14/2016 3:01:37 PM Rpt007 Page 7 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 300 250 200 -- 150 100 50 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley DV Calls February April June August October December January March May July September November — 2013 2014 2015 +� 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 176 141 164 153 153 180 176 212 208 176 182 163 2014 188 150 195 202 179 190 239 243 210 204 216 209 2015 264 195 205 216 207 220 241 241 211 207 208 214 2016 228 207 229 Printed 4/14/2016 3:01:37 PM Rpt007 Page 11 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 350 300 250 200 150 100 - 50 - Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Person Crimes January February March April May June July August September October November December +� 2013 2014 2015 +� 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 223 180 213 256 248 255 278 278 249 243 251 243 2014 270 225 265 273 280 274 335 331 323 286 290 279 2015 301 248 285 261 316 330 348 313 272 272 263 318 2016 306 299 342 Printed 4/14/2016 3:01:37 PM Rpt007 Page 16 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 1000 800 - 600 -- 400 200 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Property Crimes February Apri June August October December January March May July September November .� 2013 2014 2015 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 717 599 729 671 634 634 697 710 695 817 710 689 2014 632 578 758 665 717 706 727 665 755 683 671 778 2015 706 675 644 586 633 636 686 709 700 733 603 787 2016 707 595 651 Printed 4/14/2016 3:01:37 PM Rpt007 Page 17 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 2500 2000 -- 1500 — 1000 500 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Self initiated Incidents February Apri June August October December January March May July September November .� 2013 2014 2015 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 1638 1881 2015 1696 1639 1745 2094 1682 1477 1766 1660 1512 2014 2126 1707 1831 1763 1899 1903 2096 1863 1826 1802 1794 1723 2015 1923 1795 2038 2001 1606 1838 1995 2003 1958 1965 1682 1699 2016 2168 1898 1858 Printed 4/14/2016 3:01:37 PM Rpt007 Page 20 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 50 40 - 30 -- 20 20 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Crime Sex Crimes February April June August October December January March May July September November — 2013 2014 2015 +� 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 24 23 26 21 44 41 36 37 32 29 33 38 2014 26 38 41 43 42 25 25 33 34 36 39 33 2015 36 36 26 23 42 27 45 32 22 25 21 29 2016 26 22 27 Printed 4/14/2016 3:01:37 PM Rpt007 Page 22 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 200 150 100 — 50 -- 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Traffic Collisions February April June August October January March May July September November December emir 2013 2014 2015 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 120 69 82 79 90 107 87 98 97 76 114 128 2014 100 105 83 65 103 82 93 90 105 112 116 95 2015 105 76 110 102 106 127 100 103 124 90 129 158 2016 132 76 110 Printed 4/14/2016 3:01:37 PM Rpt007 Page 27 of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 2000 1500 1000 - 500 - 0 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Charge Count from Tickets: Spokane Valley February Apri June August October January March May July September November December — 2013 2014 2015 +� 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 901 1086 1136 995 978 1226 1290 970 757 1078 948 827 2014 1216 1000 917 959 1130 1110 1242 998 1054 843 868 881 2015 985 895 1006 1054 762 843 985 1019 1124 954 825 866 2016 1547 1006 846 Printed 4/14/2016 3:01:37 PM Rpt007 Page 28 of 28 sv Crime Report Date Range: 3/1/2016 to 3/31/2016 Year To Date Totals: Full Year Totals: Regional Intelligence Group 9 March -2016 March -2015 2016 -YTD 2015 -YTD 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 BURGLARY 81 73 228 227 999 1,167 1,079 1,030 997 918 FORGERY 67 50 182 157 633 658 693 627 515 341 MAL MISCHIEF 157 127 410 421 1,678 1,645 1,624 1,763 1,548 1,177 NON -CRIMINAL 15 12 44 43 134 151 106 108 160 913 PROP OTHER 120 141 373 377 1,595 1,449 1,463 1,355 1,114 855 RCRVD VEH 38 31 156 93 409 464 531 438 407 293 STLVEH 47 37 154 104 516 573 596 570 515 478 THEFT 227 260 731 762 3,089 3,096 3,105 2,753 2,407 2,358 VEH OTHER 18 14 47 59 201 279 268 287 194 3 VEH PROWL 72 97 248 354 1,183 1,196 1,205 1,160 1,488 1,395 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 842 842 2,573 2,597 10,437 10,678 10,670 10,091 9,345 8,731 ASSAULT 94 82 269 273 1,072 1,087 902 891 955 888 DOA/SUICIDE 19 28 73 69 275 222 218 250 208 188 DV 73 58 192 143 695 485 386 402 498 1,141 HOMICIDE 0 0 5 0 2 3 2 2 3 1 KIDNAP 4 3 10 7 28 41 24 16 14 16 MENTAL 36 24 96 97 381 307 268 270 252 289 MP 10 17 40 37 190 138 156 154 124 128 PERS OTHER 317 279 878 857 3,494 3,203 2,976 2,901 2,372 1,603 ROBBERY 7 7 16 27 90 94 88 74 59 57 TEL -HARASS 7 14 33 34 111 132 148 212 162 153 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 567 512 1,612 1,544 6,338 5,712 5,168 5,172 4,647 4,464 ADULT RAPE 11 3 23 19 80 70 64 75 62 44 CHILD ABUSE 4 5 9 10 30 42 26 27 56 115 CUSTINTFER 10 13 33 57 197 237 236 190 184 206 IND LIBERTY 0 1 4 3 25 29 20 27 17 8 MOLES/CHILD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 47 RAPE/CHILD 0 2 1 4 14 13 13 13 23 28 RUNAWAY 44 34 88 103 409 406 397 530 510 490 SEX OTHER 4 6 18 11 66 69 45 37 56 215 SEX REGIS F 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 8 2 1 STALKING 2 2 5 5 16 24 21 24 19 18 SUSP PERSON 56 50 166 152 602 604 440 423 340 215 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 131 116 347 364 1,441 1,494 1,266 1,354 1,287 1,387 DRUG 20 26 80 91 379 336 314 424 511 534 ISU OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 TOTALITF 20 26 80 91 379 336 314 424 513 536 TRAFFIC 302 303 924 843 3,476 3,216 3,525 3,957 3,569 3,081 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 302 303 924 843 3,476 3,216 3,525 3,957 3,569 3,081 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1,862 1,799 5,536 5,439 22,071 21,436 20,943 20,998 19,361 18,199 Printed 4/15/2016 10:54:34 AM Rpt011 Page 1 of 1 Spokane �,. Valleyx PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT March 2016 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION Contract Name Contractor Contract Amount Total Expended of Contract Expended Street Maintenance Poe Asphalt $1,366,663.00 $61,543.99 4.50% Street Sweeping AAA Sweeping $490,200.00 $82,900.47 16.91% Storm Drain Cleaning AAA Sweeping $189,990.00 $0.00 0.00% Snow Removal Poe Asphalt $70,000.00 $22,444.34 32.06% Landscaping Senske $57,878.00 $1,591.38 2.75% Emergency Traffic Control Senske $10,000.00 $339.14 3.39% Litter and Weed Control Geiger Work Crew $60,000.00 $4,147.00 6.91% State Highway Maintenance WSDOT $265,000.00 $64,043.03 24.17% Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping Spokane County $632,000.00 $85,889.07 13.59% Dead Animal Control Brad Southard $20,000.00 $3,325.00 16.63% * Budget estimates ** Does not include March 2016 — waiting on invoices 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Citizen Requests for Public Works J¢`' °�a\ ��\� 42, aCI° Q- �a� • a\ '�° • �O oa9 c�P a Se O O °�•o ° pati e&)' '..(°y �z�C `<a �aJ ,-,> a% �� • Submitted • In Progress IIIIIII Resolved *Information in bold indicates updates 1 WASTEWATER Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/, http://www.ecy.wa.qov/geographic/spokane/spokane river basin.htm, http://www.spokanecounty.orq/utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works/Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for March 2016: • AAA Sweeping continued with arterial maintenance sweeping, sidewalk cleaning and residential street sweeping. • Geiger Work Crew continued with litter cleanup and miscellaneous projects. • • Continued with pothole patching. STORMWATER UTILITY The following is a summary of Stormwater Utility activities in the City of Spokane Valley for March 2016: • Completed NPDES Phase 2 Municipal Stormwater Permit required annual report for 2015 and submitted to Ecology prior to March 31, 2016 deadline. • Worked on design for small works project located in and around the neighborhood of Bates Road and Rego Ct. • Continued assessment of stormwater retrofit possibilities with several 2016 pavement preservation projects. • Continued work on service contract renewals for Weed Control Services. • Continued work on an internal review of the City's Stormwater Program to prepare for probable future audit by the State. • Continued work on various capital improvement projects, (see below). • Grant agreements with Ecology were put on hold due to legislative budget discussions on several projects including, Sprague LID, University to Park; Decant Phase 3; and Stormwater Retrofits with Pavement Preservation Projects. *Information in bold indicates updates 2 CAPITAL PROJECTS Sikane Val ley Public Works Projects Monthly Summary - Design & Construction March -2016 Street Projects 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0166 Pines Rd. (SR27) & Grace Ave. Int Safety 0201 ITS Infill Project- Phase 1 0207 Indiana & Evergreen Transit Access Imp 0221 McDonald Rd Diet (16th to Mission) 0234 Seth Woodard Sidewalk Improvements 0236 FancherRoad Bridge #3502 Joint Repair 0239 Bowdish Rd & 11th Ave. Sidewalk Street Preservation Projects 0226 Appleway Resurfacing, Park to Dishman Mica 0229 32nd Ave Preservation Project 0233 Broadway Ave Street Pres-Sulliv to Moore 0235 NB Sullivan Rd. Pres (Spo Rvr-Flora Pit) 0240 Saltese Road Preservation Project Traffic Projects 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Back Plates 0228 Transportation Management Center Stormwater Projects 0198 Sprague, Park to University LID Parks Projects 0227 Appleway S.U.P. - Pines to Evergreen 0237 ApplewayTrail- SullivantoCorbin FHWA- BR HSIP FHWA - CMAQ STA-FTA/NF HSIP CDBG COSY TIB - SP FHWA-STP(U) COSY COSY COSY COSY HSI P HSI P COSY 06/27/14 04/22/16 06/24/16 03/18/16 04/22/16 06/03/16 02/25/16 06/10/16 01/02/17 02/12/16 04/29/16 tbd 08/05/16 07/18/14 05/13/16 04/15/16 04/04/16 05/13/16 06/24/16 03/10/16 07/01/16 01/02/17 02/26/16 05/06/16 tbd 08/26/16 07/31/15 08/21/15 tbd tbd Local agency work 100 95 95 100 75 30 100 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/04/16 10/01/16 12/31/16 12/31/16 12/31/16 12/31/16 06/01/16 12/31/16 80 0 12/31/17 100 0 12/31/16 75 0 12/31/16 33 0 12/31/16 15 0 12/31/16 100 0 100 80 0 96 07/31/16 03/01/19 06/01/16 $ 15,833,333 $ 733,086 $ 327,562 $ 85,000 $ 1,853,630 $ 389,987 $ 160,000 $ 506,342 $ 1,190,000 $ 1,570,000 $ 450,000 $ 65,834 $ 920,000 $ 503,424 $ 81,000 $ 45,000 Dept of Ecology 02/24/17 03/10/17 30 0 11/30/17 $ 20,000 FHWA-STP(U) 01/12/18 02/02/18 COSV 03/03/17 03/24/17 2 0 12/31/18 0 0 12/31/17 $ 2,134,057 $ 2,130,000 $ 28,998,255 Design Bid Estimated Total Project Proposed Open % Complete Construction Project # Design &Construction Projects Funding Ad Date Date PE I CN Completion Cost Street Projects 0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement#4508 0166 Pines Rd. (SR27) & Grace Ave. Int Safety 0201 ITS Infill Project- Phase 1 0207 Indiana & Evergreen Transit Access Imp 0221 McDonald Rd Diet (16th to Mission) 0234 Seth Woodard Sidewalk Improvements 0236 FancherRoad Bridge #3502 Joint Repair 0239 Bowdish Rd & 11th Ave. Sidewalk Street Preservation Projects 0226 Appleway Resurfacing, Park to Dishman Mica 0229 32nd Ave Preservation Project 0233 Broadway Ave Street Pres-Sulliv to Moore 0235 NB Sullivan Rd. Pres (Spo Rvr-Flora Pit) 0240 Saltese Road Preservation Project Traffic Projects 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Back Plates 0228 Transportation Management Center Stormwater Projects 0198 Sprague, Park to University LID Parks Projects 0227 Appleway S.U.P. - Pines to Evergreen 0237 ApplewayTrail- SullivantoCorbin FHWA- BR HSIP FHWA - CMAQ STA-FTA/NF HSIP CDBG COSY TIB - SP FHWA-STP(U) COSY COSY COSY COSY HSI P HSI P COSY 06/27/14 04/22/16 06/24/16 03/18/16 04/22/16 06/03/16 02/25/16 06/10/16 01/02/17 02/12/16 04/29/16 tbd 08/05/16 07/18/14 05/13/16 04/15/16 04/04/16 05/13/16 06/24/16 03/10/16 07/01/16 01/02/17 02/26/16 05/06/16 tbd 08/26/16 07/31/15 08/21/15 tbd tbd Local agency work 100 95 95 100 75 30 100 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10/04/16 10/01/16 12/31/16 12/31/16 12/31/16 12/31/16 06/01/16 12/31/16 80 0 12/31/17 100 0 12/31/16 75 0 12/31/16 33 0 12/31/16 15 0 12/31/16 100 0 100 80 0 96 07/31/16 03/01/19 06/01/16 $ 15,833,333 $ 733,086 $ 327,562 $ 85,000 $ 1,853,630 $ 389,987 $ 160,000 $ 506,342 $ 1,190,000 $ 1,570,000 $ 450,000 $ 65,834 $ 920,000 $ 503,424 $ 81,000 $ 45,000 Dept of Ecology 02/24/17 03/10/17 30 0 11/30/17 $ 20,000 FHWA-STP(U) 01/12/18 02/02/18 COSV 03/03/17 03/24/17 2 0 12/31/18 0 0 12/31/17 $ 2,134,057 $ 2,130,000 $ 28,998,255 Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF &Trent 0238 Pines RD Mirabeau Parkway Intersection Stormwater Projects 0193 Effectiveness Study 0199 Havana -Yale Diversion 0200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) COSY COSY TIB - UAP 08/15/15 12/31/17 08/31/16 12/31/16 tbd 04/15/16 Dept of Ecology 06/30/17 Dept of Ecology 10/31/16 Dept of Ecology 10/31/16 15 80 90 5 0 90 50 35 35 $ 917,700 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 51,619 $ 10,000 $ 446,338 $ 300,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 2,217,218 *Information in bold indicates updates 3 Design Total Project Complete % Complete Project # Design Only Projects Funding Date PE Cost Street Projects 0123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker 0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan 0205 Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement 0223 Pines Rd Underpass @ BNSF &Trent 0238 Pines RD Mirabeau Parkway Intersection Stormwater Projects 0193 Effectiveness Study 0199 Havana -Yale Diversion 0200 Ponderosa Surface Water Diversion FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) FHWA-STP(U) COSY COSY TIB - UAP 08/15/15 12/31/17 08/31/16 12/31/16 tbd 04/15/16 Dept of Ecology 06/30/17 Dept of Ecology 10/31/16 Dept of Ecology 10/31/16 15 80 90 5 0 90 50 35 35 $ 917,700 $ 175,260 $ 276,301 $ 51,619 $ 10,000 $ 446,338 $ 300,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 2,217,218 *Information in bold indicates updates 3 TRAFFIC CIP Projects Staff continues to coordinate with traffic related design and study items as part of CIP projects. The installation of countdown pedestrian timers at traffic signals is on-going (weather permitting). The sign upgrades and bicycle route installations are planned to start in February/March (weather permitting). Specific Studies Staff is coordinating with WSDOT on the Henry Road IJR and the North Spokane Corridor (NSC) IJR. Development Projects Reviewing traffic impact studies and letters for several projects and assisting Development Engineering with the Comprehensive Plan Update. PLANNING AND GRANTS Blake Road Sidewalk, 8th to Applewav Trail Public Works met with the neighborhood along Blake Road and marked out the sidewalks so people could see the impacts to their frontage. Comments were taken and a field report was completed for information to the City Council in February. Council met on March 1, 2016 and elected not to fund the Blake Road Sidewalk project. FMSIB Grant Funding The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) issued a Call for Projects on February 3, 2016 for the allocation of state transportation funding for projects that improve the movement of products and goods. This grant program will provide funding beginning in 2017 on through 2021, with total funding of $18-$23 million statewide over the 5 -year period. Grant applications were submitted on March 14, 2016 for the Argonne Rd & 1-90 I/C Bridge Replacement Project for $891,000. USDOT 2016 FASTLANE and TIGER VIII Call for Projects The USDOT has 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. FASTLANE The USDOT is soliciting applications for $800 million in 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. Grant applications for the FASTLANE grant are due April 14, 2016. TIGER VIII The TIGER will fund $500M for transportation projects across the country under this eighth round. 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. Applications are due on April 29, 2016. Capital Programs and Community and Economic Development Staff are evaluating the grant criteria to determine which projects identified in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan and Comprehensive Plan would qualify for funding under the two grant programs. `Information in bold indicates updates 4 At the Council Workshop held on March 15th, 2016, staff made a presentation to the City Council outlining the two grant programs and staff project recommendations for each of the grant programs. Recommendation included the Barker Road\BNSF Grade Separation Project for both the TIGER and FASTLANE grant programs and for the Pines Road\BNSF Grade Separation Project for the FASTLANE grant program. At the workshop, Council authorized staff to hire a planning and engineering consultant to lead and provide final grant applications by their respective deadlines. Staff selected three consultants off the City's On -Call roster and hired DKS Associates on March 22, 2016. DKS reviewed the grant criteria and suggested that the City pursue the Barker Road\BNSF Grade Separation Project under TIGER and to submit a combined FASTLANE grant for both the Barker and Pines Road BNSF Grade Separation Projects. There are advantages if the City pursues a project requesting more than $25 M because the USDOT has various funding categories and projects over $25 M are considered large projects which may receive up to 80% of the total funding dollars of the grant program. Staff worked with DKS to complete the grant applications for submittal in April. *Information in bold indicates updates 5