2016, 05-10 Regular MeetingAGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FORMAL FORMAT MEETING
Tuesday, May 10, 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 Isaac Hebden, The Intersection Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT
PROCLAMATION:
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 May 10, 2016 Request for Council Action Form, Total: $425,835.11
b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending April 30, 2016: $408,789.45
c. Approval of April 19, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session Format
d. Approval of April 26, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special 4:00 p.m. Meeting
e. Approval of April 26, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Formal Meeting Format
f. Approval of May 3, 2016, Council Meeting Minutes, Special 5:00 p.m. Meeting
g. Approval of May 3, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Joint Council/Commissioners Meeting
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-005 LTGO Bonds for City Hall — Mark Calhoun
[public comment]
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-006 Annual Comp Plan Amendment — Karen Kendall
[public comment]
4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-007 Zoning Map Amendment — Karen Kendall
[public comment]
5. Motion Consideration: Indiana/Evergreen Transit Project Bid Award — Steve Worley
[public comment]
6. Motion Consideration: Independent Investigation — Cary Driskell [public comment]
Council Agenda 05-10-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 1 of 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this
agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS.
Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to
the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
7. Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC)— Christine Barada, Tim Crowley
8. Advance Agenda - Mayor Higgins
INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed):
9. Amended 2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
10. Draft 2017-2022, Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
General Meetinj' 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 21-1 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 05-10-16 Formal Format Meeting
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 10, 2016 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ►1 consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers:
VOUCHER LIST VOUCHER NUMBERS
04/21/2016 38197-38219
04/22/2016 38221-38238 (-38220)
04/28/2016 6562-6563
04/28/2016 38239-38260; 421160073 (-38253,-6564)
04/29/2016 38261-38288
05/02/2016 38289
05/04/2016 38290-38295
05/05/2016 6565-6575
TOTAL AMOUNT
$62,252.25
$41,510.03
$396.00
$234,166.15
$77,300.49
$1,112.87
$7,557.32
$1,540.00
GRAND TOTAL: $425,835.11
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
nchiist
04/21/2016 12:38:17PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: !1
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
38197 4/21/2016 000798 BUDINGER & ASSOCIATES INC
38198 4/21/2018 000101 CDW-G
38199 4/21/2018 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES
38200 4/31X2016 002804 DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC
38201 4/21/2016 000686 DEPT OF LICENSING
38202 4/21/2016 004306 EARTHCAM INC
38203 4/21/2016 000748 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT
38204 4/21/2016 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC
38205 4/21/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC
38206
4/21/2016 000917 GRAYBAR
38207 4/21/2016 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC
M14310-12
CQQ7939
374241
374242
78458564
23201 0036377
|N0000035377
000'217158'00-2
0316-0577
0316-0614
45404
45473
45474
45475
984515966
Fund/Dept
303.303.155.595
001.090.000.518
311.000.283.595
311.000.221.595
001D90.000.548
402.402.000.531
303.303.155.595
502.502.000.517
303.303142.595
303.303123.595
309.000.237.585
001858.056.558
001.058.056.558
001.013.000.513
Description/Account
Amount
0155-SULLIVAN BRIDGE MATERIAL
Total :
IT SUPPLIES
Total:
SPVTRAFFIC SERVICES 2U1O-17
0221 -TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS Al
Total :
COMPUTER LEASE 001-8922117-0
Total :
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICEN
Total :
CAMERA SYSTEMS W/ MANAGED:
Total :
1ST QUARTER 2016U|TAX
1,189.24
1,189.24
183.41
183.41
3,706.14
16,103.71
19,809.85
1,049.27
1,049.27
116.00
116.00
5,869.80
5,869.80
2,051.06
Total : 2,081.06
0142 -RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES
0123 -RW SERVICES
LEGAL PUBLICATION
LEGAL PUBLICATION
LEGAL PUBLICATION
LEGAL PUBLICATION
001.090.000.518 SUPPLIES: IT
312978 001.058{)57.558 COPIER COSTS
312979 001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS
Total:
Total:
Tota :
2,415.91
489.50
2,905.41
67.20
91.80
68.85
25.00
252.85
167.83
167.83
10828
7.14
Page: ! 1
vchlist
04/21/2016 12:38:17PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
38207 4/21/2016 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC.
38208 4/21/2016 002682 HAFNER, CHARLES
38209 4/21/2016 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC.
38210 4/21/2016 002466 KENWORTH SALES COMPANY
38211 4/21/2016 001944 LANCER LTD
38212 4/21/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
38213 4/21/2016 001604 PACIFIC NW PAPER
38214 4/21/2016 002288 SARGENT ENGINEERS INC.
(Continued)
313276
313277
313282
313283
313296
313297
313302
313303
313383
313384
313425
EXPENSES
0100219
SPOT N 1782586
0458535
0458680
833347911001
835095146001
835095632001
169277
Fund/Dept
Description/Account
Amount
001.013.000.513 COPIER COSTS
001.013.000.513 COPIER COSTS
001.013.015.515 COPIER COSTS
001.013.015.515 COPIER COSTS
001.058.050.558 COPIER COSTS
001.058.050.558 COPIER COSTS
001.018.016.518 COPIER COSTS
001.018.016.518 COPIER COSTS
001.076.000.576 COPIER COSTS
001.076.000.576 COPIER COSTS
001.058.057.558 COPIER COSTS
001.011.000.511
101.042.000.542
101.000.000.542
Total :
Q1-2016 EXPENSE REIMBURSEME
Total :
2016 TIP MAINTENANCE & UPDATE
Total :
SERVICE #204
001.058.050.558 BUSINESS CARDS
001.058.050.558 BUSINESS CARDS
001.090.000.518
001.013.015.515
001.013.015.515
001.090.000.519
30369 101.043.236.542
Total :
Total :
OFFICE SUPPLIES: IT
OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL
OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL
Total :
PAPER FOR CITY HALL
CONTRACT 15-133
Total :
Total :
774.56
58.18
205.40
25.41
298.52
61.33
99.13
20.20
615.34
36.54
15.75
2,415.79
155.52
155.52
4,592.69
4,592.69
324.86
324.86
54.07
54.07
108.14
41.30
70.52
8..30
120.12
1,650.07
1,650.07
733.50
733.50
Page:
vchlist
04/21/2816 12:38:17pK8Spokane Valley
Voucher List
Page: |3
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
38215 4/21/2010 000080 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 50314147
38216 4/21/2016 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW, THE 449687
38217 4/21/2016 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 50160
38218 4/21/2016 001686 WASHINGTON SOCIETY OFCPAS 90036
38219 4/21/2016 001885 ZAYDGROUP LLC APRIL 2016
APRIL 2016
23 Vouchers for bank code: apbank
23 Vouchers in this report
Fund/Dept
001.080.000.518
309.000.237.595
101.043.236.542
Description/Account
Amount
COUNTY IT SUPPORT MARCH 201(
Total:
ADVEF�lS|NGACCT42365
Total �
Total :
POSTAGE SERVICES
ADVE�OS|NGACCT42365
POST�GESEF0/CES
001.018814.514 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
Total :
001.090.000.518 INTERNET SERVICE
001.090.000.518 DARK FIBER LEASE
Total:
Bank tota:
Total vouchers :
14,819.71
14,819.71
2,089.61
2,089.61
552.33
552.33
295.00
295.00551.92
248.27
800.19
62,252.25
62,252.25
Page: 3
vchlist
04/22/2016 2:58:38PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
X82-28 4/22/284G
38221
38222
38223
38224
38225
38226
38227
38228
38229
38230
38231
38232
869030 N -FA
v
4/22/2016 001545 BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC
4/22/2016 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
4/22/2016 004966 HOBBS, SANDRA
4/22/2016 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO
4/22/2016 002041 J. SCRIVNER INVESTIGATIONS INC
4/22/2016 004926 LE CATERING CO
April 2016
2016-1491
April 2016
BLD -2016-1024
2301
SP -36545
Contract #1
4/22/2016 003759 MCVAY BROTHERS CONTRACTORS INC BLD -2016-0960
4/22/2016 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO
4/22/2016 000748 ROTO -ROOTER
4/22/2016 000661 SPECIALTY HOME PRODUCTS
4/22/2016 004131 SPOKANE CO SOLID WASTE MGMT
Fund/Dept Description/Account
Amount
rb 104..042.000.542 t#TIL
March 2016
94064
BLD -2016-0108
20160406-5491-33206
4/22/2016 000451 SPOKANE REG SPORTS COMMISSION 1st Qtr 2016
309.000.241.594
001.058.056.558
001.058.059.322
101.042.000.542
001.013.015.515
001.058.057.558
001.058.059.322
001.076.302.576
001.076.305.575
001.058.059.322
101.042.000.542
105.000.000.557
•
Total :
0241 -LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Total :
PETTY CASH: 13874,75,77,79,81,84
Total :
PERMIT REFUND: BLD -2016-1024
Total :
UTILITIES: MARCH 2016 PW
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total :
Total :
CATERING INVOICE: SPOKANE VAI
Total :
PERMIT REFUND:BLD-2016-0960
Total :
UTILITIES: MARCH 2016 PARKS
Total :
LABOR/SERVICE AT CENTERPLAC
Total :
PERMIT REFUND: BLD -2016-0108
Total :
TRANSFER STATION CHARGES: P\
Total :
X12•
27,012.02
4,410.00
4,410.00
19.75
19.75
87.75
87.75
409.50
409.50
374.50
374.50
280.94
280.94
88.26
88.26
1,680.90
1,680.90
668.51
668.51
168.06
168.06
41.41
41.41
2016 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEME 30,400.00
Page:
vchlist
04/22/2016 2:58:38PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: --"2
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
38232 4/22/2016 000451 000451 SPOKANE REG SPORTS COMMISSI (Continued)
38233 4/22/2016 001969 SUNSHINE DISPOSAL
38234
38235
38236
1008222
4/22/2016 002306 TERRELL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 2527
4/22/2016 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0063336-1518-2
4/22/2016 000711 WMCATREASURER
38237 4/22/2016 000347 WORLEY, STEVE
38238 4/22/2016 003128 YWCA OF SPOKANE
19 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
19 Vouchers in this report
2016 Membership
2016 Membership
Expenses
April 2016
Fund/Dept
101.042.000.542
309.000.244.594
402.402.000.531
001.013.000.513
001.013.000.513
001.032.000.543
001.090.000.560
Description/Account
Amount
TRANSFER STATION
Total :
Total :
0244 -LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Total :
WASTE MANAGEMENT: PW MARCI
Total :
C. KOUDELKA: MAY 2016 - APRIL 2
C. BAINBRIDGE: MAY 2016 -APRIL 2
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
2016 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI
Total :
30,400.00
1,085.98
1,085.98
283.50
283.50
546.04
546.04
75.00
75.00
150.00
357.82
357.82
457,11
457.11
00.05
Page:
vchlist
04/28/2016 12:3 5: 5 3 P M
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : pk-ref
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
6562 4/28/2016 004967 MONTESSORI INSTITUTE OF AMEBIC PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND RM 213 344.00
Total : 344.00
6563 4/28/2016 004968 RIDGEVIEW PLACE
2 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref
2 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
PARKS REFUND
001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: SMALL DINING
Total :
52.00
52.00
Bank total : 396.00
Total vouchers : 396.00
Page:
vchlist
04/28/2016 1:24:58PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
38239 4/28/2016 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC
38240 4/28/2016 000135 APA
38241 4/28/2016 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING
38242 4/28/2016 000101 CDW-G
38243 4/28/2016 000322 CENTURYLINK
38244 4/28/2016 002992 FREEDOM TRUCK CENTERS
2015 VACTORING
55630
183514-1643
16140
CPX4311
APRIL 2016
PC001337243:01
PC001337622:01
PC001337670:01
38245 4/28/2016 004853 HALVERSON NORTHWEST LAW GROUP 186085
38246 4/28/2016 003297 HIGGINS, LEWIS ROD
38247 4/28/2016 000240 NAT'L LEAGUE OF CITIES
38248 4/28/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
38249 4/28/2016 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
EXPENSES
119133
833826952001
834361936001
MARCH 2016
Fund/Dept
402.223.40.00
402.402.000.531
001.058.056.558
001.058.055.558
001.076.099.576
001.076.000.576
101.000.000.542
101.000.000.542
101.000.000.542
001.013.015.515
001.011.000.511
001.011.000.511
001.013.015.515
001.018.014.514
001.016.000.586
Description/Account
Amount
RETAINAGE RELEASE 2015 VACTC
STREET SWEEPING SERVICES
Total :
MEMBERSHIP 2016 M. PALANIUK
Total :
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
IT SUPPLIES
Total :
Total :
2016 PHONE SVCS: ACCT 509 Z14-
Total :
SUPPLIES: PW
SUPPLIES: PW
SUPPLIES: PW
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total :
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 2016 000:
Total :
OFFICE SUPPLIES: LEGAL
OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE
Total :
STATE REMITTANCE
Total :
36,956.80
60,445.97
97,402.77
275.00
275.00
880.00
880.00
232.34
232.34
499.85
499.85
35.87
17.39
-1.63
51.63
312.00
312.00
149.45
149.45
6,697.00
6,697. 00
29.34
29.94
59.28
64,225.86
64,225. 86
Page:
vchlist
04/28/2016 1:24:58PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
38250 4/28/2016 000019 PURFECT LOGOS LLC
38251 4/28/2016 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS INC
38252 4/28/2016 000952 RECALL DESTRUCTION SVC
38253 4/28/2016 000031 ROYAL BUSINES S4F'S►1gJ
38254 4/28/2016 002520 RWC GROUP
38255 4/28/2016 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY
38256 4/28/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
38257 4/28/2016 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
38258 4/28/2016 002110 TARGET MEDIA NORTHWEST
38259 4/28/2016 000335 TIRE-RAMA
43501
Fund/Dept Description/Account
Amount
001.058.057.558 SIGN
28050 001.058.050.558 NAME PLATE
3901128146
inearrect
OflWt2,1T
26475N
CM26475N
MARCH 2016
110100125
51503204
51503215
3298488399
3298488402
3298488406
3298488407
3298488408
3298488409
001.058.057.558
001.058.057.558
Total :
Total :
DOCUMENT SHREDDING SERVICE
Total :
APRIL 2015 COPIER COSTS
101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW
101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW
001.016.000.586
101.042.000.542
402.402.000.531
402.402.000.531
001.090.000.519
001.090.000.519
001.058.050.558
001.058.050.558
001.058.050.558
001.076.304.575
Total :
Total :
CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION F
Total :
ENGINEERING MARCH 2016
FEBRUARY 2016 WORK CREW IN \J
MARCH 2016 WORK CREW INVOIC
Total :
OFFICE SUPPLIES: FRONT OFFICE
OFFICE SUPPLIES: FRONT OFFICE
OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD
OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD
OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD
PRINTER FOR SENIOR CENTER
Total :
50394 001.018.013.513 HOT TOPIC SPRING 2016
8080042689
8080042715
8080042820
101.042.000.542
001.032.000.543
001.058.057.558
Total :
SERVICE: 40210D 2007 COLORAD
SERVICE: 35518D 2004 DODGE DA
SERVICE: 38904D JEEP CHEROKE
54.35
54.35
12.50
12.50
61.61
61.61
909.48
909.48
1,589.92
-1,216.52
373.40
908.68
908.68
44,964.78
3,627.40
4,230.70
52,822.88
-178.71
-77.12
-84.76
390.40
326.08
97.82
473.71
2,900. 53
2,900. 53
176.04
50.98
179.63
Page:
vchlist
04/28/2016 1:24:58PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
38259 4/28/2016 000335 000335 TIRE-RAMA
38260 4/28/2016 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC.
007515
(Continued)
421160073 4/22/2016 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-76
Fund/Dept
001.058.055.558
001.016.000.521
Description/Account
Amount
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total :
Total :
MARCH 2016 REVENUE SPLIT FOF
Total :
406.65
986.59
986.59
4,380.07
4,380.07
23 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 235,075.63
Page:
vchlist
04/28/2016 1:24:58PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : pk-ref
Voucher Date Vendor
WO J'3Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account A o *6564 4/28/2016 000031 ROYAL BUSINErSYSTEMS IN41887 001.058.057.558 APRIL 2015 COPIER COSTS _203.39
I flc orrt'cl- -1 t/J -Park in s Ned ?f/if Total : 203.39
1 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 203.39
24 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : ) 2'5;27.9„,02
r.+"` r ! `" / s
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid
obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that
I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim.
Finance Director Date
Council member reviewed:
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
Page:
vchlist
04/29/2016 12:43:16PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
38261 4/29/2016 004046 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES
38262
4/29/2016 000030 AVISTA
38263 4/29/2016 001545 BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC
38264 4/29/2016 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
38265 4/29/2016 000823 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES
38266 4/29/2016 003717 DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES LP
38267 4/29/2016 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1
38268 4/29/2016 004813 FIRST CHOICE COFFEE SERVICES
38269 4/29/2016 001732 GREATER SPOKANE SUBSTANCE
38270 4/29/2016 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY
38271 4/29/2016 002712 GTFX INC.
38272 4/29/2016 002882 HOFFMAN MUSIC COMPANY
A-176685
April 2016
March 2016
2016-1558
April 2016
191864
91266693
April 2016
139091
2016
1st Qtr 2016
42116
SI -293968
Fund/Dept
001.076.300.576
101.042.000.542
001.076.302.576
309.000.241.594
001.032.000.543
001.076.305.575
001.076.301.571
001.076.300.576
001.076.305.575
001.090.000.560
001.090.000.550
001.076.305.575
001.076.000.576
Description/Account
Amount
PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARK:
Total :
UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA
UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA
Total :
0241 -LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Total :
PETTY CASH: 13891,92,93,94
Total :
ELEVATOR OPERATING CERTIFICF
Total :
TRANSPORTATION FOR WINTER C
Total :
WATER CHARGES FOR EDGECLIF
Total :
COFFEE SUPPLIES AT CENTERPL!
Total :
2016 SOC SER GRANT REIMBURSI
Total :
2016 ECO DEV GRANT REIMBURSI
46.28
46.28
27,081.12
7,364.48
34,445.60
990.00
990.00
28.64
28.64
129.00
129.00
110.97
110.97
65.85
65.85
144.11
144.11
1,377:05
1,377.05
6,676. 00
Total : 6,676.00
SERVICE GREASE TRAP AT CP
Total :
163.05
163.05
PORTABLE SOUND SYSTEM FOR C 641.32
Total: 641.32
Page:
vchlist
04/29/2016 12:43:16PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: —2 -
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
38273 4/29/2016 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES
38274 4/29/2016 004926 LE CATERING CO
38275 4/29/2016 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT
38276 4/29/2016 001002 M & L SUPPLY CO INC
38277 4/29/2016 000387 MODEL IRRIGATION DIST. #18
38278 4/29/2016 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO
38279
38280
38281
38282
1012177
1016246
1016310
1016311
1016312
1016313
1019137
1021606
Contract #1
Mar 2016
S100250602.001
S100250604.001
2016 Acct 1930.0
18932878
18932879
4/29/2016 002475 POST FALLS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 4/20/2016
4/29/2016 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC.
4/29/2016 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES
4/29/2016 000420 SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DIST
7152637
April 2016
2016
Fund/Dept
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.076.305.575
001.016.000.521
001.016.000.521
001.076.305.575
001.076.300.576
001.076.300.576
001.076.300.576
001.076.305.575
Description/Account
Amount
MARCH 2016 MONTHLY CLEANING 7,136.00
EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 21.07
EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 105.35
EVENT SERVICE AT CENTERPLACI 52.68
EVENT SVCS AT CENTERPLACE 52.68
EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 52.68
EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 15.80
EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA( 47.41
Total : 7,483. 67
CATERING INVOICE: CENTERPLAC
Total :
OPERATING SUPPLIES: PW & PRE
Total :
SUPPLIES FOR PRECINCT
SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
Total :
EXCESS WATER CHARGE OCT - Al
Total :
UTILITIES NOT INCLUDED ON MAS
UTILITIES NOT INCLUDED ON MAS
Total :
FOOD EXHIBITOR AGREEMENT - C
Total :
101.042.000.542 FLAGGING SERVICES
001.076.302.576
001.076.302.576
Total :
SPOKANE CO SEWER CHRGS: API
Total :
1,472. 89
1,472.89
96.45
96.45
40.63
288.58
329.21
7.26
7.26
162.41
56.42
218.83
49.00
49.00
169.57
169.57
1,637.69
1,637.69
PERMIT FEES FOR WATER REC 2,030.00
Page:
vchlist Voucher List
04/29/2016 12:43:16PM Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
38282 4/28/2018 000420 000420 SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DIST (Continued)
38283 4/29/2016 000731 SPOKANE RESTAURANT EQUIP INC 69082
38284 4/29/2018 003532 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOLUT 801031096
38285 4/28/2016 002110 TARGET MEDIA NORTHWEST
38286 4/202018 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES
38287 4/29/2016 003175 VISIT SPOKANE
50281
59103018
March 2016
38288 4/29/2016 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0279086'2681-0
0279067-2881-8
28 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
28 Vouchers in this report
Fund/Dept
001.076.305.575
001.078.305.575
001878.301.571
001.076.800.576
105.000.000.557
001876.305.575
001.016.000.521
Description/Account
Amount
Total:
HOT FOOD SERVING COUNTER FC
Total :
ANSWERING SVC CENTERPLACE
Total :
P&R SPRING & SUMMER GUIDE
Total :
J3197-1 MONTHLY DRINKING WAT
Total :
2016 LODGING TAX GRANT REIMB
Total :
WASTE MANAGEMENT: CENTERPI
WASTE MANAGEMENT: PRECINCT
Total :
Bank tota:
Total vouchers :
2,030.00
1,314.50
1,314.50
54.44
54.44
2,930.61
2,930.61
28.50
28.50
13,637.50
13,637.50
739.41
283.09
1,022.50
77,300.49
77,300.49
Page:
�-
vchlist
05/02/2016 8:29:42AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 'f
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
38289 5/2/2016 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS IN41887 001.058.057.558 APRIL 2015 COPIER COSTS 1,112.87
Total : 1,112.87
1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 1,112.87
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
Total vouchers : 1,112.87
Page:
vchlist
05/04/2016 1:20:18PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page:
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
38290 5/4/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8557 April 2016 001.011.000.511 WALGREENS 19.84
8557 April 2016 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAI' 25.00
8557April 2O18 001.011.000.511 CUPPA JOE'S CAFE 267.94
8557April 2O18 001.011.000.511 DELTA AIRLINES 2900
8557April 2O1G 001D11.000.511 DELTA AIRLINES 3900
8557 April 2016 001.011.000.511 DELTA AIRLINES 917.20
8557 April 2016 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE INC 20,00
8557April 2O18 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE INC 2.30000
8557 April 2016 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAI' 7000
8557April 2O1G 001.011.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAI' 35.00
8557April 2016 001811.000.511 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY CHAP 35.00
8557 April 2016 001.011.000.511 LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT PHOTO DE 8 0
Total : 3,765 98
38291 5N/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 5214 April 2016 001.018.016.518 COURTYARD MARRIOTT 254.00
5214April 2018 001.032.000.543 ALASKA AIRLINES 25.00
5214April 2O16 001.032.000.543 DOUBLETREE BY HILTON 490'50
Total : 778,50
38292 5/4/2018 001606 BANNER BANK D573April 2O1S 001.018.014.514 GFOA-CREDIT FOR REG|STR/Tl[ -78.30
8573 April 2016 001.018.014.514 GFDA-CREDIT FOR REG|STRAT|C '78.30
8573April 2O1G 402.402.000.531 PETERS HARDWARE 286.71
D573April 2O18 001.090.000.518 FROZENCPU.COM- 61.43
8573 April 2016 001.013.015.515 /WC 19500
8573April 2O1O 001.018.016.518 SHRM 100,00
8573April 2O1S 001.032.000.543 AMAZON.COM 385`00
8573April 2O18 101.042.000.542 NORTHWEST FENCE COMPANY 19.51
Total ' 991.05
.
38293 5/4/2016 001608 BANNER BANK 8565 April 2016 101O42UOU542 GREENR\VERCO&1/NUN|TYCOLLE 300.00
� . .
8565April 2O18 101.043.000.542 WILBUR ELLIS 192.50
85G5April 2O18 001.032.000.543 WSTIP 75|00
05O5April 2O10 108.000230.537 SWANA 212i00
8565 April 2016 OO1U18O1S5�8 CRAIGSLIST.ORG 25.00
. . .
D5S5April 2O18 106.000.230.537 WSRA 225`00
85G5April 2O10 001.018.018.518 VALUE VILLAGE 50'00
vchlist
05/04/2016 1:20:18PM
Voucher List Page:
Spokane Valley
Bank code ; apbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
38293 5/4/2016 001608 BANNER BANK (Continued)
8565 April 2016
8585April 2O18
38294 5/4/2018 001608 BANNER BANK 8599 Apr2016
85SgApril 201O
859QApril 2O18
8599 April 2016
8599 April 2016
8599 April 2016
8599 April 2016
38295 5/4/2018 001806 BANNER BANK 8581 Apr2018
8581 April 2016
85D1April 2O18
6 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
6 Vouchers in this report
Fund/Dept Description/Account
Amount
001.032.000.543 ENGINEER SUPPLY.COM
001.090.000.518 AMAZON.COM
Total:
001.078.305.575 LOWE'S
001.078.305.575 MY PROJECTOR LAMPS.COM
001.078.305.575 HOME DEPOT
001.078.305.575 MICHAELS STORE
001.076.305.575 DOLLARTREE
001.078.304.575 GONZAGA UNIVERSITY
309.000.241.594 MODERN ELECTRIC
Total:
109.99
8.99
1,198.48
86.79
265.99
118.84
65.85
16.31
35.00
150.00
738.78
001.058.050.558 ASFPM 40D0
001.058.056.558 LEADERSHIP SPOKANE 25.00
001858.057.558 ORE|LLYAUTO PARTS 19.53
Total : 84.53
Bank total : 7,557.32
Total vouchenm: 7,557.32
~��
vchlist
05/05/2016 7:23:14AM
Voucher List Page:
Spokane Valley
Bank code: pk-ref
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
6565 5/5/2016 004973 BOWLES, ERIC PARKS REFUND 001.23710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: LOUNGE 210.00
Total: 210.00
6566 5/5/2016 004974 FISK, KELLY PARKS REFUND 00123710.89 DEPOSU-REFUND:D|SCOVERYPi 75.00
Total: 75.00
6567 5/5/2016 004975 HARMS, JAMIE PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOU| 210.00
Total: 210.00
6568 5/5/2016 004976 JAMES, STEPHANIE PARKS REFUND 001.23710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: LOUNGE 89.00
Total: 89.00
6569 5/5/2018 004977 LELYUK, TANIA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00
Total : 75.00
6570 5B/2016 004978 NELSON, CHRIS PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 REFUND: COUNSELOR INTRANINI 85.00
Total : 85.00
6571 5/5/2018 004979 NELSON, RIK PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: LOUNGE 210.00
Total: 210n0
6572 5/5X2016 004980 NORTHWEST AUTISM CENTER PARKS REFUND 00123710.89 DEPOSIT REFUND: K4!RABEAUMEI 300D0
Total: 300.00
6573 5/5/2016 004881 SEMIVRAZHNOV, KAROLINA PARKS REFUND 00123710.98 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 21010
Total: 210.00
6574 5/5/2016 004972 STEPHENS, DEANNE PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 24.00
Total: 24.00
6575 5/5/2018 004982 ZAMITO, SHARA PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DEPOSITREFUND: ROOM 213 52.00
Total : 52.00
11 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref
11 Vouchers in this reportTotal vouchers : 1,540.00
Bank total: 1,540.00
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 10, 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 30, 2016
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN;
BACKGROUND:
Budget/Financial impacts:
Employees Council Total
Gross: $ 275,040.75 $ 5,340.88 $ 280,381.63
Benefits: $ 118,377.12 $ 10,030.70 $ 128,407.82
Total payroll $ 393,417.87 $ 15,371.58 $ 408,789.45
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
MEETING STUDY SESSION
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
April 19, 2016
Staff
Rod Higgins, Mayor
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Dean Grafos, Councilmember
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Sam Wood, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director
Morgan Koudelka, Sr Administrative Analyst
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. First Reading Ordinance 16-005, LTGO Bond for City Hall - Mark Calhoun
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and
seconded, to advance Ordinance 16-005 to a second reading. Mr. Calhoun went over the background of
the idea of a proposed city hall, which gained momentum early 2015 with the purchase of 3.38 acres at the
former University City Mall site; he briefly went through the history of events since that land purchase, and
mentioned that the bid opening for City Hall bids will be this Thursday; said we anticipate project financing
of about $14.4 million overall with $6.3 million covered with cash set aside for this project; that the bond
proceeds would be repaid over a thirty-year period in equal annual installments; that for the financing, a
bond ordinance must be considered and adopted, and that bond counsel and our financial advisor will be
assisting us through this process.
Mr. Calhoun introduced Bond Counsel Deanna Gregory with Pacific Law Group, and member of the
financial group Lindsey Sovde with Piper Jaffrey. Ms. Gregory went over some of the highlights of the
bond ordinance, including that the second reading would be held during the May 10 Council meeting; said
if all parameters can be met all will go as planned, and if not, they would come back to Council; said the
ordinance authorizes all new money for the City Hall facility, payable from the City's general fund; said
May 19 is the day of the pricing when the interest rates for the bonds will be set, and the contract with D.A.
Davidson will be executed; said for the second reading they will also have a copy of the preliminary official
statement, which is the offering document to be used by the underwriter to market the bonds to potential
investors, and under federal security law, the City would take ownership of this statement; said a question
arose the last time about federal filing requirements for bonds to be issued, and she explained that to be tax
exempt, a form must be filed with the IRS; said her company will file that document. Ms. Sovde explained
that as financial advisor, her company has the fiduciary responsibility to the City to make sure the bond
prices fairly and all transactions are completed; said since the last time they met in March the interest rates
dropped by another 25 base points, which is very favorable, making the interest for thirty-year bonds at
about 3.10%; she said the interest rates won't be locked down until the bonds are priced May 19 so the rate
will likely change, but it is trending in the right direction.
Council Study Session: 04-19-2016 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Mr. Calhoun stated that the bid opening is this Thursday, and next Tuesday Council will have an
administrative report on that bid opening, with the bid award scheduled for the special May 3 meeting; said
at that May 3 meeting, the bids will be presented with base bids and eight alternatives; that he is confident
the base bid will be within the $14.4 million, but the entire project cost depends on the alternates chosen;
he said he will have a spreadsheet on the screens to show how each alternate would impact the estimated
bond payment and the total cost of the project. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were
offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
NON -ACTION ITEMS:
2. Public Safety Ad Hoc Committees — Cary Driskell
City Attorney Driskell introduced Center for Justice Executive Director Rick Eichstaedt. Mr. Driskell
mentioned there are also some guests in the audience interested in tonight's discussion, and he introduced
District Court Presiding Judge Walker, Judge Maurer, and District Court Clerk John Ritter. Mr. Driskell
explained that this topic has evolved over time with several suggestions from Council and the community,
and that he and Mr. Eichstaedt have had several discussions; and said if Council feels there are items not
addressed, or where Council wants further discussion, to please let him know as he encourages and urges
such discussion. Concerning a committee, Mr. Driskell suggested it would be advantageous to identify what
Council wants covered within such a committee's mission, and similarly if Council wants to expand
something in the future, that too is possible provided anything done is consistent with state regulations for
the Council/Manager form of government in RCW 35A, as we would want to segregate policy for those
things clearly handled by Council, with those things clearly handled by a City Manager. Mr. Driskell noted
that additional concerns mentioned earlier include the topic of additional liability for the City; he said we
have contracted with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, making that an independent contractor
relationship, which means we are limited in terms of what we can tell the service provider concerning what
they can or should do or not do; said we are paying for the services so we don't control the manner, as we
are paying for the end result; and said we do not want to breach that independent contractor relationship.
Mr. Driskell said that as shown on page 3 of his Request for Council Action (RCA) form, he and Mr.
Eichstaedt have not come to any conclusions when it comes to rendering opinions as to the adequacy of
any report from the CAB (Citizens Advisory Board); and believe more time is needed to research this issue,
including whether this could result in additional liability for either the County or the City, and whether
doing so could breach the independent contractor relationship. Mr. Driskell stated that staff already does a
considerable amount of contractor oversight on all public safety contracts, and that the City's
Administrative Analysists Koudelka and Pietro pay particular attention to services provided to ensure we
are getting the services we are paying for, and that they are consistent with what is contained in the contract;
he said our Administrative Analysists are exceedingly detailed in their work and how our contracts compare
with other jurisdictions, adding that we pay less than more services than other jurisdictions.
Mr. Driskell went over the six items under "F" on pages two and three in his RCA. Concerning the Fire
District, he explained that when we incorporated, we didn't have a contract for police and didn't know what
we were going to do concerning fire; said there were discussions early on in incorporation about continuing
with the fire districts or form our own, and the eventual decision was to annex into the two fire districts; he
said they are separate jurisdictions and we have no authority over them, and we have developed a good
rapport with them over the years. Concerning the law enforcement services, Mr. Driskell explained that the
term of the contract is four years, and if there is no notice of termination from either side, the contract
automatically renews; he said there is an eighteen -month period during which the parties could give notice
of termination, which is between the end of the 30th month and the end of the 48th month, and that during
such period, the Council could decide to undertake all the tasks necessary to bring law enforcement
functions in-house, with those functions including payroll, facility, personnel, finance, legal etc., which
would be an extensive amount of work, so if that were Council's plan, staff would have to determine how
to make it all work, with staff hitting the ground running at the end of that transition period.
Setting up a separate oversight or citizen review committee, Mr. Driskell explained, can be done but he said
he feels more research is needed concerning the liability issues, and said he is actively researching that; he
Council Study Session: 04-19-2016 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
said there is a potential cause for liability for the City and it would not be unreasonable to think because of
an action or inaction that resulted in death or serious injury, that the CAB would review the reports and
documents provided from the Sheriff's Office but if we set up a separate committee, ours would have
limitations that the CAB doesn't because of the Public Records Act and the need to provide our committee
with police reports, which would probably include redactions; additionally, our committee members would
not be entitled to coroner's reports so we would have competing committees likely rendering differing
opinions. Mr. Eichstaedt stated that the challenge is that there is potential to review the work of an agency
to which Spokane Valley has no hiring or firing decisions in regard to specific officers; said it creates an
advisory role to answer to the City Manager or Council; said he struggled with that and wondered what role
makes sense given that limitation. Mr. Eichstaedt said there has been a lot of concern in the community,
and he mentioned Kathryn Olson, former President of NACOLE (National Association of Civilian
Oversight of Law Enforcement) met with some of the Councilmembers and they recognize there are some
limitations about how the investigatory process is currently working; there are also concerns about potential
liability with an oversight body since such an entity would be created to point out potential wrongs and
could issue findings that could be used in a lawsuit; said having a committee for the benefit of citizens
makes sense, but said we could face some potential liability to ensure the policing we receive is what we
expect and are paying for; said there is already a lot of redundancy in oversight and adding more is not
necessarily a bad thing; that we have the Sheriff's Office internal affairs, the CAB; a team of state patrol,
and others including some federal agencies; sometimes an attorney general can investigate issues; said
redundancy is built-in and it makes sense as we want to make sure the policing is done right; we need to
identify the problems and reduce the future liability while ensuring that citizens trust the government and
the policy. He agreed with the issues concerning the Public Record Act (PRA), and that the committee
would only get what could be publicly released under the PRA.
Mr. Driskell stressed that we recognize appropriate oversight of law enforcement functions is very
important, but the struggle is how to make that work effectively in a contractual relationship; the function
of analyzing and rendering opinions as to the sufficiency from the CAB is a concern from a liability
standpoint within a contract structure; and perhaps Council could have discussions about how important a
citizen oversight committee is, and whether to cancel the contract and take the service in-house; and if we
take the service in-house, Council would need serious, long discussions with Council and the community.
Mr. Driskell said he continues to research these issues.
Council discussion included mention of June 30 as the beginning of that "open window" to terminate;
Councilmember Pace said his original intent was not about whether to terminate or bring services in-house,
and said the intent was never about telling the public safety or agency how to do their jobs, but more of a
mechanism to get feedback, and if we had a committee, Council would direct our committee to avoid
competing opinions. Mr. Driskell stated that tonight's information is an opinion and the idea was to point
out the various considerations for Council to do something or not, and to make sure Council goes into this
fully aware of options, and if Council wants a mission, to make sure that it is a clear mission.
Councilmember Pace said his idea was for this to be an ad hoc committee with a specific mission and
timeframe, of perhaps one year; then Council could decide to continue the committee or not; and said he
will bring this up again tonight during the advance agenda discussion. Mr. Calhoun said that he and Mr.
Driskell discussed this topic and will support any decision Council collectively makes, but need to find a
way to do this without taking on any additional liability or any additional staff; he said it was suggested
this committee would be similar to the Planning Commission, but pointed out we are appropriately staffed
to meet the needs of the Planning Commission and that we have never had this ad hoc committee service;
that it would be a new service and we can do that with existing staff, although it will be yet another demand
on particularly the City Attorney and the Administrative Analysts. Mr. Driskell said that a scope of work
would need to be determined, and we would need to communicate with the Sheriff Office to see if they
would agree with any modification of terms; said the agreement is an interlocal agreement so amendments
can only be made by Council.
Council Study Session: 04-19-2016 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Councilmember Hafner said he doesn't want to set the committee before having all the necessary
information and knowing exactly what the responsibilities are with the existing CAB and how they would
remedy any situations. Councilmember Grafos said he feels this is a duplication of what the Sheriffs Office
has; said he feels a committee would weaken the immunity of the City and represents a huge risk; that he
thinks it is a slippery road and we would be going in the wrong direction. Councilmember Gothmann said
a city in Louisiana went through something similar, and eventually had to disband their police department
because of skyrocketing liability insurance costs; said this city was organized to run very efficiently with
low cost, and another layer of government and increasing liability is not a good direction to go; said we
have that lower liability with the Sheriff Office and the County having the liability so it makes sense that
the oversight board would report to the County; said such a committee it would increase the burden on the
attorney's office, and said this is not a wise direction to go. In response to a question from Deputy Mayor
Woodard about negotiating our contract, Mr. Driskell said we negotiate the contract with the Sheriff's
Office but he doesn't know if the CAB has anything to do with our negotiations as they have not been a
part in the past, and that we can unquestionably change items in the contract if desired. Mr. Driskell
reiterated that he doesn't have all the answers and would like to have more information before rendering a
final opinion. There was some discussion about where on an advance agenda to place this issue with
Councilmember Pace suggesting in about a month. Councilmember Pace also said Council is flexible with
the dates for this to come before Council again; he said that saying that such a committee is another layer
of government is political hyperbole, and the same with the inflating insurance costs. Mr. Driskell said he
would prefer at this point to continue the research and present back to Council with his analysis. Council
concurred. Mr. Eichstaedt ended by saying that it is important to define something that makes sense and
serve a role and is a meaningful function while not being overly duplicate.
Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:13 p.m., he reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
3. Port District Update — John Hohman
Community and Economic Development Director Hohman explained that tonight is an opportunity for a
brief update on the port district study, which was conducted through GSI's (Greater Spokane, Inc.)
commission of Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc.; he noted that GSI sought contributions to create a business plan
and we contributed $7500 to the effort; said he has staff participating on the committee which meets about
once a month; said the plan shows there are 75 port districts in Washington, eleven of which are deep water
ports; said the Port Authority is mainly an economic development agency and that GSI is our designated
agency; he said the mission of the Port Authority is to "create economic growth and prosperity in all of
greater Spokane County through the attraction of private sector market investment, which drives the
creation of livable wage jobs." Mr. Hohman explained that this would be a separate government with three
commissioners, similar to the structure of the County government; he briefly explained how ports are
financed, along with the projected budget on pages 16 and 17; said the idea would be to have a very lean
staff of about five, and that they would contract out for a lot of the services; he said staff has submitted
some comments on the information on page 36 seeking clarification on some financial points, like actual
revenues, as in comparing the revenues listed on page 17, the figures seemed aggressive with large
differences between the first and second year of existence; said there were some technical issues and he is
waiting for a revised draft, which might happen this week, and that their next steps would be to try to get
this on a ballot measure, perhaps fall of 2017; there was also some discussion about having a ballot issue
for the establishment of a port district and at the same time determine the commissioners; and said at this
point we are participating on an information level to keep Council appraised of the proposal.
Councilmember Grafos asked if there is a sense of whether this is favorable from other entities, and Mr.
Hohman replied that it is too early to tell; that they are waiting to see what the financial information looks
like and trying to get more detail; he noted that as of now, the Airport has chosen to be outside the district.
Councilmember Pace asked if we have any say whether we participate or not or if the Board of County
Commissioners can put this on the ballot to cover the entire County. Mr. Hohman explained there will be
an opportunity to weigh-in on whether or not to support this and is waiting for the additional information
to help determine an appropriate time to get Council's viewpoint on this issue. Councilmember Pace said
that a port district is an extra layer of government that will cost taxpayers.
Council Study Session: 04-19-2016 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
4. Review of Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 2.30: Chief of Police — Mark Calhoun
Mr. Calhoun explained that with the June 30, 2016 retirement of Police Chief VanLeuven, a new chief will
need to be appointed; that Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 2.30.030 notes that it is the City
Manager who makes the appointment; and that SVMC 2.30.040 states that it is the City Council and City
Manager who confer to establish qualifications for the position, with such qualifications approved by
resolution. Mr. Calhoun noted that Councilmember Pace had asked for this discussion during the April 5
Council meeting, and therefore, Mr. Calhoun has included the attachments of the Code section, the
Resolution, the Police Chief Job Description, and some job description development guidelines in the event
Council desired to revise the job description. Mr. Calhoun noted that interestingly, the Police Chief is not
an employee; and per section 9.1 of the Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement contract, it is the Sheriff
who recommends at least three individuals for the City Manager to choose from, and that those individuals
must be of the rank of Lieutenant or higher. Mr. Calhoun said he has not quite finalized the process for
making a decision from those three recommended to him by the Sheriff.
5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins
Councilmember Pace said he would like the citizen oversight issue to come back to Council in about a
month, and to time that with Mr. Driskell's ability to finish his research and the Deputy City Manager's
work on the bond issue. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that options include doing nothing, seeing if the CAB
(Citizens Advisory Board) could be modified to work more independently, the potential of having a contract
for an as -needed independent, private investigation, and/or report back on the NACOLE final report, which
should be available in a few weeks. Mr. Driskell and Mr. Calhoun said they would work to bring the issue
back in about thirty days, with Council agreeing that the timeline is flexible. Mr. Driskell also mentioned
his continuing concern with the liability issue. It was also agreed that of the issues mentioned in Mr.
Driskell's Request for Council Action form, that the focus should be the impact such a committee would
have on the law enforcement agreement rather than the issues concerning the Fire Districts, or utility
providers.
Other advance agenda items included mention from Mayor Higgins about this Friday's Regional Council
of Governments Meeting at the Fairgrounds, as well as the Kiwanis hosting a helmet painting this Saturday,
also at the Fairgrounds. Councilmember Grafos repeated his desire to have a future agenda topic as soon
as possible, to include discussion about an investigation into the firing of the City Manager.
6. Council Comments — Mayor Higgins
Councilmember Pace mentioned that the official dedication of Spokane Valley Tech school will be held
next Tuesday at 6 p.m., and he has been asked to give a short address, so is asking to be excused from the
next week's Council meeting for the first half hour.
7. City Manager Comments — Mark Calhoun
Mr. Calhoun mentioned that public works staff are working on the TIGER grant application, and have
submitted the FASTLANE grant application, and he extended thanks to them all for the extra effort in
applying for these grants.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Study Session: 04-19-2016 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Special Meeting
Tuesday, April 26, 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:
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
Councilmember Hafner.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed
to adjourn into executive session for approximately two hours to discuss potential litigation and that no
action is anticipated upon return to open session. [RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)]. Council adjourned into executive
session at 4:02 p.m. At 5:00 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: 04-26-2016 Page 1 of 1
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Rod Higgins, Mayor
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Sam Wood, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tem
ABSENT:
Chuck Hafner, Councilmember
Staff
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
Erik Guth, Public Works Director
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Caleb Hatch, Legal Intern
Micki Harnois, Planner
Karen Kendall, Planner
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, a few moments of silence were observed.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Everyone stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge announced that Councilmember Grafos resigned effective last
Monday, and that Councilmember Hafner resigned effective next Monday. She then called the roll; all
Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Hafner.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed
to amend the agenda to include new item A, immediately before the Consent Agenda, for a motion
consideration regarding a proposed settlement with Mike Jackson.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS n/a
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
Councilmember Gothmann- said he attended the Chamber of Commerce program where the topic of
discussion was Kaiser and Trentwood Transportation; went to the Sullivan Bridge art unveiling and he
extended kudos to all the students who contributed their artwork to the project; met with Visit Spokane who
indicated they are looking for a new location; attended the Leadership Excellence Award presentation; went
to the Council of Governments meeting at the Fairgrounds where discussion included an Economic Update
and overview of Community Indicators; a report from Colonel McDaniel of Fairchild Air Force Base; also
attended a Visit Spokane Community Relations and Advocacy meeting.
Councilmember Pace: said he attended the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights annual banquet; went to
the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) meeting where they discussed the proposal of a sales tax increase and
that at the meeting he voted against it but it passed anyway to be put on the November ballot; went to the
Chamber of Commerce meeting and the Council of Governments meeting where he learned that the public
safety communication system included purchase of two-way radios at the cost of $5,000 each.
Councilmember Wood: stated that he went to the AFLCIO dedication and the Council of Governments
meeting.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-26-2016 Page 1 of 6
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Deputy Mayor Woodard: stated that he also attended and spoke at the art unveiling on Sullivan Bridge;
went to the Greater Support Network meeting and he mentioned a new scholarship available for assistance
with higher education; went to the Council of Governments meeting, the Chamber of Commerce meeting,
and the City's bid opening for the City Hall Project.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Higgins reported that he was in Washington, D.C. last week and one of the topics of concern and
discussion was transportation issues, including railroad and grade crossings, and that we are working to
address especially the Barker Road and Pines areas; said he spoke with the under -under secretary of
transportation who also had a rail specialist in that department who will be making selections on the
FASTLANE and TIGER grants, and during the conversation, he learned of another grant opportunity to
present our case for Barker and Pines; said he attended the Fairchild AFB "toast" in honor of the 74th
anniversary of the Doolittle Tokyo Raid; and said he attended the Regional Clean Air meeting where he
learned that rates will increase.
PROCLAMATION: (1) Older Americans' Month; (2) Day of Prayer
Mayor Higgins read the "Older Americans' Month" proclamation which was received with thanks from
Ms. Marie Raschko-Sokol, who commented about the important of senior housing. Mayor Higgins then
read the "Day of Prayer" proclamation which was received with thanks from Anthony Carollo.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comment.
Sean Bennington, Pullman, WA: spoke concerning the issue of raising minimum wage; said people need
to make a stand and take back the right to be compensated; said Council seeks to undercut what little people
have left and bring their class to its knees, forcing a bidding war; said a right-to-work state is no right to a
livelihood, only a right to wage slavery.
Rick Evans, Spokane Valley: said the reason people are here today is not about unions and labor, but about
people of Spokane Valley and the state; said Council leaders talk about a right to work but not about the
people working — the nurses, first responders, people who build roads; said this should be about the best
interest of our working families and legislation to do otherwise is petty and vindictive politics at best; that
attacking workers' rights further erodes the working class; said there are certain Councilmembers who say
we need a right-to-work to compete with Idaho, and he said that Idaho is bad role model; Idaho is among
the bottom ten states for average personal and household income; and Idaho has the 1 1th highest suicide
rate; right-to-work means poverty, and he asked if it is Council's vision to have more workers out of work.
Dmitri Iglitzin- read his letter to Councilmembers (distributed to Council by the Clerk), explaining that he
writes on behalf of the Washington and Northern Idaho District Council of Laborers, about a very serious
concern dealing with a proposal made at the City Council's March 15, 2016 Special Council meeting; that
during that meeting a Councilmember made a statement indicating that it was his hope that the Spokane
Valley City Council would focus its efforts related to its state "legislative agenda" on among other things,
Washington State becoming a right-to-work state; as stated in the letter, he said he wants to make Council
aware that advocating for or against possible state legislative is circumscribed by state law RCW
42.17A.555 which provides that "no elective official may use or authorize the use of public facilities for
the purpose of promoting or opposing any ballot proposition" and similarly, that "no public funds may be
used to lobby the state legislature in support or opposition to any measure."
Scott Maclay: said he agrees with the previous speaker about not wanting to become a right-to-work state
as we need the strength of the unions to provide stability and consistency; said he wants to encourage
Council to "steer the course" as this is long overdue; and that the City Government of Spokane Valley is
the only one that counts.
Brad Cederbloom, Rathdrum, Idaho: spoke about the idea of comparing jobs with Idaho; said that is not a
good idea; that Idaho is now declared a low-wage state and the Governor is trying to correct that; said the
Department of Labor indicates that more trained workers are needed, but the problem is the targeted ages
of 25-35 are leaving the state for better paying jobs like those found in Washington.
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-26-2016 Page 2 of 6
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Jennie Willardson, Spokane Valley: she extended thanks to former Councilmembers Hafner and Grafos for
their service and leadership, and said it is sad to see them both resign; concerning the topic of right-to-work,
said it is a waste of taxpayer money for Council to lobby for the Orwellian idea of right-to-work; said it is
a right to work for less than slave wages; said Council should be supporting unions and benefits for workers
so people have medical, retirement and a higher minimum wage; and so both parents don't have to work;
she said that right-to-work is anti -family and further burdens the welfare and food stamp systems.
Emma Lynn Jarvis, Spokane Valley: said right-to-work is bad; don't kill the union; less wages means more
can't afford homes.
Ron Lynch, Loon Lake, Wa: asked why Council would deny their citizens the ability to raise their families;
concerning L&I — people die and get hurt on the job, and he asked why would you cut L&I for the people
working hard; don't deny the citizens their rights.
Kyle Beievle, Coeur d'Alene: said right to work passed thirty years ago in Idaho; that he was working under
a collective bargaining agreement and within a few years of right-to-work, jobs dried up and people had to
leave the area for employment purposes; said it has gone downhill for hard working people; concerning
education, Idaho is 47th or 48th worst; and the per capital Idaho pays more people minimum wage than any
other state and said right-to-work contributed to all that; he asked why would you want to be in competition
with Idaho? What are you thinking? He said young people are working two to three jobs because they can't
find full time employment; said right-to-work doesn't help; he implored Council to do their homework;
said Idaho is envious of Washington.
Mary Pollard, Spokane Valley: read most of her written comments; said she was alarmed to hear that
Council legislative goals included right-to-work, reform of L&I, and reducing B&O tax; said these are not
City issues and abuse the citizen's trust; said Council has overlooked the human rights/justice issues unions
provide; that workers are more than an item on a cost/profit balance sheet; it is shameful to cheapen life by
reducing human worth to a utilitarian contribution as economic development; right to work does not benefit
the economy; for every $1 million in wage cuts to workers the economy loses $850,000 and 6 jobs; lowering
the bar creates a low skill workforce without a way to work their way out of the hole right-to-work creates.
James Pollard, Spokane Valley: said that since this City's incorporation, the Spokane Valley staff worked
hard to be expedient and offering positive experiences at public meetings; they have established a positive
image of our City; said it is interesting how after Council executives give themselves a Cadillac health
policy, they look at ridding the staff of a livable wage, decent health coverage, and their union
representation; said it has even been stated we need to be a right-to-work state like Idaho; said have you
ever noticed all the cars driving from Idaho to Spokane in the morning; an executive who hated unions who
he personally knew, once stated that a working man is like a tool, when he's worn out you simply replace
him; he attempted to abolish his union labor by using unqualified cheaper tools so to speak, to do
mechanical and electrical maintenance; within a few months so much major damage had been done that it
drastically affected the company's revenue and future; it was estimated that the company would hemorrhage
money to correct the damage his cheaper tools had done; union craftsmen were brought in and quickly
assessed and repaired mechanical problems enough to operate the machines and generate revenue; they
later suggested electrical modifications which the company's engineers determined would save roughly a
quarter -million dollars and be more effective than the original designs; this executive still dislikes unions;
however, he found by offering his employees a livable wage, decent benefits and a representative voice, his
business prospered.
Ken Stout, Spokane Valley: extended thanks for the proclamation recognizing people over sixty; said he is
a truck driver, a working man, and a Teamster; that right-to-work states have lower wages, lower health
insurance coverage, higher poverty rates, and higher infant mortality; don't let Washington become a right-
to-work state like Idaho; said he works for the Spokane branch of World Wide Corporation, and the Nampa,
Idaho branch can't keep workers as they leave for the higher paying jobs.
Wayne Frost, Liberty Lake: said he has been a long time participant in business and had a personal interest
in Spokane Valley; that he came here to listen to the discussion about tiny homes; said he just came from
the dedication of the third phase of the Spokane Valley Tech and how wonderful it was so see so many in
attendance; said that CSL International is conducting interviews this week and that some staff and
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-26-2016 Page 3 of 6
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
councilmembers will be in attendance in association with the economic impact to the HUB sportsplex and
Plantes Ferry facilities; he thanked Council for involvement with the tourism study.
Shaunie Wheeler: said she represents the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who represent
about 7,000 members within Washington and Idaho, concerning the right to work, said their members
perform dangerous jobs working with high voltage electricity; said Washington's fatality rate is 40% below
most states; said the workers work very hard providing a service to the public and they want the workers to
go home safe; and she implored Council not to pass right-to-work legislation.
Clyde Smith, Spokane Valley: said he has really strong feelings on this right-to-work issue; in 2000 a
"bunch of smart guys behind tall desks" told us to put in free -trade agreements as they will save us and we
will gain jobs; he said that didn't work out very well; said we had the biggest recession yet in 2008, and the
government decided to deregulate; they deregulated the banks, the meat packing industry, water regulations;
said there can't be a blanket policy on these types of issues; said he thinks right to work is just building on
China and Mexico where wages have gone down and workers haven't had a raise in thirty years; said we
have to protect the workers and right to work should not exist in any state as it is criminal.
A. Motion Consideration: [added item] Proposed Settlement with Mike Jackson
City Attorney Driskell gave a brief recap on the potential settlement with Mr. Jackson, and said that the
lump sum settlement is $411,115.66 plus there is one trailing issue regarding payment for sick pay, which
will be submitted to and determined by the arbitrator. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and
seconded that Council approve the proposed settlement with Mike Jackson as set forth in the Separation
and Release Agreement between Mike Jackson and the City of Spokane Valley. Mayor Higgins invited
public comment.
Sean Bennington, Pullman: mentioned the severance package of over $400,000; and chided Council for
talking about union workers and competing for the lowest possible wage.
Scott Maclay, Spokane Valley: said he thought the City Manager worked at Council's discretion; said
Council will take a serious beating over that $400,000; he requested Council deny that as too much.
Mary Pollard, Spokane Valley: she encouraged Council give him 100% of his sick pay and said she would
give him more as the firing of Mr. Jackson was frivolous and unnecessary; said too bad Council couldn't
communicate with him, instead there is a big mystery; she suggested Council treat others with dignity and
respect and said she wishes we could give him more as it was so unjust.
Tony Lazanis: said he thinks $400,000 is a lot of money for the taxpayers to pay and Council shouldn't
approve it; said he was making a good salary and it is Council's prerogative to have whoever they want as
city manager; said he spoke previously and mentioned that the former city manager was paid $500,000 but
was told by Mr. Driskell that the figure was $300,000; said that is a lot of money.
Jennie Willardson, Spokane Valley: said she is glad to see this is coming to a settlement and she is sorry
that Council let such a good man go as that is a waste of taxpayers' money as he was one of the best city
managers and she doesn't know if Council will ever find someone as good.
James Pollard, Spokane Valley: said it should be agreed upon and give it to him; that apparently money is
not too important since Council recently gave $225,000 away to Rockford.
Ken Stout, Spokane Valley: said he never knew Mike Jackson, but heard nothing but good things; and what
bothers him most is the lack of clarity when we ask why he was he let go, there is no answer.
Clyde Smith: suggested Council take the $400,000 settlement.
There were no further public comments. Vote by acclamation to approve the settlement: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
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
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-26-2016 Page 4 of 6
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
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
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent
Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-004, Uncovered Loads — Erik Lamb
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded
to approve Ordinance 16-004 adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 7.10 relating to the
transportation of waste materials. City Legal Intern Hatch explained that the only change from the first
reading was having the penalty as a class 3 civil infraction. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no
comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-006 Annual Comp Plan Amendment — Karen Kendall
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded
to advance Ordinance 16-006 adopting Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA 2016-0001 to a second
reading. Planner Kendall explained the privately initiated comp plan amendment as she had done in the
past, that all parcels would be changed from low density to light industrial, and that all parcels are owned
by Avista. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In
Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-007 Zoning Map Amendment — Karen Kendall
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded
to advance Ordinance 16-007 adopting amendment to official zoning map for CPA 2016-0001 to a second
reading. Ms. Kendall explained that this is the accompanying ordinance to the previous agenda item, which
would officially change the zoning map. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were
offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were offered.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
5. City Hall Bid — Eric Guth
Public Works Director Guth said that the bids were opened last Thursday and that nine bids were submitted,
all within budget. Mr. Guth went over the bid tabulation showing Meridian Construction as the apparent
lowest, responsive bidder. Mr. Guth said staff wanted to give Council these results tonight as an opportunity
to ask any questions; he said this will be brought back for a motion at the special 5:00 p.m. May 3 Council
meeting, at which time Mr. Calhoun and Ms. Taylor will have more information on the bonding issue. In
response to Councilmember Wood's question about why alternate 1 showed up as "white" on the
spreadsheet and Mr. Guth explained that alternative 1 is for a half basement and alternate 2 is for a full
basement, and that only the full basement figures were included in the totals, otherwise the totals would
have incorrectly accounted for a basement and a half. At Councilmember Gothmann's suggestion, Mr.
Calhoun said the May 3 figures will also show the engineer's estimate.
Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:25 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
6. Comprehensive Plan, Tiny Homes — Micki Harnois
Planner Harnois explained that staff has compiled information regarding information on "tiny houses"
including regulations and examples. She said that the Spokane Valley Municipal Code addresses RV's,
Accessory Dwelling Units, and park model homes, but tiny homes and tiny home communities, along with
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-26-2016 Page 5 of 6
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
cottage housing were not considered during the 2008 development regulations update. She gave some
background information on the rationale for having tiny homes, as noted in her accompanying
memorandum. Ms. Harnois mentioned the demographics of those who might seek alternative housing,
showed some examples of the homes and residential areas, mentioned new code (Washington
Administrative Code) exemptions for indigent housing guidelines, and mentioned possible next steps.
Councilmember Pace said he hopes to see the comp plan have some zoning and development regulations
to allow for all the different options of tiny homes; Councilmember Gothmann mentioned the idea of having
these homes or parks near bus lines and/or facilities like grocery stores; Councilmember Wood said he likes
the concept as well as the idea of having overlays so as not to change the underlying zone; and Deputy
Mayor Woodard said he supports all these options along with having flexibility as housing costs are an
issue. Deputy Mayor Woodard also mentioned some of the regulations should be up to the developer; and
that we need to be able to give options to churches for senior housing. Councilmember Pace said he is not
in favor of having any housing subsidizes or having incentives for low rent or low purchase price. Several
Councilmembers said they would like to see this concept pursued.
7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins
Councilmember Gothmann said that during the March 22 meeting, it was asked that the topic of an
independent investigation on the firing of the city manager be scheduled at an upcoming meeting, and that
it was determined to delay that until after the matter had been settled; and he therefore requested that the
issue be placed on an upcoming agenda other than just on the "pending" list. Deputy Mayor Woodard
suggested that at the earliest, Council wait another week as there are other issues that are time sensitive, but
that he had no problem in having discussions later to see what can be achieved. Mr. Calhoun said that can
be discussed at Monday's agenda meeting. Mayor Higgins mentioned the replacement of the two council
vacancies, and City Clerk Bainbridge explained that the ad would be in the papers this weekend with an
application deadline of May 13, interviews tentatively set for June 11, with appointments tentatively
scheduled for the June 28 Council meeting. There were no objections.
8. Department Monthly Reports
These reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
Mr. Calhoun had no comments.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 04-26-2016 Page 6 of 6
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Attendance:
Councilmembers:
Rod Higgins, Mayor
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Sam Wood, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Council Pro Tem
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Special Meeting
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Staff:
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director
John Hohman, Comm & Eco. Dev Director
Steve Worley, Cap. Improvement Program Mgr.
Eric Guth, Public Works Director
Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present.
Agenda Topic: Motion Consideration:
City Hall Bid Award — Steve Worley, Eric Guth, Mark Calhoun, Chelsie Taylor
Director Guth explained that tonight's motion is for the bid award for the construction of the new city hall;
as mentioned last week, he explained that there were nine bidders, shown on the bid tabulation along with
the engineer's estimate; said that Meridian Construction, Inc. was the low bidder and staff did a reference
check on some of their past projects. Mr. Guth said he is pleased to report after due diligence, staff found
nothing negative for this contractor; said the low base bid was $8,965,000, and the highest of the other eight
bidders was $10,489,000; so the bids were pretty tight. Mr. Guth mentioned the spreadsheet shown on the
screen, which shows the nine alternates to the base design, with alternate #6 omitted, which was the
electronic access control system, which was included in the base bid. Mr. Guth also noted that sales tax for
the bid amounts to $885,242.40, so a grand total of base bid with all alternates is $11,060,442.40; and said
that he and Deputy City Manager Calhoun and Finance Director Taylor will be working with that
spreadsheet as Council determines what, if any, alternates to exclude. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if we
have any experience with the subcontractors. Mr. Guth said he received some feedback on some of their
subcontractors, but wasn't sure of the particulars.
Discussion turned to the alternates and Council viewed and discussed some of the renderings and associated
costs of the ceiling in the council chambers and lobby, and the top of the guardrails; Council also discussed
alternate #7, the steel fencing; after which Deputy Mayor Woodard asked Ms. Taylor to show what the
figures would be if alternates 4, 5, 7 and 8 were eliminated. Ms. Taylor said that would bring Meridian's
total to $10,590,315. That exercise was repeated with alternate 7 added back in. There was also discussion
among Council about alternate #10, what it might cost to eliminate those poles, and of the idea of having a
separate contract for that work. Mr. Calhoun said the underground cost is about $60,000 and alternate 10
would provide the infrastructure for the undergrounding of utilities. The full versus the partial basement
was also discussed with Council agreeing that the cost is so economical, that it would be prudent to include
the full basement. Councilmember Pace added that he agrees with a full basement but not for future
expansion of government; and said a future project might include walling off part of the basement and
partnering with the Arts Council to have an art gallery.
Council Minutes: 05-03-2016 Page 1 of 2
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the City Hall construction contract to
Meridian Construction, Inc., as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in the amount of $10,590,315,
which includes the base bid and alternates 2, 3, 9 and 10 and sales tax, and authorize the Deputy City
Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Mr.
Clyde Smith, Spokane Valley: asked some questions about the square footage of the basement and whether
the price and quality of the products were considered. Mr. Hohman said the square footage is about twelve
to fourteen thousand square feet; and Mr. Calhoun said the products were specced out in the plans. There
were no further comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion passed.
Discussion turned to the undergrounding wiring and removal of the poles. It was moved by Deputy Mayor
Woodard and seconded to authorize the Deputy City Manager to negotiate the undergrounding wiring and
removal of the poles as per Modern Electric, and to go ahead and contract with Modern up to $100,000 as
necessary to get the undergrounding done. Mayor Higgins invited public comments; no comments were
offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion passed.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 5:33 p.m.
ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Minutes: 05-03-2016 Page 2 of 2
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley Special Joint Meeting
Spokane Valley City Council and
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Attendance:
Councilmembers:
Rod Higgins, Mayor
Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor
Ed Pace, Councilmember
Sam Wood, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Council Pro Tem
Planning Commissioners:
Heather Graham, Chair
Joe Stoy, Vice -Chair
Kevin Anderson, Commissioner
James Johnson, Commissioner
Timothy Kelley, Commissioner
Michael Philips, Commissioner
Suzanne Stathos, Commissioner
Staff:
Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
John Hohman, Comm & Eco. Dev Director
Mike Basinger, Eco. Development Coordinator
Chaz Bates, Eco. Development Specialist
Gabe Gallinger, Senior Engineer
Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Others in Attendance:
Doug McIntyre, Van Ness Feldman
Elliot Weiss, Community Attributes, Inc.
Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the City Council roll; all Councilmembers were present.
Commission Secretary Horton called the Commission roll; all Commissioners were present.
Agenda Topic: Comprehensive Plan Review
Purpose Statement: The City Council and Planning Commission will participate in an interactive discussion
concerning land use alternatives and goals and policies for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The input
being sought will help City staff and the consultant team refine the land use alternatives and the goal and
policy focus areas. Councilmembers and Commissioners will rotate around three stations, facilitated by
staff and consultants, to help determine proposed land use alternatives; they will be asked to consider the
options for City growth and record their input on a worksheet. The Councilmembers and Commissioners
were seated at three tables.
Community and Economic Development Director Hohman welcomed everyone to the meeting; said the
purpose of tonight's meeting is to discuss some specifics about goals and policies and land use; said the
public is welcome but there will not be any public participation; said we will be focusing on some work to
move forward to create a draft document and staff seeks input from the Council and Commissioners; that
input will be collected, processed, and built into future steps in this effort; said this project started November
2014 and quite a lot of work was accomplished this year including visioning and public meetings; said we
had to take some time out for technical information, but we now have a defensible, but not completely
official number for the population allocation and we will be using that to move forward to try to update the
plan, which must be completed prior to June 30, 2017. Mr. Hohman said Economic Development
Coordinator Basinger will be directing tonight's proceedings and taking the lead on this project, and our
consultants will be giving a presentation tonight as well.
Mr. Basinger explained that tonight's objective is to get some direction; that we heard from the community
during several workshops, and the information in tonight's exercises includes input from the community,
Jt Council Minutes: 05-03-2016 Page 1 of 2
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
and Council and Commissioners will be asked to rate those issues; said although our Comprehensive Plan
must meet the GMA (Growth Management Act) requirements, that is not the purpose of tonight's meeting.
Mr. Basinger said that tonight we will work on how we'd like our community to grow, the vision of the
community, what are the important things, and are we on the right track.
Mr. Doug McIntyre with Van Ness Feldman started the PowerPoint presentation explaining that once
completed, this Comp Plan will be the City's official statement of how it wants to grow over the next twenty
years; said the Plan is amended annually and there are GMA requirements to consider; said this detailed
review of the Plan is required every eight years which allows us to comply with changes in the GMA and
to respond to change in land use; said we want to determine what are the trends and how to address that in
the official policy document; said we are working to hit that June 30, 2017 deadline while making progress
in the right manner. As shown in his PowerPoint, Mr. McIntyre mentioned some factors to consider as well
as SEPA (Sate Environmental Protection Act) requirements.
Mr. Elliot Weiss of Community Attributes, Inc., continued through the PowerPoint explaining the
connection to economic development, mentioned the Retail and Tourism Studies; said we have heard from
numerous stakeholders about economic development and community priorities, and tonight is a great
opportunity to splice in some of the work done for policy, infrastructure, image & identity, assets, centers,
and catalysts, as shown on the slide. He explained that he, Mr. Mclntrye and Mr. Basinger will be at one
of the three tables to facilitate conversation; said the worksheets are pretty clear; with the object to have
Council and Commissioners rate some ideas for focus areas within the Comp Plan, then move on to goals
and policies; then come back and determine what was done well and what needs more work; and that one
of the objectives for tonight is to help form options of what is most important.
Mr. Hohman said that we have been actively working on the Comp Plan and this is the twelfth visit since
the first of the year; that we talked about the Retail and Tourism studies, and about water districts; that the
Planning Commission is a little behind as they were working on marijuana issues; but the intent is to bring
all those presentations forward to them as well.
The three facilitators went to each table and the discussions began. After a designated time, members of the
tables rotated to a different table and further discussion ensued. Once everyone had been at each table, Mr.
Basinger thanked everyone for coming out tonight; and said the next steps include gathering the information
and compiling that into something to start the draft moving for the land use map and policies and goals.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Jt Council Minutes: 05-03-2016 Page 2 of 2
Approved by Council:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 10, 2016
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ['admin. report
Department Director Approval:
® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance #16-005 - Issuance of 2016 Limited Tax
General Obligation (LTGO) Bonds for the Purpose of Constructing a New City Hall Building.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.40, 35.37, 39.36, and 39.46; Variety of Federal tax
and securities laws.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: An Administrative Report on this topic was delivered
to Council on March 22, 2016, and at the April 19, 2016 Council meeting, Council approved a
motion to advance Ordinance #16-005 to a second reading.
BACKGROUND:
Developing options for a permanent City Hall building has been a Council budget and economic
development goal for the past several years and the process over the past year is summarized
in the bullet points below:
• In early 2015 the City closed on a 3.38 acre parcel at the former University City Mall site at a
total cost of approximately $1,160,000.
• At the February 17, 2015 Council workshop, staff discussed the selection process for
architectural firms to design the building.
• At the March 17, 2015 Council meeting staff updated the Council on the selected design firm
and discussed the draft professional services agreement for the project.
• At the March 24, 2015 meeting, the Council authorized the City Manager to contract with
Architects West to design the building at a total contract price of $996,700.
• The architect team conducted a public hearing on May 6, 2015 and met with
Councilmembers and staff to finalize the program and design and discuss design
parameters for the building.
• The project team updated the Council on the design process and displayed two potential
concepts on September 15, 2015. Council indicated a preference for one of the concepts
which was approved on September 29, 2015.
• Interior color and material options were discussed on November 18, 2015 and a general
heating and cooling discussion was held on December 1, 2015.
• A general discussion on interior and exterior details occurred on December 29, 2015 and a
status update was given on January 19, 2016 and February 2, 2016.
• On February 16, 2016, staff and the project architect provided a detailed review of the
construction plan set and the specification documents. Final floorplans, exterior and interior
details, materials, and site layout were discussed.
• On February 23, 2016 Council approved the final City Hall plans and authorized the City
Manager to proceed with the bid process.
• The project went out to bid on March 18, 2016 and the bid opening was held on April 21,
2016.
• On May 3, 2016, Council awarded the bid to Meridian Construction at a total cost of
$10,590,315 including sales tax.
Total cost of the project is anticipated to be $14,148,281 including the Meridian Construction
contract, related sales tax, land acquisition, design services provided by Architects West, a
Page 1 of 4
variety of miscellaneous services incurred by or committed to in the future as well as the future
acquisition of furnishings. Of the total project cost, $6.3 million will be covered with cash set
aside specifically for this purpose plus an additional $7,848,281 in net limited tax general
obligation bond (LTGO) proceeds that will be repaid over a 30 -year period in roughly equal
annual installments.
Additional costs that will be borne by the City are those to replace the broadcasting equipment
located in the Council chambers and television studio including cameras, tricaster, additional
television screens and a variety of other equipment. The cost of these items will be financed
through the use of PEG funds we have set aside for this purpose and these will be included in
the 2017 Budget in PEG Fund #107.
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, and further authorizing the City
Manager to execute all other necessary documents to issue the 2016 LTGO Bonds. Other
documents include, but are not limited to the "official statement" (which can be thought of as the
prospectus) that details the 2016 LTGO Bonds to potential investors, the bond purchase
contract wherein the City will agree to sell the 2016 LTGO Bonds to the underwriter, and other
necessary securities and tax documents.
When issuing municipal bonds the expertise of a number of individuals is required including:
1. Bond Counsel, who renders an opinion on the validity of the bonds, the security and source
of payment for the bonds, and whether and to what extent interest on the bonds is
excludable from federal income taxation. The opinion of bond counsel provides assurance
both to issuers and to investors who purchase the bonds that all legal and tax requirements
relevant to the matters covered by the opinion are met. Bond counsel also prepares the
bond ordinance. The City has selected the Pacifica Law Group to represent the City as
bond counsel.
2. The Financial Advisor, who advises the City on certain financial matters related to bond
issuance and, under Federal securities laws, has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests
of the City. The Financial Advisor provides ongoing advice with respect to the structure and
timing of the bond issue, reviews documents for financial aspects (such as sale parameters),
and assists the City with receiving a rating for the bonds. For this issue the Financial
Advisor is also preparing the City's preliminary and final official statements. The Financial
Advisor works with the Bond Underwriter on the day of pricing to ensure that the rates
proposed by the Underwriter are fair and reasonable given the bond market. The City has
selected Piper Jaffray as the financial advisor.
3. The Bond Underwriter, who markets the City's bonds to potential investors as well as
provides ideas and suggestions with respect to structure and timing of the bond issue. The
Bond Underwriter ultimately purchases the City's bonds from the City pursuant to a bond
purchase contract at an arm's-length commercial transaction and resells the bonds to
investors. Since the Bond Underwriter is purchasing the City's bonds, it does not have a
fiduciary duty to the City. The City has selected D.A. Davidson as underwriter.
Each of the participants are paid only in the event the 2016 LTGO Bonds are issued and
payment is made from the proceeds of the Bonds, so the costs for such services do not impact
the City's General Fund.
The attached Bond Ordinance authorizes the issuance of the 2016 LTGO Bonds, which will be
issued as limited tax general obligations of the City, and payable from available funds of the City
and non-voter approved property taxes. The full faith, credit and resources of the City will be
pledged for the annual levy and collection of such taxes and for the prompt payment of the
principal of and interest on the 2016 LTGO Bonds when due.
Page 2 of 4
The Bond Ordinance also states the authorized use of proceeds of the 2016 LTGO Bonds (to
finance a portion of the New City Hall Building and to pay costs of issuance for the Bonds), sets
forth covenants with respect to maintaining tax exempt status and covenants with regard to
ongoing annual reporting to satisfy Federal securities laws, authorizes the City Manager to
approve the preliminary and final official statements on behalf of the City, and provides for the
source of payment and security for the 2016 LTGO Bonds.
By approving the Ordinance #16-005, the Council authorizes the City Manager to approve the
final terms of the 2016 LTGO Bonds and to sign the bond purchase contract with the Bond
Underwriter, subject to limitations contained in the Bond Ordinance. As a result, approval of the
Bond Ordinance is the only official action that the Council will need to take to authorize the
issuance and sale of the 2016 LTGO Bonds. Section 12 of the Bond Ordinance authorizes the
City Manager to approve the final interest rates, aggregate principal amount and principal
amounts of each maturity, redemption rights and the sale of the 2016 LTGO Bonds to the Bond
Underwriter so long as:
(1) the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds does not exceed $8,100,000,
(2) the final maturity date for the Bonds is no later than December 1, 2045,
(3) the aggregate purchase price for the Bonds shall not be less than 98% of the aggregate
stated principal amount of the Bonds, excluding any original issue discount, and
(4) the true interest cost for the Bonds (in the aggregate) does not exceed 4.50%.
Subject to these sale parameters, the City Manager is authorized to execute the bond purchase
contract with the Bond Underwriter. After the sale of the 2016 LTGO Bonds and execution of
the bond purchase contract, the City Manager will provide a report to Council describing the
final terms of the Bonds. The delegated authority to approve the 2016 LTGO Bond terms will
expire 120 days after the effective date of the Bond Ordinance. If the 2016 LTGO Bonds cannot
be sold (e.g. a bond purchase contract signed) within these parameters or within this timeframe,
the 2016 LTGO Bonds will not be sold and additional Council action will need to be taken to
proceed.
Finally, included in the packet is a draft of the preliminary Official Statement (POS) that is
substantially in the form it will be for distribution to investors. Federal securities law requires
that the City, including the Council, ensure that the POS does not contain any untrue statement
of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to the make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Council must
read through the POS and provide staff any comments on information in the POS that it
believes is an untrue statement of material fact or omitted material facts that should be included
in order to make the statements in the POS not misleading. Such comments may be provided
prior to the Council meeting, but must be made prior to adoption of Ordinance #16-005. Please
note that although the POS is in substantially complete form, it has not been finalized and other
minor changes may be made prior to posting for investor distribution. Staff will be available to
discuss any questions regarding the POS and the federal law requirements related to Council's
review of the POS at the Council meeting on Tuesday, May 10.
OPTIONS: At this point Council has committed to this project through the acquisition of land, a
contract with Architects West for design services and a construction bid award to Meridian
Construction. To complete the financing package necessary to pay for each of the project
elements approval of this ordinance is necessary.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve Ordinance #16-005 as drafted.
Page 3 of 4
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Costs related to the bond issue would be folded into the
2016 LTGO Bond issue amount and consequently the City would incur no out-of-pocket
expenses. Issue related expenses will primarily include:
• Underwriter fee (D.A. Davidson)
• Bond counsel (Pacifica)
• Financial advisor (Piper Jaffray)
• Bond rating (Moody's)
The City Hall construction project was not included in the 2016 Budget. Upon approval of this
ordinance, staff will come forward with a budget amendment to reflect the bond issue and
related construction costs.
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun and Erik Lamb
ATTACHMENTS:
• Bond Ordinance
• Preliminary Official Statement
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 16-005
LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, 2016
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS OF THE CITY IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $8,100,000, TO FINANCE
COSTS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPPING
AND FURNISHING OF A NEW CITY HALL FACILITY AND
TO PAY COSTS OF ISSUING THE BONDS; PROVIDING
THE FORM, TERMS AND COVENANTS OF THE BONDS;
PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDS
OF SALE OF THE BONDS; DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO
APPROVE THE FINAL TERMS OF THE BONDS; AND
PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING
THERETO.
PASSED MAY 10, 2016
PREPARED BY:
PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP
Seattle, Washington
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 16-005
TABLE OF CONTENTS*
Page
Section 1. Definitions and Interpretation of Terms 2
Section 2. Authorization of the Project 4
Section 3. Authorization of Bonds and Bond Details 5
Section 4. Registration, Exchange and Payments 5
Section 5. Redemption Prior to Maturity and Purchase of Bonds 7
Section 6. Form of Bonds 10
Section 7. Execution of Bonds 12
Section 8. Application of Bond Proceeds 12
Section 9. Tax Covenants 13
Section 10. Debt Service Fund and Provision for Tax Levy Payments 14
Section 11. Defeasance 14
Section 12. Sale of Bonds 15
Section 13. Preliminary and Final Official Statements 16
Section 14. Undertaking to Provide Ongoing Disclosure 16
Section 15. Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds 19
Section 16. Severability; Ratification 19
Section 17. Effective Date 20
* This Table of Contents is provided for convenience only and is not a part of this Ordinance.
-i-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
05/05/16
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 16-005
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF LIMITED TAX GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY IN THE
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO
EXCEED $8,100,000, TO FINANCE COSTS RELATED TO
THE CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPPING AND FURNISHING
OF A NEW CITY HALL FACILITY AND TO PAY COSTS
OF ISSUING THE BONDS; PROVIDING THE FORM,
TERMS AND COVENANTS OF THE BONDS;
PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE
PROCEEDS OF SALE OF THE BONDS; DELEGATING
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE FINAL TERMS OF
THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS
RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington
(the "City"), a noncharter code city governed by the provisions of chapter 35A.13 of the Revised
Code of Washington (the "RCW"), has deemed it in the best interest of the City that the City
construct, equip and furnish a new City Hall facility (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Washington State law to issue limited tax general
obligation bonds to pay costs of the Project; and
WHEREAS, after due consideration the Council has determined that it is in the best
interest of the City to authorize the issuance and sale of limited tax general obligation bonds to
pay a portion of the costs of the Project and to pay costs of issuance for the bonds, as set forth
herein; and
WHEREAS, this Council wishes to delegate authority to the City Manager, or his or her
designee (the "Designated Representative"), for a limited time, to approve the interest rates,
maturity dates, redemption terms and principal maturities for the bonds within the parameters set
by this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City expects to receive a proposal from D.A. Davidson & Co.
(the "Underwriter") and now desires to issue and sell the bonds to the Underwriter as set forth
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows:
Section 1. Definitions and Interpretation of Terms.
(a) Definitions. As used in this Ordinance, the following words shall have the
following meanings:
Beneficial Owner means any person that has or shares the power, directly or indirectly, to
make investment decisions concerning ownership of any Bonds (including persons holding
Bonds through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries).
Bond Counsel means Pacifica Law Group LLP or an attorney at law or a firm of
attorneys, selected by the City, of nationally recognized standing in matters pertaining to the tax
exempt nature of interest on bonds issued by states and their political subdivisions.
Bond Purchase Contract means the contract for the purchase of the Bonds between the
Underwriter and the City, executed pursuant to Section 12 of this Ordinance.
Bond Register means the registration books showing the name, address and tax
identification number of each Registered Owner of the Bonds, maintained pursuant to
Section 149(a) of the Code.
Bond Registrar means, initially, the fiscal agent of the State of Washington, for the
purposes of registering and authenticating the Bonds, maintaining the Bond Register, effecting
transfer of ownership of the Bonds and paying interest on and principal of the Bonds.
Bonds mean the City's Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2016, authorized to be
issued pursuant to this Ordinance in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $8,100,000.
City means the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Washington.
City Clerk means the duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City or the successor to
the duties of that office.
City Manager means the duly appointed and acting City Manager, including anyone
acting in such capacity for the position, including but not limited to a Deputy City Manager or
Interim City Manager, or the successor to the duties of that office.
Closing means the date of delivery of the Bonds to the Underwriter.
Code means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect on the date of issuance of the
Bonds or (except as otherwise referenced herein) as it may be amended to apply to obligations
issued on the date of issuance of the Bonds, together with applicable proposed, temporary and
final regulations promulgated, and applicable official public guidance published, under the Code.
Commission means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
-2-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
Council or City Council means the Spokane Valley City Council, as the general
legislative body of the City as the same is duly and regularly constituted from time to time.
Debt Service Fund means the City's LTGO Debt Service Fund and the accounts
contained therein, as further provided pursuant to Section 10 of this Ordinance.
Designated Representative means the City Manager, or his or her designee. The
signature of the Designated Representative shall be sufficient to bind the City.
DTC means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, a limited purpose
trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York, as depository for the Bonds
pursuant to Section 4 of this Ordinance.
Fair Market Value means the price at which a willing buyer would purchase the
investment from a willing seller in a bona fide, arm's length transaction (determined as of the
date the contract to purchase or sell the investment becomes binding) if the investment is traded
on an established securities market (within the meaning of Section 1273 of the Code) and,
otherwise, the term "Fair Market Value" means the acquisition price in a bona fide arm's length
transaction (as referenced above) if (i) the investment is a certificate of deposit that is acquired in
accordance with applicable regulations under the Code, (ii) the investment is an agreement with
specifically negotiated withdrawal or reinvestment provisions and a specifically negotiated
interest rate (for example, a guaranteed investment contract, a forward supply contract or other
investment agreement) that is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations under the Code,
(iii) the investment is a United States Treasury Security --State and Local Government Series that
is acquired in accordance with applicable regulations of the United States Bureau of Public Debt,
or (iv) any commingled investment fund in which the City and related parties do not own more
than a 10% beneficial interest therein if the return paid by the fund is without regard to the source
of the investment. To the extent required by the applicable regulations under the Code, the term
"investment" shall include a hedge.
Federal Tax Certificate means the certificate executed by the Designated Representative
or the Finance Director setting forth the requirements of the Code for maintaining the tax
exemption of interest on the Bonds to be dated as of the date of Closing, and attachments thereto.
Finance Director means the Finance Director of the City or the successor to such officer.
Government Obligations means those obligations now or hereafter defined as such in
chapter 39.53 RCW, as this chapter may be hereafter amended or restated.
Letter of Representations means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations given by
the City to DTC, as amended from time to time.
Mayor means the duly appointed and acting Mayor of the City or the successor to the
duties of that office.
MSRB means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board or any successors to its
functions.
-3-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
Official Statement means the disclosure documents prepared and delivered in connection
with the issuance of the Bonds.
Project means constructing, equipping and furnishing a new City Hall facility.
Project Account means the account created pursuant to Section 8 of this Ordinance.
Registered Owner means the person named as the registered owner of a Bond in the Bond
Register. For so long as the Bonds are held in book -entry only form, DTC or its nominee shall
be deemed to be the sole Registered Owner.
Rule means the Commission's Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as the same may be amended from time to time.
Underwriter means D.A. Davidson & Co., or its successors.
(b) Interpretation. In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) The terms "hereby," "hereof," "hereto," "herein, "hereunder" and any
similar terms, as used in this Ordinance, refer to this Ordinance as a whole and not to any
particular article, section, subdivision or clause hereof, and the term "hereafter" shall mean after,
and the term "heretofore" shall mean before, the date of this Ordinance;
(2) Words of the masculine gender shall mean and include correlative words
of the feminine and neuter genders and words importing the singular number shall mean and
include the plural number and vice versa;
(3) Words importing persons shall include firms, associations, partnerships
(including limited partnerships), trusts, corporations and other legal entities, including public
bodies, as well as natural persons;
(4) Any headings preceding the text of the several articles and sections of this
Ordinance, and any table of contents or marginal notes appended to copies hereof, shall be solely
for convenience of reference and shall not constitute a part of this Ordinance, nor shall they affect
its meaning, construction or effect; and
(5) All references herein to "articles," "sections" and other subdivisions or
clauses are to the corresponding articles, sections, subdivisions or clauses hereof.
Section 2. Authorization of the Project. The Bonds are being issued to finance costs
related to Project and to pay costs of issuance for the Bonds. The cost of all necessary design,
architectural, engineering, and other consulting services, inspection and testing, administrative
and relocation expenses, on and off-site utilities, related improvements and other costs incurred
in connection with the Project shall be deemed a part of the costs of the Project. The Project
shall be complete with all necessary furniture, equipment and appurtenances. Any remaining
costs of the Project shall be paid from other City funds legally available for such purposes.
-4-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
Section 3. Authorization of Bonds and Bond Details. For the purpose of paying the
costs of the Project and paying costs of issuance of the Bonds, the City shall issue and sell its
limited tax general obligation bonds in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed
$8,100,000 (the "Bonds") as set forth herein.
The Bonds shall be general obligations of the City, shall be designated "City of Spokane
Valley, Washington, Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2016" with additional series
designation or other such designation as determined to be necessary by the Designated
Representative. The Bonds shall be dated as of the date of Closing; shall be fully registered as to
both principal and interest; shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each, or any integral multiple
thereof, within a maturity; shall be numbered separately in such manner and with any additional
designation as the Bond Registrar deems necessary for purposes of identification; shall bear
interest from their date payable on the dates and commencing as provided in the Bond Purchase
Contract; and shall mature on the dates and in the principal amounts set forth in the Bond
Purchase Contract, as approved and executed by the Designated Representative pursuant to
Section 12 of this Ordinance.
Section 4. Registration, Exchange and Payments.
(a) Bond Registrar/Bond Register. The City hereby specifies and adopts the system
of registration approved by the Washington State Finance Committee from time to time through
the appointment of state fiscal agencies. The City shall cause a bond register to be maintained by
the Bond Registrar. So long as any Bonds remain outstanding, the Bond Registrar shall make all
necessary provisions to permit the exchange or registration or transfer of Bonds at its designated
office. The Bond Registrar may be removed at any time at the option of the Finance Director
upon prior notice to the Bond Registrar and a successor Bond Registrar appointed by the Finance
Director. No resignation or removal of the Bond Registrar shall be effective until a successor
shall have been appointed and until the successor Bond Registrar shall have accepted the duties
of the Bond Registrar hereunder. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to
authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of
such Bonds and this Ordinance and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties
under this Ordinance. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained
in the Certificate of Authentication of the Bonds.
(b) Registered Ownership. The City and the Bond Registrar, each in its discretion,
may deem and treat the Registered Owner of each Bond as the absolute owner thereof for all
purposes (except as provided in Section 14 of this Ordinance), and neither the City nor the Bond
Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. Payment of any such Bond shall be
made only as described in Section 4(g), but such Bond may be transferred as herein provided.
All such payments made as described in Section 4(g) shall be valid and shall satisfy and
discharge the liability of the City upon such Bond to the extent of the amount or amounts so paid.
(c) DTC Acceptance/Letters of Representations. The Bonds initially shall be held by
DTC acting as depository. To induce DTC to accept the Bonds as eligible for deposit at DTC,
the City has executed and delivered to DTC a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations. Neither
the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any responsibility or obligation to DTC participants or
-5-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
the persons for whom they act as nominees (or any successor depository) with respect to the
Bonds in respect of the accuracy of any records maintained by DTC (or any successor depository)
or any DTC participant, the payment by DTC (or any successor depository) or any DTC
participant of any amount in respect of the principal of or interest on Bonds, any notice which is
permitted or required to be given to Registered Owners under this Ordinance (except such
notices as shall be required to be given by the City to the Bond Registrar or to DTC (or any
successor depository)), or any consent given or other action taken by DTC (or any successor
depository) as the Registered Owner. For so long as any Bonds are held by a depository, DTC or
its successor depository or its nominee shall be deemed to be the Registered Owner for all
purposes hereunder, and all references herein to the Registered Owners shall mean DTC (or any
successor depository) or its nominee and shall not mean the owners of any beneficial interest in
such Bonds.
(d) Use of Depository.
(1) The Bonds shall be registered initially in the name of "Cede & Co.", as
nominee of DTC, with one Bond maturing on each of the maturity dates for the Bonds in a
denomination corresponding to the total principal therein designated to mature on such date.
Registered ownership of such Bonds, or any portions thereof, may not thereafter be transferred
except (A) to any successor of DTC or its nominee, provided that any such successor shall be
qualified under any applicable laws to provide the service proposed to be provided by it; (B) to
any substitute depository appointed by the Finance Director pursuant to subsection (2) below or
such substitute depository's successor; or (C) to any person as provided in subsection (4) below.
(2) Upon the resignation of DTC or its successor (or any substitute depository
or its successor) from its functions as depository or a determination by the Finance Director to
discontinue the system of book entry transfers through DTC or its successor (or any substitute
depository or its successor), the Finance Director may hereafter appoint a substitute depository.
Any such substitute depository shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the
services proposed to be provided by it.
(3) In the case of any transfer pursuant to clause (A) or (B) of subsection (1)
above, the Bond Registrar shall, upon receipt of all outstanding Bonds, together with a written
request on behalf of the Finance Director, issue a single new Bond for each maturity then
outstanding, registered in the name of such successor or such substitute depository, or their
nominees, as the case may be, all as specified in such written request of the Finance Director.
(4) In the event that (A) DTC or its successor (or substitute depository or its
successor) resigns from its functions as depository, and no substitute depository can be obtained,
or (B) the Finance Director determines that it is in the best interest of the beneficial owners of the
Bonds that such owners be able to obtain physical Bond certificates, the ownership of such
Bonds may then be transferred to any person or entity as herein provided, and shall no longer be
held by a depository. The Finance Director shall deliver a written request to the Bond Registrar,
together with a supply of physical Bonds, to issue Bonds as herein provided in any authorized
denomination. Upon receipt by the Bond Registrar of all then outstanding Bonds together with a
written request on behalf of the Finance Director to the Bond Registrar, new Bonds shall be
-6-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
issued in the appropriate denominations and registered in the names of such persons as are
requested in such written request.
(e) Registration of Transfer of Ownership or Exchange; Change in Denominations.
The transfer of any Bond may be registered and Bonds may be exchanged, but no transfer of any
such Bond shall be valid unless it is surrendered to the Bond Registrar with the assignment form
appearing on such Bond duly executed by the Registered Owner or such Registered Owner's duly
authorized agent in a manner satisfactory to the Bond Registrar. Upon such surrender, the Bond
Registrar shall cancel the surrendered Bond and shall authenticate and deliver, without charge to
the Registered Owner or transferee therefor, a new Bond (or Bonds at the option of the new
Registered Owner) of the same date, maturity, and interest rate and for the same aggregate
principal amount in any authorized denomination, naming as Registered Owner the person or
persons listed as the assignee on the assignment form appearing on the surrendered Bond, in
exchange for such surrendered and cancelled Bond. Any Bond may be surrendered to the Bond
Registrar and exchanged, without charge, for an equal aggregate principal amount of Bonds of
the same date, maturity, and interest rate, in any authorized denomination. The Bond Registrar
shall not be obligated to register the transfer of or to exchange any Bond during the 15 days
preceding any principal payment or redemption date.
(f) Bond Registrar's Ownership of Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the
Registered Owner of any Bond with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond
Registrar, and to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its
officers or directors to act as a member of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any
committee formed to protect the right of the Registered Owners or beneficial owners of Bonds.
(g) Place and Medium of Payment. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall
be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be
calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days and twelve 30 -day months. For so long as all Bonds
are held by a depository, payments of principal thereof and interest thereon shall be made as
provided in accordance with the operational arrangements of DTC referred to in the Letter of
Representations. In the event that the Bonds are no longer held by a depository, interest on the
Bonds shall be paid by check or draft mailed to the Registered Owners at the addresses for such
Registered Owners appearing on the Bond Register on the fifteenth day of the month preceding
the interest payment date, or upon the written request of a Registered Owner of more than
$1,000,000 of Bonds (received by the Bond Registrar at least 15 days prior to the applicable
payment date), such payment shall be made by the Bond Registrar by wire transfer to the account
within the United States designated by the Registered Owner. Principal of the Bonds shall be
payable upon presentation and surrender of such Bonds by the Registered Owners at the
designated office of the Bond Registrar.
Section 5. Redemption Prior to Maturity and Purchase of Bonds.
(a) Mandatory Redemption of Term Bonds and Optional Redemption. The Bonds
shall be subject to mandatory redemption to the extent, if any, set forth in the Bond Purchase
Contract and as approved by the Designated Representative pursuant to Section 12. The Bonds
shall be subject to optional redemption on the dates, at the prices and under the terms set forth in
-7-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
the Bond Purchase Contract approved by the Designated Representative pursuant to Section 12.
(b) Purchase of Bonds. The City reserves the right to purchase any of the Bonds
offered to it at any time at a price deemed reasonable by the Finance Director.
(c) Selection of Bonds for Redemption. For as long as the Bonds are held in
book -entry only form, the selection of particular Bonds within a maturity to be redeemed shall be
made in accordance with the operational arrangements then in effect at DTC. If the Bonds are no
longer held by a depository, the selection of such Bonds to be redeemed and the surrender and
reissuance thereof, as applicable, shall be made as provided in the following provisions of this
subsection (c). If the City redeems at any one time fewer than all of the Bonds having the same
maturity date, the particular Bonds or portions of Bonds of such maturity to be redeemed shall be
selected by lot (or in such manner determined by the Bond Registrar) in increments of $5,000. In
the case of a Bond of a denomination greater than $5,000, the City and the Bond Registrar shall
treat each Bond as representing such number of separate Bonds each of the denomination of
$5,000 as is obtained by dividing the actual principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. In the
event that only a portion of the principal sum of a Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of such
Bond at the designated office of the Bond Registrar there shall be issued to the Registered
Owner, without charge therefor, for the then unredeemed balance of the principal sum thereof, at
the option of the Registered Owner, a Bond or Bonds of like maturity and interest rate in any of
the denominations herein authorized.
(d) Notice of Redemption.
(1) Official Notice. For so long as the Bonds are held by a depository, notice
of redemption shall be given in accordance with the operational arrangements of DTC as then in
effect, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall provide any notice of redemption to any
beneficial owners. The notice of redemption may be conditional. Thereafter (if the Bonds are no
longer held by a depository), notice of redemption shall be given in the manner hereinafter
provided. Unless waived by any owner of Bonds to be redeemed, official notice of any such
redemption (which redemption may be conditioned by the Bond Registrar on the receipt of
sufficient funds for redemption or otherwise) shall be given by the Bond Registrar on behalf of
the City by mailing a copy of an official redemption notice by first class mail at least 20 days and
not more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to the Registered Owner of the Bond
or Bonds to be redeemed at the address shown on the Bond Register or at such other address as is
furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Bond Registrar.
All official notices of redemption shall be dated and shall state:
(A) the redemption date,
(B) the redemption price,
(C) if fewer than all outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed, the
identification by maturity (and, in the case of partial redemption, the respective principal
amounts) of the Bonds to be redeemed,
-8-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
(D) any conditions to redemption,
(E) that unless conditional notice of redemption has been given and
such conditions have either been satisfied or waived, on the redemption date the redemption
price shall become due and payable upon each such Bond or portion thereof called for
redemption, and that interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after said date, and
(F) the place where such Bonds are to be surrendered for payment of
the redemption price, which place of payment shall be the designated office of the Bond
Registrar.
On or prior to any redemption date, unless such redemption has been rescinded or
revoked, the City shall deposit with the Bond Registrar an amount of money sufficient to pay the
redemption price of all the Bonds or portions of Bonds which are to be redeemed on that date.
The City retains the right to rescind any redemption notice and the related optional redemption of
Bonds by giving notice of rescission to the affected registered owners at any time on or prior to
the scheduled redemption date. Any notice of optional redemption that is so rescinded shall be of
no effect, and the Bonds for which the notice of optional redemption has been rescinded shall
remain outstanding.
(2) Effect of Notice; Bonds Due. If notice of redemption has been given and
not rescinded or revoked, or if the conditions set forth in a conditional notice of redemption have
been satisfied or waived, the Bonds or portions of Bonds to be redeemed shall, on the redemption
date, become due and payable at the redemption price therein specified, and from and after such
date such Bonds or portions of Bonds shall cease to bear interest. Upon surrender of such Bonds
for redemption in accordance with said notice, such Bonds shall be paid by the Bond Registrar at
the redemption price. Installments of interest due on or prior to the redemption date shall be
payable as herein provided for payment of interest. All Bonds which have been redeemed shall
be canceled by the Bond Registrar and shall not be reissued.
(3) Additional Notice. In addition to the foregoing notice, further notice shall
be given by the City as set out below, but no defect in said further notice nor any failure to give
all or any portion of such further notice shall in any manner defeat the effectiveness of a call for
redemption if notice thereof is given as above prescribed. Each further notice of redemption
given hereunder shall contain the information required above for an official notice of redemption
plus (A) the CUSIP numbers of all Bonds being redeemed; (B) the date of issue of the Bonds as
originally issued; (C) the rate of interest borne by each Bond being redeemed; (D) the maturity
date of each Bond being redeemed; and (E) any other descriptive information needed to identify
accurately the Bonds being redeemed. Each further notice of redemption may be sent at least
20 days before the redemption date to each party entitled to receive notice pursuant to Section 14
and with such additional information as the City shall deem appropriate, but such mailings shall
not be a condition precedent to the redemption of such Bonds.
(4) Amendment of Notice Provisions. The foregoing notice provisions of this
Section 5, including but not limited to the information to be included in redemption notices and
the persons designated to receive notices, may be amended by additions, deletions and changes in
-9-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
order to maintain compliance with duly promulgated regulations and recommendations regarding
notices of redemption of municipal securities.
Section 6. Form of Bonds. The Bonds shall be in substantially the following form:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NO. $
STATE OF WASHINGTON
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, 2016
INTEREST RATE: % MATURITY DATE: CUSIP NO.:
REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO.
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:
The City of Spokane Valley, Washington (the "City"), hereby acknowledges itself to owe
and for value received promises to pay to the Registered Owner identified above, or registered
assigns, on the Maturity Date identified above, the Principal Amount indicated above and to pay
interest thereon from , 20 , or the most recent date to which interest has been
paid or duly provided for until payment of this bond at the Interest Rate set forth above, payable
on , and semiannually thereafter on the first days of each succeeding
and . Both principal of and interest on this bond are payable in lawful
money of the United States of America. The fiscal agent of the State of Washington has been
appointed by the City as the authenticating agent, paying agent and registrar for the bonds of this
issue (the "Bond Registrar"). For so long as the bonds of this issue are held in fully immobilized
form, payments of principal and interest thereon shall be made as provided in accordance with
the operational arrangements of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") referred to in the
Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (the "Letter of Representations") from the City to DTC.
The bonds of this issue are issued under and in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution and applicable statutes of the State of Washington and Ordinance No.
duly passed by the City Council on May 10, 2016 (the "Bond Ordinance"). Capitalized terms
used in this bond have the meanings given such terms in the Bond Ordinance.
This bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any
security or benefit under the Bond Ordinance until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall
have been manually signed by or on behalf of the Bond Registrar or its duly designated agent.
This bond is one of an authorized issue of bonds of like date, tenor, rate of interest and
date of maturity, except as to number and amount in the aggregate principal amount of
$ (the `Bonds") and is issued pursuant to the Bond Ordinance to provide funds to
-10-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
pay the cost of constructing, equipping and furnishing a new City Hall facility and paying costs
of issuance for the Bonds.
The Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity as provided in the Bond Purchase
Contract and the Bond Ordinance. The Bonds may be transferred and exchanged upon surrender
to the Bond Registrar as provided in the Bond Ordinance.
The Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as such term is defined in the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). The City has designated the Bonds as
"qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3)(B) of the Code.
The City hereby irrevocably covenants and agrees with the owner of this bond that it shall
include in its annual budget and levy taxes annually, within and as a part of the tax levy
permitted to the City without a vote of the electorate, upon all the property subject to taxation in
amounts sufficient, together with other money legally available therefor, to pay the principal of
and interest on this bond as the same shall become due. The full faith, credit and resources of the
City are hereby irrevocably pledged for the annual levy and collection of such taxes and the
prompt payment of such principal and interest.
The pledge of tax levies for payment of principal of and interest on the bonds may be
discharged prior to maturity of the bonds by making provision for the payment thereof on the
terms and conditions set forth in the Bond Ordinance.
It is hereby certified that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and
statutes of the State of Washington to exist, to have happened, been done and performed
precedent to and in the issuance of this bond have happened, been done and performed and that
the issuance of this bond and the bonds of this issue does not violate any constitutional, statutory
or other limitation upon the amount of bonded indebtedness that the City may incur.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, has caused this
bond to be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of its Mayor, attested by the manual or
facsimile signature of the City Clerk, and seal of the City to be impressed or reproduced hereon,
all as of ,2016.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
WASHINGTON
(SEAL)
By [Facsimile Signature]
-11-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
Mayor
Attest:
[Facsimile Signature]
City Clerk
Date of Authentication:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2016, of the City of Spokane
Valley, Washington, dated , 2016, as described in the within mentioned Bond
Ordinance.
WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENT, as
Registrar
By
Authorized Officer
Section 7. Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the City by
the facsimile or manual signature of the Mayor or City Manager and shall be attested to by the
facsimile or manual signature of the City Clerk, and shall have the seal of the City impressed or a
facsimile thereof imprinted, or otherwise reproduced thereon.
In the event any officer who shall have signed or whose facsimile signatures appear on
any of the Bonds shall cease to be such officer of the City before said Bonds shall have been
authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, such Bonds may
nevertheless be authenticated, delivered and issued and, upon such authentication, delivery and
issuance, shall be as binding upon the City as though said person had not ceased to be such
officer. Any Bond may be signed and attested on behalf of the City by such persons who, at the
actual date of execution of such Bond shall be the proper officer of the City, although at the
original date of such Bond such persons were not such officers of the City.
Only such Bonds as shall bear thereon a Certificate of Authentication manually executed
by an authorized representative of the Bond Registrar shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose
or entitled to the benefits of this Ordinance. Such Certificate of Authentication shall be
conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed, authenticated and
delivered hereunder and are entitled to the benefits of this Ordinance.
Section 8. Application of Bond Proceeds. The Finance Director is hereby authorized
to create a Project Account, and subaccounts therein as necessary, for the purposes set forth in
this section. A portion of the proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited in the Project Account in
the amounts specified in the closing memorandum prepared in connection with the issuance of
the Bonds. Such proceeds shall be used to pay or reimburse the City for the costs of the Project
and to pay costs of issuance of the Bonds. The Finance Director shall invest money in the
Project Account and the subaccounts contained therein in such obligations as may now or
hereafter be permitted to cities of the State by law and which will mature prior to the date on
which such money shall be needed, but only to the extent that the same are acquired, valued and
-12-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
disposed of at Fair Market Value. Upon completion of the Project, Bond proceeds (including
interest earnings thereon) may be used for other capital projects of the City or shall be transferred
to the Debt Service Fund to pay principal on the Bonds.
Section 9. Tax Covenants. The City shall take all actions necessary to assure the
exclusion of interest on the Bonds from the gross income of the owners of the Bonds to the same
extent as such interest is permitted to be excluded from gross income under the Code as in effect
on the date of issuance of the Bonds, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Private Activity Bond Limitation. The City shall assure that the proceeds of the
Bonds are not so used as to cause the Bonds to satisfy the private business tests of Section 141(b)
of the Code or the private loan financing test of Section 141(c) of the Code.
(b) Limitations on Disposition of Project. The City shall not sell or otherwise transfer
or dispose of (i) any personal property components of the Project other than in the ordinary
course of an established government program under Treasury Regulation 1.141-2(d)(4) or (ii) any
real property components of the Project, unless it has received an opinion of nationally
recognized bond counsel to the effect that such disposition shall not adversely affect the
treatment of interest on the Bonds as excludable from gross income for federal income tax
purposes.
(c) Federal Guarantee Prohibition. The City shall not take any action or permit or
suffer any action to be taken if the result of such action would be to cause any of the Bonds to be
"federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Code.
(d) Rebate Requirement. The City shall take any and all actions necessary to assure
compliance with Section 148(f) of the Code, relating to the rebate of excess investment earnings,
if any, to the federal government, to the extent that such section is applicable to the Bonds.
(e) No Arbitrage. The City shall not take, or permit or suffer to be taken, any action
with respect to the proceeds of the Bonds which, if such action had been reasonably expected to
have been taken, or had been deliberately and intentionally taken, on the date of issuance of the
Bonds would have caused the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148
of the Code.
(f) Registration Covenant. The City shall maintain a system for recording the
ownership of each Bond that complies with the provisions of Section 149 of the Code until all
Bonds have been surrendered and canceled.
(g) Record Retention. The City shall retain its records of all accounting and
monitoring it carries out with respect to the Bonds for at least three years after the Bonds mature
or are redeemed (whichever is earlier); however, if the Bonds are redeemed and refunded, the
City shall retain its records of accounting and monitoring at least three years after the earlier of
the maturity or redemption of the obligations that refunded the Bonds.
(h) Compliance with Federal Tax Certificate. The City shall comply with the
provisions of the Federal Tax Certificate with respect to the Bonds, which are incorporated
-13-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
herein as if fully set forth herein. The covenants of this Section shall survive payment in full or
defeasance of the Bonds.
(i) Bank Qualification. The City hereby designates the Bonds for purposes of
paragraph (3) of Section 265(b) of the Code and represents that not more than $10,000,000
aggregate principal amount of obligations the interest on which is excludable (under
Section 103(a) of the Code) from gross income for federal income tax purposes (excluding
(i) private activity bonds, as defined in Section 141 of the Code, except qualified 501(c)(3) bonds
as defined in Section 145 of the Code and (ii) current refunding obligations to the extent the
amount of the refunding obligation does not exceed the outstanding amount of the refunded
obligation), has been or will be issued by the City, including all subordinate entities of the City,
during the calendar year 2016.
Section 10. Debt Service Fund and Provision for Tax Levy Payments. The City has
previously authorized the creation of a fund to be used for the payment of debt service on the
Bonds and other limited tax general obligations of the City, designated as the "LTGO Debt
Service Fund" (the "Debt Service Fund"), and within such fund separate accounts as determined
to be necessary by the Finance Director, for the purpose of paying debt service on the Bonds. No
later than the date each payment of principal of and/or interest on the Bonds matures or becomes
due and payable, the City shall transmit sufficient funds, from the Debt Service Fund or from
other legally available sources to the Bond Registrar for the payment of such principal and/or
interest. Money in the Debt Service Fund not needed to pay the interest or principal next coming
due may temporarily be deposited in legal investments for City funds, but only to the extent that
the same are acquired, valued and disposed of at Fair Market Value.
The City hereby irrevocably covenants and agrees for as long as any of the Bonds are
outstanding and unpaid that each year it shall include in its budget and levy an ad valorem tax
upon all the property within the City subject to taxation in an amount that will be sufficient,
together with all other revenues and money of the City legally available for such purposes, to pay
the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due.
The City hereby irrevocably pledges that the annual tax provided for herein to be levied
for the payment of such principal and interest shall be within and as a part of the regular property
tax levy permitted to cities, and that a sufficient portion of each annual levy to be levied and
collected by the City prior to the full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will
be and is hereby irrevocably set aside, pledged and appropriated for the payment of the principal
of and interest on the Bonds. The full faith, credit and resources of the City are hereby
irrevocably pledged for the annual levy and collection of said taxes and for the prompt payment
of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due.
Section 11. Defeasance. In the event that the City, in order to effect the payment,
retirement or redemption of any Bond, sets aside in the Debt Service Fund or in another special
account, cash or noncallable Government Obligations, or any combination of cash and/or
noncallable Government Obligations, in amounts and maturities which, together with the known
earned income therefrom, are sufficient to redeem or pay and retire such Bond in accordance
with its terms and to pay when due the interest and redemption premium, if any, thereon, and
-14-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
such cash and/or noncallable Government Obligations are irrevocably set aside and pledged for
such purpose, then no further payments need be made into the Debt Service Fund for the payment
of the principal of and interest on such Bond. The owner of a Bond so provided for shall cease to
be entitled to any lien, benefit or security of this Ordinance except the right to receive payment of
principal, premium, if any, and interest from the Debt Service Fund or such special account, and
such Bond shall be deemed to be not outstanding under this Ordinance.
The City shall give written notice of defeasance to the owners of all Bonds so provided
for in accordance with Section 14.
Section 12. Sale of Bonds.
(a) Bond Sale. The Bonds shall be sold at negotiated sale to the Underwriter pursuant
to the terms of the Bond Purchase Contract. The Council has determined that it is in the best
interest of the City to delegate to the Designated Representative, for a limited time, the authority
to approve the final interest rates, aggregate principal amount, principal amounts of each maturity
of the Bonds, and redemption rights for the Bonds.
Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section 12, the Designated
Representative is hereby authorized to approve the final interest rates, aggregate principal
amount, principal maturities, and redemption rights for the Bonds in the manner provided
hereafter so long as:
(1) the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds does not exceed $8,100,000,
(2) the final maturity date for the Bonds is no later than December 1, 2045,
(3) the aggregate purchase price for the Bonds shall not be less than 98% of
the aggregate stated principal amount of the Bonds, excluding any original issue discount, and
(4) the true interest cost for the Bonds (in the aggregate) does not exceed
4.50%.
Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this section, the Designated
Representative is hereby authorized to execute the Bond Purchase Contract on behalf of the City.
Following the execution of the Bond Purchase Contract, the Designated Representative
shall provide a report to the Council describing the final terms of the Bonds approved pursuant to
the authority delegated in this section. The authority granted to the Designated Representative by
this Section 12 shall expire 120 days after the effective date of this Ordinance. If a Bond
Purchase Contract for the Bonds has not been executed within 120 days after the effective date of
this Ordinance, the authorization for the issuance of the Bonds shall be rescinded, and the Bonds
shall not be issued nor their sale approved unless such Bonds are re -authorized by ordinance of
the Council. The ordinance re -authorizing the issuance and sale of such Bonds may be in the
form of a new ordinance repealing this Ordinance in whole or in part or may be in the form of an
amendatory ordinance approving a bond purchase contract or establishing terms and conditions
for the authority delegated under this Section 12.
-15-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
(b) Delivery of Bonds; Documentation. Upon the passage and approval of this
Ordinance, the proper officials of the City, including the Designated Representative, are
authorized and directed to undertake all action necessary for the prompt execution and delivery
of the Bonds to the Underwriter and further to execute all closing certificates and documents
required to effect the closing and delivery of the Bonds in accordance with the terms of the Bond
Purchase Contract. Such documents may include, but are not limited to, documents related to a
municipal bond insurance policy delivered by an insurer to insure the payment when due of the
principal of and interest on the Bonds as provided therein, if such insurance is determined by the
Designated Representative to be in the best interest of the City.
Section 13. Preliminary and Final Official Statements. The Designated Representative
is hereby authorized to deem final the preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds for
the purposes of the Rule. The Designated Representative is further authorized to approve for
purposes of the Rule, on behalf of the City, the Official Statement relating to the issuance and
sale of the Bonds and the distribution of the Official Statement pursuant thereto with such
changes, if any, as may be deemed by him or her to be appropriate.
Section 14. Undertaking to Provide Ongoing Disclosure.
(a) Contract/Undertaking. This Section 14 constitutes the City's written undertaking
for the benefit of the owners, including Beneficial Owners, of the Bonds as required by
Section (b)(5) of the Rule.
(b) Financial Statements/Operating Data. The City agrees to provide or cause to be
provided to the MSRB, the following annual financial information and operating data for the
prior fiscal year (commencing in 2016 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015):
1. Annual financial statements, which statements may or may not be audited,
showing ending fund balances for the City's general fund prepared in accordance with the
Budgeting Accounting and Reporting System prescribed by the Washington State Auditor
pursuant to RCW 43.09.200 (or any successor statute) and generally of the type included in the
official statement for the Bonds under the headings (or similar headings) "General Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance" and "General Fund Balance
Sheet";
2. The assessed valuation of taxable property in the City;
3. Ad valorem taxes due and percentage of taxes collected;
4. Property tax levy rate per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and
5. Outstanding general obligation debt of the City.
Items 2-5 shall be required only to the extent that such information is not included in the annual
financial statements.
-16-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
The information and data described above shall be provided on or before the end of nine
months after the end of the City's fiscal year. The City's fiscal year currently ends on
December 31. The City may adjust such fiscal year by providing written notice of the change of
fiscal year to the MSRB. In lieu of providing such annual financial information and operating
data, the City may cross-refer to other documents available to the public on the MSRB's internet
website or filed with the Commission.
If not provided as part of the annual financial information discussed above, the City shall
provide the City's audited annual financial statement prepared in accordance with the Budgeting
Accounting and Reporting System prescribed by the Washington State Auditor pursuant to
RCW 43.09.200 (or any successor statute) when and if available to the MSRB.
(c) Listed Events. The City agrees to provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB,
in a timely manner not in excess of 10 business days after the occurrence of the event, notice of
the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds:
1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies;
2. Non-payment related defaults, if material;
3. Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial
difficulties;
4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial
difficulties;
5. Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
6. Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of
proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue
(IRS Form 5701-TEB) or other material notices or determinations with
respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events affecting the
tax status of the Bonds;
7. Modifications to the rights of Bondholders, if material;
8. Optional, contingent or unscheduled Bond calls other than scheduled
sinking fund redemptions for which notice is given pursuant to Exchange
Act Release 34-23856, if material, and tender offers;
9. Defeasances;
10. Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds,
if material;
11. Rating changes;
-17-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
12. Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City;
13. The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the
City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the City, other
than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive
agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive
agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if
material; and
14. Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of
a trustee, if material.
(d) Format for Filings with the MSRB. All notices, financial information and
operating data required by this undertaking to be provided to the MSRB shall be in an electronic
format as prescribed by the MSRB. All documents provided to the MSRB pursuant to this
undertaking shall be accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB.
(e) Notification Upon Failure to Provide Financial Data. The City agrees to provide,
or cause to be provided, to the MSRB notice of its failure to provide the annual financial
information described in Subsection (b) above on or prior to the date set forth in Subsection (b)
above.
(f) Termination/Modification. The City's obligations to provide annual financial
information and notices of listed events shall terminate upon the legal defeasance, prior
redemption or payment in full of all of the Bonds. Any provision of this section shall be null and
void if the City (1) obtains an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel to the effect that the
portion of the Rule that requires that provision is invalid, has been repealed retroactively or
otherwise does not apply to the Bonds and (2) notifies the MSRB of such opinion and the
cancellation of this section.
The City may amend this section, without the consent of bondowners, with an opinion of
nationally recognized bond counsel in accordance with the Rule. In the event of any amendment
of this section, the City shall describe such amendment in the next annual report, and shall
include, a narrative explanation of the reason for the amendment and its impact on the type (or in
the case of a change of accounting principles, on the presentation) of financial information or
operating data being presented by the City. In addition, if the amendment relates to the
accounting principles to be followed in preparing financial statements, (1) notice of such change
shall be given in the same manner as for a listed event under subsection (c), and (2) the annual
report for the year in which the change is made shall present a comparison (in narrative form and
also, if feasible, in quantitative form) between the financial statements as prepared on the basis of
the new accounting principles and those prepared on the basis of the former accounting
principles.
(g) Remedies Under This Section. The right of any bondowner or Beneficial Owner
of Bonds to enforce the provisions of this section shall be limited to a right to obtain specific
-18-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
enforcement of the City's obligations under this section, and any failure by the City to comply
with the provisions of this undertaking shall not be an event of default with respect to the Bonds.
(h) No Default. Except as otherwise disclosed in the City's official statement relating
to the Bonds, the City is not and has not been in default in the performance of its obligations of
any prior undertaking for ongoing disclosure with respect to its obligations.
Section 15. Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. In case any Bonds are lost, stolen or
destroyed, the Bond Registrar may authenticate and deliver a new Bond or Bonds of like amount,
date and tenor to the Registered Owner thereof if the owner pays the expenses and charges of the
Bond Registrar and the City in connection therewith and files with the Bond Registrar and the
City evidence satisfactory to both that such Bond or Bonds were actually lost, stolen or destroyed
and of his or her ownership thereof, and furnishes the City and the Bond Registrar with
indemnity satisfactory to both.
Section 16. Severability; Ratification. If any one or more of the covenants or
agreements provided in this Ordinance to be performed on the part of the City shall be declared
by any court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, then such covenant or covenants,
agreement or agreements, shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the
remaining covenants and agreements of this Ordinance and shall in no way affect the validity of
the other provisions of this Ordinance or of the Bonds. All acts taken pursuant to the authority
granted in this Ordinance but prior to its effective date are hereby ratified and confirmed.
-19-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
Section 17. 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 10th day of May, 2016.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Pacifica Law Group LLP, Bond Counsel
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
-20-
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
L.R. Higgins, Mayor
CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington (the "City"),
DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
1. That the attached is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 16-005
(the "Ordinance") of the City, duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
(the "Council") held on May 10, 2016.
2. That said meeting was duly convened and held in all respects in accordance with
law, and to the extent required by law, due and proper notice of such meeting was given; that a
legal quorum was present throughout the meeting and a legally sufficient number of members of
the Council voted in the proper manner for the passage of said Ordinance; that all other
requirements and proceedings incident to the proper passage of said Ordinance have been fully
fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed; and that I am authorized to execute this certificate.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of May, 2016.
Christine Bainbridge, MMC, City Clerk
10118 00002 fa262m42rg
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED , 2016
City of Spokane Valley, Washington
$7,535,000*
Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2016
DATED: Date of Delivery DUE: December 1, as shown on inside cover
MOODY'S RATING —Applied for; see "Rating" herein.
BANK QUALIFIED—The City of Spokane Valley, Washington (the "City") has designated its Limited Tax General
Obligation Bonds, 2016 (the "Bonds") as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3)(B) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code").
BOOK -ENTRY ONLY—The Bonds will be issued as fully registered bonds in denominations of $5,000, or integral multiples
thereof within a maturity, and will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as bond owner and nominee for The
Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"). DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds.
Purchasers will not receive certificates representing their interest in the Bonds purchased.
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS—Interest on the Bonds will be payable on December 1, 2016 and semiannually
thereafter on June 1 and December 1 of each year to their maturity or prior redemption. Principal of and interest on the
Bonds will be payable by the fiscal agent of the State of Washington, currently U.S. Bank National Association
(the "Bond Registrar"), as further described herein. For so long as the Bonds remain in a "book -entry only" transfer
system, the Bond Registrar will make such payments only to DTC, which in turn is obligated to remit such principal and
interest to its participants for subsequent disbursement to Beneficial Owners of the Bonds as described in Appendix B -
"Book -Entry Transfer System."
MATURITY SCHEDULE LOCATED ON INSIDE COVER
REDEMPTION—The Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity as further described herein. See "Description of the
Bonds - Redemption Provisions."
PURPOSE—The Bonds are being issued to (i) finance a portion of the costs related to the construction, equipping and
furnishing of a new City Hall facility and (ii) pay costs of issuance for the Bonds.
SECURITY—The Bonds are limited tax general obligations of the City. The City has covenanted and agreed irrevocably that
each year it will include in its budget and levy an ad valorem tax upon all the property within the City subject to taxation
in an amount that will be sufficient, together with all other revenues and money of the City legally available for such
purposes, to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. The City has irrevocably pledged that such tax
will be within and as a part of the tax permitted to cities without a vote of the people. The full faith, credit and resources of
the City have been pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and collection of such taxes and for the prompt payment of
such principal and interest when due. The City's ability to raise taxes is subject to certain limitations as described
herein. The Bonds do not constitute a debt or indebtedness of the State of Washington, or any political subdivision
thereof other than the City.
TAX EXEMPTION—In the opinion of Pacifica Law Group LLP, Seattle, Washington ("Bond Counsel"), under existing law and subject
to certain qualifications described herein, the interest on the Bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
In addition, interest on the Bonds is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on
individuals and corporations; however, interest on the Bonds is taken into account in determining adjusted current earnings for the
purpose of computing the alternative minimum tax imposed on certain corporations. See "Tax Matters."
DELIVERY—The Bonds are offered when, as and if issued, subject to the approving legal opinion of Bond Counsel, and
certain other conditions. It is anticipated that the Bonds in definitive book -entry form will be available for delivery
through the facilities of DTC in New York, New York, or to the Bond Registrar on behalf of DTC by Fast Automated
Securities Transfer, on or about June 2, 2016.
* Preliminary, subject to change.
This cover page contains certain information for quick reference only. It is not a summary of the issue. Investors must read the entire
Official Statement to obtain information essential to the making of an informed investment decision.
D.A. DAVIDSON & CO.
City of Spokane Valley, Washington
MATURITY SCHEDULE
$7,535,000*
Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2016
Due Interest
Dec. 1 Amount* Rate Yield Price CUSIP No.
2016 $ 75,000 % %
2017 150,000
2018 150,000
2019 155,000
2020 160,000
2021 165,000
2022 175,000
2023 180,000
2024 185,000
2025 195,000
2026 200,000
2027 210,000
2028 220,000
2029 230,000
2030 235,000
* Preliminary; subject to change.
i
Due Interest
Dec. 1 Amount* Rate Yield Price CUSIP No.
2031 $ 245,000 % %
2032 255,000
2033 265,000
2034 275,000
2035 290,000
2036 300,000
2037 310,000
2038 320,000
2039 335,000
2040 345,000
2041 355,000
2042 370,000
2043 380,000
2044 395,000
2045 410,000
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
Phone: (509) 921-1000
www.spokanevalley.org «>
Mayor and City Council
L.R. Higgins Mayor
Arne Woodard Deputy Mayor
Bill Gothmann (2) Councilmember Pro Tem
Dean Grafos (3) Councilmember
Chuck Hafner (3) Councilmember
Ed Pace Councilmember
Sam Wood Councilmember
Mark Calhoun
Chelsie Taylor
Certain Appointed Officials
Acting City Manager
Finance Director
Bond Counsel
Pacifica Law Group LLP
Seattle, Washington
(206) 245-1700
Financial Advisor
Piper Jaffray & Co.
Seattle, Washington
(206) 628-2882
Bond Registrar
U.S. Bank National Association
Seattle, Washington
(1) The City's website is not part of this Official Statement, and investors should not rely on information presented in
the City's website in determining whether to purchase the Bonds. This inactive textual reference to the City's
website is not a hyperlink and does not incorporate the City's website by reference.
(2) Bill Gothmann was appointed Councilmember Pro Tem to temporarily serve in place of Councilmember Bill Bates,
who is currently on extended leave. Councilmember Bill Gothmann was appointed June 15, 2015, and his
temporary appointment expires on June 14, 2016. Councilmember Bill Bates' term expires December 31, 2017.
(3) Dean Grafos announced his resignation effective April 25, 2016 and Chuck Hafner announced his resignation
effective May 2, 2016.
This Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to purchase the Bonds in any jurisdiction in
which or to a person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation. No dealer, salesperson or other person has been
authorized by the City, the Financial Advisor or the Underwriter to give any information or to make any representations, other
than those contained herein, in connection with the offering of the Bonds and, if given or made, such information or
representations must not be relied upon. The information and expressions of opinion herein are subject to change without notice,
and neither the delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale made hereunder will, under any circumstances, create an
implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the City since the date hereof.
The Underwriter has provided the following sentence for inclusion in this Official Statement. The Underwriter has reviewed the
information in this Official Statement in accordance with, and as part of, its responsibilities to investors under the federal
securities laws as applied to the facts and circumstances of this transaction, but the Underwriter does not guarantee the accuracy
or completeness of such information.
For the sole purpose of the Underwriter's compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 15c2 -12(b)(1),
the City has "deemed final" this Preliminary Official Statement as of its date, except for the omission of information as to offering
prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, maturity dates, delivery
dates, and other terms of the Bonds dependent on such matters.
The CUSIP numbers herein are provided by CUSIP Global Services. CUSIP is a registered trademark of the American Bankers
Association. CUSIP numbers are included in this Official Statement for convenience of the holders and potential holders of the
Bonds. The CUSIP numbers were provided by CUSIP Global Services and are not intended to create a database and do not serve
in any way as a substitute for the CUSIP Global Services. No assurance can be given that the CUSIP numbers for the Bonds
will remain the same after the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds.
ii
This page left blank intentionally
ii
Table of Contents
Page
Description of the Bonds 1
Authorization for Issuance 1
Principal Amount, Date, Interest Rates and Maturities 1
Bond Registrar and Registration Features 1
Redemption Provisions 2
Purchase 2
Book -Entry Bonds 2
Defeasance 3
Purpose and Use of Proceeds 3
Purpose 3
Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds 4
Security for the Bonds 4
General 4
Bonded Indebtedness 4
Summary of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Requirements 6
Direct and Overlapping Debt 7
Debt Payment Record 7
Future Financings 7
Taxing Authority 8
Overlapping Taxing Districts 8
General Property Taxes 9
Regular Property Tax Limitations 9
Assessed Value 10
Property Tax Collection Procedure 10
Tax Collection Record 11
Major Property Taxpayers 11
Collection of Other Taxes 12
Authorized Investments 14
Local Government Investment Pool 15
The City 19
Form of Government 19
City Administration 19
Labor Relations 20
Pension System 20
Other Post -Employment Benefits 22
Summary of Accounting Policies 24
Risk Management 24
Auditing of City Finances 25
Demographic Information 26
Population 26
Initiative and Referendum 30
Tax Matters 30
Rating 31
Continuing Disclosure 32
Legal and Underwriting 34
Approval of Counsel 34
Litigation 34
Limitations on Remedies 34
Underwriting 35
Financial Advisor 35
Potential Conflicts 35
Concluding Statement 35
Form of Opinion of Bond Counsel Appendix A
Book -Entry Transfer System Appendix B
2014 Audited Financial Statements Appendix C
iii
This page left blank intentionally
iv
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
City of Spokane Valley, Washington
$7,535,000*
Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2016
The City of Spokane Valley, Washington (the "City"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington (the "State"), furnishes this Official Statement in
connection with the offering of $7,535,000* aggregate principal amount of the above -referenced Limited Tax
General Obligation Bonds, 2016 (the "Bonds"). This Official Statement, which includes the cover page, the
inside cover page and appendices, provides information concerning the City and the Bonds.
Description of the Bonds
Authorization for Issuance
The Bonds are issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 16-005 (the "Ordinance"), adopted by the City Council (the
"Council") on May 10, 2016 pursuant to the authority of chapters 39.36 and 39.46 of the Revised Code of
Washington ("RCW"). The Bonds do not require voter approval.
Principal Amount, Date, Interest Rates and Maturities
The Bonds will be dated and bear interest from the date of issuance and delivery. The Bonds will mature on
the dates and in the principal amounts and will bear interest (payable semiannually on each June 1 and
December 1, commencing December 1, 2016) until their maturity or prior redemption at the rates set forth on
the inside cover of this Official Statement. Interest on the Bonds will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day
year consisting of twelve 30 -day months.
The Bonds will be issued in registered form, initially registered in the name Cede & Co., as nominee for The
Depository Trust Company, New York, New York ("DTC"). Individual purchases of the Bonds will be made
initially in book -entry form only and purchasers will not receive certificates representing their interest in the
Bonds purchased. So long as Cede & Co. is the Registered Owner of the Bonds, as nominee of DTC, references
herein to the Registered Owners or bond owners will mean Cede & Co. and will not mean the "Beneficial
Owners" of the Bonds. In this Official Statement, the term "Beneficial Owner" will mean the person for whom
a DTC participant acquires an interest in the Bonds. See Appendix B—'Book-Entry Transfer System."
Bond Registrar and Registration Features
The City has adopted the system of registration for the Bonds approved, from time to time, by the State
Finance Committee (the "Committee"). Pursuant to chapter 43.80 RCW, the Committee designates one or
more fiscal agents for bonds issued within the State. The State's fiscal agent, currently U.S. Bank National
Association (the "Bond Registrar"), will authenticate the Bonds and act as the paying agent and registrar for
the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the Bonds, recording the purchase and registration,
exchange or transfer, and payment of Bonds and performing the other respective obligations of the paying
agent and registrar. No resignation or removal of the Bond Registrar shall become effective until a successor
has been appointed and has accepted the duties of Bond Registrar.
To pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due, the City will remit money from the accounts held
in its LTGO Debt Service Fund (the "Debt Service Fund") to the Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar is
obligated to remit such payments to DTC participants for subsequent disbursement to the Beneficial Owners of
the Bonds as described in Appendix B— "Book -Entry Transfer System." In the event that the Bonds are no
longer in fully immobilized form, interest on the Bonds will be paid by check or draft mailed to the Registered
Owners at the addresses for such Registered Owners appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th day of the
month preceding the interest payment date, and principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and
* Preliminary, subject to change.
surrender of such Bonds by the Registered Owners at the designated office of the Bond Registrar; provided,
however, that if so requested in writing by the Registered Owner of at least $1,000,000 principal amount of
Bonds, interest will be paid by wire transfer on the date due to an account with a bank located within the
United States.
Redemption Provisions
General. The Bonds maturing on or prior to December 1, 2025 are not subject to redemption prior to maturity.
The Bonds maturing on or after December 1, 2026 may be redeemed at the option of the City on or after June 1,
2026, at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption.
Selection of Bonds for Redemption. For as long as the Bonds are held in book -entry only form, the selection of
particular Bonds within a maturity to be redeemed will be made in accordance with the operational
arrangements then in effect at DTC. If the Bonds are no longer held in uncertificated form, the selection of such
Bonds to be redeemed and the surrender and reissuance thereof, as applicable, shall be made as provided in
the Ordinance. If the City redeems at any one time fewer than all of the Bonds having the same maturity date,
the particular Bonds or portions of Bonds of such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected by lot (or in such
manner determined by the Bond Registrar) in increments of $5,000. In the case of a Bond of a denomination
greater than $5,000, the City and the Bond Registrar will treat each Bond as representing such number of
separate Bonds each of the denomination of $5,000 as is obtained by dividing the actual principal amount of
such Bond by $5,000. In the event that only a portion of the principal sum of a Bond is redeemed, upon
surrender of such Bond at the designated office of the Bond Registrar there shall be issued to the Registered
Owner, without charge therefor, for the then unredeemed balance of the principal sum thereof, at the option of
the Registered Owner, a Bond or Bonds of like maturity and interest rate in any of the denominations
authorized in the Ordinance.
Notice of Redemption. If the City determines to redeem any Bonds, notice of such redemption (which may be
conditional on the receipt of refunding funds or otherwise) will be given at least 20 days, but not more than
60 days, prior to the redemption date by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the Registered Owner of any Bond
to be redeemed at the address of the registered owner appearing in the Bond Register; provided, however, that
for so long as the Bonds are held in fully immobilized form by DTC and are registered in the name of Cede &
Co. or its registered assigns, all notices will be given only in accordance with DTC's operational arrangements.
The City will not provide notice of redemption to any Beneficial Owners of Bonds.
On or prior to any redemption date, unless such redemption has been rescinded or revoked, the City shall
deposit with the Bond Registrar an amount of money sufficient to pay the redemption price of all the Bonds or
portions of Bonds which are to be redeemed on that date. The City retains the right to rescind any redemption
notice and the related optional redemption of Bonds by giving notice of rescission to the affected registered
owners at any time on or prior to the scheduled redemption date. Any notice of optional redemption that is so
rescinded shall be of no effect, and the Bonds for which the notice of optional redemption has been rescinded
shall remain outstanding.
If notice of redemption has been given and not rescinded or revoked, or if the conditions set forth in a
conditional notice of redemption have been satisfied or waived, the Bonds or portions of Bonds to be redeemed
shall, on the redemption date, become due and payable at the redemption price therein specified, and from and
after such date such Bonds or portions of Bonds shall cease to bear interest. Upon surrender of such Bonds for
redemption in accordance with said notice, such Bonds shall be paid by the Bond Registrar at the redemption
price. Installments of interest due on or prior to the redemption date shall be payable as provided in the
Ordinance for payment of interest. All Bonds which have been redeemed shall be canceled by the Bond
Registrar and shall not be reissued.
Purchase
The City has reserved the right to purchase any of the Bonds offered to the City at any time at a price deemed
to be reasonable by the City.
Book -Entry Bonds
DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. The ownership of one fully registered Bond for each
maturity, as set forth on the inside cover of this Official Statement, each in the aggregate principal amount of
2
such maturity, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for DTC. See Appendix B attached
hereto for additional information.
Procedure in the Event of Termination of Book -Entry Transfer System. In the event that (i) DTC or its successor (or
substitute depository or its successor) resigns from its functions as depository, and no substitute depository
can be obtained, or (ii) the Finance Director determines that it is in the best interest of the Beneficial Owners of
the Bonds that such owners be able to obtain such Bonds in the form of Bond certificates, the ownership of the
Bonds may then be transferred to any person or entity as provided in the Ordinance, and will no longer be held
in book -entry form. In the event that the Bonds are no longer in book -entry form, interest on the Bonds will be
paid by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at the addresses for such registered owners appearing
on the Bond Register on the fifteenth day of the month preceding the interest payment date, or upon the
written request of a registered owner of more than $1,000,000 of Bonds (received by the Bond Registrar at least
15 days prior to the applicable payment date), such payment shall be made by the Bond Registrar by wire
transfer to the account within the continental United States designated by the registered owner. Principal of
the Bonds will be payable upon presentation and surrender of such Bonds by the registered owners at the
designated office of the Bond Registrar.
Defeasance
In the event that the City, in order to effect the payment, retirement or redemption of any Bond, sets aside in
the Debt Service Fund or in another special account, cash or noncallable Government Obligations, as defined
below, or any combination of cash and/or noncallable Government Obligations, in amounts and maturities
which, together with the known earned income therefrom, are sufficient to redeem or pay and retire such Bond
in accordance with its terms and to pay when due the interest and redemption premium, if any, thereon, and
such cash and/or noncallable Government Obligations are irrevocably set aside and pledged for such purpose,
then no further payments need be made into the Debt Service Fund for the payment of the principal of and
interest on such Bond. The owner of a Bond so provided for will cease to be entitled to any lien, benefit or
security of the Ordinance except the right to receive payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest from
the applicable Debt Service Fund or such special account, and such Bond will be deemed to be not outstanding
under the Ordinance.
"Government Obligations" is defined in the Ordinance to have the meaning specified in RCW 39.53.010, as it
may be amended from time to time, which currently means any of the following: (a) direct obligations of, or
obligations the principal of and interest on which are unconditionally guaranteed by, the United States of
America, and bank certificates of deposit secured by such obligations; (b) bonds, debentures, notes,
participation certificates or other obligations issued by the Banks for Cooperatives, the Federal Intermediate
Credit Bank, the Federal Home Loan Bank system, the Export -Import Bank of the United States, Federal Land
Banks or the Federal National Mortgage Association; (c) public housing bonds and project notes fully secured
by contracts with the United States; and (d) obligations of financial institutions insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation or the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, to the extent insured or to the
extent guaranteed as permitted under any other provision of State law.
Purpose and Use of Proceeds
Purpose
The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds will be used to (i) finance a portion of the costs related to the
construction, equipping and furnishing of a new City Hall facility and (ii) pay costs of issuance for the Bonds.
The total cost of the City Hall project is estimated to be $14,148,281, including applicable sales tax. The
remaining balance of the project costs will be paid by the City from cash balances on hand that have been
dedicated to the City Hall project.
3
Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds
The proceeds of the Bonds are estimated to be applied as follows:
Sources of Funds
Par Amount
Net Original Issue Premium/(Discount)
Total Sources of Funds
Uses of Funds
Project Fund Deposit
Costs of Issuance (2)
Additional Proceeds
Total Uses of Funds
$ 7,535,000 (1)
(1) Preliminary, subject to change.
(2) Includes legal fees, financial advisor fee, rating fees, Underwriter's discount, and other costs associated with the
issuance of the Bonds.
Security for the Bonds
General
The Bonds are limited tax general obligations of the City. The City has covenanted and agreed irrevocably that
it will include in its budget and levy an ad valorem tax upon all the property within the City subject to taxation
in an amount that will be sufficient, together with all other revenues and money of the City legally available for
such purposes, to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due. The City has
irrevocably pledged that such tax will be within and as a part of the tax permitted to cities without a vote of the
people. The full faith, credit and resources of the City have been pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and
collection of such taxes and for the prompt payment of such principal and interest.
The City may, subject to applicable laws, apply other funds available to make payments with respect to the
Bonds.
Bond owners do not have a security interest in or lien on particular revenues or assets of the City. The
obligation to pay debt service on the Bonds is not an obligation of the State or any other municipal corporation
other than the City.
Bonded Indebtedness
As prescribed by State statutes, the unlimited tax general obligation indebtedness permitted for cities, subject to
60 percent voter approval, is limited to 2.5 percent of assessed value for general purposes, 2.5 percent for certain
utility purposes and 2.5 percent for open space, park facilities and capital facilities associated with economic
development. Within the 2.5 percent of assessed value for general purposes, the City may, without voter
approval, incur general obligation indebtedness (such as the Bonds) in an amount not to exceed 1.5 percent of
assessed value. Additionally, within the 2.5 percent of assessed value for general purposes, the City may, also
without voter approval, enter into leases if the total principal component of the lease payments, together with
the other nonvoted general obligation indebtedness of the City, does not exceed 1.5 percent of assessed value.
The combination of unlimited tax and limited tax general obligation debt for general purposes, including
leases, cannot exceed 2.5 percent of assessed value and for all purposes cannot exceed 7.5 percent of assessed
value.
Without voter approval, the City may incur debt as follows:
(1) Pursuant to an ordinance specifying the amount and object of the expenditure of the proceeds,
the City may borrow money for corporate purposes and issue bonds and notes within the
constitutional and statutory limitations on indebtedness.
(2) The City may execute conditional sales contracts for the purchase of real or personal property.
(3) The City may execute leases with or without an option to purchase.
4
Computation of Debt Capacity
(As of June 2, 2016)
2016 Tax Collection Year Assessed Value
Nonvoted Debt Capacity
1.5% of Assessed Value
Less: Outstanding Nonvoted Debt (1)
Less: The Bonds (2)
Remaining Nonvoted Debt Capacity
Voted and Nonvoted Debt Capacity for General Purposes
2.5% of Assessed Value
Less: Outstanding Nonvoted Debt (1)
Less: The Bonds (2)
Less: Outstanding Voted Debt
Total Remaining Voted and Nonvoted Debt Capacity for General Purposes
(1) Includes outstanding limited tax general obligation bonds.
(2) Preliminary; subject to change.
Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds
LTGO Refunding, 2014 (1)
The Bonds (this issue)
LTGO Bond Total
Outstanding General Obligation Debt
(As of June 2, 2016)
Date of
Issue
08/27/14
06/02/16
Date of
Maturity
12/01/33
12/01/45
$ 7,748,275,097
$ 116,224,126
(6,375,000)
(7,535,000)
$ 102,314,126
$ 193,706,877
(6,375,000)
(7,535,000)
0
$ 179,796,877
Amount
Issued
$ 7,035,000
7,535,000 (2)
$ 14,570,000
Amount
Outstanding
$ 6,375,000
7,535,000 (2)
$ 13,910,000
(1) Proceeds of the City's Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 2014 (the "2014 Bonds") were used to refund
City bonds issued to finance costs related to CenterPlace at Mirabeau Point, an approximately 54,000 square -foot event
facility that offers a variety of spaces including, banquet facilities, flexible meeting/conference rooms with media and
technology options, an auditorium, classroom space utilized by the Community Colleges of Spokane and Central Valley
School District, and houses the Spokane Valley Senior Center. Under the terms of an Interlocal Agreement among the
City, the Spokane Public Facilities District (the "PFD"), and Spokane County, dated as of August 19, 2003, as amended,
the PFD has agreed to make regularly scheduled intergovernmental payments to the City which correspond with the
debt service payments on the 2014 Bonds. Payments are made from regional sales and use tax revenues collected by the
PFD and imposed under RCW 82.14.390. Even though the intergovernmental payments to the City from the PFD are
scheduled to mirror the debt service payments on the 2014 Bonds, such payments are not pledged to the repayment of
the 2014 Bonds and the City reserves the right to use such payments for other lawful purposes. Although the City is
not required to apply the intergovernmental payments to the payment of debt service on the 2014 Bonds, the City
assumes when preparing its annual budget that such intergovernmental payments will be received. If there were to be
a shortfall in the payments received by the City from the PFD, the City would be required to pay debt service on the
2014 Bonds from the City's General Fund.
(2) Preliminary, subject to change.
5
Summary of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Requirements (1)
Calendar
Years
Outstanding LTGO Bonds (2)
Principal Interest
2016 $ 315,000 $ 116,050
2017 320,000 222,650
2018 365,000 213,050
2019 395,000 202,100
2020 430,000 190,250
2021 465,000 177,350
2022 500,000 163,400
2023 545,000 143,400
2024 430,000 121,600
2025 465,000 104,400
2026 505,000 85,800
2027 395,000 65,600
2028 300,000 49,800
2029 245,000 37,800
2030 225,000 28,000
2031 180,000 19,000
2032 130,000 11,800
2033 165,000 6,600
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
Total $ 6,375,000 $ 1,958,650
The Bonds (3)
Principal Interest
$ 75,000 $ 137,392
150,000 274,069
150,000 269,569
155,000 265,069
160,000 260,419
165,000 255,619
175,000 249,019
180,000 242,019
185,000 234,819
195,000 227,419
200,000 219,619
210,000 211,619
220,000 203,219
230,000 194,419
235,000 185,219
245,000 175,819
255,000 166,019
265,000 155,819
275,000 145,219
290,000 134,219
300,000 122,619
310,000 110,619
320,000 100,156
335,000 89,356
345,000 78,050
355,000 66,406
370,000 54,425
380,000 41,475
395,000 28,175
410,000 14,350
$ 7,535,000 $ 4,912,230
Total Debt
Service
$ 643,442
966,719
997,619
1,017,169
1,040,669
1,062,969
1,087,419
1,110,419
971,419
991,819
1,010,419
882,219
773,019
707,219
673,219
619,819
562,819
592,419
420,219
424,219
422,619
420,619
420,156
424,356
423,050
421,406
424,425
421,475
423,175
424,350
$ 20,780,880
(1) Totals may not foot due to rounding.
(2) Principal and interest payments outstanding on the City's limited tax general obligation bonds as of June 2, 2016.
(3) Preliminary, subject to change.
6
Overlapping Taxing Districts
School District No. 356
School District No. 361
School District No. 363
Library District
Spokane County
Fire Protection District No. 8
School District No. 81
Total
Sources: Spokane County Assessor's and Treasurer's Offices and individual taxing districts.
Summary of Overlapping Debt
(As of March 1, 2016)
2016 Assessed
Value
$ 7,060,559,572
2,788,160,757
1,799,316,361
22,523,207,446
40,226,252,594
2,418,070,809
16,406,187,207
Percent
Overlap
63.08%
61.08
53.13
34.40
19.26
7.19
3.88
Outstanding
GO Debt
$ 94,221,988
6,486,469
23,133,435
1,240,000
160,272,165
1,315,000
371, 710,000
Estimated
Overlapping
Debt
$ 59,430,850
3,962,102
12,290,082
426,576
30,871,203
94,520
14,405,140
$ 121,480,473
Direct and Overlapping Debt
The following tables present information regarding the City's direct debt (including the Bonds) and the
estimated portion of the debt of overlapping taxing districts allocated to the City's residents.
Regular Assessed Value (2016 Tax Collection Year) $ 7,748,275,097
Estimated 2015 Population 93,340
Debt Information
Direct Debt (1)
Estimated Overlapping Debt (as previously detailed herein)
Total Direct and Overlapping Debt
(1) Includes outstanding limited tax general obligation bonds and the Bonds.
(2) Preliminary, subject to change.
Bonded Debt Ratios
Direct Debt to Assessed Value (1)
Direct and Overlapping Debt
to Assessed Value (1)
Per Capita Assessed Value (1)
Per Capita Direct Debt (1)
Per Capita Total Direct and Overlapping Debt (1)
(1) Preliminary, subject to change.
$ 13,910,000 (2)
121,480,473
$ 135,390,473 (2)
0.18%
1.75%
$ 83,011
$ 149
$ 1,451
Debt Payment Record
The City has promptly met all debt service payments on outstanding obligations. The City has never issued
refunding bonds to prevent an impending default.
Future Financings
Other than the Bonds, the City has no authorized but unissued bonds outstanding, nor does it anticipate
issuing additional long-term general obligation debt within the next twelve months.
7
Taxing Authority
A city is authorized to impose (i) a regular levy of up to $3.60/$1,000, $0.225/$1,000 of which must be used for
fire pension funding purposes, if required, and (ii) excess levies (unlimited as to rate or amount). For cities
annexed to a library district and/or a fire district, such as the City, the maximum levy rate is reduced by the
amount of the library district and/or fire district levy. For tax collection year 2016, the Spokane County Library
District's regular levy is $0.490739 per $1,000 and the Spokane Valley Fire District's regular levy is $1.470316
per $1,000, which reduces the City's current maximum regular levy rate to $1.638945. The City's regular levy
for 2016 is $1.482848 per $1,000. The regular levy is imposed without a vote of the people for general purposes,
including payment of debt service on the Bonds, and is subject to limitations (see "Regular Property Tax
Limitations" herein).
The City is also authorized to impose excess voter -approved levies (unlimited as to rate or amount). Excess
levies are imposed, upon voter approval, to pay, among other things, debt service on unlimited tax general
obligation bonds. An excess levy also may be imposed without voter approval to prevent the impairment of a
contract (RCW 84.52.052).
Overlapping Taxing Districts
The overlapping taxing districts within the City have the statutory power to levy regular property taxes at the
following rates, subject to the limitations provided by chapter 84.55 RCW, and to levy excess voter -approved
property taxes. For purposes of demonstration, representative levy rates for "levy code 144" of Spokane
County (the "County"), as well as the statutory levy authority of each type of potential overlapping district, are
listed below. Levy code 144 is wholly within the City, but it does not include all of the property within the
City; as a result, additional taxing districts, not listed below, levy taxes within the City.
Spokane County
County (Road Levy)
Library District
Fire Protection District No. 1
Port District
The City
Hospital District
State Schools
School District No. 356
Total rate for Spokane County levy code 144:
Total Representative
Levy Rates
Per $1,000 of
Assessed Value
$ 1.47130 (1)
n/a (2)
0.49074
3.17168 (3)
n/a (2)
1.48285
n/a (2)
2.09971
5.40831
$ 14.12459
Total Statutory
Levy Authority
Per $1,000 of
Assessed Value
$1.80 (4)
2.25
0.50
1.50
0.45
3.60 (5)(6)
0.75
3.60 (7)
n/a (8)
(1) Includes a levy for Conservation Futures which does not count against the County's $1.80/$1,000 of assessed value
statutory levy authority.
(2) Spokane County levy code 144 is included within the incorporated portion of Spokane County and therefore does not
have a road levy. Likewise, it does not contain a port district or a hospital district.
(3) Includes a voter -approved levy of $1.70137/$1,000 of assessed value.
(4) Pursuant to RCW 84.52.043(1), a county may increase its levy from $1.80/$1,000 of assessed value to a rate not to exceed
$2.475/$1,000 of assessed value for general county purposes if (i) the total levies for both the county and any road
district within the county do not exceed $4.05/$1,000 of assessed value and (ii) no other taxing district has its levy
reduced as a result of the increased county levy.
Pursuant to RCW 41.16.060, $0.225 of the total $3.60 must be used to the extent required for firefighters' pension
funding purposes; otherwise this tax may be levied and used for any other municipal purpose.
The City has statutory levy authority of $3.60/$1,000 of assessed value, however, this total rate is reduced by the actual
rate levied by the Library District (which has the authority to levy up to $0.50 per $1,000) and by the actual rate levied
by Fire Protection District No. 1 (which has the authority to levy up to $1.50 per $1,000).
RCW 84.52.043(1). The levy by the State may not exceed $3.60/$1,000 of assessed value adjusted to the State equalized
value in accordance with the indicated ratio fixed by the State Department of Revenue to be used exclusively for the
support of the common schools.
(8) Washington school districts do not have nonvoted regular levy authority.
Source: Spokane County Assessor for Levy Code 144.
(5)
(6)
(7)
8
General Property Taxes
The following provides a general description of the City's authority to levy property taxes and limitations
thereon, the method of determining the assessed value of real and personal property, tax collection procedures,
and tax collection information.
Authorized Property Taxes. The City is authorized to levy both "regular" property taxes and "excess" property
taxes.
(1) Regular Property Taxes. Regular property taxes are subject to constitutional and statutory limitations as
to rates and amounts and commonly are imposed by taxing districts for general municipal purposes,
including the payment of debt service on limited tax general obligation indebtedness, such as the
Bonds. Regular property taxes do not require voter approval except as described below.
(2) Excess Property Taxes. Excess property taxes are not subject to limitation as to rates or amounts but are
subject to 60 percent voter approval, as provided in Article VII, Section 2 of the State Constitution and
RCW 84.52.052. To be valid, voter approval must reflect a minimum voter turnout of 40 percent of the
number who voted at the last City general election, except that one-year excess tax levies also are valid
if the turnout is less than 40 percent and the measure receives a number of affirmative votes equal to or
greater than 24 percent of the number who voted at the last City general election. Excess levies may be
imposed without voter approval when necessary to prevent impairment of the obligations of contracts.
Regular Property Tax Limitations
The authority of a city to levy taxes without voter approval for general city purposes, including the payment of
debt service on limited tax general obligation indebtedness, such as the Bonds, is subject to the limitations
described below. Information relating to regular property tax limitations is based on existing statutes and
constitutional provisions. Changes in such laws could alter the impact of other interrelated tax limitations on
the City.
Maximum Rate Limitation. Title 84 RCW authorizes the imposition of regular tax levies subject to various
statutory maximums (see "Overlapping Taxing Districts" herein).
The One Percent Aggregate Regular Levy Limitation. Article VII, Section 2 of the Washington Constitution, as
amended in 1973, limits aggregate regular property tax levies by the State and all taxing districts, except port
districts and public utility districts, to one percent of the true and fair value of property. RCW 84.52.050
provides the same limitation by statute.
$5.90/$1,000 Aggregate Regular Levy Limitation. Within the one percent limitation described above,
RCW 84.52.043(2) imposes an aggregate limitation on regular tax levies by all taxing districts, other than the
State, of $5.90/$1,000 of assessed value, except levies for any port or public utility district; excess levies
authorized in Article VII, Section 2 of the State Constitution; and certain levies for acquiring conservation
futures, for emergency medical services or care, to finance affordable housing, for ferry districts, for criminal
justice purposes and for transit -related purposes; and certain protected portions of levies for metropolitan park
districts, for fire protection districts and for flood control zone districts.
Uniformity Requirement. Article VII, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution requires that property taxes be
levied at a uniform rate upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of a taxing district levying
such taxes. With certain limited exceptions, all real estate constitutes one class of property for purposes of this
uniformity requirement. Aggregate property tax levy rates vary within the City due to its different
overlapping taxing districts. In the event that the maximum permissible levy rate by a taxing district varies
within the taxing district, the lowest maximum permissible rate for any part of the taxing district must be
applied throughout the entire taxing district.
Prioritization of Levies. RCW 84.52.010 provides that if aggregate levies certified by all taxing districts exceed the
aggregate levy limitations described above, levies certified by junior taxing districts are reduced or eliminated
in order to bring the aggregate levy into compliance with the statutory maximum prescribed by RCW 84.52.050
and 84.52.043. RCW 84.52.043 defines "junior taxing districts" as all taxing districts other than the state,
counties, road districts, cities, towns, port districts, and public utility districts.
9
The tax levy for unlimited tax general obligation bonds is a special excess levy subject to voter approval, and as
such, is not subject to the limitations on regular levies described above. The Bonds are not unlimited tax
general obligation bonds.
Regular Levy Increase Limitation. The regular property tax increase limitation (chapter 84.55 RCW) limits the
total dollar amount of regular property taxes levied by an individual local taxing district, such as the City, to
the amount of such taxes levied in the highest of the three most recent years multiplied by a limit factor, plus
an adjustment to account for taxes on new construction, annexations, improvements and State -assessed
property at the previous year's rate. The limit factor is the lesser of 101 percent or 100 percent plus inflation,
unless a greater amount is approved by a simple majority of the voters. With a supermajority vote of the
Council, the limit factor is a flat 101 percent.
RCW 84.55.092 allows the property tax levy to be set at the amount that would be allowed if the tax levy for
taxes due in each year since 1986 had been set at the full amount allowed under chapter 84.55 RCW. This is
sometimes referred to as "banked" levy capacity. The City has approximately $490,992 in banked levy
capacity.
Within the rate limitations described above and only upon voter approval, a taxing district may levy,
indefinitely or for a limited period or to satisfy a limited purpose, an amount greater than otherwise would be
allowed by the tax increase limitation, as allowed by RCW 84.55.050. This is known as a "levy lid lift." A
newly created taxing district can initiate its levy at the maximum permitted statutory levy rate, unless that rate
would exceed any of the limitations described above.
Since the regular property tax increase limitation applies to the total dollar amount levied rather than to levy
rates, increases in the assessed value of all property in the taxing district (excluding new construction,
improvements and State -assessed property) which exceed the rate of growth in taxes allowed by the limit
factor result in decreased regular tax levy rates, unless voters authorize a higher levy or the taxing district uses
banked levy capacity. Decreases in the assessed value of all property in the taxing district (including new
construction, improvements and State -assessed property) or increases in such assessed value that are less than
the rate of growth in taxes imposed, among other events, may result in increased regular tax levy rates.
Assessed Value
The County Assessor ("Assessor") determines the value of all real and personal property throughout the
County that is subject to ad valorem taxation, except certain utility properties which are valued by the State
Department of Revenue (the "Department"). The Assessor is an elected official whose duties and methods of
determining value are prescribed and controlled by statute and by detailed regulations promulgated by the
Department.
For tax purposes, the assessed value of property is 100 percent of its true and fair value. Three approaches may
be used to determine real property value: market data, replacement cost and income -generating capacity. In
the County, all property is subject to an annual property valuation and an on-site revaluation at least
once every six years. The property is listed by the Assessor on a roll at its current assessed value and the roll is
filed in the Assessor's office. The Assessor's determinations are subject to revisions by the County Board of
Equalization and, for certain property, subject to further revisions by the State Board of Tax Appeals.
Property Tax Collection Procedure
Property taxes are levied in specific amounts and the rate for all taxes levied for all taxing districts in the
County is determined, calculated and fixed by the Assessor based upon the assessed value of the property
within the various taxing districts. The Assessor extends the taxes to be levied within each taxing district on a
tax roll which contains the total amount of taxes to be so levied and collected. The tax roll is delivered to the
County Treasurer by January 15, who creates a tax account for each taxpayer and is responsible for the
collection of taxes due to each account. All such taxes are due and payable on April 30 of each year, but if the
amount due from a taxpayer exceeds $50, one-half may be paid then and the balance no later than October 31,
of each year. Delinquent taxes are subject to interest at the rate of 12 percent per year computed on a monthly
basis from the date of delinquency until paid. In addition, a penalty of three percent is assessed on June 1 of the
10
year in which the tax was due and eight percent on December 1 of the year due. All collections of interest on
delinquent taxes are credited to the County's current expense fund.
The method of giving notice of payment of taxes due, the accounting for the money collected, the division of
the taxes among the various taxing districts, notices of delinquency, and collection procedures are all covered
by detailed statutes. By law the County Treasurer may not commence foreclosure of a tax lien on real property
until three years have passed since the first delinquency. Property taxes levied are secured by a lien on the
property assessed. A federal tax lien filed before personal property taxes are levied is senior to the personal
property tax lien. In addition, a federal civil judgment lien (but not a federal tax lien) is senior to real property
taxes that are incurred after the judgment lien has been recorded. In all other respects, and subject to the
possible "homestead exemption" described below, the lien that secures property taxes is senior to all other
liens or encumbrances of any kind on real or personal property subject to taxation. The State's courts have not
decided whether the homestead law (chapter 6.13 RCW) gives the occupying homeowner a right to retain the
first $125,000 of proceeds of the forced sale of the family residence or other "homestead" property for
delinquent general property taxes. (See Algona v. Sharp, 30 Wn. App. 837, 638 P.2d 627 (1982)), holding the
homestead right superior to improvement district assessments). The United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Washington has held that the homestead exemption applies to the lien for property taxes,
while the State Attorney General has taken the position that it does not.
Collection
Year
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Regular
Assessed
Valuef
$7,748,275,097
7,393,971,582
7,168,991,028
6,921,825,295
7,087,523,395
7,140,947,644
(1) The assessed value of property
true and fair value.
(2) In process of collection.
Sources: Spokane County Assessor and Treasurer.
Tax Collection Record
Ad Valorem
Levy Rate
$1.48285
1.52545
1.54515
1.57761
1.52645
1.50300
is calculated in the year
Taxpayer
Kaiser Aluminum WA LLC
Avista Corporation
Spokane Valley Mall
Park SPE, LLC
Wagstaff Inc.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Cello Ptnship. DBA Verizon Wireless
Spokane Washington Hospital Co LLC
Enjoy! The River, LLC
Hanson Industries
Subtotal — Ten Largest Taxpayers
All Other City Taxpayers
Total City Taxpayers
Source: Spokane County Assessor's Office.
Tax Collection
Ad Valorem Year As of
Tax Levy of Levy 03/01/16
$11,489,518
11,279,152 98.4%
11,077,144 98.1
10,919,932 97.5
10,818,717 97.9
10,732,863 97.5
(2) (2)
98.6%
99.4
99.6
100.0
100.0
prior to taxes being levied and is based upon 100 percent of its
Major Property Taxpayers
Type of Business
Manufacturing
Utility
Shopping mall
Real estate
Manufacturing
Retail
Telecommunications
Healthcare
Apartments
Mining equipment
11
2016 Collection Year
Assessed Valuation
$ 302,574,229
94,757,241
67,922,910
67,498,810
35,952,465
34,975,478
33,978,009
31,358,099
30,100,680
29,679,010
Percentage
of City's
Total A.V.
3.91%
1.22
0.88
0.87
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.40
0.39
0.38
728,796,931 9.41
7,019,478,166 90.59
$ 7,748,275,097 100.00%
Collection of Other Taxes
In addition to regular property tax levies described above, the City is authorized to impose various other taxes,
fees, and charges, including but not limited to those described below. See the City's financial statements
attached in Appendix C for a summary of many of these taxes, fees, and charges. The City also receives
intergovernmental revenues (see, for example, footnote 1 to the table "Outstanding General Obligation Debt")
and other funds for deposit into the General Fund. Neither the State nor any municipal corporation of the State
currently has the authority to or has ever collected a tax on net income. The City also maintains additional
funds that are dedicated to specific purposes, such as the Street Fund, the Civic Buildings Capital Projects
Fund, the Capital Reserve Fund, and various proprietary funds. See Appendix C.
Local Sales and Use Tax. The State currently imposes a sales and use tax of 6.5%. Cities, counties and certain
other municipal corporations are authorized to levy incremental local sales and use taxes for various purposes.
The sales tax currently is applied to a broad base of tangible personal property and selected services purchased
by consumers, including construction (labor and materials), machinery and supplies used by businesses,
services and repair of real and personal property, and many other transactions not taxed in other states. The
use tax supplements the sales tax by taxing the use of certain services and by taxing the use of certain personal
property on which a sales tax has not been paid (such as items purchased in a state that imposes no sales tax).
The State Legislature, and the voters through the initiative process, have changed the base of the sales and use
tax on occasion, and this may occur again in the future. See "Initiative and Referendum." The Department
administers and collects sales and use taxes from sellers, consumers and the County and makes disbursements
to the City on a monthly basis.
The City is authorized to impose a local sales and use tax of 1.0%, of which 0.15% is required to be remitted to
the County. An aggregate sales and use tax of 8.7% is currently imposed in the City. The resulting tax
revenues are allocated 0.85% to the City, 0.15% to the County for general purposes, 6.5% to the State, 0.60% to
the County for public transit and 0.10% to each of the following County services: Spokane Public Facilities
District, criminal justice, juvenile jail, mental health, public safety and law enforcement communications.
Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. In 2003, the State Legislature approved legislation authorizing the
State's membership in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (the "SSUTA"), in an effort to make sales
and use taxes in the State more uniform with other states. Congress has required that state sales taxes be more
uniform before Congress will permit taxation of interstate catalogue and Internet sales. In 2007, the State
Legislature adopted legislation fully conforming to the SSUTA. Effective July 1, 2008, the sales tax system
changed in the State from an origin -based system to a destination -based system. Under destination sourcing,
sales taxes on goods delivered to customers in the State are credited to the taxing jurisdiction where the goods
are delivered (as opposed to the point of sale) and the rate of the tax is determined by the local rate in the
destination taxing jurisdiction.
The State Legislature enacted certain provisions to mitigate net losses in sales and use tax collections of local
taxing jurisdictions resulting from the change to a destination -based system. To qualify, the local taxing
jurisdiction must be negatively impacted by the legislation and the local sales tax must have been in effect
before July 1, 2008, among other requirements. Money for mitigation is subject to appropriation by the State
Legislature. Under the mitigation legislation, on each July 1, the State Treasurer is required to transfer an
amount determined by the Department to fully mitigate negatively impacted local jurisdictions. The
Department is required to determine each local jurisdiction's annual losses, and distributions are required to be
made quarterly representing one-fourth of a jurisdiction's annual loss less voluntary compliance revenue from
the previous quarter. Losses in sales tax revenues are based on a business by business comparison of sales
patterns in each jurisdiction before and after the change to destination -based sales tax. "Voluntary compliance
revenue" is the local sales tax revenue gain to each local taxing jurisdiction reported to the Department by
sellers in other states voluntarily registered through the SSUTA.
The City has experienced a net loss in its sales tax receipts as a result of this legislation and has been allocated
mitigation payments from the State in the amounts of $575,269 and $572,577 for losses incurred in 2014 and
2015, respectively. The City cannot predict its future sales tax receipts. So long as the City continues to
experience net losses in sales tax receipts, mitigation payments are allowed pursuant to the State's mitigation
legislation, and as long as the City is eligible, the City will continue to seek sales tax mitigation payments.
However, nothing guarantees the Legislature will continue to allocate mitigation payments to the City in the
future.
12
Criminal Justice Tax. The criminal justice tax is an additional local sales and use tax of 0.1% for funding criminal
justice programs. The criminal justice sales tax distribution is based on population. This tax is levied only by
the County and is imposed County -wide, but the receipts are shared with the cities within the County,
including the City. The adoption of this tax does not require a vote of the people. Of the revenue collected for
criminal justice, 10% is distributed to the County and 90% to cities and the County on a per capita basis based
on the estimated population as determined by the State Office of Financial Management as of April 1 of each
year. Revenues from the criminal justice tax are deposited into the City's General Fund, but may only be used
for criminal justice purposes, including the construction, improvements and expansion of jails, court facilities,
juvenile justice facilities and services with ancillary benefits to the civil justice system (such as domestic
violence programs and services). The City's receipts from the County's criminal justice sales tax; therefore, are
not available for debt service payments on the Bonds.
Public Safety Tax. The County voters approved an additional sales and use tax of 0.10% (the "Public Safety
Tax"), that commenced in 2005 and was approved again by voters in August of 2009, with a termination date
of March 31, 2020. State law requires that the proceeds of the Public Safety Tax must be shared with the
County, such that 60% is distributed to the County and the remainder is allocated on a per capita basis to cities
within the County, including the City. In addition, State law requires that at least one-third of all receipts of
the Public Safety Tax must be dedicated to criminal justice purposes, fire protection purposes, or both.
Criminal justice purposes are defined as activities that substantially assist the criminal justice system, which
may include circumstances where ancillary benefit to the civil justice system occurs. This includes, but is not
limited to, the construction, improvement, and expansion of jails, court facilities, juvenile justice facilities, and
services with ancillary benefits to the civil justice system.
Gambling Tax. A gambling tax of 5% is levied on the gross revenue received from bingo, raffles and
punchboards and pull -tabs, less the amount paid as prizes, 6% on gross revenue received from social card
games, less amounts paid as prizes, and 2% on the gross revenue from amusement games, less amounts paid as
prizes.
Telephone Utility Tax. A telephone utility tax is assessed upon every person or business engaged in or carrying
on any telephone business (including cellular telephone service and pager service) within the City. This tax is
equal to 6.0% of the total gross income from such business in the City, subject to certain limited exclusions.
Revenues from this tax are deposited into the City's Street Fund and used generally by the City for planning,
establishing, constructing, repairing and maintaining the City's streets, sidewalks and appurtenances,
including pedestrian and bicycle paths, lanes and routes. The City is currently in the process of engaging an
independent audit firm to audit this tax due to the decline in revenues in recent years.
The following table presents historical sources of tax revenue, other than property taxes, received in the
General Fund.
Year
2015 (1)
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
Sales &
Use Tax
$18,209,568
17,440,083
16,587,617
15,427,377
14,850,409
14,097,299
Criminal
Justice Tax
$1,523,588
1,455,313
1,358,956
1,286,302
1,266,819
1,241,917
(1) Preliminary and unaudited as of April 1, 2016.
(2) Includes leasehold excise taxes and timber tax.
Source: City of Spokane Valley.
Public Safety
Tax
$848,665
812,280
759,889
724,052
724,219
711,068
Gambling Other
Tax Taxes (2)
$412,785 $ 5,906
506,251 6,932
528,438 6,139
618,394 11,481
524,230 4,340
646,143 4,858
Total
$21,000,512
20,220,859
19,241,039
18,067,606
17,370,017
16,701,285
Real Estate Excise Tax. The City imposes a real estate excise tax of 0.5% on sales of real property in the City. The
proceeds are used for capital projects. The City's tax is in addition to the current State real estate excise tax of
1.28%.
13
The first 0.25% of the City tax ("REET 1") is imposed pursuant to RCW 82.46.010 and may be used for financing
certain capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of the City's comprehensive plan or, within
certain limitations, maintenance and operating expenses. Eligible capital projects for REET 1 are streets, roads,
highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm
and sanitary sewer systems, parks, recreational facilities, law enforcement facilities, fire protection facilities,
trails, libraries, administrative and judicial facilities and river and waterway flood control projects. The City
may use the greater of $100,000 or 35% of REET 1 revenues, not to exceed $1 million, to pay for maintenance
and operation expenses of existing capital facilities through calendar year 2016. Recent amendments to chapter
82.46 RCW authorize the City to use the greater of $100,000 or 25% of available funds, not to exceed $1 million
per year, from REET 1 revenues for maintenance of REET 1 capital projects if certain conditions are satisfied.
Similar REET authority that expires on December 31, 2016 is not affected.
The second 0.25% tax of the City ("REET 2") is imposed pursuant to RCW 82.46.035(2) and may be used for
certain capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of the City's comprehensive plan or, within
certain limitations, maintenance and operating expenses. Eligible capital projects for REET 2 include: streets,
roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems,
storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or
improvement of parks. REET 2 excludes the use of funds to acquire land for parks. The City may use the
greater of $100,000 or 35% of REET 2 revenues, not to exceed $1 million, to pay for maintenance and operation
expenses of existing capital facilities through calendar year 2016. Recent amendments to chapter 82.46 RCW
authorize the City to use the greater of $100,000 or 25% of available funds, not to exceed $1 million per year,
from REET 2 revenues for maintenance of REET 2 capital projects, and for planning, acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, improvement, and maintenance of certain REET 1 capital
projects if certain conditions are satisfied. Similar REET authority that expires on December 31, 2016, is not
affected.
Real estate excise taxes are collected by the Treasurer of the County within which the property is located and
distributed to the City periodically. Distributions may be suspended if the City is in noncompliance under
RCW 36.70A.340 (relating to growth management planning).
Hotel/Motel Tax. The City imposes a 2% tax under RCW 67.28.180 on all charges made for the furnishing of
lodging at hotels, motels, and similar establishments (including bed and breakfasts and RV parks) for a
continuous period of less than one month. The tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5% state sales tax, so that
the total tax that a patron pays in retail sales tax and hotel/motel tax combined is equal to the retail sales tax in
the jurisdiction. The revenues generated by this tax may be used solely for paying for tourism promotion and
for the acquisition and/or operation of tourism -related facilities.
The City also imposes a 1.3% tax under RCW 67.28.181 on all charges made for the furnishing of lodging at
hotels, motels, and similar establishments (including bed and breakfasts and RV parks) for a continuous period
of less than one month. The revenues generated by this tax may only be used for capital expenditures for
acquiring, constructing, making improvements to or other related capital expenditures for large sporting
venues, or venues for tourism -related facilities.
Authorized Investments
Chapter 35.39 RCW limits the investment by a city of its inactive funds or other funds in excess of current
needs to the following: United States bonds; United States certificates of indebtedness; State bonds or warrants
general obligation or utility revenue bonds of its own or of any other city or town in the State; its own bonds or
warrants of a local improvement district which are within the protection of the local improvement guaranty
fund law; and any other investment authorized by law for any other taxing district. Under chapter 39.59 RCW,
a city also may invest in the following: bonds of any local government in the State that have at the time of
investment one of the three highest credit ratings of a nationally recognized rating agency; general obligation
bonds of any other state or local government of any other state that have at the time of the investment one of
the three highest credit ratings of a nationally recognized rating agency; registered warrants of a local
government in the same county; and any investments authorized by law for the State Treasurer or any local
government of the State other than a metropolitan municipal corporation (other than bank certificates of
deposit of banks or bank branches not located in the State). Under chapter 43.84 RCW, the State Treasurer (and,
14
under chapter 39.59 RCW, a city) may invest in the following; in obligations of the United States or its agencies
and of any corporation wholly owned by the government of the United States; State county, municipal or
school district general obligation bonds or general obligation warrants of taxing districts of the State, if within
the statutory limitation of indebtedness; motor vehicle fund warrants; Federal Home Loan Bank notes and
bonds, Federal Land Bank bonds, Fannie Mae notes, debentures and guaranteed certificates of participation
and obligation of any other government-sponsored corporation whose obligations are eligible for collateral for
advances to Federal Reserve System member banks; bankers' acceptances purchased in the secondary
market; negotiable certificates of deposit of any national or state commercial or mutual savings bank or savings
and loan association doing business in the United States; and commercial paper.
Effective in June 2016, chapter 39.59 RCW limits the investment by a city of its inactive funds or other funds in
excess of current needs to the following authorized instruments: (i) bonds of the State or any local government
in the State; (ii) general obligation bonds of any other state or local government thereof which have at the time
of investment one of the three highest credit ratings of a nationally recognized rating agency; (iii) registered
warrants of a local government in the same county as the local government making the investment; (iv)
obligations of the U.S. government, its agencies and wholly owned corporations, or obligations issued or
guaranteed by supranational institutions, provided, that at the time of investment, the United States
government must be the largest shareholder of such institution; (v) obligations of the Federal Home Loan
Bank, Fannie Mae and other government-sponsored enterprises; (vi) bankers' acceptances purchased on the
secondary market; (vii) commercial paper, subject to state investment board policies; and (viii) corporate notes,
subject to state investment board policies.
Money available for investment may be invested on an individual fund basis or may, unless otherwise
restricted by law, be commingled within one common investment portfolio. All income derived from such
investment may be either apportioned to and used by the various participating funds or for the benefit of the
general government in accordance with City ordinances or resolutions. Funds derived from the sale of bonds
or other instruments of indebtedness will be invested or used in such manner as the authorizing ordinances,
resolutions or bond covenants may lawfully prescribe.
Local Government Investment Pool
The City may also invest its funds with the State Treasurer in a pooled fund authorized by chapter 43.250 RCW
and known as the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool ("LGIP"). The LGIP is comparable to a
Rule 2a-7 money market fund, as recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and its weighted
average maturity does not exceed 90 days. For a full description of the LGIP and its investment structure, visit
the Washington State Treasurer's website at http://www.tre.wa.gov/lgip/index.shtml (which is not
incorporated into this Official Statement by reference).
As of December 31, 2015, the City's investments at market value totaled $48,512,577, with 90 percent of that
amount invested in the LGIP and the balance invested in certificates of deposits.
15
Comparative General Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
(Fiscal Years Ended December 31)
Actual
Preliminary &
Unaudited
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Revenues
Taxes $ 28,052,407 $ 28,867,500 $ 30,083,368 $ 31,351,004 $ 32,281,429
Licenses and permits 1,938,683 2,099,092 2,427,635 2,372,020 2,241,384
Intergovernmental 2,143,518 2,233,750 1,951,671 1,903,987 2,089,795
Charges for services 658,254 866,479 987,788 1,024,003 1,051,745
Fines and forfeitures 588,644 563,893 543,662 544,407 510,849
Investment interest 91,879 97,111 68,177 46,607 81,969
Miscellaneous 1 279 590 1,107,751 1,019,654 1 076 293 1 002 665
Total Revenues 34,752,976 35,835,576 37,081,955 38,318,321 39,259,836
Expenditures
General government 3,993,020 4,203,373 4,231,733 4,505,635 4,536,440
Public safety 22,554,387 21,664,077 22,429,738 22,131,472 22,561,611
Utilities and physical environment 1,757,430 1,829,179 1,667,454 1,887,560 1,932,175
Economic environment 161,867 246,862 356,093 355,237 333,935
Community development 1,771,845 1,894,058 2,030,754 1,848,332 2,070,698
Culture and recreation 2,300,559 2,536,019 2,599,253 2,582,052 2,787,974
Debt service (952) 444 301 435 425
Capital outlay 163,522 95,465 917,226 134,821 447,684
Total Expenditures 32,701,678 32,469,477 34,232,552 33,445,544 34,670,942
Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues
Over Expenditures 2,051,298
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in
Transfers (out)
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Net Changes in Fund Balance
Fund Balance, January 1
Prior period adjustment
Ending Fund Balance, December 31
1,090,116
(2,465,412)
(1,375,296)
3,366,099 2,849,403
4,872,777 4,588,894
84,600 133,887 83,100 123,524
(2,932,203) (8,245,994) (1) (3,959,628) (2) (3,750,720) (3)
(2,847,603) (8,112,107) (3,876,528) (3,627,196)
676,001 518,496 (5,262,704) 996,249 961,698
33,235,731
$ 33,911,732
33,911,732
163,322
$ 34,593,550
34,593,550
$ 29,330,846
29,330,848 30,327,097
$ 30,327,097 $ 31,288,795
(1) This amount takes into consideration the decision of the City Council to transfer out of the General Fund the amount of
$7,826,000 to a Capital Reserve Fund that was created to allow the City flexibility to address capital needs. Of the
$7,826,000, approximately $2,690,000 was committed by the City as follows: $2,320,000 as grant matching funds for a
bridge replacement project with construction to occur 2014 through 2016; $268,000 for street landscaping completed in
2014; $60,000 for business route signage completed in 2013; and $42,000 for a joint park/library site design completed in
2013.
(2) [TO COME]
(3) [TO COME]
Source: City of Spokane Valley.
16
2011- 2015 Actuals and 2016 Adopted General Fund Budget
(Fiscal Years Ended December 31)
RECURRING ACTIVITY
Actual
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 (1)
Budget
2016
Revenues
Property Tax $10,681,620 $10,799,123 $10,841,559 $11,129,377 $11,280,147 $11,479,200
Sales Tax 14,850,409 15,427,377 16,587,617 17,440,083 18,209,568 18,210,500
Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 1,266,819 1,286,302 1,358,956 1,455,313 1,523,588 1,556,400
Sales Tax - Public Safety 724,219 724,052 759,889 812,280 848,665 867,400
Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 528,570 629,875 534,577 513,953 419,461 333,700
Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,130,681 1,212,942 1,239,334 1,249,848 1,210,692 1,154,000
State Shared Revenues 1,904,131 2,087,860 1,820,315 1,834,198 2,011,628 2,024,528
Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety 1,739,089 1,501,158 1,496,456 1,460,265 1,360,909 1,443,500
Community Development 1,113,522 1,304,966 1,677,070 1,567,093 1,479,949 1,491,500
Recreation Program Revenues 531,724 607,675 530,066 599,403 654,256 595,200
Miscellaneous Department Revenue 110,689 83,405 99,068 94,897 112,232 95,900
Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 162,323 161,737 130,077 100,350 140,149 103,500
Transfers -in from other funds 38,386 84,600 83,100 83,100 83,100 83,100
Total Recurring Revenues $34,782,182 $35,911,072 $37,158,084 $38,340,160 $39,334,344 $39,438,428
Expenditures
City Council $284,716 $340,995 $339,801 $405,808 $367,280 $506,869
City Manager 510,029 583,251 632,090 635,605 665,170 717,303
Legal 431,482 443,081 451,541 446,787 458,766 479,951
Public Safety 22,495,784 21,891,299 22,296,526 22,096,628 23,339,708 24,703,749
Deputy City Manager 505,708 430,063 459,327 535,460 672,801 737,002
Finance / IT 956,506 920,815 1,032,226 1,098,737 1,062,307 1,253,080
Human Resources 204,514 212,079 212,108 229,683 235,600 255,694
Public Works 668,618 641,845 658,687 710,086 738,727 966,870
Community Development 2,796,398 3,085,986 3,039,521 2,984,596 3,068,043 3,648,066
Parks & Recreation 2,635,869 2,859,565 2,556,434 2,570,860 2,718,152 2,787,615
Pavement Preservation 0 0 855,857 888,823 920,000 943,800
General Government 1,485,092 1,258,668 1,636,346 1,592,698 1,422,409 1,532,000
Transfers -out to other funds 319,000 319,000 319,000 325,000 664,300 829,200
Total Recurring Expenditures $33,293,716 $32,986,647 $34,489,464 $34,520,771 $36,333,263 $39,361,199
Recurring Revenues Over (Under)
Recurring Expenditures $1,488,466 $2,924,425 $2,668,620 $3,819,389 $3,001,081 $77,229
NONRECURRING ACTIVITY
Revenues
Transfers -in $1,051,730 $0 $50,787 $56,568 $40,425 $40,425
Total Nonrecurring Revenues $1,051,730 $0 $50,787 $56,568 $40,425 $40,425
Expenditures
Transfers -out $1,736,411 $2,216,203 $7,876,207 $2,745,805 $2,166,420 $0
Police Department - CAD/RMS 0 0 0 0 294,575 0
Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 32,410 206,704 350,000
2015 Windstorm Clean-up 0 0 0 0 38,045 0
Department equipment and software needs 136,971 35,508 62,087 106,186 153,926 263,281
Total Nonrecurring Expenditures $1,873,382 $2,251,711 $7,938,294 $2,884,401 $2,859,670 $613,281
Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under)
Nonrecurring Expenditures ($821,652) ($2,251,711) ($7,887,507) ($2,827,833) ($2,819,245) ($572,856)
Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues
Over (Under) Total Expenditures 666,814 672,714 (5,218,887) 991,556 181,836 (495,627)
Beginning fund balance 27,461,703 28,128,517 28,801,231 23,582,344 24,573,900 24,755,736
Ending fund balance (2)
$28,128,517 $28,801,231 $23,582,344 $24,573,900 $24,755,736 $24,260,109
(1) Amounts for 2015 are preliminary and unaudited as of April 6, 2016.
(2) Ending fund balance reported here will not match the General Fund ending fund balance in the financial statements due
to the financial statements being prepared in conformance with Governmental Accounting Standards. Governmental
Accounting Standards require that certain other funds are combined with the General Fund for financial reporting
purposes.
Source: City of Spokane Valley.
17
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents
Taxes receivable
Accounts receivable (net)
Interest receivable
Due from other funds
Grants receivable
Prepaid items
Total Assets
Liabilities
Accounts payable
Accrued wages/benefits payable
Due to other funds
Deposits and other payables
Retainage payable
Unearned revenue
Total Liabilities
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Comparative General Fund
Balance Sheet
(Years Ending December 31)
Actual
2011 2012
Preliminary &
Unaudited
2013 2014 2015
$ 35,810,827 $ 36,310,251 $ 29,392,658 $ 37,043,102 $ 37,651,485
3,906,639 4,074,318 4,251,864 4,124,956 4,347,948
215,405 451,447 449,943 1,227,840 1,869,267
4,614 6,124 4,158 3,719 10,987
166,000 - -
23,268 50,028 7,663 - 19,737
12,423 24,015 56,185 98,263 131,314
$ 39,973,176 $ 41,082,184 $ 34,162,471 $ 42,497,880 $ 44,030,738
$ 714,914 $ 562,382 $ 566,388 $ 590,900 $ 1,084,843
478,861 359,409 390,791 395,687 428,829
955,000 955,000 - 7,500,000 (1) 7,500,000
1,686,062 2,303,543 1,403,805 818,552 521,944
27,897 31,316 33,259 33,979 34,099
2,198,710 2,276,984 2,437,383 2,811,665 2,640,039
6,061,444 6,488,634 4,831,625 12,150,783 12,209,754
Unavailable traffic mitigation revenue - - - 20,000
Fund Balances
Nonspendable 12,423 24,015 56,185 98,263 131,314
Restricted 121,833 180,040 204,147 255,330 34,058
Assigned 50,266 - - -
Unassigned 33,727,210 34,389,494 29,070,514 29,973,504 31,655,612
Total Fund Balance 33,911,732 34,593,550 29,330,846 30,327,097 31,820,984
Total Liabilities, Deferred Inflows of
Resources and Fund Balances
$ 39,973,176 $ 41,082,184
$ 34,162,471 (2) $ 42,497,880 $ 44,030,738
(1)
(1) The $7,500,000 "due to other funds" balances in 2014 and 2015 were related to outflows from the Capital Reserve Fund.
Interfund balances result from a time lag between year-end and beginning fiscal year dates when interfund goods and
services are provided or reimbursable expenditures occur and when cash is transferred. The interfund balances
eliminate the temporary negative credit balances at fiscal year-end in the City's pooled cash positions.
(2) The decline in fund balance in 2013 was due to the decision of the City Council to transfer out of the General Fund the
amount of $7,826,000 to a Capital Reserve Fund that was created to allow the City flexibility to address capital needs.
Source: City of Spokane Valley.
18
The City
The City was incorporated on March 31, 2003 as a non -charter code city under the provisions of chapter 35A.13
RCW. The City is located in the County in eastern Washington, approximately 10 miles west of the
Washington/Idaho border. The City is bordered by the City of Spokane to the west. The City encompasses an
area of approximately 38.5 square miles, with an estimated 2015 population of 93,340 ranking the City as the
ninth largest city in the State. The City is a general-purpose government and provides (either directly or
through contracts with other municipalities) public safety, street construction, pavement preservation, parks
and recreation, storm water, solid waste management and general administrative services.
Form of Government
The City operates under a Council/Manager form of government. Under this form of government, the voters
elect, at large, a seven -member City Council (the "Council"), and the Council elects one of its members to serve
as Mayor. The City Manager is appointed by the Council to act as the chief executive officer of the City and is
responsible to the Council for proper administration of all City affairs. Following is a list showing the Mayor
and the Council members and their current term expiration dates.
Member Position Term Expires
Rod Higgins Mayor December 31, 2017
Arne Woodard Deputy Mayor December 31, 2019
Bill Gothmann (1) Councilmember Pro Tem June 14, 2016
Dean Grafos (2) Councilmember December 31, 2019
Chuck Hafner (2) Councilmember December 31, 2017
Ed Pace Councilmember December 31, 2017
Sam Wood Councilmember December 31, 2019
(1) Bill Gothmann was appointed Councilmember Pro Tem to temporarily serve in place of Councilmember Bill Bates, who
is currently on extended leave. Councilmember Bill Gothmann was appointed June 15, 2015, and his temporary
appointment expires at 11:59 p.m. on June 14, 2016. Councilmember Bill Bates' term expires December 31, 2017.
(2) Dean Grafos announced his resignation effective April 25, 2016 and Chuck Hafner announced his resignation effective
May 2, 2016. The open positions in the Council are in the process of being replaced.
City Administration
The City Manager is hired by and is responsible to the City Council. The City Manager is responsible for
overall administration of the City, such as carrying out City Council policy, administering the affairs of the
City and directing, organizing, establishing, supervising and administering all departments, agencies, and
offices of the City. Effective April 27, 2016, City Manager Mike Jackson tendered his resignation as City
Manager for the City. The Council is beginning the process to recruit and select a new City Manager.
Mark Calhoun, Acting City Manager. Mr. Calhoun had been the Deputy City Manager since August 2014 and
became the Acting City Manager in February 2016. Prior to becoming Deputy City Manager, Mr. Calhoun
served as Finance Director for the City since 2011 and has over 20 years of experience in similar positions in the
State. Mr. Calhoun earned a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration with an accounting emphasis from
the University of Montana.
Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director. Ms. Taylor began working for the City in 2013. She served as the Interim
Finance Director beginning in May 2015 and was appointed to the position of Finance Director in November
2015. Ms. Taylor is responsible for financial management, including general accounting, budget development,
investment activities and information technology. Prior to working for the City, Ms. Taylor worked for a
public accounting firm for nearly six years, where she specialized in governmental and non-profit auditing and
earned her Certified Public Accounting license. Ms. Taylor has a Bachelor of Science in Accounting from
Central Washington University.
19
Labor Relations
The City currently has 87.4 full time equivalent employees plus seasonal and temporary employees. State law
requires municipalities to bargain with formally recognized collective bargaining units. The City enters into a
written bargaining agreement with one bargaining organization. Such agreement contains provisions on such
matters as salaries, vacation, sick leave, medical and dental insurance, working conditions, and grievance
procedures. The following table shows the bargaining organization, number of employees participating and
the expiration date of current contract with the bargaining unit representing City employees. The City
considers its relationship with the bargaining unit to be satisfactory.
Bargaining Unit
Washington State Council of County and City Employees,
Local 270-V (AFSCME)
Number of Contract
Employees Expiration Date
64.65 FTEs December 31, 2018
Pension System
The City provides most of its employee pensions through the State Public Employees Retirement System
("PERS"), a statewide cost-sharing multiple -employer plans administered by the State's Department of
Retirement Systems ("DRS"). Contributions by both employees and employers are based on gross wages.
PERS participants who joined the system by September 30, 1977 are Plan 1 members. Those PERS participants
who joined on or after October 1, 1977, are Plan 2 members, unless they exercised an option to transfer to Plan
3. PERS participants joining on or after September 1, 2002, have the irrevocable option of choosing
membership in PERS Plan 2 or PERS Plan 3.
State law requires systematic actuarial funding to finance the retirement plans. Actuarial calculations to
determine employer and employee contributions are prepared by the Office of the State Actuary ("OSA"), a
nonpartisan legislative agency charged with advising the Legislature and Governor on pension benefits and
funding policy. To calculate employer and employee contribution rates necessary to pre -fund the plans'
benefits, OSA uses actuarial cost and asset valuation methods selected by the Legislature as well as economic
and demographic assumptions. The Legislature adopted the following economic assumptions for contribution
rates beginning July 1, 2013: (1) 7.8 percent rate of investment return; (2) general salary increases of
3.75 percent; (3) 3.0 percent rate of Consumer Price Index increase; and (4) 0.95 percent growth in membership.
The long-term investment return assumption is used as the discount rate for determining the liabilities for a
plan. The 10 -year average annual return on the investment of the retirement funds was 9.24 percent.
Plan Funding; Contribution Rates and Amounts. All DRS retirement plans are funded by a combination of
funding sources: (1) contributions from the State; (2) contributions from employers (including the State as
employer and the City and other governmental employers); (3) contributions from employees; and
(4) investment returns. Retirement funds are invested by the State Investment Board, a 15 -member board
created by the Legislature in 1981.
The City's total contribution to PERS for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2015 were $555,982 and
$640,852 (unaudited), respectively.
See "Appendix C —2014 Audited Financial Statements — Note 7 — Pension Plans" for a description of the State
pension system and the plans.
Under State statute, contribution rates are adopted by the Pension Funding Council ("PFC") in even -numbered
years for the next ensuing State biennium. The rate -setting process begins with an actuarial valuation by the
OSA, who makes non-binding recommendations to the Select Committee on Pension Policy who then
recommends contribution rates to the PFC Board. No later than the end of July in even -numbered years, the
PFC Board adopts contribution rates, which are subject to revision by the Legislature.
20
The following table outlines the current contribution rates of employees and employers.
Contribution Rates for the 2013 - 2015 Biennium
Expressed as a Percentage of Covered Payroll
PERS
Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Employee City (1)
(1) Includes 0.18 percent DRS administrative rate.
(2) The State also contributes 3.36 percent to this plan.
6.00%
6.12
5.00 to 15.00
Plan Funding Status and Unfunded Actuarial Liability. While the City's prior contributions represent its full
current liability under the retirement systems, any unfunded pension benefit obligations could be reflected in
future years as higher contribution rates. It is expected that the contribution rates for employees and
employers in the PERS Plans 2 and 3 will increase in the coming years. The OSA website (which is not
incorporated into this Official Statement by reference) includes information regarding the values, funding
levels and investments of these retirement plans.
During the years 2001 through 2010 the rates adopted by the Legislature were lower than those that would
have been required to produce actuarially required contributions to PERS Plan 1, a closed plan with a large
proportion of the retirees. The State Actuary's actuarial valuation for PERS Plan 1 as of June 30, 2014 showed a
61 percent funded ratio (unfunded liability of $4.96 billion) while PERS Plans 2 and 3 had valuation assets that
exceed their accrued liability by $214 million (a 101 percent funded ratio), $1.17 billion (a 127 percent funded
ratio) and $1.02 billion (a 113 percent funded ratio), respectively. OSA uses the Projected Unit Credit ("PUC")
cost method and the Actuarial Value of Assets ("AVA") to report a plan's funded status. PUC is one of several
acceptable measures of a plan's funded status under current Government Accounting Standard Board
("GASB") rules. The PUC cost method projects future benefits under the plan, using salary growth and other
assumptions and applies the service that has been earned as of the valuation date to determine accrued
liabilities. The AVA is calculated using a methodology which smooths the effect of short-term volatility in the
Market Value of Assets by deferring a portion of annual investment gains or losses over a period of up to eight
years.
PERS Plans 2 and 3 are accounted for in the same pension trust fund and may legally be used to pay the
defined benefits of any PERS Plan 2 or 3 members. Assets for one plan may not be used to fund benefits for
another plan: however, all employers in PERS are required to make contributions at a rate (percentage of
payroll) determined by the OSA every two years for the sole purpose of amortizing the PERS Plan 1 unfunded
actuarial accrued liability within a rolling 10 -year period. The Legislature has established certain maximum
contribution rates that began in 2009 and will continue until 2015 and certain minimum contribution rates that
are to become effective in 2015 and remain in effect until the actuarial value of assets in PERS Plan 1 equals
100 percent of the actuarial accrued liability of PERS Plan 1. These rates are subject to change by future
legislation enacted by the State Legislature to address future changes in actuarial and economic assumptions
and investment performance.
In 2011, the Legislature ended the future automatic annual increase, which is a fixed dollar amount multiplied
by the member's total years of service, for most retirees in the PERS Plan 1 plan, which is forecast to reduce the
unfunded accrued actuarial liability in PERS Plan 1.
The information in this section has been obtained from the City's financial statements and information on the
State Actuary's and State Department of Retirement System's websites.
New GASB 67/68 Reporting Rules. GASB has adopted new pension accounting standards that require
employers, including the City, to report their pension liabilities on their balance sheet. Beginning with its 2015
financial statements, the City will report its proportionate share of the net plan asset or liability for each
pension plan in which City employees participate. Among the changes in the new GASB standards are that
lower discount rates are required to be used for underfunded plans in certain cases and the difference between
expected and actual investment returns each year will be recognized over a closed five-year smoothing period.
The State Department of Retirement Systems has determined each participating employers' proportionate
21
share of the plan liability and OSA has determined each plan's accounting valuation, which will be included in
the City's financial statements for fiscal year ending December 31, 2015. The GASB rules impact accounting for
pensions and not the funding status of the plans calculated by OSA or pension contribution rates that are set
based on statutory assumptions. The impact of GASB 68 on the City will include a reduction to its total net
position of $ million through a prior period adjustment. In 2015, the City had a $ million offset which
resulted in a net unfunded liability of $ million. These amounts are unaudited, preliminary, and subject
to change.
Other Post -Employment Benefits
GASB 45. The GASB standard concerning Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post -
Employment Benefits Other than Pensions ("OPEB") is known as "GASB 45." OPEB includes post -
employment healthcare, as well as other forms of post -employment benefits when provided separately from a
pension plan. GASB 45 provides for the measurement, recognition and display of OPEB
expenses/expenditures, related liabilities (assets), note disclosures, and if applicable, required supplementary
information in the financial reports.
The City — OPEB. The City participates in the Association of Washington Cities Employee Benefit Trust Health
care Program (the "Benefit Trust Program"), a cost-sharing multiple employer welfare benefit plan
administered by the Association of Washington Cities ("AWC"). The Benefit Trust Program provides medical
benefits to certain eligible retired employees of the participating employers, such as the City, and their family
members. The plan is administered by a trust of equivalent arrangement in which employer contributions to
the trust are irrevocable. These plan assets are for the sole purpose of providing OPEB to retirees and their
beneficiaries in accordance with the guidelines of the plan and plan assets are legally protected from creditors
of the employers or plan administrator.
In 2015, there were an estimated 261 employers enrolled in the Benefit Trust Program. All the risks, rewards
and costs, including benefit costs, are shared and are not individually attributed to the employers. A single
actuarial valuation conducted biennially covers all plan participants.
[remainder of page intentionally left blank]
22
Retirees of the City receiving medical benefits from Benefit Trust Program contribute the following monthly
amounts.
Asuris HealthFirst 1000
Non -Medicare enrolled retiree coverage
Non -Medicare enrolled spouse coverage
First Child
Second Child
Asuris HealthFirst 2500
Monthly
Amounts
$ 734.37
$ 740.78
$ 207.67
$ 164.23
Monthly
Amounts
Non -Medicare enrolled retiree coverage $ 641.21
Non -Medicare enrolled spouse coverage $ 645.87
First Child $ 181.55
Second Child $ 143.71
Asuris Plan R-1500
Non -Medicare enrolled retiree coverage
Non -Medicare enrolled spouse coverage
First Child
Second Child
Asuris Medicare Advantage
Retiree w/ Medicare A&B
Spouse w/ Medicare A&B
Group Health Retiree
Non -Medicare enrolled retiree coverage
Non -Medicare enrolled spouse coverage
Medicare enrolled retiree coverage
Medicare enrolled spouse coverage
First dependent
Second & all other dependents
Delta Dental Retiree
Monthly
Amounts
$ 1,304.75
$ 1,310.03
$ 374.44
$ 312.63
Monthly
Amounts
$ 385.23
$ 385.23
Monthly
Amounts
$ 1,218.17
$ 1,182.67
$ 407.94
$ 407.94
$ 354.38
$ 441.72
Monthly
Amounts
Retiree $ 61.54
Retiree + spouse $ 125.42
Retiree + child(ren) $ 124.57
Retiree + spouse + child(ren) $ 187.11
Source: City of Spokane Valley.
Participating employers, such as the City, are not contractually required to contribute to the Benefit Trust
Program. The retirees who elect coverage through the Trust pay 100 percent of the premium. As such, the City
did not have any contributions to the Trust for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2015.
The funded status of the Benefit Trust Program as of January 1, 2015 is shown below (dollars in thousands).
January 1, 2015
Actuarial Accrued Liability ("AAL") $5,911
Actuarial Value of Plan Assets 0
Unfunded AAL ("UAAL") $5,911
Source: City of Spokane Valley and the GASB 43/45 Compliance Report for the AWC Employee Benefit Trust as of January 1, 2015.
The projection of future benefit payments for an ongoing plan involves estimates of the value of reported
amounts and assumptions about the probability of occurrence of events far into the future. Such methods,
assumptions and estimates are only that and are subject to change.
23
The Benefit Trust Program annual OPEB costs, percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan, and the
net OPEB obligation for fiscal years 2013 through 2015 are shown below (dollars in thousands).
Benefit Trust Program
Fiscal Annual OPEB % of OPEB Cost Net OPEB
Year Cost Contributed Obligation
2015 $ 83 310.84% $ 5,911
2014 1,273 61.19 34,407
2013 11,858 9.20 141,241
Source: City of Spokane Valley.
Summary of Accounting Policies
The accounting and reporting policies of the City are prepared in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles ("GAAP") as applied to state and local governmental entities. GAAP for local
governments include those principles prescribed by GASB, which is the accepted standard-setting body for
establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles, the Financial Accounting Standards
Board, when applicable, and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants pronouncements that have
been made applicable by GASB Statements or Interpretations.
The City's government -wide financial statements are reported using the "economic resources measurement
focus" and the "accrual basis of accounting," as are proprietary funds. Under this approach, revenues are
recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of
related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. The City
recognizes grant revenue and similar items in the year in which expenses were incurred and as soon as all the
eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met.
The City's governmental fund financial statements, including the General Fund, are reported using the
"current financial resources measurement focus" and the "modified accrual basis of accounting." Revenues
are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available
when they are collectible within the current period or soon thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period.
For this purpose, the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 30 days of the end of
the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual
accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences,
claims, and judgments are recorded only when the payment is due. General capital asset acquisitions are
reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Issuance of long-term debt and acquisitions under capital
leases are reported as other financing sources.
Property taxes, franchise fees, licenses, and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered
to be susceptible to the accrual basis of accounting and so have been recognized as revenues of the current
fiscal period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is
considered to be susceptible to the accrual basis as revenue is applicable for the current period. All other
revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received (modified basis of
accounting).
Risk Management
The City is exposed to financial loss resulting from City -caused damage to property or persons, bodily injuries
or illness of employees, and unemployment compensation. The City is insured and a member of the
Washington Cities Insurance Authority ("WCIA") for general liability and property damage coverage. The
City uses the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Insurance Services for coverage to pay for
medical care for job-related injuries and illnesses, and wage replacement when the injury or illness is serious
enough to miss work. The City is self-insured for unemployment compensation benefits. The Risk
Management Fund is used to account for, and finance the liability and unemployment insurance costs.
Departments of the City make payments through interfund assessments to the fund on estimates of the
amounts needed to pay prior and current year claims.
24
Utilizing chapter 48.62 RCW (self-insurance regulation) and chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act),
nine cities originally formed WCIA on January 1, 1981. WCIA was created for the purpose of providing a
pooling mechanism for jointly purchasing insurance, jointly self-insuring, and/or jointly contracting for risk
management services. WCIA currently has 179 Members.
New members initially contract for a three-year term, and thereafter automatically renew on an annual basis.
A one-year withdrawal notice is required before membership can be terminated. Termination does not relieve
a former member from its unresolved loss history incurred during membership.
A Board of Directors (the "Board") governs WCIA, which is comprised of one designated representative from
each member. The Board elects an Executive Committee and appoints a Treasurer to provide general policy
direction for the organization. The WCIA Executive Director reports to the Executive Committee and is
responsible for conducting the day to day operations of WCIA.
Liability coverage is written on an occurrence basis, without deductibles. Coverage includes general,
automobile, police, public officials' errors or omissions, stop gap, and employee benefits liability. Limits are
$4 million per occurrence self-insured layer, and $16 million per occurrence in the re -insured excess layer. The
excess layer is insured by the purchase of reinsurance and insurance and is subject to aggregate limits. Total
limits are $20 million per occurrence subject to aggregate sublimits in the excess layers. The Board determines
the limits and terms of coverage annually.
Insurance coverage for property, automobile physical damage, fidelity, inland marine, and boiler and
machinery are purchased on a group basis. Various deductibles apply by type of coverage. Property
insurance and auto physical damage are self-funded from the members' deductible to $750,000, for all perils
other than flood and earthquake, and insured above that amount by the purchase of insurance.
In-house services include risk management consultation, loss control field services, claims and litigation
administration, and loss analyses. WCIA contracts for the claims investigation consultants for personnel issues
and land use problems, insurance brokerage, and lobbyist services.
WCIA is fully funded by its members, who make annual assessments on a prospectively rated basis, as
determined by an outside, independent actuary. The assessment covers loss, loss adjustment, and
administrative expenses. As outlined in the interlocal, WCIA retains the right to additionally assess the
membership for any funding shortfall.
An investment committee, using investment brokers, produces additional revenue by investment of WCIA's
assets in financial instruments which comply with all State guidelines.
The City is self-insured on a reimbursement basis for unemployment compensation. The City incurred $14,890
in claims for unemployment compensation in 2015 and did not have any settlements that exceeded insurance
coverage in the last three prior years.
Auditing of City Finances
The Office of the State Auditor, in accordance with RCW 43.09.200 and RCW 43.09.230, prescribes accounting
systems and budgetary controls. State statutes require audits for cities to be conducted by the Office of the
State Auditor. The City complies with the systems and controls prescribed by the Office of the State Auditor
and establishes procedures and records which reasonably assure safeguarding of assets and the reliability of
financial reporting.
The State Auditor is required to examine the affairs of cities at least once every two years, however the City
requests annual audits. The examination must include, among other things, the financial condition and
resources of the City, whether the laws and constitution of the State are being complied with, and the methods
and accuracy of the accounts and reports of the City. Reports of the auditor's examinations are required to be
filed in the office of the State Auditor and in the finance department of the City. The audited financial
statements of the City for the year ended December 31, 2014 are attached as Appendix C to this Official
Statement. The 2015 figures included herein are unaudited, preliminary and subject to change.
25
Demographic Information
The City is located in eastern Washington, in the central east area of the
County, approximately 10 miles east of the City of Spokane ("Spokane"). Due
to the City's proximity to Spokane, the economy of the City is tied to Spokane's
economy. Spokane is the second largest city in the State with an estimated
2015 population of 213,100. The population of the County was estimated to be
488,310 in 2015. Both Spokane and the County have experienced steady annual
growth in population.
Historically, much of the County economy relied heavily on the natural resource -related sectors of forest
products and agriculture. While these industries continue to be important elements of the area's economy, the
County's economy has diversified due to the influx and growth of high technology firms, airlines, and service
industries attracted by the region's work force.
Spokane serves as the economic hub of the County and as the regional trade center for an area commonly
known as the "Inland Northwest," consisting of portions of northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, western
Montana and southern British Columbia in Canada. The total population of this region is approximately 1.7
million. Spokane and its metropolitan area provide higher education and research opportunities, high quality
healthcare facilities, extensive support services for area residents and businesses and a large downtown retail
and business core.
Population
Population data for the City, Spokane and the County are as follows:
Population(1)
City of City of Spokane
Year Spokane Valley Spokane County
2015 93,340 213,100 488,310
2014 92,050 212,300 484,500
2013 91,490 211,300 480,000
2012 90,550 210,000 475,600
2011 90,110 209,100 472,650
(1) Figures are estimates as of April 1 of each year.
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, March 2016.
Income. Historical personal income and per capita income levels for the County and the State are
shown below:
Total Personal and Per Capita Income
Spokane County State of Washington
Total Personal Per Capita Total Personal Per Capita
Year Income (in thousands) Income Income (in thousands) Income
2014 $18,920,973 $39,067 $350,321,729 $49,610
2013 17,987,414 37,526 331,031,362 47,468
2012 17,833,225 37,488 326,496,701 47,344
2011 17,215,811 36,368 305,628,042 44,800
2010 16,478,777 34,911 288,694,995 42,821
(1) Preliminary estimate.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis ("BEA"), February 2016.
26
Median Household Income. Median household income estimation is based on 1990 and 2000 Census data, and on
the Census Bureau's American Community Surveys' estimates for 2006-2010.
State of
Year Spokane County Washington
2014(1)
2013(2)
2012
2011
2010
$ 50,228
49,237
48,265
46,846
46,320
$ 58,686
57,554
56,444
55,500
54,888
(1) The Revenue Forecast Council's November 2014 forecast of the state personal income is used in the projection of 2014
median household income.
(2) In addition to the state personal income data published by BEA, the payroll data compiled by the state Employment
Security Department are used in the preliminary estimates of 2010 median household income.
Source: Washington State Department of Revenue, February 2016.
Taxable Retail Sales. Taxable retail sales reflect only those sales subject to retail sales tax. Historical taxable retail
sales for the County, Spokane and the City are shown below:
2015(1)
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
Spokane County
$6,258,835,295
8,075,753,577
7,561,667,944
7,122,104,043
6,901,540,979
6,755,693,011
Taxable Retail Sales
City of Spokane
$3,353,540,924
4,379,705,748
4,103,527,769
3,880,296,199
3,630,930,644
3,674,779,611
(1) Data through third quarter only. Through the third quarter of 2014, taxable
$3,190,659,722 and $1,455,494,811 for the County, Spokane and the City, res
Source: Washington State Department of Revenue, February 2016.
City of Spokane Valley
$1,515,315,975
1,970,385,634
1,884,116,155
1,745,839,683
1,678,063,524
1,585,010,280
retail sales were $5,934,883,285,
pectively.
Building Permits. The number and valuation of new single-family and multi -family residential building
permits in the County are listed below:
Spokane County
Residential Building Permits
New Single Family Units New Multi -Family Units
Year Number Construction Cost Number
2015(1)
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
1,001
1,014
1,299
963
740
939
$ 262,111,740
242,787,390
375,148,448
269,807,826
158,880,588
172,434,801
850
825
335
390
1,045
670
Construction Cost
$ 89,524,533
112,358,343
37,299,399
43,186,728
98,817,872
65,758,208
Total
Construction Cost
(1) Estimates with imputations including Spokane, Medical Lake, Rockford and Unincorporated
through December.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, February 2016.
27
$ 351,636,273
355,145,733
412,447,847
312,994,554
257,698,460
238,193,009
Spokane County only
Employment. Major employers located within the County include the following:
Spokane County
Maj or Employers
Employer
92nd Air Refueling Wing &
Fairchild Air Force Base
Providence Sacred Heart Medical
Center & Children's Hospital
State of Washington
Spokane Public Schools
City of Spokane
Spokane County
Central Valley School District
Wal-Mart Stores
URM Stores Inc.
Northern Quest Resort & Casino
Mead School District
Gonzaga University
Community Colleges of Spokane
Eastern Washington University
Deaconess Hospital
Rockwood Clinic PS
Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center
Type of Business
Military
Health Care
Government
Education
Government
Government
Education
Retail
Distribution
Hotel/Casino
Education
Education
Education
Education
Health Care
Health Care
Health Care
Source: Greater Spokane Incorporated, Spokane Journal of Business — 2016 Book of Lists.
Employer
City of Spokane Valley
2015 Major Employers
Product/Business
Central Valley School District
Wal-Mart Stores
Kaiser Aluminum
Valley Hospital & Medical Center
West Valley School District
East Valley School District
CPM Development Corporation
Yokes Foods, Inc.
AutoNation
Numerica Credit Union
Source: City of Spokane Valley.
Education
Retail
Aluminum manufacturing
Medical
Education
Education
Concrete supplier
Grocer
Car dealership
Credit union
28
Number of
Employees
5,950
5,167
5,020
3,406
2,085
2,022
1,630
1,407
1,403
1,351
1,280
1,232
1,203
1,199
1,180
1,100
943
Employment
1,630
1,407
850
684
498
497
420
418
391
333
Employment within the County is described in the following tables.
Civilian Labor Force data is based on household surveys of residents. NAICS data are estimates based on
surveys of employers and benchmarked based on covered employment as reported by all employers.
Spokane -Spokane Valley Metropolitan Statistical Area (Spokane, Stevens & Pend Oreille Counties)
Nonagricultural Wage & Salary Workers(1)
and Labor Force and Employment Data
Civilian Labor Force
Total Employment
Total Unemployment
Percent of Labor Force
NAICS INDUSTRY(3)
Total Nonfarm
Total Private
Goods Producing
Mining, Logging, and Construction
Manufacturing
Service Providing
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Food and Beverage Stores
General Merchandise Stores
Transportation and Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Finance and Insurance
Professional and Business Services
Education and Health Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Ambulatory Health Care Services
Hospitals
Leisure and Hospitality
Food Services and Drinking Places
Other Services
Government
Federal Government
Total State Government
State Government Educational Services
Total Local Government
Local Government Educational Services
Workers in Labor/Management Disputes
Annual Average
2015' 2014 2013 2012 2011
249,884 247,321 249,148 253,156 253,670
233,136 228,973 228,141 229,863 228,770
16,748 18,348 21,008 23,293 24,900
6.7% 7.4% 8.4% 9.2% 9.8%
2015' 2014 2013 2012 2011
235,867 231,250 227,217 223,617 221,533
195,750 191,575 187,825 183,967 181,525
29,017 28,250 27,400 26,717 26,225
11,958 11,300 10,808 10,333 10,142
17,058 16,950 16,592 16,383 16,083
206,850 203,000 199,817 196,900 195,308
45,083 44,875 44,092 43,058 42,342
10,600 10,508 10,025 9,642 9,442
27,400 27,292 26,958 26,592 26,333
4,575 4,650 4,625 4,533 4,617
6,408 6,233 6,117 6,108 6,067
7,083 7,075 7,108 6,825 6,567
3,158 3,033 3,058 3,058 2,908
13,825 13,733 13,317 12,875 12,617
10,617 10,592 10,333 9,925 9,675
24,958 23,708 23,733 23,150 22,242
48,675 47,667 46,500 45,608 45,783
42,233 41,283 40,325 39,842 40,358
14,825 14,383 14,367 14,317 14,217
9,233 8,925 8,725 8,575 8,942
21,383 20,717 20,242 19,950 19,858
16,208 15,817 15,342 14,942 14,875
9,650 9,592 9,483 9,550 9,550
40,117 39,675 39,392 39,650 40,008
5,008 4,900 4,900 4,983 5,042
11,358 11,125 10,717 10,833 10,917
6,342 5,992 5,717 5,617 5,592
23,750 23,650 23,775 23,833 24,050
12,767 12,692 12,650 12,592 12,758
0 0 0 0 0
(1) Excludes proprietors, self-employed, members of the armed services, workers in private households, and agriculture.
Includes all full- and part-time wage and salary workers receiving pay during the pay period including the 12th of the
month.
(2) Data through December.
(3) North American Industry Classification System.
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department, February 2016.
29
Initiative and Referendum
Under the State Constitution, the voters of the State have the ability to initiate legislation and require the
Legislature to refer legislation to the voters through the powers of initiative and referendum, respectively. The
initiative power in Washington may not be used to amend the State Constitution. Initiatives and referenda are
submitted to the voters upon receipt of a petition signed by at least eight percent (initiative) and four percent
(referenda) of the number of voters registered and voting for the office of Governor at the preceding regular
gubernatorial election. Any law approved in this manner by a majority of the voters may not be amended or
repealed by the Legislature within a period of two years following enactment, except by a vote of two-thirds of
all the members elected to each house of the Legislature. After two years, the law is subject to amendment or
repeal by the Legislature in the same manner as other laws.
In recent years there has been an increase in the number of initiatives and referenda filed in Washington,
including state initiatives targeting property taxes imposed by local jurisdictions. The City cannot predict
whether this trend will continue, whether any filed initiatives will receive the requisite signatures to be
certified to the ballot, and whether such initiatives will be approved by the voters and, if challenged, upheld by
the courts.
Tax Matters
General. In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under existing law and subject to certain qualifications described
below, interest on the Bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section
103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and is not an item of tax preference for
purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations; however, interest
on the Bonds is taken into account in determining adjusted current earnings for the purpose of computing the
alternative minimum tax imposed on certain corporations. The proposed form of opinion of Bond Counsel
with respect to the Bonds to be delivered on the date of issuance of Bonds is set forth in Appendix A.
The Code contains a number of requirements that apply to the Bonds, and the City has made certain
representations and has covenanted to comply with each such requirement. Bond Counsel's opinion assumes
the accuracy of the representations made by the City and is subject to the condition that the City comply with
the above -referenced covenants. If the City fails to comply with such covenants or if the City's representations
are inaccurate or incomplete, interest on the Bonds could be included in gross income for federal income tax
purposes retroactively to the date of issuance of the Bonds.
Except as expressly stated herein, Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any tax consequences related
to the ownership, sale or disposition of the Bonds, or the amount, accrual or receipt of interest on, the Bonds.
Owners of the Bonds should consult their tax advisors regarding the applicability of any collateral tax
consequences of owning the Bonds.
Original Issue Premium and Discount. If the initial offering price to the public (excluding bond houses and
brokers) at which a Bond is sold is less than the amount payable at maturity thereof, then such difference
constitutes "original issue discount" for purposes of federal income taxes. If the initial offering price to the
public (excluding bond houses and brokers) at which a Bond is sold is greater than the amount payable at
maturity thereof, then such difference constitutes "original issue premium" for purposes of federal income
taxes. De minimis original issue discount and original issue premium is disregarded.
Under the Code, original issue discount is treated as interest excluded from federal gross income to the extent
properly allocable to each owner thereof subject to the limitations described in the first paragraph of this
section. The original issue discount accrues over the term to maturity of the Bond on the basis of a constant
interest rate compounded on each interest or principal payment date (with straight-line interpolations between
compounding dates). The amount of original issue discount accruing during each period is added to the
adjusted basis of such Bonds to determine taxable gain upon disposition (including sale, redemption, or
payment on maturity) of such Bond. The Code contains certain provisions relating to the accrual of original
issue discount in the case of purchasers of the Bonds who purchase the Bonds after the initial offering of a
substantial amount of such maturity. Owners of such Bonds should consult their own tax advisors with
respect to the tax consequences of ownership of Bonds with original issue discount, including the treatment of
30
purchasers who do not purchase in the original offering, the allowance of a deduction for any loss on a sale or
other disposition, and the treatment of accrued original issue discount on such Bonds under federal individual
and corporate alternative minimum taxes.
Under the Code, original issue premium is amortized on an annual basis over the term of the Bond (said term
being the shorter of the Bond's maturity date or its call date). The amount of original issue premium amortized
each year reduces the adjusted basis of the owner of the Bond for purposes of determining taxable gain or loss
upon disposition. The amount of original issue premium on a Bond is amortized each year over the term to
maturity of the Bond on the basis of a constant interest rate compounded on each interest or principal payment
date (with straight-line interpolations between compounding dates). Amortized Bond premium is not
deductible for federal income tax purposes. Owners of premium Bonds, including purchasers who do not
purchase in the original offering, should consult their own tax advisors with respect to federal income tax
consequences of owning such Bonds.
Post Issuance Matters. The opinion of Bond Counsel is based on current legal authority, covers certain matters
not directly addressed by such authorities, and represents Bond Counsel's judgment as to the proper treatment
of the Bonds for federal income tax purposes. It is not binding on the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") or the
courts. Furthermore, Bond Counsel cannot give and has not given any opinion or assurance about the future
activities of the City, or about the effect of future changes in the Code, the applicable regulations, the
interpretation thereof or the enforcement thereof by the IRS.
Bond Counsel's engagement with respect to the Bonds ends with the issuance of the Bonds, and, unless
separately engaged, Bond Counsel is not obligated to defend the City or the owners regarding the tax-exempt
status of the Bonds in the event of an audit examination by the IRS. Under current procedures, parties other
than the City and its appointed counsel, including the owners, would have little, if any, right to participate in
the audit examination process. Moreover, because achieving judicial review in connection with an audit
examination of tax-exempt bonds is difficult, obtaining an independent review of IRS positions with which the
City legitimately disagree, may not be practicable. Any action of the IRS, including but not limited to selection
of the Bonds for audit, or the course or result of such audit, or an audit of bonds presenting similar tax issues
may affect the market price for, or the marketability of, the Bonds, and may cause the City or the owners to
incur significant expense.
Current and future legislative proposals, if enacted into law, clarification of the Code or court decisions may
cause interest on the Bonds to be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal income taxation, or otherwise prevent
Beneficial Owners from realizing the full current benefit of the tax status of such interest. The introduction or
enactment of any such legislative proposals, clarification of the Code or court decisions may also affect the
market price for, or marketability of, the Bonds. Prospective purchasers of the Bonds should consult their own
tax advisors regarding any pending or proposed legislation, regulations or litigation, as to which Bond Counsel
expresses no opinion.
Bank Qualified. The City has designated the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of
Section 265(b)(3)(B) of the Code.
Rating
As noted on the cover page of this Official Statement, the City has applied for a rating for the Bonds from
Moody's Investors Service. When obtained, the rating will reflect only the views of the rating agency and an
explanation of the significance of the rating may be obtained from the rating agency. There is no assurance
that the rating will be retained for any given period of time or that the rating will not be revised downward or
withdrawn entirely by the rating agency if, in its judgment, circumstances so warrant. Any such downward
revision or withdrawal of the rating will be likely to have an adverse effect on the market price of the Bonds.
The City does not have any obligation to take any action, other than file a listed event notification, if the ratings
on the Bonds are changed, suspended or withdrawn.
31
Continuing Disclosure
In accordance with Section (b)(5) of Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") Rule 15c2-12
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the same may be amended from time to time (the "Rule"), the
City has agreed in the Ordinance for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide or cause to be provided
to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") the following annual financial information and
operating data for the prior fiscal year (commencing in 2016 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015):
(i) annual financial statements, which statements may or may not be audited, showing ending fund balances
for the City's general fund prepared in accordance with the Budgeting Accounting and Reporting System
("BARS") prescribed by the State Auditor pursuant to RCW 43.09.200 (or any successor statutes) and generally
of the type included in this Official Statement for the Bonds; (ii) the assessed valuation of taxable property in
the City; (iii) ad valorem taxes due and percentage of taxes collected; (iv) property tax levy rate per $1,000 of
assessed valuation; and (v) outstanding general obligation debt of the City. Items (ii) through (v) need only be
provided to the extent such information is not included in the annual financial statements.
Such annual information and operating data described above will be so provided on or before the end of nine
months after the end of the City's fiscal year. The City's current fiscal year ends on December 31. The City
may adjust such fiscal year by providing written notice of the change of fiscal year to the MSRB. In lieu of
providing such annual financial information and operating data, the City may cross-reference to other
documents available to the public on the MSRB's internet website or filed with the Commission.
If not provided as part of the annual financial information discussed above, the City will provide the City's
audited annual financial statement prepared in accordance with BARS prescribed by the Washington State
Auditor pursuant to the statute cited above (or any successor statutes) when and if available to the MSRB.
Listed Events. The City agrees to provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB, in a timely manner not in excess
of 10 business days after the occurrence of the event, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events
with respect to the Bonds:
(i) principal and interest payment delinquencies;
(ii) non-payment related defaults, if material;
(iii) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties;
(iv) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties;
(v) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
(vi) adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final
determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701-TEB) or other material notices
or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events affecting the tax
status of the Bonds;
(vii) modifications to the rights of Bond owners, if material;
(vii) optional, contingent or unscheduled Bond calls other than scheduled sinking fund redemptions
for which notice is given pursuant to Exchange Act Release 34-23856, if material, and tender offers;
(ix) defeasances;
(x) release, substitution or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if material;
(xi) rating changes;
(xii) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the City;
32
(xiii) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the City or the sale of all or
substantially all of the assets of the City, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a
definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating
to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; and
(xiv) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material.
Solely for purposes of disclosure, without any intent to modify the undertaking as set forth above, the City
advises that no credit enhancement, credit or liquidity facilities, debt service reserves or property secure
payment of the Bonds.
Format for Filings with the MSRB. Until otherwise designated by the MSRB or the Commission, any information
or notices submitted to the MSRB in compliance with the Rule are to be submitted through the MSRB's
Electronic Municipal Market Access system ("EMMA"), currently located at www.emma.msrb.org (which is
not incorporated into this Official Statement by reference). All notices, financial information and operating
data required by this undertaking to be provided to the MSRB must be in an electronic format as prescribed by
the MSRB. All documents provided to the MSRB pursuant to this undertaking must be accompanied by
identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB.
Notification Upon Failure to Provide Financial Data. The City also agrees to provide or cause to be provided to the
MSRB notice of its failure to provide the annual financial information described above on or prior to the date
set forth above.
Termination/Modification. The City's obligations to provide annual financial information and notices of listed
events will terminate upon the legal defeasance or payment in full of all of the Bonds. This section, or any
provision hereof, will be null and void if the City (i) obtains an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel
to the effect that the portion of the Rule that requires that provision is invalid, has been repealed retroactively
or otherwise does not apply to the Bonds and (ii) notifies the MSRB of such opinion and the cancellation of this
section.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the undertaking, the City may amend the provisions described in this
section with an approving opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel and in accordance with the Rule. In
the event of any amendment of its undertaking, the City will describe such amendment in the next annual
report, and will include a narrative explanation of the reason for the amendment and its impact on the type (or
in the case of a change of accounting principles, on the presentation) of financial information or operating data
being presented by the City. In addition, if the amendment relates to the accounting principles to be followed
in preparing financial statements, (i) notice of such change shall be given in the same manner as for a listed
event, as described above, and (ii) the annual report for the year in which the change is made will present a
comparison (in narrative form and also, if feasible, in quantitative form) between the financial statements as
prepared on the basis of the new accounting principles and those prepared on the basis of the former
accounting principles.
Bond Owner's Remedies Under This Section. A Bond owner's or Beneficial Owner's right to enforce the
provisions of the City's undertaking described in this section will be limited to a right to obtain specific
enforcement of the City's obligations, and any failure by the City to comply with the provisions of this
undertaking will not be an event of default with respect to the Bonds. For purposes of this section, "Beneficial
Owner" means any person who has the power, directly or indirectly, to vote or consent with respect to, or to
dispose of ownership of, any bonds, including persons holding bonds through nominees or depositories.
Other Continuing Disclosure Undertakings of the City. The City has entered into written undertakings under the
Rule with respect to its outstanding obligations (the "Prior Undertakings"). The City did not timely submit
certain annual operating data not otherwise included in its audited financial statements for fiscal years 2010
through 2012, did not timely file its audited financial statements for fiscal years 2010 through 2012, did not
provide timely notices of late filings and did not file timely notices of rating changes of the municipal bond
insurer of its Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2003 (no longer outstanding) or of the most recent rating
upgrade of the City that occurred in April 2014. On June 11, 2014, the City filed with the MSRB through
EMMA (i) its audited financial statements for fiscal years 2010 through 2012; (ii) the missing annual operating
data for fiscal years 2010 through 2012; (iii) notice of bond insurer and City rating changes; (iv) a notice of the
33
failure to provide annual information; and (v) notice of failure to provide event information in a timely
manner. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the City believes that it has complied in all material
respects with its Prior Undertakings in the last five years.
Legal and Underwriting
Approval of Counsel
Legal matters incident to the authorization, issuance and sale of the Bonds by the City are subject to the
approving legal opinion of Pacifica Law Group LLP, Bond Counsel, the form of which is attached hereto in
Appendix A. Bond Counsel will be compensated only upon the issuance and sale of the Bonds. Bond Counsel
has not been retained to review and has not reviewed this Official Statement for completeness or accuracy and
will not offer an opinion concerning this Official Statement.
Litigation
At the time of delivery of and payment for the Bonds, an authorized officer of the City will deliver a certificate
stating that there is no litigation or other proceedings pending or, to the best knowledge of the City, threatened
in any court in any way seeking to restrain or to enjoin the authorization, issuance, sale or delivery of, or
security for, any of the Bonds, or contesting or affecting the validity or enforceability of the Bonds or the
Ordinance, or materially affecting the finances of the City.
The City is a defendant in various legal actions and claims that arise during the normal course of business,
some of which, but not all, are covered by insurance. Although certain lawsuits and claims are significant in
amount, the final dispositions are not determinable and, in the opinion of City management, the final outcome
of these matters, taken individually or in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the governmental operations or financial position of the City or its ability to pay debt service on the Bonds.
The City has provided for reserves to address these matters, which include but are not limited to, the lawsuit
described below. City management believes these reserves and/or insurance are adequate to cover such
matters.
The City, together with other defendants including the County, is a party to a lawsuit where the plaintiffs
allege that an auto collision resulting in fatalities was due to a defective road condition at the intersection
where the collision occurred in unincorporated Spokane County. The complaint does not identify a specific
amount of damages, however, the notice of claim filed with the City prior to filing the lawsuit requested
payment of $23.9 million. The City and the County deny the allegations, and the potential litigation is in the
early stages of discovery. It is unknown at this time when and if the case will go to trial and what the possible
outcome may be. If a judgment for damages is entered against the City, the City believes that its insurance
policies and/or reserves will be sufficient to cover such damages and is not expected to have a material adverse
effect on the City's ability to pay debt service on the Bonds. See "The City - Risk Management" for information
on the City's insurance coverage.
Limitations on Remedies
General. Any remedies available to the owners of the Bonds upon the occurrence of an event of default under
the Ordinance are in many respects dependent upon judicial actions, which are in turn often subject to
discretion and delay and could be both expensive and time consuming to obtain. If the City fails to comply
with its covenants under the Ordinance or to pay principal of or interest on the Bonds, there can be no
assurance that available remedies will be adequate to fully protect the interests of the owners of the Bonds.
In addition to the limitations on remedies contained in the Ordinance, the rights and obligations under the
Bonds and the Ordinance may be limited by and are subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization,
fraudulent conveyance, moratorium, and other laws relating to or affecting creditors' rights, to the application
of equitable principles, and to the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases. The opinion to be
delivered by Pacifica Law Group LLP, as Bond Counsel, concurrently with the issuance of the Bonds, will be
subject to limitations regarding bankruptcy, insolvency and other laws relating to or affecting creditors' rights.
A copy of the form of legal opinion of Bond Counsel is set forth in Appendix A.
34
No Acceleration. The Bonds are not subject to acceleration upon the occurrence of a default. The City is liable
for principal and interest payments only as they become due. In the event of multiple defaults in payment of
principal of or interest on the Bonds, the registered owners would be required to bring a separate action for
each such payment not made. This could give rise to a difference in interests between registered owners of
earlier and later maturing Bonds.
Bankruptcy. Under current Washington law, local governments, such as the City, may be able to file for
bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"). A creditor,
however, cannot bring an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding against a municipality, including the City. The
federal bankruptcy courts have broad discretionary powers under the Bankruptcy Code. Taxing districts in the
State are expressly authorized to carry out a plan of readjustment if approved by the appropriate court. If the
City were to become a debtor in a federal bankruptcy case, owners of the Bonds may not be able to exercise any
of their remedies under the Ordinance during the course of a proceeding. Legal proceedings to resolve issues
could be time-consuming and expensive, and substantial delays and/or reductions in payments could result.
Bond owners do not have a security interest in or lien on any City revenues.
Enforceability. The enforceability of the Ordinance is subject to applicable bankruptcy laws, equitable principles
affecting the enforcement of creditors' rights generally, the police powers of the State and the City, the exercise
of judicial authority by state or federal courts and the exercise by the United States of the powers delegated to
it by the federal constitution. All legal opinions with respect to the enforceability of the Ordinance and the
Bonds will be expressly subject to a qualification that enforceability thereof may be limited by bankruptcy,
reorganization, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance, moratorium or other similar laws affecting the rights of
creditors generally, and by general principles of equity. The form of the opinion of Bond Counsel with respect
to the Bonds is attached as Appendix A. Prospective investors concerned with the impact of any bankruptcy,
reorganization, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance, moratorium or other similar laws should consult with their
own independent counsel before purchasing any Bonds.
Underwriting
The Bonds are being purchased by D.A. Davidson & Co. (the "Underwriter"). The purchase contract provides
that the Underwriter will purchase all of the Bonds, if any are purchased, at a price of percent of the par
value of the Bonds. The Bonds will be reoffered at an average price of percent of the par value of the
Bonds. After the initial public offering, the public offering prices may be varied from time to time.
Financial Advisor
In connection with the authorization and issuance of the Bonds, the City has retained Piper Jaffray & Co.,
Seattle, Washington, as its financial advisor (the "Financial Advisor"). The Financial Advisor is not obligated
to undertake, and has not undertaken, either to make an independent verification of or to assume
responsibility for, the accuracy, completeness, or fairness of the information contained in this Official
Statement. While under contract to the City, the Financial Advisor may not participate in the underwriting of
any City debt.
Potential Conflicts
Some or all of the fees of the Underwriter, the Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel are contingent upon the
sale of the Bonds. Pacifica Law Group LLP is serving as Bond Counsel to the City with respect to the Bonds.
From time to time Bond Counsel may serve as counsel to the Underwriter and to the Financial Advisor with
respect to transactions other than the issuance of the Bonds.
Concluding Statement
All estimates, assumptions, statistical information and other statements contained herein, while taken from
sources considered reliable, are not guaranteed by the City. So far as any statement herein includes matters of
opinion, or estimates of future expenses and income, whether or not expressly so stated, they are intended
merely as such and not as representations of fact.
The information contained herein should not be construed as representing all conditions affecting the City or
the Bonds. Additional information may be obtained from the City. The statements relating to the Ordinance
35
are in summarized form, and in all respects are subject to and qualified in their entirety by express reference to
the provisions of such document in its complete form.
The agreements of the City are set forth in such documents, and the information assembled herein is not to be
construed as a contract with the Owners of the Bonds.
At the time of delivery of the Bonds, one or more officials of the City will furnish a certificate stating that to the
best of his or her knowledge, this Official Statement (excluding certain information provided by DTC, the
Underwriter and the Financial Advisor), as of its date and as of the date of delivery of the Bonds does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
contained herein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. [need to conform
to the language in the bond purchase agreement]
The preparation and distribution of this Official Statement has been authorized by the City.
THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON
By:
City Manager
36
Appendix A
Form of Opinion of Bond Counsel
This page left blank intentionally
Appendix B
Book -Entry Transfer System
This page left blank intentionally
The Depository Trust Company
A subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
Sample Offering Document Language
Describing DTC and Book -Entry -Only Issuance
1. The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, NY, will act as securities
depository for the securities (the "Securities"). The Securities will be issued as fully -registered
securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC's partnership nominee) or such other name as may
be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. One fully -registered Security certificate will be
issued for [each issue of] the Securities, [each] in the aggregate principal amount of such issue, and
will be deposited with DTC. [If, however, the aggregate principal amount of [any] issue exceeds $500
million, one certificate will be issued with respect to each $500 million of principal amount, and an
additional certificate will be issued with respect to any remaining principal amount of such issue.]
2. DTC, the world's largest securities depository, is a limited -purpose trust company
organized under the New York Banking Law, a "banking organization" within the meaning of the New
York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the
meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to
the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds and provides asset
servicing for over 3.5 million issues of U.S. and non -U.S. equity issues, corporate and municipal debt
issues, and money market instruments (from over 100 countries) that DTC's participants ("Direct
Participants") deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the post -trade settlement among Direct
Participants of sales and other securities transactions in deposited securities, through electronic
computerized book -entry transfers and pledges between Direct Participants' accounts. This eliminates
the need for physical movement of securities certificates. Direct Participants include both U.S. and non -
U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other
organizations. DTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
("DTCC"). DTCC is the holding company for DTC, National Securities Clearing Corporation and
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, all of which are registered clearing agencies. DTCC is owned by
the users of its regulated subsidiaries. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as both
U.S. and non -U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, and clearing corporations that
clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly
("Indirect Participants"). DTC has a Standard & Poor's rating of AA+. The DTC Rules applicable to
its Participants are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. More information about
DTC can be found at www.dtcc.com.
DTCC.
The Depository Trust &
Clearing Corporation
-i-
SOL 08-10-11
3. Purchases of Securities under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct
Participants, which will receive a credit for the Securities on DTC's records. The ownership interest of
each actual purchaser of each Security ("Beneficial Owner") is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and
Indirect Participants' records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of
their purchase. Beneficial Owners are, however, expected to receive written confirmations providing
details of the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings, from the Direct or Indirect
Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction. Transfers of ownership
interests in the Securities are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of Direct and Indirect
Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates
representing their ownership interests in Securities, except in the event that use of the book -entry
system for the Securities is discontinued.
4. To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Securities deposited by Direct Participants with
DTC are registered in the name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede & Co., or such other name as may
be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of Securities with DTC and their
registration in the name of Cede & Co. or such other DTC nominee do not effect any change in
beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Securities;
DTC's records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Securities are
credited, which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will
remain responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers.
5. Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by
Direct Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to
Beneficial Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or
regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. [Beneficial Owners of Securities may wish
to take certain steps to augment the transmission to them of notices of significant events with respect to
the Securities, such as redemptions, tenders, defaults, and proposed amendments to the Security
documents. For example, Beneficial Owners of Securities may wish to ascertain that the nominee
holding the Securities for their benefit has agreed to obtain and transmit notices to Beneficial
Owners. In the alternative, Beneficial Owners may wish to provide their names and addresses to the
registrar and request that copies of notices be provided directly to them.]
6. Redemption notices shall be sent to DTC. If less than all of the Securities within an
issue are being redeemed, DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each
Direct Participant in such issue to be redeemed.
7. Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. (nor any other DTC nominee) will consent or vote with
respect to Securities unless authorized by a Direct Participant in accordance with DTC's MMI
Procedures. Under its usual procedures, DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to Issuer as soon as possible
after the record date. The Omnibus Proxy assigns Cede & Co.'s consenting or voting rights to those
Direct Participants to whose accounts Securities are credited on the record date (identified in a listing
attached to the Omnibus Proxy).
DTCC.
The Depository Trust &
Clearing Corporation
SOL 08-10-11
8. Redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend payments on the Securities will be
made to Cede & Co., or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of
DTC. DTC's practice is to credit Direct Participants' accounts upon DTC's receipt of funds and
corresponding detail information from Issuer or Agent, on payable date in accordance with their
respective holdings shown on DTC's records. Paym✓nts by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be
governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the
accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in "street name," and will be the responsibility of
such Participant and not of DTC, Agent, or Issuer, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements
as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend
payments to Cede & Co. (or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of
DTC) is the responsibility of Issuer or Agent, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants
will be the responsibility of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to the Beneficial Owners will
be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect Participants.
9. A Beneficial Owner shall give notice to elect to have its Securities purchased or
tendered, through its Participant, to [Tender/Remarketing] Agent, and shall effect delivery of such
Securities by causing the Direct Participant to transfer the Participant's interest in the Securities, on
DTC's records, to [Tender/Remarketing] Agent. The requirement for physical delivery of Securities in
connection with an optional tender or a mandatory purchase will be deemed satisfied when the
ownership rights in the Securities are transferred by Direct Participants on DTC's records and followed
by a book -entry credit of tendered Securities to [Tender/Remarketing] Agent's DTC account.
10. DTC may discontinue providing its services as depository with respect to the Securities at
any time by giving reasonable notice to Issuer or Agent. Under such circumstances, in the event that a
successor depository is not obtained, Security certificates are required to be printed and delivered.
11. Issuer may decide to discontinue use of the system of book -entry -only transfers through
DTC (or a successor securities depository). In that event, Security certificates will be printed and
delivered to DTC.
12. The information in this section concerning DTC and DTC's book -entry system has
been obtained from sources that Issuer believes tobe reliable, but Issuer takes no responsibility for the
accuracy thereof.
DTCC.
The Depository Trust &
Clearing Corporation
[8/11]
SOL 08-10-11
This page left blank intentionally
Appendix C
2014 Audited Financial Statements
This page left blank intentionally
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 10, 2016 Department Director Approval
Item: Check all that apply:
❑ consent
❑ information
❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second 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 26, 2016 the City Council voted to move the
amendment forward to an ordinance second 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 public hearing on February 25, 2016. During
deliberations the Commission discussed the future use of the seven parcels proposed to be
amended, the impact to surrounding properties, and the fact that parcel 35121.5201 was not
included in the amendment. 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 approved 6 to 0 at the March 10, 2016 Commission meeting.
The amendment was presented to the City Council as an administrative report on April 5, 2016 and
an Ordinance first reading on April 26, 2016.
OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance with or without further amendments; or take other
action as appropriate.
MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 16-006 adopting an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan as described in CPA -2016-0001.
STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Ordinance 16-006 with Attachment A
2) Signed Findings and Recommendation dated 3-10-16
3) Approved PC Meeting Minutes 2-11-16
4) Approved PC Meeting Minutes 2-25-16
5) Approved PC Meeting Minutes 3-10-16
1 of 1
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:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
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.
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: May 10, 2016 Department Director Approval
Item: Check all that apply:
❑ consent
❑ information
❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second 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 26, 2016 the City Council voted to move the
amendment forward to an ordinance second 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 public hearing on February 25, 2016. During
deliberations the Commission discussed the future use of the seven parcels proposed to be
amended, the impact to surrounding properties, and the fact that parcel 35121.5201 was not
included in the amendment. 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 approved 6 to 0 at the March 10, 2016 Commission meeting.
The amendment was presented to the City Council as an administrative report on April 5, 2016 and
an Ordinance first reading on April 26, 2016.
OPTIONS: Move to approve the ordinance with or without further amendments; or take other
action as appropriate.
MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 16-007 adopting an amendment to official zoning
map as described in CPA -2016-0001.
STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Ordinance 16-007 with Attachment A
2) Refer to Ordinance 16-006 RCA for associated attachments
1 of 1
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 a Light Industiral
(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
Ordinance 16-007 Zoning Map Change — CPA -2016-0001 Page 3 of 5
DRAFT
while preserving the economic vitality of Felts Field Airport. Development may be limited based
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
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
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: May 10, 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: Motion Consideration: Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access
Improvement Project. #0207
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted the 2016-2021 Six Year
Transportation Improvement Plan on June 23, 2015, Resolution #15-005; Informational Request
for Council Action on January 26, 2016 and Admin. Report on February 2, 2016 for the
Amended 2016 Transportation Improvement Plan, which included this project. Bid
Advertisement information on March 29, 2016.
BACKGROUND: The Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access Improvement Project will construct
sidewalk and signal improvements at the intersection of Indiana Avenue and Evergreen Road to
provide pedestrian access to Spokane Transit Authority (STA) bus stop locations.
The City entered into an agreement with STA to design and construct this project. Public Works
staff completed the design and advertised the project. Bids were advertised on March 18 and
25, followed by the bid opening on April 1. Three bids were received and the low bidder was
within 1.8% of the engineer's estimate. A copy of the bid tabulation is attached
OPTIONS: Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder or take other
appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Indiana/Evergreen Transit
Access Improvement Project contract to Cameron -Reilly, LLC. as the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder, in the amount of $69,443.00, and authorize the Deputy City Manager to
finalize and execute the construction contract.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total project budget is $106,250, STA is funding the
entire project. There are sufficient funds to cover the cost for this project.
STAFF CONTACT: Robert Lochmiller, PE- Senior Engineer
Steve M. Worley, PE — Capital Improvement Program Manager
Eric Guth, PE — Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation
BID TABULATION
Indiana/Evergeen Transit Access Improvements
Project CIP No. 0207
00.9
WSDOT# Item# Units Quantity
Engineers Estimate
Cameron -Reilly LLC
Bacon Concrete Inc.
Wm. Winkler Company
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
0001
100
MOBILIZATION
L.S.
1
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$4,110.00
$4,110.00
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
$8,900.00
$8,900.00
0035
101
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
L.S.
1
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,750.00
$1,750.00
0110
102
REMOVING CEMENT CONC. CURB
L.F.
160
$15.00
$2,400.00
$10.00
$1,600.00
$13.00
$2,080.00
$59.00
$9,440.00
0100
103
REMOVING CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK
S.Y.
55
$25.00
$1,375.00
$20.00
$1,100.00
$15.00
$825.00
$141.00
$7,755.00
0421
104
GRAVEL BORROW INCLUDING HAUL
C.Y.
20
$40.00
$800.00
$80.00
$1,600.00
$21.00
$420.00
$63.50
$1,270.00
105
PRECAST CONC. HEADWALL
EACH
1
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$2,200.00
$2,200.00
$2,600.00
$2,600.00
$9,500.00
$9,500.00
106
CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 4 IN. DEPTH
S.Y.
170
$15.00
$2,550.00
$16.00
$2,720.00
$40.00
$6,800.00
$14.50
$2,465.00
107
EROSION CONTROL
L.S.
1
$500.00
$500.00
$600.00
$600.00
$300.00
$300.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
6471
108
INLET PROTECTION
EACH
3
$100.00
$300.00
$100.00
$300.00
$100.00
$300.00
$115.00
$345.00
6373
109
SILT FENCE
L.F.
150
$5.00
$750.00
$7.00
$1,050.00
$7.20
$1,080.00
$3.85
$577.50
110
TOPSOIL TYPE C
S.Y.
120
$5.00
$600.00
$7.00
$840.00
$10.00
$1,200.00
$13.50
$1,620.00
6419
111
SEEDING AND FERTILIZING BY HAND
S.Y.
120
$2.50
$300.00
$10.00
$1,200.00
$4.00
$480.00
$8.00
$960.00
112
IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION
EST.
1
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
6700
113
CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER
L.F.
130
$25.00
$3,250.00
$30.00
$3,900.00
$32.00
$4,160.00
$22.75
$2,957.50
6707
114
CEMENT CONC. PEDESTRIAN CURB
L.F.
70
$20.00
$1,400.00
$25.00
$1,750.00
$21.00
$1,470.00
$14.50
$1,015.00
6857
115
PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE
S.F.
500
$10.00
$5,000.00
$10.16
$5,080.00
$10.25
$5,125.00
$12.50
$6,250.00
6890
116
PERMANENT SIGNING
L.S.
1
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$319.00
$319.00
$480.00
$480.00
$750.00
$750.00
117
JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 2
EACH
1
$500.00
$500.00
$770.00
$770.00
$1,750.00
$1,750.00
$900.00
$900.00
118
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS -MODIFICATION
L.S.
1
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$12,705.00
$12,705.00
$17,000.00
$17,000.00
$12,750.00
$12,750.00
6971
119
PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL
L.S.
1
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
$6,800.00
$6,800.00
$3,850.00
$3,850.00
6974
120
TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR
L.S.
1
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$1,800.00
$1,800.00
121
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING
L.S.
1
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,700.00
$1,700.00
$2,800.00
$2,800.00
$1,725.00
$1,725.00
7736
122
SPCC PLAN
L.S.
1
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$385.00
$385.00
7728
123
MINOR CHANGES
CALC.
1
-$1.00
-$1.00
-$1.00
-$1.00
-$1.00
-$1.00
-$1.00
-$1.00
7055
124
CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK
S.Y.
110
$50.00
$5,500.00
$60.00
$6,600.00
$54.00
$5,940.00
$29.00
$3,190.00
125
CEMENT CONC. BUS PAD
EACH
2
$500.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$381.50
$763.00
7058
126
CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL A
EACH
1
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,700.00
$1,700.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$835.75
$835.75
127
CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL A (15 FT LANDING)
EACH
1
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,200.00
$3,200.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,586.75
$1,586.75
7058
128
CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL B
EACH
1
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,700.00
$1,700.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$799.00
$799.00
TOTAL (All schedules)
$68,224.00
$69,443.00
$84,109.00
$85,638.50
ENGINEER'S REPORT
CHECKLIST
Contractor's Administrative Information
✓
✓
✓
► r r
Bidder Qualification Statement
✓
✓
✓
Competitive bids were opened on
1, 2016. I hereby certify to the
_
-,, ,_
`
�j
Bid Deposit Form
Bid Deposit Surety Form
.7
✓
✓
.7April
✓
best of my ability that this is a true
and correct bid tabulation for the
-. _ .�
G
-
►�
Surety Power of Attorney
.7
.7
.7...
Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access
1
- �f JI5 -
_
Representations and Certifications
.7
.7
.7
Improvement Project, CIP # 0207
-
Non -Collusion Declaration
Local Agency Certification for Federal -Aid Contracts
.7
✓
.7
.7/�/
✓
\ )‘c
4/1/16
Certification Regarding Debarment ,Suspension.......
✓
✓
Highlighted amounts have been corrected
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 10, 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: Motion consideration — authorization to hire an independent investigator
regarding the requested resignation of City Manager Mike Jackson.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: NA.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: March 8, 2016 discussion on future agendas; and
administrative report March 22, 2016.
BACKGROUND: On March 22, 2016, in response to direction from the Council, staff presented
information regarding a potential independent investigation regarding the factual circumstances
surrounding the Council's request on February 23, 2016 for then -City Manager Mike Jackson to
resign. At that March 22, 2016 meeting, there was Council consensus to delay further
discussion regarding a potential investigation until all outstanding issues have been resolved
regarding Mr. Jackson's separation. Those discussions concluded April 26, 2016, after which
Councilmember Gothmann requested that Council put the issue back on the agenda for further
discussion.
OPTIONS: (1) Motion consideration; or (2) take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion at Council's discretion.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 10, 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: Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC)
Report
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: CDBG Program, Authorized under Title 1 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383, as amended, 42 U.S.C. -530 1 et seq.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: HCDAC Director Christine Barada, and Division Manager Tim Crowley will give
a report on some of the aspects of the HCDAC.
OPTIONS: Discussion only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation
Seo Cou\ffY
Spokane County Community
Services, Housing, & Community
Development Department
City of Spokane Valley City Council Presentation
May 10, 2016
Christine Barada, Director
Tim Crowley, Division Manager
Housing and Community Development Division —
Spokane County CSHCD
509.477.5722
1.800.273.5864
312 W. 8th Ave.
Spokane, WA 99204
Spokane County
Community Services,
Housing, and Community
Development Department
CDBG RFP PROCESS
History, National Objectives, Funding Policies, and
Consolidated Plan Priorities Related to Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Request for
Proposal (RFP) Process
1
SroIgkg C,dtnmr
40
YEARS 1 Building Better Neighborhoods
1
SIGNED INTO LAW BY
GERALD FORD, 1974
Creation of Community
Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program merged
seven, individual,
competitive grant
programs into a block
grant. Provides local
communities the flexibility
to decide for themselves
how best to meet their
own community
development needs.
2
SPOKANE COUNTY BECOMES
ENTITLEMENT COUNTY, 1988
Congressman Tom Foley attached a
rider onto the defense
appropriations allowing for an urban
county to become an entitlement
jurisdiction even if the population
wasn't over 200,000, but only if they
resided over a sole source aquifer
(Spokane County was the only such
county at the time). Since then,
funding has ranged from $1.9
million to $1.3 million (currently at
approximately $1.34 million.
SroxANLE CoInmr
National CDBCi Primary Objective
The primary objective of the CDBG
Program is "the development of viable
communities, by providing decent housing
and a suitable environment and expanding
economic opportunities, principally for low
and moderate income persons"
National CDBG Primary Objective
Low/Moderate-Income Persons - Most
CDBG funded activities meet the national CDBG primary
objective by benefiting low/moderate-income persons.
»SIum and Blight —Not used because Spokane
County does not have any areas that are designated as slum
and blight.
»Urgent Need - Seldom used except for emergency
events, such as the fire storm of 1991 and the ice storm of
1996.
4
SPoxAII C.coURnr
Low/Mod Benefit
Area Benefit: At least 46.69% of residents are low/mod
income (Airway Heights, Cheney, Deer Park, Latah, Rockford,
Spangle, and certain census tracts/block groups within
Spokane Valley).
➢ Limited Clientele:
— presumed benefit clientele
» Abused children
• Elderly persons
• Battered spouses
• Homeless persons
» Severely disabled adults
• Illiterate adults
• Persons living with AIDS
• Migrant farm workers
— or intake forms with back up documentation
SPoxAII C,dinZY
Low/Mod Benefit Area Benefit
>Area Benefit: At least 46.69% of residents
are low/mod income (Airway Heights, Cheney,
Deer Park, Latah, Rockford, Spangle, and
certain census tracts/block groups within
Spokane Valley).
In order to qualify under an area wide benefit,
it must be in low/mod area (usually a census
tract/block group), must be primarily
residential, and must be able to describe how
it benefits the residents of that area.
sPOMNF CduNtrY
Request for Proposal (REP) Process
Strategic Planning Cycle
How can we improve?
Goals
How did we do?
Where do we want to go?
Strategies
How do we measure success?
How do we get there?
SPoi ui tr'
2015-2019 Consolidated Plan
»Guiding Principles
➢ Priority to Lowest Income
> Basic Support
>Citizen Participation
>Collaboration
> Emphasize the Potential
➢ Leverage
> Measurable Results
>Comprehensive
SPOKANE C.oiXrY
2015-2019 Consolidated Plan
»GoaIs and Objectives
> Decent, safe, and affordable housing will be available
to all county residents
> Revitalize areas by developing and/or improving
infrastructure, neighborhoods, or public facilities
> Create the economic means for all Spokane County
residents to maintain a reasonable standard of living
Seo °ANY
Current CDBG Funding Trend
➢ The 2015 County CDBG grant was $1,355,287
➢ 2015 CDBG was 1 % more than 2014
➢ 2016 County CDBG is $1,392,733
of 2016 Funds by Location
• County -wide
• City of Cheney
• Town of Spangle
City of Medical Lake
$114,578
$157,979 —
$155,510 $35,360
City of Spokane Valley
Town of Rockford
City of Deer Park
$7,135
10
of 2016 Activities by Category
.Admin
• Housing
• Infrastructure Public Facilities
Public Svs
Econ Dev
$293,547
$214,934
Sro CduNuY
•
2,000,000.00
1,800,000.00
1,600,000.00
1,400,000.00
1,200,000.00
1,000,000.00
800,000.00
600,000.00 —
400,000.00
200,000.00 —
0.00
Spokane County CDBG
2005-2016
Annual CDBG
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
11
Annual CDBG
SroxANT CBUI1rY
GRANT AMOUNT
(Estimated)
20%
15%
Balance
20% of
above
balance
Breakout of CDBG Funds
Administration &
Planning
Public Service
Housing, Econ Dev,
Public Works
Spokane Valley
Balance of County —
Housing, Econ Dev,
Public Works
2014 CDBG
$ 1,342,593
$ 268,519
$ 201,389
$872,685
2015 CDBG
$ 1,355,287
$ 271,058
$ 203,293
$ 880,936
$ 268,519 $ 271,058
$ 604,166
$ 609,878
2016 CDBG
$ 1,392,733
$ 278,547
$ 208,910
$ 905, 276
$ 278,547
$ 626,729
SL OK . C iNM
Valley Set -Aside Information
➢ Every three years, Urban Counties must re -qualify for
funding. All cities and towns are required to enter
into inter -local agreements if participating as a
member of the Urban Consortium.
➢ Spokane Valley has the option of being their own
entitlement, becoming a Spokane County
Consortium member, or becoming a part of the state
small cities program.
➢ Historically, Spokane Valley has always received more
by participating with Spokane County, than what it
would get as an entitlement on it's own.
13
SPoxA•T OIn1rY
Valley Set -Aside Information
➢ Considerations
➢ Spokane County provides all administrative, technical,
reporting, and monitoring requirements.
➢ Spokane County assumes all risks in event of negative
findings which could require repayment back to HUD with
non-federal funds.
➢ Interlocal agreement ensures Spokane Valley will receive
its fair share of the entitlement without having to assume
the reporting, administrative, and risk involved with being
its out entitlement.
14
SPoxA•T Cbl
SPOKANE COUNTY 2015 HOME PROGRAM INCOME AND RENT LIMITS
Household
Size
1
HUD MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME (MFI) LIMITS 2015 (use for County HOME and CDBG)
(Effective 6/1/2015) Median Income for Spokane is $64,500
100% MFI
Annual Monthly
$45,200 $3,767
2 1 $51,600 $4,300
3 1 $58,100 $4,842
4 1 $64,500 $5,375
5 1 $69,700 $5,808
6 1 $74,900 $6,242
7 $80,000 $6,667
8 I $85,200 $7,100
Hourly
$21.73
80% MFI (Moderate Income)
Annual Monthly
$36,150 $3,013
$24.81 $41,300 $3,442
$27.93 $46,450 $3,871
$31.01 $51,600 $4,300
$33.51 $55,750 $4,646
$36.01 $59,900 $4,992
$38.46 $64,000 $5,333
$40.96 $68,150 $5,679
Hourly
$17.38
60% MFI (Low Income)
Annual Monthly Hourly
$27,120 $2,260
$19.86 $30,960 $2,580
$22.33 $34,860 $2,905
$24.81 $38,700 $3,225
$26.80 $41,820 $3,485
$28.80 $44,940 $3,745
$30.77 $48,000 $4,000
$32.76 $51,120 $4,260
$13.04
50% MFI (VeryLow Income)
Annual Monthly Hourly
$22,600 $1,883
$14.88 $25,800 $2,150
$16.76 $29,050 $2,421
$18.61 $32,250 $2,688
$20.11 $34,850 $2,904
$21.61 $37,450 $3,121
$23.08 $40,000 $3,333
$24.58 $42,600 $3,550
$10.87
30% MFI (Extremely Low Income)
Annual Monthly Hourly
$13,550 $1,129
$6.51
$12.401 $15,500 $1,292 $7.451
$13.971 $17,450 $1,454 $8.391
$15.50 $19,350 $1,613 $9.30
$16.751 $20,900 $1,742 $10.051
$18.00 $22,450 $1,871 $10.791
$19.231 $24,000 $2,000 $11.541
$20.481 $25,550 $2,129 $12.281
30-50% MFI usually used as income maximum allowed for these programs
15
SroxANT Cotn1rY
CDBG PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS
2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and
2016 Annual Action Plan
Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER)
16
SPoK L Nr{
Consolidated Plan Priorities in
2015-2019 Con Plan
High Priority:
Funds will be directed first toward eligible
activities that address this need level, prior
to consideration of funding for lower
priority activities.
Low Priority:
CSHCD will NOT use CDBG funds for
activities addressing low-level priorities.
2015-2019 Consolidated Plan
High Priorities
• Street, Sewer, Water Improvements
➢ Youth Centers, Abused / Neglected Children Centers
• Sidewalks in Spokane Valley only
➢ Removal of Architectural Barriers
• Senior Services, Handicapped Services, Youth
Services, Health Services, Fair Housing Activities,
Battered and Abused Spouse Services, Homeless
Services, Emergency Services, Microenterprise
Assistance
CDBG Eligible Applicam..,
➢ Spokane County's Urban Consortium, twelve
participating cities and towns
➢ Special Purpose Districts (sewer/water)
➢ Spokane County departments and other units of
government (RID)
➢ Not-for-profit organizations
➢ For-profit businesses within Urban Consortium,
city, town, or unincorporated area
CDBG - Ineligible Activities
➢ Improvement or construction of buildings used
predominately for the general conduct of
government
➢ Payment of general government expenses
➢ Financing of political activities
➢ Financing of religious activities
➢ Purchase of equipment or furnishings unless
required to implement an eligible activity
➢ Income payments to individuals
➢ New construction of housing
20
SPoK Cdr
Staff Review Checklist
EIigibIe activity?
Meets national objective?
Organization has capacity?
➢ Reasonable costs?
Financially feasible?
Project readiness?
Can it be completed in 1 Year
How does project meet Consolidated Plan
Guiding Principles?
ShouId application be considered by HCDA
SPoIQk•tE CBLn\LrY
CDBG Application Timeline
& Selection Process
➢ City of Spokane Valley presents CDBG options at public meeting in July
or August, seeking public input
➢ City of Spokane Valley presents applications to be submitted to Spokane
County at second public meeting in late October 2016, seeking
additional public input
➢ Applications submitted in November 2016
➢ HCD staff review completed by mid-December 2016
➢ Application binder to HCDAC for review by December 16, 2016
➢ Housing Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC)
meetings
➢ Preliminary Recommendation Meeting second week of January 2017
➢ Public Hearing Meeting on first Thursday of March 2017
➢ Final Recommendation second Thursday of March 2017
22
SPoK CIOUITY
THANK YOU
Please reach out to us at Spokane
County's Community Services, Housing,
and Community Development Department
should you have any questions or concerns
23
tlandsiedel@spokanecounty.org
web spokanecounty.org/CommunitySVCS/HCD
509.477.2588
fax 509.477.6521
SeoicANIE awry
To:
From:
Re:
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
as of May 5, 2016; 8:30 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 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. Solid Waste Collection Request for Proposals Update — Eric Guth
5. Parks & Recreation Capital 2016 Capital Projects — Mike Stone
6. 2016 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor
7. Economic Development Marketing Contract — John Hohman
8. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins
May 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
[due Mon, May 9]
(20 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 120 minutes]
[due Mon, May 16]
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(15 minutes)
4. Motion Consideration: Economic Development Marketing Contract Approval — John Hohman (10 minutes)
5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
6. Info Only: (a) Dept Reports; (b) 2017 Stormwater Mgmt Program [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes]
May 31, 2016, Special Meeting 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Executive Session: Evaluate Qualifications of Candidates for Appointments to Elective Office
May 31, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
ACTION ITEM:
1. Motion Consideration: to determine interviews for Council Vacancies —
NON -ACTION ITEMS:
2. Carnahan and 8th Intersection — Eric Guth, Sean Messner
3. 2017 Stormwater Mgmt Program Plan Update — Eric Guth
4. Public Safety Ad Hoc Committee — Cary Driskell
5. 2016 LTGO Bond Issuance Update — Mark Calhoun
6. Domestic Violence Advocacy — Chief VanLeuven
7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins
[due Mon, May 23]
Mayor Higgins (20 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(25 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 120 minutes]
June 7, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2016 TIP — Steve Worley
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP — Steve Worley
3. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
4. Second Reading Ordinance to Amend 2016 Budget — Chelsie Taylor
5. Motion Consideration: Stormwater Management Program Plan Approval — Eric Guth
6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins
[due F May 27]
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 55 minutes]
June 14 2016, Special Mtg, Budget Workshop, 8:30 a.m.- 4:30 p.m. (no evening mtg) [due Mon, June 6]
Council Chambers
June 21, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, June 13]
1. Interim Councilmember Interviews — Mayor Higgins [length of meeting dependent upon number of applications]
Draft Advance Agenda 5/5/2016 11:45:52 AM Page 1 of 2
June 28, 2016, Special Meeting 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Executive Session: Evaluate Qualifications of Candidates for Appointments to Elective Office
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)
[due Mon, June 20]
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
4. Last Action Item: Council Appointments of Interim Councilmembers — Mayor Higgins
(appointments immediately followed by administering of Oath of Office)
5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins
6. Info Only: Department Reports
July 5, 2016, Studv 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, Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 55 minutes]
[due Mon, June 27]
(25 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
[due Tue, July 5]
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
[due Mon, July 11]
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
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
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins
*time for public or Council comments not included
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING
ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Annexation
Avista Electrical Franchise
Drug Enforcement Update — Rick VanLeuven
Emergency Preparedness
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy
Law Enforcement Contract Review
Ord 16-003 Mining Ext. (expires 8/21/16)
Draft Advance Agenda 5/5/2016 11:45:52 AM
[due Mon, July 18]
(5 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
— Chelsie Taylor
[due Mon, May 2]
(5 minutes)
(20 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
Sidewalk/snow removal
SRTMC Agreement (June/July 2016)
Stormwater Grants
SVMC 2.45 Review/Discussion
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 10, 2016 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing
® information ❑ admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Draft 2016 2nd Amended Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council Adopted the 2016-2021 Six Year TIP on
June 23, 2015, Resolution #15-005; Adoption of the 2016 Budget on November 10, 2015,
Resolution #15-019; Adoption of the 2016 Amended TIP on February 9, 2016, Resolution 16-
005; Approved Motion Consideration, Allocation of federal earmark funds for the Barker
Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project on April 5, 2016.
BACKGROUND: Council adopted the Amended 2016 TIP based upon information staff had at
that time relative to grants received, available city funds and how these funds could be utilized
for transportation projects.
Added Projects:
Sullivan Euclid PCC Intersection project: Since the adoption of the Amended 2016 TIP, the
City received federal funding from SRTC for the Sullivan Euclid PCC intersection project. As
Council may recall, back in April, 2014 the City applied for federal Surface Transportation
Program (STP) funds through SRTC for the Sullivan Euclid PCC intersection project. At that
time the project application did not get scored well enough to be funded but was placed on the
STP contingency list. The contingency list was established so that in the event additional funds
became available, projects on this list could be selected for funding. Surplus funds became
available and SRTC designated $1.2 million for the Sullivan Euclid PCC intersection project.
Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project: Back in 2009 WSDOT received an allocation
of federal earmark funds for the "Development of highway -rail crossings in Spokane Co. WA &
Kootenai Co, ID". In 2010 SRTC awarded these same funds to Spokane Valley for the Barker
Road/BNSF Grade Separation project. This year the USDOT advised that any local earmark
funds that were not spent would be repurposed to fund new projects. Rather than lose these
earmark funds, Council approved moving forward with the final design phase of this project.
Bridging the Valley - Pines Road Grade Separation; Pinecroft Property Acquisition
project: This project was included in the 2016 Budget and is, therefore, being added to the
2016 TIP. This is an advanced purchase so that the property is acquired and protected from
being developed to allow for the realignment of Pines Road to cross under the BNSF railroad.
City funds will be used for this right-of-way acquisition. However, this acquisition has been
structured such that City funds used will qualify as local match on future federal grant funds
awarded for the construction phase.
Deleted Project:
Sprague LID (Low Impact Development), Park to University project: This project has been
removed because the grant funding has been delayed by ECOLOGY for at least a year.
Attached is a summary of the proposed changes. A public hearing on these 2016 TIP changes
is scheduled for June 7, 2016. Adoption of the 2nd Amended 2016 TIP is scheduled for June 28,
2016.
Since the City uses Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) monies as matching funds for state and
federal grants, this amendment to the current -year TIP is necessary to meet the state law that
requires REET funds to only be used on projects that have been identified in an adopted plan.
OPTIONS: Information only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The projects costs shown in the Draft 2nd Amended 2016 TIP
are preliminary and may be adjusted prior to adoption. There are sufficient REET funds to meet
the local match requirements for these projects.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, PE, Senior Capital Projects Engineer
Eric Guth, PE, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: Draft 2nd Amended 2016 TIP
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
2nd AMENDED Di 2016 Transportation Improvement Program
Resolution 16-##44, (6.28.2016 )
Proj. # Project
From
Primary City Total 2016
To Source Amount Project Costs
1 0155 Sullivan West Bridge
2 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project (PE/RW Only)
3 0222 Citywide Reflective Signal Backplates (PE/CN)
4 0221 McDonald Rd Road Diet
5 0234 Seth Woodard Elementary Sidewalk Imp
6 0205 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements (PE Only)
7 2016 Street Preservation Projects
0233 Broadway Preservation
0235 Sullivan Rd. Preservation (NB Lanes)
0229 32nd Ave Preservation
0240 Saltese
8 0226 Appleway Preservation
9 0227 Appleway Shared Use Path (PE)
10 0236 Fancher/BNSF RR Overpass Joint Repair (PE/CN)
11 0238 Pines Road (SR27) Mirabeau Parkway Intersection
12 0221 McDonald Rd Preservation Project
13 0239 Bowdish Sidewalk Project
14 0207 Indiana/Evergreen Transit Access
15 0166 Pines (SR-27)/Grace Intersection Safety Project
16 0167 Citywide Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped.)
17 0201 ITS Infill Project (CN)
18 0237 Appleway Trail (PE)
19 0141 Sullivan Euclid PCC (RW & PE)
20 0143 Barker Rd - BNSF Grade Separation (PE)
21 0237 BTV - Pines Rd Grade Separation; Pinecroft Property Acq. (RW)
Sullivan
Flora
Various locations
16th
Mission
Sprague @
Various locations
Sullivan
Spokane River
Dishman Mica
Houk
Park
Pines
Fancher @
Pines @
8th
12th
Indiana @
Pines (SR 27) @
Various locations
Various locations
Sullivan
Sullivan @
Wellesley
Mirabeau Pkwy
@Spokane River
Barker
Mission
Park
Barker
Moore
Flora Pit Road
Pines
24th
Dishman Mica
Evergreen
BNSF RR
Mirabeau Pkwy
Mission
8th
Evergreen
Grace Ave
Corbin
Euclid
Trent (SR 290)
BNSF RR
BR $
STP(U) $
HSIP $
HSIP $
CDBG $
Developer $
City $
1,010,000
43,000
9,000
3,000
11,580
12,000
3,050,000
$ 6,980,000
$ 273,000
$ 81,000
$ 574,000
$ 358,790
$ 50,000
$ 3,050,000
STP(U) $ 11,000 $ 83,000
STP(U)/TAP $ 31,000 $ 145,000
City $ 201,000 $ 201,000
TIB $ 28,149 $ 446,338
TIB $ 7,100 $ 1,244,730
TIB $ 222,912 $ 506,342
STA $ - $ 85,000
HSIP $ - $ 562,000
HSIP $ $ 154,000
CMAQ $ 35,790 $ 265,115
State $ 57,500 $ 383,000
STP(UL) $ 10,850 $ 80,300
Fed Discr $ 150,000 $ 510,000
City $ 500,000 $ 500,000
$ 5,393,881 $ 16,532,615
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making
development decisions.
Funded Projects Added Projects
P:\Public Works\Capital Projects\CIP-TIP Funding\2016-2021 TIP\2016 2nd Amended TIP\Draft 2nd Amended 2016 TIP.xlsx 5/4/2016
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 10, 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: Draft 2017-2022 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010, Perpetual advanced six-year plans for
coordinated transportation program expenditures.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: The City is required by RCW 35.77.010 to prepare and after holding a public
hearing, adopt a revised and extended comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing
six calendar years. This plan must be submitted to the Washington State Department of
Transportation by July 1st of each year.
The attached draft Six Year TIP incorporates comments received from previous Council
comments on the City's transportation network.
This year's TIP continues with an emphasis on street preservation projects in accordance with
council goals. Street Preservation Projects are included for each year in this six-year TIP.
Staff reviewed historical funding levels for federal, state and City funds from the past five years
to estimate projected funding levels available during the next six years. The Six -Year TIP is
required to be financially constrained and reflect realistic expectations of annual funding levels.
Other needed and worthwhile projects that do not fit within the amount of funding anticipated
from state and federal grants and City revenues are listed in the document titled `Projects w/ No
Currently Identified Local Match within Existing Resources'.
OPTIONS: Information only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Project costs are currently being developed in more detail for
each project. The City's match on federal and state funded projects is typically between 13.5%
and 20%. A review of the projected REET funds through 2022 will be provided to determine if
there are sufficient funds to provide the City's match for the recommended projects.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer
Eric Guth, PE - Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: Draft 2017-2022 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
Spokane
Walley
City of Spokane Valle
Public Works Departmen
"DRAFT" 2017 - 2022 Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program
May 10, 2016
M
Funding Sources:
• ARRA
• BR
• City
• CDBG
• CMAQ
• Developers
• EECBG
• FHWA
• FMSIB
• HSIP
• HUD
• REET
• Other Fed
• Other RR
• Other State
• SP
• SRTS
• SW
• STA
• STP(E)
• STP(U)
• TA
• TIB
• UAP
• UCP
• WSDOT
• WTSC
• WUTC
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
2017 — 2022 Six -Year Transportation
Improvement Program
Glossary & Abbreviations
American Recovery & Reinvestment Act
Bridge Replacement Program
City Funds
Community Development Block Grant
Congestion Management/Air Quality
Private Developer Funds
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant
Federal Highway Administration
Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Program
Highway Safety Improvement Program
Housing & Urban Development
Real Estate Excise Tax
Misc. Federal Funding Sources
Railroad Funding
Misc. State Funding Sources
TIB Sidewalk Program
Safe Routes to School
City Stormwater Funds
Spokane Transit Authority
Surface Transportation Program (Enhancement)
Surface Transportation Program (Urban)
Transportation Alternatives
Transportation Improvement Board
TIB Urban Arterial Program
TIB Urban Corridor Program
Washington Department of Transportation
Washington Traffic Safety Commission
Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission
Spakane
.Valley
Funding Status:
• S Project Funding is Secured
• P Project Funding is Planned. The Most
Probable Funding Sources have been
Identified.
Project Phases:
• PE Preliminary Engineering
• RW Right -of -Way
• CN Construction
Construction Type:
• PCC Portland Cement Concrete
• HMA Hot Mix Asphalt
• ITS Intelligent Transportation System
(Integrated Traffic Signal Control Systems)
• S/W Sidewalk
Street Functional Classifications:
Urban:
• 14
• 16
• 17
• 19
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector Arterial
Local Access
Spokane
Valley
Project / Description / Current Status
Draft 2017 - 2022
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Length PE RW CN Total
Funding
Sources
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
1 Appleway - Park to Dishman Mica Preservation
S
Grind and Overlay, ADA Upgrades
Funded with STP(U) funds.
1.1 0 3 1,068 1,071 City 144 144
STP(U) 927 927
Project Total 1,071 1,071
2 2017 Street Preservation Projects
P
Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311
Ongoing, yearly
0 184 0 2,116 2,300 City 2,300 2,300
Project Total 2,300 2,300
3 Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (RW/CN)
S
Reconstruct intersection in concrete pavement
Funding secured for PE & RW, (SRTC #09-06); City Project #141
0
0 0 2,082 2,082 City 323 323
STP(U) 1,199 1,199
TIB 560 560
Project Total 2,082 2,082
4 Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin
S
Shared Use Path along Old Milwaukee R/R ROW
Moved forward to 2016
1.33 0 0 1,853 1,853 City 302 302
RCO 708 708
COM 843 843
Project Total 1,853 1,853
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an,
are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
5/4/2016 Page 1
Spokane
Walley
Project / Description / Current Status
Draft 2017 - 2022
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Length PE RW CN Total
Funding
Sources
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
5 North Sullivan ITS Project
S
Extend ITS conduit and controls along Sullivan Corridor
CMAQ Funded
1.75 105 5 804 914 City 15 109 124
CMAQ 95 695 790
Project Total 110 804 914
6 Argonne - Broadway to Indiana
S
Pavement Preservation - Grind and Overlay
Funded with STP(U) funds.
0.8 65 0 570 635 City 9 77 86
STP(U) 56 493 549
Project Total 65 570 635
7 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Project
S
Traffic Signal or Roundabout
0.25 198 120 1,052 1,360 City 34 8 142 184
CMAQ 218 48 910 1,176
Project Total 252 56 1,052 1,360
8 Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin Preservation
S
Pavement Preservation, ADA upgrade
Funded with STP(U) funds.
0.85 265 0 1,502 1,767 City 36 203 239
STP(U) 229 1,299 1,528
Project Total 265 1,502 1,767
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an,
are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
5/4/2016 Page 2
Spokane
Walley
Project / Description / Current Status
Draft 2017 - 2022
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Length PE RW CN Total
Funding
Sources
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
9 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation
P
Construct Grade Separation at Barker/BNSF RR/ Trent (SR290)
0.5
FY09 Federal Earmark for $720K, 20% of CN (up to $10M) received from FMSIB
2,473 2,418 31,144 36,035 City 62 81 290 729 243 1,405
Other 710 935 3,410 8,577 2,859 16,491
Fed
Other 32 41 149 374 125 721
State
Other- 15 10 79 224 75 403
RR
Other 781 1,007 2,271 5,045 1,682 10,786
Fed
FMSIB 1,246 3,737 1,246 6,229
Project Total 1,600 2,074 7,445 18,686 6,230 36,035
10 Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW & CN) 0.75 0 150 2,877 3,027 City 20 388 408
p STP(U) 130 2,489 2,619
Reconstruct to a 3 -lane section with curb, sidewalks, bike lanes and stormwater facilities
PE Funding 6/2009
Project Total 150
2,877 3,027
11 Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Underpass - (PE only)
P
Railroad underpass at Pines (SR -27) / BNSF / Trent
0 1,200 3,000 15,565 19,769 City 68 68 270 584 990
Other 810 810 3,235 7,004 11,859
Fed
Other- 68 68 270 584 990
RR
TIB 405 405 1,618 3,502 5,930
Project Total 1,351 1,351 5,393 11,674 19,769
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an,
are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
5/4/2016 Page 3
Spokane
Walley
Project / Description / Current Status
Draft 2017 - 2022
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Length PE RW CN Total
Funding
Sources
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
12 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements 0 39 12 422 474 City 237 237
p DEV 237 237
Intersection capacity improvements. Pending Barker Road Corridor Study
Developer + City Partnership
Project Total
474 474
13 Appleway Shared Use Path - Pines Rd to
s Evergreen Rd
Construct Shared Use Pathway along abandoned RR R -O -W
Funded with STP(U) funds.
1
0 0 1,926 1,926 City 414 414
STP(U) 921 921
TAP 591 591
Project Total
1,926 1,926
14 2018 Street Preservation Projects
P
Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311
Ongoing, yearly
0 100 0 2,100 2,200 City 2,200 2,200
Project Total
2,200 2,200
15 Argonne Road Concrete Pavement - 1-90 to
p Montgomery
0.25 512 0 3,211 3,723 City 102 642 744
TIB 410 2,569 2,979
Reconstruct pavement in concrete; OCI Mullan to Knox 24, OCI Knox to Montgomery 35 (2014 Rpt)
Project Total
512 3,211 3,723
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an,
are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
5/4/2016 Page 4
Spokane
Walley
Project / Description / Current Status
Draft 2017 - 2022
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Length PE RW CN Total
Funding
Sources
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
16 Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan
S
Construct Shared Use Pathway along abandoned Railroad Right -of -Way
1 110 0 1,535 1,699 City
CMAQ
22 207 229
142 1,328 1,470
Project Total 164 1,535 1,699
17 Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project
P
1 140 30 830 1,000 City 152 848 1,000
Infill gaps in Sidewalks and add sidewalks to access completed portions of the Appleway Trail.
Project Total
152 848 1,000
18 Evergreen Resurfacing - Mission Connector to 0.7 66 0 591 656 City 4 84 88
s Indiana STP(U) 28 540 568
Grind and inlay HMA, Bike Lane Positive Guidance thru the 1-90 EXIT 291-A
Project Total
32 624 656
19 Sullivan -Trent (SR -290) to Wellesley Corridor 0.3 90 50 600 740 City 12 62 74
p Lighting HSIP 104 562 666
Street lighting, ROW
Project Total
116 624 740
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an,
are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
5/4/2016 Page 5
Spokane
Walley
Project / Description / Current Status
Draft 2017 - 2022
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Length PE RW CN Total
Funding
Sources
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
20 Appleway Trail - University Rd. to Balfour Park 0.5 110 120 520 750 City 102 102
S TAP 198 198
CMAQ 450 450
Extend Shared Use pathway to Balfour Park
Project Total
750 750
21 2019 Street Preservation Projects
P
Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311
Ongoing, yearly
0 100 0 2,100 2,200 City 2,200 2,200
Project Total
2,200 2,200
22 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Concrete
p Intersections (CN Only)
Reconstruct intersections in concrete pavement
ROW Obligated 11/2013
0
0 0 1,703 1,703 City 230 230
STP(U) 1,473 1,473
Project Total
1,703 1,703
23 Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Rd. (CN)
P
1
0 0 3,969 3,974 City 536 536
TIB 1,719 1,719
STP(U) 1,719 1,719
Widen existing rural roadway to an urban street section to include bike lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and stormwater swales.
Project Total
3,974 3,974
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an,
are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
5/4/2016 Page 6
Spokane
Walley
Project / Description / Current Status
Draft 2017 - 2022
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Length PE RW CN Total
Funding
Sources
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
24 Broadway Improvement Project - Flora to
p Barker
0 543 500 4,163 5,206 City 159 883 1,042
TIB 634 3,530 4,164
Extend Broadway arterial to Barker Rd, Realign Broadway connection east of Barker
3 -Lane Urban Section
Project Total
793 4,413 5,206
25 Evergreen & Broadway ITS
P
2 206 80 1,584 1,870 City 36 217 253
CMAQ 230 1,387 1,617
ITS along Broadway from Pines Rd (SR -27) to Evergreen, along Evergreen from Sprague to 16th Ave.
2018-2020 CMAQ Grant Application funding
Project Total
266 1,604 1,870
26 2020 Street Preservation Projects
P
Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311
Ongoing, yearly
0 100 0 2,100 2,200 City 2,200 2,200
Project Total
2,200 2,200
27 Barker Rd - Euclid to Trent Road
P
Reconstruct Barker to 3 -lane urban section
0.75 471 100 3,613 4,184 City 114 723 837
TIB 457 2,890 3,347
Project Total
571 3,613 4,184
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an,
are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
5/4/2016 Page 7
Spokane
Walley
Project / Description / Current Status
Draft 2017 - 2022
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Length PE RW CN Total
Funding
Sources
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
28 Barker Rd Improvement Project -Appleway to I- 0.28 382 1,146 2,397 3,629 City 167 324 491
p 90 STP(U) 1,065 2,073 3,138
Widen and improve to 5 -lane urban section, Roundabout @ Broadway, Realign east leg of Broadway
Project Total 1,232
2,397 3,629
29 Barker Rd Improvements - South City Limits to 0.81 326 25 2,502 2,854 City 46 340 386
p Appleway TIB 293 2,175 2,468
Widen and Improve roadway to 3 -lane urban section
Project Total
339 2,515 2,854
30 2021 Street Preservation Projects
P
Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311
Ongoing, yearly
0 100 0 2,100 2,200 City 2,200 2,200
Project Total
2,200 2,200
31 Pines 1-90 IC, City Intersection Imp Project
P
0 250 300 1,300 1,850 City 54 196 250
CMAQ 346 1,254 1,600
Intersection Capacity Improvement for City Intersections along Pines @ Indiana, EB Ramp & Mission
Project Total 400 1,450 1,850
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an,
are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
5/4/2016 Page 8
Spokane
Walley
Project / Description / Current Status
Draft 2017 - 2022
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Length PE RW CN Total
Funding
Sources
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
32 Mirabeau/Mansfield Intersection Improvements 0 110 100 560 670 City 15 76 91
p CMAQ 95 484 579
Intersection Capacity Improvements
Project Total
110 560 670
33 Argonne Rd &I-90 IC Bridge Widening
P
Widen Argonne Rd Bridge to 3 Lanes, SB. New 12' sidewalks.
0.1 900 0 5,760 6,660 City 122 144 266
FMSIB 634 634
STP(U) 778 4,982 5,760
Project Total 900 5,760 6,660
34 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Spokane
p River to Euclid
Reconstruct and widen to 3 -lane urban section
Developer Funds Rec'd 6/2014, $29,500
0.53 378 25 2,899 3,302 City 52 580 632
TIB 322 2,319 2,641
DEV 29 29
Project Total 403 2,899 3,302
35 2022 Street Preservation Projects
P
Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311
Ongoing, yearly
0 184 0 2,116 2,300 City 2,300 2,300
Project Total 2,300 2,300
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an,
are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
5/4/2016 Page 9
Spokane
Walley
Project / Description / Current Status
Draft 2017 - 2022
Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program
Dollars in Thousands
Length PE RW CN Total
Funding
Sources
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
Totals: 9,707 8,184 93,234 111,768 11,099 11,933 28,883 45,131 18,768 12,969 111,768
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, an,
are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
5/4/2016 Page 10
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
Total Project Costs
(Including costs before and beyond the six years of this TIP)
Projects Listed by Category for the 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP
Dollars in Thousands
Arterial Improvements
Project Name Description City Cost Total Cost
Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Traffic Signal or Roundabout $184 $1,370
Project
Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana Reconstruct to a 3 -lane section with $418 $3,102
(RW & CN) curb, sidewalks, bike lanes and
stormwater facilities
Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Underpass - Railroad underpass at Pines (SR -27) $988 $19,765
(PE only) / BNSF / Trent
Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Widen existing rural roadway to an $536 $3,969
Rd. (CN) urban street section to include bike
lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and
stormwater swales.
Broadway Improvement Project - Extend Broadway arterial to Barker $1,042 $5,206
Flora to Barker Rd, Realign Broadway connection
east of Barker
Barker Rd - Euclid to Trent Road Reconstruct Barker to 3 -lane urban $837 $4,184
section
Barker Rd Improvement Project - Widen and improve to 5 -lane urban $491 $3,925
Appleway to 1-90 section, Roundabout @ Broadway,
Realign east leg of Broadway
Barker Rd Improvements - South City Widen and Improve roadway to 3- $385 $2,853
Limits to Appleway lane urban section
Barker Rd Improvement Project - Reconstruct and widen to 3 -lane $632 $3,302
Spokane River to Euclid urban section
Total: $5,513 $47,676
Bridge Projects
Project Name
Barker Road / BNSF Grade
Separation
Description
Construct Grade Separation at
Barker/BNSF RR/ Trent (SR290)
City Cost Total Cost
$1,405 $36,035
Argonne Rd & 1-90 IC Bridge Widen Argonne Rd Bridge to 3 $302 $8,100
Widening Lanes, SB. New 12' sidewalks.
Total:
$1,707 $44,135
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not
intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016 Page 1 of 4
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
Total Project Costs
(Including costs before and beyond the six years of this TIP)
Projects Listed by Category for the 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP
Dollars in Thousands
Congestion Improvements
Project Name Description
Sprague / Barker Intersection Intersection capacity improvements.
Improvements Pending Barker Road Corridor Study
Pines 1-90 IC, City Intersection Imp
Project
Intersection Capacity Improvement
for City Intersections along Pines @
Indiana, EB Ramp & Mission
Mirabeau/Mansfield Intersection Intersection Capacity Improvements
Improvements
Total:
City Cost Total Cost
$245 $489
$250 $1,850
$91 $770
$586 $3,109
Pedestrian/Bicycle Program
Project Name
Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin
Appleway Shared Use Path - Pines
Rd to Evergreen Rd
Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan
Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project
Appleway Trail - University Rd. to
Balfour Park
Description
Shared Use Path along Old
Milwaukee R/R ROW
Construct Shared Use Pathway along
abandoned RR R -O -W
Construct Shared Use Pathway along
abandoned Railroad Right -of -Way
Infill gaps in Sidewalks and add
sidewalks to access completed
portions of the Appleway Trail.
Extend Shared Use pathway to
Balfour Park
Total:
City Cost Total Cost
$347
$459
$229
$1,000
$102
$2,137
$2,130
$2,134
$1,645
$1,000
$750
$7,659
Safety Program
Project Name
Sullivan -Trent (SR -290) to Wellesley
Corridor Lighting
Description
Street lighting, ROW
Total:
City Cost Total Cost
$74 $740
$74
$740
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not
intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016 Page 2 of 4
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
Total Project Costs
(Including costs before and beyond the six years of this TIP)
Projects Listed by Category for the 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP
Dollars in Thousands
Street Preservation Projects
Project Name Description City Cost Total Cost
Appleway - Park to Dishman Mica Grind and Overlay, ADA Upgrades $159 $1,185
Preservation
2017 Street Preservation Projects Pavement Preservation Projects: $2,300 $2,300
Fund 311
Argonne - Broadway to Indiana Pavement Preservation - Grind and $87 $640
Overlay
Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin Pavement Preservation, ADA upgrade $239 $1,770
Preservation
2018 Street Preservation Projects Pavement Preservation Projects: $2,200 $2,200
Fund 311
Evergreen Resurfacing - Mission Grind and inlay HMA, Bike Lane $89 $660
Connector to Indiana Positive Guidance thru the 1-90 EXIT
291-A
2019 Street Preservation Projects Pavement Preservation Projects: $2,200 $2,200
Fund 311
2020 Street Preservation Projects Pavement Preservation Projects: $2,200 $2,200
Fund 311
2021 Street Preservation Projects Pavement Preservation Projects: $2,200 $2,200
Fund 311
2022 Street Preservation Projects Pavement Preservation Projects: $2,300 $2,300
Fund 311
Total: $13,974 $17,655
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not
intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016 Page 3 of 4
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
Total Project Costs
(Including costs before and beyond the six years of this TIP)
Projects Listed by Category for the 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP
Dollars in Thousands
Street Reconstruction Projects
Project Name
Sullivan / Euclid Concrete
Intersection (RW/CN)
Argonne Road Concrete Pavement -
1-90 to Montgomery
Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan
Concrete Intersections (CN Only)
Description
Reconstruct intersection in concrete
pavement
Reconstruct pavement in concrete;
OCI MuIlan to Knox 24, OCI Knox to
Montgomery 35 (2014 Rpt)
Reconstruct intersections in concrete
pavement
Total:
City Cost Total Cost
$350 $2,257
$744 $3,723
$230 $1,703
$1,324 $7,683
Traffic Operations and Maintenance
Project Name
North Sullivan ITS Project
Evergreen & Broadway ITS
Description
Extend ITS conduit and controls
along Sullivan Corridor
ITS along Broadway from Pines Rd
(SR -27) to Evergreen, along
Evergreen from Sprague to 16th Ave.
Total:
City Cost Total Cost
$124
$253
$377
$914
$1,870
$2,784
Overall Total:
$25,507
$111,768
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not
intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016 Page 4 of 4
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Public Works
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
2017 - 2022
Dollars in Thousands
2017
Item # Project Name
2 Appleway - Park to Dishman Mica Preservation
4 Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin
5 Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (PE)
6 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Project
7 2017 Street Preservation Projects
8 Argonne - Broadway to Indiana
9 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation
10 Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW & CN)
11 Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Underpass - (PE only)
12 Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin Preservation
13 Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (RW/CN)
14 North Sullivan ITS Project
Primary Source City Amount Total Amount
STP(U)
COM
STP(U)
CMAQ
City
STP(U)
Other Fed
STP(U)
Other Fed
STP(U)
TIB
CMAQ
144 1,071
302 1,853
281 2,082
34 252
2,300 2,300
9 65
62 1,522
20 150
30 600
36 265
421 2,108
15 110
2017 Totals:
$3,654
$12,378
2018
Item # Project Name
1 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements
3 Appleway Shared Use Path - Pines Rd to
Evergreen Rd
6 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Project
8 Argonne - Broadway to Indiana
9 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation
11
12
14
15
16
18
Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Underpass - (PE only)
Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin Preservation
North Sullivan ITS Project
2018 Street Preservation Projects
Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan
Argonne Road Concrete Pavement - 1-90 to
Montgomery
19 Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project
20 Evergreen Resurfacing - Mission Connector to
Indiana
21 Sullivan -Trent (SR -290) to Wellesley Corridor
Lighting
Primary Source
DEV
STP(U)
CMAQ
STP(U)
Other Fed
Other Fed
STP(U)
CMAQ
City
CMAQ
TIB
City
STP(U)
HSIP
City Amount
237
414
8
77
78
30
203
109
2,200
22
102
152
4
12
Total Amount
474
1,926
56
570
1,745
600
1,502
804
2,200
164
512
152
32
116
2018 Totals:
$3,648
$10,853
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not
intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
Added Projects are shown in Green Funded Projects are shown in Blue
Wednesday, May 04, 2016 Page 1 of 3
2010
Item # Project Name
6 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Project
9 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation
17 Appleway Trail - University Rd. to Balfour Park
18 Argonne Road Concrete Pavement - 1-90 to
Montgomery
19 Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project
20 Evergreen Resurfacing - Mission Connector to
1 ndiana
21 Sullivan -Trent (SR -290) to Wellesley Corridor
Lighting
22 2019 Street Preservation Projects
23 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Concrete
Intersections (CN Only)
24 Broadway Improvement Project - Flora to Barker
25 Evergreen & Broadway ITS
26 Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Rd. (CN)
Primary Source
CMAQ
Other Fed
CMAQ
TIB
City
STP(U)
HSIP
City
STP(U)
TIB
CMAQ
STP(U)
City Amount
142
290
102
642
848
84
62
2,200
230
159
36
536
Total Amount
1,052
7,030
750
3,211
848
624
624
2,200
1,703
793
266
3,974
2019 Totals:
$5,331
$23,075
2020
Item # Project Name
9 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation
10 Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW & CN)
16 Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan
24 Broadway Improvement Project - Flora to Barker
25 Evergreen & Broadway ITS
27 2020 Street Preservation Projects
28 Barker Rd - Euclid to Trent Road
29 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Appleway to I-
90
30 Barker Rd Improvements - South City Limits to
Appleway
Primary Source
Other Fed
STP(U)
CMAQ
TIB
CMAQ
City
TIB
STP(U)
TIB
City Amount
729
388
207
883
217
2,200
114
167
46
Total Amount
17,976
2,877
1,535
4,413
1,604
2,200
571
1,232
339
2020 Totals:
$4,951
$32,747
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not
intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
Added Projects are shown in Green Funded Projects are shown in Blue
Wednesday, May 04, 2016 Page 2 of 3
2021
Rem # Project Name
9 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation
9 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation
27 Barker Rd - Euclid to Trent Road
28 Barker Rd - Euclid to Trent Road
28 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Appleway to 1 -
Primary Source
Other Fed
Other Fed
TIB
TIB
STP(U)
90
29 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Appleway to 1- STP(U)
90
29 Barker Rd Improvements - South City Limits to TIB
Appleway
30 2021 Street Preservation Projects City
30 Barker Rd Improvements - South City Limits to TIB
Appleway
31 2021 Street Preservation Projects City
31 Pines 1-90 IC, City Intersection Imp Project CMAQ
32 Argonne Rd & 1-90 IC Bridge Widening STP(U)
32 Mirabeau/Mansfield Intersection Improvements CMAQ
33 Argonne Rd & 1-90 IC Bridge Widening STP(U)
33 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Spokane River TIB
to Euclid
34 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Spokane River TIB
to Euclid
City Amount
243
243
723
723
324
324
340
2,200
340
2,200
54
122
15
122
52
52
Total Amount
5,993
6,230
3,613
3,613
2,397
2,397
2,515
2,200
2,515
2,200
400
900
110
900
403
403
2021 Totals:
$8,077
$36,789
2022
Item # Project Name
31 Pines 1-90 IC, City Intersection Imp Project
32 Argonne Rd &I-90 IC Bridge Widening
32 Mirabeau/Mansfield Intersection Improvements
33 Argonne Rd &I-90 IC Bridge Widening
33 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Spokane River
to Euclid
34 2022 Street Preservation Projects
34 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Spokane River
to Euclid
35 2022 Street Preservation Projects
Primary Source
CMAQ
STP(U)
CMAQ
STP(U)
TIB
City
TIB
City
City Amount
196
144
76
144
580
2,300
580
2,300
Total Amount
1,450
5,760
560
5,760
2,899
2,300
2,899
2,300
2022 Totals:
$6,320
$23,928
Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances, and are not
intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions.
Added Projects are shown in Green Funded Projects are shown in Blue
Wednesday, May 04, 2016 Page 3 of 3