The URL can be used to link to this page

2016, 06-07 Regular MeetingAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL FORMAT MEETING Tuesday, June 7, 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 Al Hulten, Valley Assembly Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PROCLAMATION: n/a PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject except those on this agenda as action items. (Action items include public hearings, and those items under NEW BUSINESS. Public Comments will be taken on those items at the time those items are discussed.) When you come to the podium, please state your name and city residence for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) — Steve Worley 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2017-2022 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program — Steve Worley 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on June 7, 2016 Request for Council Action Form, Totaling: $703,255.62 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending May 31, 2016: $415,138.04 c. Approval of May 17, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session d. Approval of May 24, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Formal Meeting NEW BUSINESS: 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-008 Amending 2016 Budget — Chelsie Taylor [public comment] 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-009 Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell [public comment] 6. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Broadway Street Preservation Project — Eric Guth [public comment] Council Agenda 06-07-16 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. Council/Planning Commission Comp Plan Follow-up — Mike Basinger 8. Marijuana Regulations — Erik Lamb 9. Law Enforcement Contract Review — Morgan Koudelka, Mark Calhoun 10. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins INFORMATION ONLY 11. Seth Woodard Sidewalk Project #0234 12. State Route 27 and Mirabeau Park Intersection 13. McDonald Road Project CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT General Meetin,i Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1st 3rd and Stn 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 06-07-16 Formal Format Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 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; Info RCA 2016 2nd Amended TIP, May 10, 2016, Admin Report RCA and discussion, May 24, 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: Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Public Hearing 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 DRAFT 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 \\svfsl\Public Folders\Public Works\Capital Projects\CIP-TIP Funding\2016-2021 TIP\2016 2nd Amended TIP\Public Hearing\Draft 2nd Amended 2016 TIP.xlsx 5/31/2016 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 2016 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: 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: Draft 2017-2022 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Information Only RCA to Council on May 10, 2016 and an Administrative Report and discussion was held with Council on May 24th, 2016. 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. 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. OPTIONS: Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Public Hearing 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 — Capital Improvement Program Manager Eric Guth, PE - Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft 2017-2022 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Project Scope Descriptions, Benefits, and Cost Estimates Draft 2017-2022 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Map Spokane �Valley�� City of Spokane Valle Public Works Departmen "DRAFT" 2017 - 2022 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program June 7, 2016 Resolution No. 16-00# 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 3 Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (RW/CN) S Reconstruct intersection in concrete pavement Funding secured for PE & RW, (SRTC #09-06); City Project #141 4 Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin S Shared Use Path along Old Milwaukee R/R ROW Moved forward to 2016 0 176 0 2,024 2,200 City 2,200 2,200 0 Project Total 2,200 2,200 0 0 2,082 2,082 City 323 323 STP(U) 1,199 1,199 TIB 560 560 Project Total 2,082 2,082 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, and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. 5/31/2016 Page 1 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 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 9th Ave Sidewalk, Raymond to University P New Sidewalks on the north side of 9th Ave, Raymond to University Awaiting Funding 0.125 40 0 200 240 City 8 40 48 Other- 32 160 192 FTA Project Total 40 200 240 8 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 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. 5/31/2016 Page 2 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 9 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 10 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation Project P Construct Grade Separation at Barker/BNSF RR/ Trent (SR290) FY09 Federal Earmark for $720K, 20% of CN (up to $10M) received from FMSIB 0.5 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 11 Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW & CN) 0.75 0 150 2,877 3,027 City 20 388 408 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 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. 5/31/2016 Page 3 2,877 3,027 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 12 Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Grade Seperation Project 0 1,200 3,000 15,565 19,769 City 68 68 270 584 990 p Other 810 810 3,235 7,004 11,859 Fed Other- 68 68 270 584 990 RR Railroad underpass at Pines (SR -27) / BNSF / Trent TIB 405 405 1,618 3,502 5,930 Project Total 1,351 1,351 5,393 11,674 19,769 13 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements P Intersection capacity improvements. Pending Barker Road Corridor Study Developer + City Partnership 14 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. 0 39 12 422 474 City 237 237 DEV 237 237 1 Project Total 474 474 0 0 1,926 1,926 City 414 414 STP(U) 921 921 TAP 591 591 Project Total 1,926 1,926 15 2018 Street Preservation Projects P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 176 0 2,024 2,200 City 2,200 2,200 Project Total 2,200 2,200 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. 5/31/2016 Page 4 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 16 Coleman Road Sidewalk, 4th to 2nd Ave's P 0.125 25 0 145 170 City 5 29 34 Other- 20 116 136 FTA Sidewalks on one side of Coleman from 4th to 2nd Ave. Transit Access to STA bus stops. Awaiting Funding Project Total 25 145 170 17 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 18 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 19 Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project 1 140 30 830 1,000 City 40 40 40 40 40 200 p CDBG 40 40 40 40 40 200 SRTS 40 40 40 40 40 200 Infill gaps in Sidewalks and add sidewalks to access completed portions of the Appleway Trail. TIB 40 40 40 40 40 200 Other - 40 40 40 40 40 200 FTA Project Total 200 200 200 200 200 1,000 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. 5/31/2016 Page 5 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 2019 Street Preservation Projects P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 176 0 2,024 2,200 City 2,200 2,200 Project Total 2,200 2,200 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. 5/31/2016 Page 6 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 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. 5/31/2016 Page 7 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 28 2020 Street Preservation Projects P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 176 0 2,024 2,200 City 2,200 2,200 Project Total 2,200 2,200 29 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 30 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Appleway to 1- p 90 0.28 382 1,146 2,397 3,629 City 167 324 491 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 31 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 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. 5/31/2016 Page 8 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 32 2021 Street Preservation Projects P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 176 0 2,024 2,200 City 2,200 2,200 Project Total 2,200 2,200 33 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 34 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 35 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 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. 5/31/2016 Page 9 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 36 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 37 2022 Street Preservation Projects P Pavement Preservation Projects: Fund 311 Ongoing, yearly 0 176 0 2,024 2,200 City 2,200 2,200 Project Total 2,200 2,200 Totals: 10,060 8,184 111,091 129,335 11,039 12,206 28,380 45,331 18,968 13,069 128,993 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. 5/31/2016 Page 10 Spokane �� Valley Draft 2017 - 2022 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Totals Secured Projects Planned Projects Totals Year Federal State Other City Total Federal State Other City Total Federal State Other City Total 2017 $2,724 $2,111 $0 $863 $5,698 $2,463 $437 $83 $2,358 $5,341 $5,187 $2,548 $83 $3,221 $11,039 2018 $4,217 $0 $0 $837 $5,054 $3,156 $896 $315 $2,785 $7,152 $7,373 $896 $315 $3,622 $12,206 2019 $2,098 $0 $0 $328 $2,426 $13,136 $7,975 $349 $4,494 $25,954 $15,234 $7,975 $349 $4,822 $28,380 2020 $1,328 $0 $0 $207 $1,535 $25,687 $11,93 $808 $5,368 $43,796 $27,015 $11,93 $808 $5,575 $45,331 3 3 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,953 $6,798 $104 $4,113 $18,968 $7,953 $6,798 $104 $4,113 $18,968 2022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,840 $2,993 $0 $3,236 $13,069 $6,840 $2,993 $0 $3,236 $13,069 Total $10,367 $2,111 $0 $2,235 $14,713 $59,235 $31,032 $1,659 $22,354 $114,280 $69,602 $33,143 $1,659 $24,589 $128,993 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. 5/31/2016 Page 1 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Projects Listed by Category for the 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP Dollars in Thousands Arterial Improvements Project Name Description Start Year Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Traffic Signal or Roundabout Project Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW & CN) 2017 Reconstruct to a 3 -lane section with 2017 curb, sidewalks, bike lanes and stormwater facilities Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Grade Railroad underpass at Pines (SR -27) 2017 Seperator - (PE only) / BNSF / Trent Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Rd. (CN) Broadway Improvement Project - Flora to Barker Widen existing rural roadway to an urban street section to include bike lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and stormwater swales. 2019 Extend Broadway arterial to Barker 2019 Rd, Realign Broadway connection east of Barker Barker Rd - Euclid to Trent Road Reconstruct Barker to 3 -lane urban 2020 section Barker Rd Improvement Project - Appleway to 1-90 Widen and improve to 5 -lane urban 2020 section, Roundabout @ Broadway, Realign east leg of Broadway Barker Rd Improvements - South City Widen and Improve roadway to 3- 2020 Limits to Appleway lane urban section Barker Rd Improvement Project - Reconstruct and widen to 3 -lane 2021 Spokane River to Euclid urban section Total: City Cost Total Cost $184 $1,360 $408 $3,027 $990 $19,769 $536 $3,974 $1,042 $5,206 $837 $4,184 $491 $3,629 $386 $2,854 $632 $3,302 $5,506 $47,305 Bridge Projects Project Name Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation Argonne Rd &I-90 IC Bridge Description Start Year Construct Grade Separation at 2017 Barker/BNSF RR/ Trent (SR290) City Cost Total Cost $1,405 $36,035 Widen Argonne Rd Bridge to 3 2021 $266 $6,660 Widening Lanes, SB. New 12' sidewalks. Total: $1,671 $42,695 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 31, 2016 Page 1 of 4 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Projects Listed by Category for the 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP Dollars in Thousands Congestion Improvements Project Name Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements Pines 1-90 IC, City Intersection Imp Project Mirabeau/Mansfield Intersection Improvements Description Start Year Intersection capacity improvements. 2017 Pending Barker Road Corridor Study Intersection Capacity Improvement 2021 for City Intersections along Pines @ Indiana, EB Ramp & Mission Intersection Capacity Improvements 2021 Total: City Cost $237 $250 $91 $578 Total Cost $474 $1,850 $670 $2,994 Pedestrian/Bicycle Program Project Name Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin 9th Ave Sidewalk, Raymond to University Appleway Shared Use Path - Pines Rd to Evergreen Rd Coleman Road Sidewalk, 4th to 2nd Ave's Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project Appleway Trail - University Rd. to Balfour Park Description Start Year Shared Use Path along Old 2017 Milwaukee R/R ROW New Sidewalks on the north side of 2017 9th Ave, Raymond to University Construct Shared Use Pathway along 2017 abandoned RR R -O -W Sidewalks on one side of Coleman 2018 from 4th to 2nd Ave. Transit Access to STA bus stops. Construct Shared Use Pathway along 2018 abandoned Railroad Right -of -Way Infill gaps in Sidewalks and add sidewalks to access completed portions of the Appleway Trail. 2018 Extend Shared Use pathway to 2018 Balfour Park Total: City Cost Total Cost $302 $48 $414 $34 $229 $200 $102 $1,329 $1,853 $240 $1,926 $170 $1,699 $1,000 $750 $7,638 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 31, 2016 Page 2 of 4 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Projects Listed by Category for the 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP Dollars in Thousands Safety Program Project Name Description Sullivan -Trent (SR -290) to Wellesley Street lighting, ROW Corridor Lighting Start Year City Cost Total Cost 2018 $74 $740 Total: $74 $740 Street Preservation Projects Project Name Appleway - Park to Dishman Mica Preservation 2017 Street Preservation Projects Argonne - Broadway to Indiana Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin Preservation 2018 Street Preservation Projects Evergreen Resurfacing - Mission Connector to Indiana 2019 Street Preservation Projects 2020 Street Preservation Projects 2021 Street Preservation Projects 2022 Street Preservation Projects Description Start Year Grind and Overlay, ADA Upgrades 2017 Pavement Preservation Projects: 2017 Fund 311 Pavement Preservation - Grind and 2017 Overlay Pavement Preservation, ADA upgrade 2017 Pavement Preservation Projects: 2018 Fund 311 Grind and inlay HMA, Bike Lane 2018 Positive Guidance thru the 1-90 EXIT 291-A Pavement Preservation Projects: 2019 Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Projects: 2020 Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Projects: 2021 Fund 311 Pavement Preservation Projects: 2022 Fund 311 Total: City Cost Total Cost $144 $2,200 $86 $239 $2,200 $88 $2,200 $2,200 $2,200 $2,200 $13,757 $1,071 $2,200 $635 $1,767 $2,200 $656 $2,200 $2,200 $2,200 $2,200 $17,329 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 31, 2016 Page 3 of 4 City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Projects Listed by Category for the 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP Dollars in Thousands Street Reconstruction Projects Project Name Description Start Year City Cost Total Cost Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Reconstruct intersection in concrete 2017 $323 $2,082 Intersection (RW/CN) pavement Argonne Road Concrete Pavement - Reconstruct pavement in concrete; 2018 $744 $3,723 1-90 to Montgomery OCI MuIlan to Knox 24, OCI Knox to Montgomery 35 (2014 Rpt) Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Reconstruct intersections in concrete 2019 $230 $1,703 Concrete Intersections (CN Only) pavement Total: $1,297 $7,508 Traffic Operations and Maintenance Project Name North Sullivan ITS Project Evergreen & Broadway ITS Description Start Year City Cost Total Cost Extend ITS conduit and controls 2017 $124 $914 along Sullivan Corridor ITS along Broadway from Pines Rd 2019 $253 $1,870 (SR -27) to Evergreen, along Evergreen from Sprague to 16th Ave. Total: $377 $2,784 Overall Total: $24,589 $128,993 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 31, 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 1 Appleway - Park to Dishman Mica Preservation 2 2017 Street Preservation Projects 3 Sullivan / Euclid Concrete Intersection (RW/CN) 4 Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin 5 North Sullivan ITS Project 6 Argonne - Broadway to Indiana 7 9th Ave Sidewalk, Raymond to University 8 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Project 9 Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin Preservation 10 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation 11 Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW) 12 Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Grade Seperator - (PE only) Primary Source City Amount Total Amount STP(U) City STP(U) COM CMAQ STP(U) Other - FTA CMAQ STP(U) Other Fed STP(U) Other Fed 144 1,071 2,200 2,200 323 2,082 302 1,853 15 110 9 65 8 40 34 252 36 265 62 1,600 20 150 68 1,351 2017 Totals: $3,221 $11,039 2018 Item # Project Name 5 North Sullivan ITS Project 6 Argonne - Broadway to Indiana 7 9th Ave Sidewalk, Raymond to University 8 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Project 9 Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin Preservation 10 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation 12 Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Grade Seperator - (PE only) 13 Sprague / Barker Intersection Improvements 14 Appleway Shared Use Path - Pines Rd to Evergreen Rd 15 2018 Street Preservation Projects 16 Coleman Road Sidewalk, 4th to 2nd Ave's 17 Argonne Road Concrete Pavement - 1-90 to Montgomery 18 Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan 19 Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project 20 Evergreen Resurfacing - Mission Connector to Indiana 21 Sullivan -Trent (SR -290) to Wellesley Corridor Lighting Primary Source CMAQ STP(U) Other - FTA CMAQ STP(U) Other Fed Other Fed DEV STP(U) City Other - FTA TIB CMAQ Other - FTA STP(U) HSIP City Amount 109 77 40 8 203 81 68 237 414 2,200 5 102 22 40 4 12 Total Amount 804 570 200 56 1,502 2,074 1,351 474 1,926 2,200 25 512 164 200 32 116 2018 Totals: $3,622 $12,206 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 Tuesday, May 31, 2016 Page 1 of 3 2010 Item # Project Name 8 Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Imp Project 10 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation 12 Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Grade Seperator - (PE only) 16 Coleman Road Sidewalk, 4th to 2nd Ave's 17 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 22 Appleway Trail - University Rd. to Balfour Park 23 2019 Street Preservation Projects 24 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Concrete Intersections (CN Only) 25 Mission Ave. - Flora Rd. to Barker Rd. (CN) 26 Broadway Improvement Project - Flora to Barker 27 Evergreen & Broadway ITS Primary Source CMAQ Other Fed Other Fed Other - FTA TIB Other - FTA STP(U) HSIP CMAQ City STP(U) STP(U) TIB CMAQ City Amount 142 290 270 29 642 40 84 62 102 2,200 230 536 159 36 Total Amount 1,052 7,445 5,393 145 3,211 200 624 624 750 2,200 1,703 3,974 793 266 2019 Totals: $4,822 $28,380 2020 Item # Project Name 10 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation 11 Park Road #2 - Broadway to Indiana (RW & CN) 12 Pines (SR27)/ BNSF Grade Seperator - (PE only) 18 Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan 19 Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project 26 Broadway Improvement Project - Flora to Barker 27 Evergreen & Broadway ITS 28 2020 Street Preservation Projects 29 Barker Rd - Euclid to Trent Road 30 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Appleway to I- 90 31 Barker Rd Improvements - South City Limits to Appleway Primary Source Other Fed STP(U) Other Fed CMAQ Other - FTA TIB CMAQ City TIB STP(U) TIB City Amount 729 388 584 207 40 883 217 2,200 114 167 46 Total Amount 18,686 2,877 11,674 1,535 200 4,413 1,604 2,200 571 1,232 339 2020 Totals: $5,575 $45,331 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 Tuesday, May 31, 2016 Page 2 of 3 2021 Item # Project Name 10 Barker Road / BNSF Grade Separation 20 Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project 29 Barker Rd - Euclid to Trent Road 30 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Appleway to I- 90 31 Barker Rd Improvements - South City Limits to Appleway 32 Pines 1-90 IC, City Intersection Imp Project 33 Mirabeau/Mansfield Intersection Improvements 34 2021 Street Preservation Projects 35 Argonne Rd & 1-90 IC Bridge Widening 36 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Spokane River to Euclid Primary Source Other Fed Other - FTA TIB STP(U) TIB CMAQ CMAQ City STP(U) TIB City Amount 243 40 723 324 340 54 15 2,200 122 52 Total Amount 6,230 200 3,613 2,397 2,515 400 110 2,200 900 403 2021 Totals: $4,113 $18,968 2022 Item # Project Name 20 Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project 32 Pines 1-90 IC, City Intersection Imp Project 33 Mirabeau/Mansfield Intersection Improvements 35 Argonne Rd &I-90 IC Bridge Widening 36 Barker Rd Improvement Project - Spokane River to Euclid 37 2022 Street Preservation Projects Primary Source Other - FTA CMAQ CMAQ STP(U) TIB City City Amount 40 196 76 144 580 2,200 Total Amount 200 1,450 560 5,760 2,899 2,200 2022 Totals: $3,236 $13,069 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 Tuesday, May 31, 2016 Page 3 of 3 1. Appleway-Park to Dishman Mica Preservation pvkan' e�`' Valley Appleway - Park to i034 Dishman Mica Preservation 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: This pavement preservation project along Appleway from Park to Dishman Mica is a 4 -lane principal arterial and is a part of the 1-90 Business Route through Spokane Valley. Appleway is an eastbound one-way road section making up one half of the Sprague/ Appleway Couplet. This project will resurface and strengthen 1 mile of the existing pavement with a new thick asphalt overlay (2.5-3.5 inches). It will remove existing ruts and provide a sealed road surface to re-establish positive drainage. In addition to the road surface, all sidewalks will be field reviewed to verify that they meet current ADA requirements. Sidewalk and sidewalk ramps not meeting these requirements will be upgraded to meet the current standards. The project will also in- clude some stormwater treatment upgrades. Benefits of Project: This project was identified in the City's 2014 Pavement Management Analysis Report as Marginal. Marginal streets that display high amounts of load associated distresses are selected as a priority for rehabilitation as they provide the greatest cost benefit to the City—that is the greatest increase in life per rehabilitation dollar spent. This project extends the life of this street by replacing the surface pavement and strengthening the road, improving the ride, and upgrading the stormwater drainage for many years of service. Estimated Project Cost Right Of Way (RW) = $3,000 Construction (CN) = $1,068,000 Total Project Cost—$1,071,000 This project is fully funded using City and Federal STP Urban funds. 2, 15, 23, 28, 32, & 37. 2017-2022 Pavement Preservation Projects City of Spokane Valley Pavement Analysis Proposed 5 Year Rehab Plan Current Budget (approx. 53.08M/Year, e,T �al!II1W 1111111H1111 . ammo 21 .: ,Ic? 411011111.-Wi SWAM ■ ~ (trl r 1 JyF I dl Hj 4AIIM rsli , Mire'1 �1- .VIIINERI al i ■- MENIMLIT 5.5 OWW27- Cify of Liberty Lake • City &Spokane i I al 9P n' A. Whir wawa Amami MIMI CM= ELMISMELEV -41 L �f LEGEND Rehab Activity Surface Treatment Thin Overlay - Moderate Overlay - Thick Overlay Surtace Reconstruction - Preventative Maintenance Selected Rehab Year 201 2017 2018 `SOolialle ^' 2019 .......Valley 2020 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Beginning with the 2011 budget, the City established Fund 311 — the "Pavement Preservation Fund". This fund sets aside funds each year to build pavement preservation projects. The fund is broken into these categories: Arterial and Collector Street Overlay Projects — 80% of the Pavement Preservation Fund, and Residential/Local Road Overlay and Reconstruction Projects — 20% of the Pavement Preservation Fund. Pavement Preservation Projects will be determined for each of the program years using the results of the Pavement Management Analysis Report, site visits, further geotechnical engineering and pavement studies, and citizen complaints. A project list will be developed each year and included in the City's yearly budget. Benefits of Project: Pavement preservation projects when constructed at the right time is one of the most cost effective uses of City transportation funds. Monitoring and strategically spending the City's resources on its streets using a pavement management program, field sur- veys, additional geotechnical testing—coupled with experience, achieves perpetual pavements that have been shown the most cost effective method to manage an agency's transportation system. Project Cost Estimate: These projects are paid for using City Funds established in Fund 311. In the 2017-2022 TIP the Pavement Preservation funds avail- able have been estimated to be $2.2 M per year. S iokan ley 3. Sullivan/Euclid Concrete Intersection Sullivan/Euclid Concrete intersection (RWICN) Project 3017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: The existing intersection is experiencing severe rutting, pavement raveling, and longitudinal cracking. Heavy truck traffic contin- ues to destroy the pavement. Preservation of the existing pavement is not an option in that the existing pavement section does not have the structural integrity to support the heavy turning trucks. This project will reconstruct the intersection of Sullivan Rd and Euclid Ave by removing the existing asphalt pavement and replac- ing the roadbed with new base, steel reinforcement, and Portland cement concrete. Benefits of Project: To reconstruct this intersection using PCC Pavement at a designed depth to support the type of traffic using it will provide a long lasting intersection. This is the most cost effective solution and the least expensive over the long run for the taxpayer. The project also updates American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades at the intersection corners to comply with the requirements out- lined in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Project Cost Estimate: Construction (CN) = $2,082,000 Total Project Cost—$2,082,000 IThis project is fully funded using City and Federal STP Urban funds. 4. Appleway Trail -Sullivan to Corbin Spokane''' Valley . Eri-o Qvief P:we w jlf ■ . . ppleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin 410.1111 A$11 A 14: 510 Av �7C1 11 ` 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: This project will build 1.3 miles of the City's Appleway Trail beginning at Sullivan Road and extending to Corbin Road. The Trail will be a 12' hot mix asphalt shared -use path. The Appleway Trail project will be landscaped and include trees and an irrigation system. The trail will include lighting, benches, architectural features and stormwater facilities. Where the trail crosses Sullivan, a High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) traffic signal is proposed. The HAWK signal is a safe- ty device that signals vehicles to stop allowing pedestrians to cross the roadway and then permit drivers to proceed as soon as the pedestrians have cleared the intersection. Benefits of Project: The Appleway Trail provides transportation choices that allow bikers and walkers to access services such as banking, postal and government services, retail services such as drug stores, supermarkets, office supply stores, and restaurants. In addition, the trail provides access to multi and family housing and schools along the corridor. Employees now have a safe choice to walk and bike to access jobs. The Appleway Trail provides facilities for healthy lifestyles giving people the opportunity to walk and ride bikes in a safe urban environment. Trail projects saves valuable fuel and eliminates green house gasses. Project Cost Estimate: Construction (CN) = $1,853,000 Total Project Cost—$1,853,000 5. North Sullivan ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) 2017 Project Description: 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 North Sullivan is a principal arterial serving one of the City's major industrial areas. North Sullivan Road connects a State Highway on the North (SR -290) and 1-90 to the South. North Sullivan Road directly accesses the Spokane Valley Industrial Park which ac- cesses the BNSF and UP mainline tracks. This street carries a high volume of freight. The project installs the necessary infrastructure to establish a real time communications and control system to efficiently move traffic through the North Sullivan Corridor. The project includes new conduit , junction boxes, fiber optic cable, and communica- tion hardware. This system will tie directly into the traffic signals at the intersections at Central Pre -Mix, Marietta, Euclid, Kiernan and Trent Ave(SR-290). The project also installs cameras along the corridor for real time traffic observation. Benefits of Project: This project benefits the City by giving the City a powerful tool to monitor and implement traffic control to efficiently move traffic. Efficient traffic movement through a corridor results in lower dust levels (PM -10), reduced travel time, and less green house gas emissions. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) Right of Way (RW) Construction (CN) Total Estimated Project Cost = $105,000 = $5,000 = $804,000 = $914,000 This project is fully funded using City and Federal STP Urban funds. 6. Argonne -Broadway to Indiana t I Indiana Ave. SO'can e�°'� Valley Argonne - Broadway to Indiana Broadwa Ave. 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Argonne Road from Broadway to Indiana Avenue is a 3 -lane principal arterial. As identified in the City's Pavement Management Analysis Report, the pavement through this section is ready to receive a moderate depth hot mix asphalt overlay (1.5 to 2.5 inch- es). This project will review all existing pedestrian facilities and where deficient in terms of ADA will be updated. All broken side- walks will be replaced or restored. Benefits of Project: This project will apply a new pavement surface extending the life of the road. In addition to the road surface, all sidewalks will be field reviewed to verify that they meet current ADA requirements. Sidewalk and sidewalk ramps not meeting these requirements will be upgraded to meet the current standards. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) Construction (CN) Total Estimated Project Cost = $65,000 = $570,000 = $635,000 'alley 7. 9th Ave Sidewalk, Raymond to University 9th Ave .S dewalk Prole.ct Raymond to University 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: The 9th Ave Sidewalk, Raymond to University Project will place 2 blocks of new sidewalk from the Sunshine Gardens residential care facility to University Road where transit access is available. Existing stormwater facilities will be upgraded to account for the installation of new curb. New ADA ramps will be added at the corners at the intersecting streets of Raymond, Oberlin, and Uni- versity roads. Benefits of the Project: This project will extend sidewalks from the Sunshine Gardens residential care facility where many long term patients live. Several patients are restricted to wheelchairs. Walking and transit are the only form of transportation these people have. Providing a continuous sidewalk to transit stops at University Road gives people the facilities to safely walk in the neighborhood. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $40,000 Construction (CN) = $200,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $240,000 8. Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Improvement Project NEW BIGELOW GULCH ROM EXTENSION SULLLVAN WELLESLEY [NTERSECTLON IMPROVEMENT pROJEC"d�:�� 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: A traffic signal or a multilane roundabout is needed at the intersection in order to provide safe and efficient traffic movement. Currently, during certain times of the day, traffic volumes at the Sullivan -Wellesley intersection exceed the capacity of the all -way stop -controlled intersection. Spokane County is moving forward with its Bigelow Gulch Road project which is scheduled to con- nect to Wellesley at Sullivan in 2019. When that occurs, the Sullivan Road intersection will not be able to accommodate the add- ed traffic and motorists will experience excessive delay and congestion. Benefits of the Project: 1) Reduces delay and efficiently moves traffic along the Sullivan & Wellesley corridors 2) Reduces serious, high speed crashes 3) Allows for the added traffic volumes expected with the future connection of Bigelow Gulch Road Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $198,000 Right of Way (RW) = $120,000 Construction (CN) = $1,052,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $1,360,000 9. Sprague -Sullivan to Corbin Preservation Spiokane Valley Sprague Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin reservation Project 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Sprague Road between Sullivan and Corbin was identified in the City's Pavement Preservation Analysis Report indicates that this section of Sprague needs a 3 inch hot mix asphalt overlay. Building this project in 2018 will extend the life and serviceability of Sprague Road. This project will also evaluate sidewalk, sidewalk corner ramps, and stormwater facilities and make upgrades and replacements as required. Benefits of Project: Sprague Road is the 1-90 Business Route through the City and provides access to services, commercial retail and office space, and access to high, medium, and low density residential development. Sprague allows good east and west movement of people and goods and is a vital link in providing economic vitality along one of the City's major arterials. Bus Service runs in both directions at a frequency of 15 minutes during most of the day and evening. This project is a good use of the City's money in that it provides an extended service life to a very important piece of the City's transportation infrastructure. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $265,000 Construction (CN) = $1,502,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $1,767,000 10. Barker Rd/BNSF Grade Separation Project KEY DESIGN FEATURES: - Barker Rd overpass of BNSF end Trent Ave - Sidewalks and bicycle lanes on Barker Rd - Interchange ramps between Barker Rd and Trent Ave • Closure of Wellesley Ave bridge MC( Trent Ave and BNS# • Closure of Flora RdFBNSF at -grade crossing to the west ddr Spokane , 00Valley 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 RAIL LINE LEGEND . .. Using mainline Future mainline Future siding GENERAL LEGEND 2022 Future bridge Future roadway Future retaining wa Project Description: The Project builds an interchange for Barker Road over the BNSF tracks, adds on- and off -ramps from Barker Road to Trent Avenue (SR -290), incorporates a realignment of Wellesley Ave, and provides safe passage for bikes and pedestrians across both the BNSF rail line and SR -290. Benefits of Project: Benefits of the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation Project : • Overall project benefit -cost ratio is 5.1 using a 3% discount rate, • Decrease transportation costs and improve long-term efficiency, reliability, and costs in the movement of workers and goods, • Enhance the access and reliability to close to 600 acres of prime, buildable industrial -zoned , • Generates approximately $2 billion in state economic output, including 9,800 new jobs (3,300 of those in Spokane Valley) and new general fund taxes ($12.3 million for City and $50.8 million for State), • Eliminates the growing risk of conflict between roadway users and trains by separating uses, would eliminates train -vehicle con- flicts, removes automobile delays, and improve the LOS for the intersection from "F" to "A", and • The addition of bike and ADA compliant pedestrian access on the overpass encourages alternative modes of transportation to nearby businesses, residences and schools. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $2,473,000 Right of Way (RW) = $2,418,000 Construction (CN) = $31,144,000 Total Cost =$36,035,000 11. Park Rd #2—Broadway to Indiana (RW/CN) Spokane ��Valley Park Rd #2 -Broadway to Indiana (RWICN) Project Description: This project will reconstruct the existing minor arterial to a three lane urban section. This project will also include curb, gutter, sidewalks and bike lanes. New stormwater facilities will be included in the project to capture and treat stormwater. The project also includes American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps at the intersection corners to comply with the requirements outlined in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. A right-of-way phase is planned for in 2017 in order to show the funding agencies that the City fully intends to pursue completing this project. The initial funding for this project for Preliminary Engineering was begun in June, 2009. Benefits of Project: The project will provide needed safety and capacity improvements to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic between Trent (SR -290) and Broadway Ave. The traffic volume on this section of Park Road is anticipated to increase from the existing 7,200 vehicles per day to approximately 21,000 vehicles per day in 2040 according to the most recent SRTC regional traffic model. Also, Park Road is an 1-90 crossing that has adequate width to meet bike and pedestrian standards. As the bike system develops in the City, the Park Road interstate crossing and eventual Bridging the Valley BNSF Railroad and Trent Ave (SR -290) crossing, will make Park Road a more attractive bike way. Park Road bike lanes will access the Millwood Trail to the north and Sprague and Appleway Trail on the south. Project Cost Estimate: Right of Way (RW) = $150,000 Construction (CN) = $2,877,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $3,027,000 SjOkane Valley 12. Pines Rd Underpass - BNSF & Trent KEY DESIGN FEATURES: - Pines Rd underpass of BNSF - Lowering of Trent Ave/Pines Rd intersection and lane capacity addition - Sidewalks and bicycle lanes on Pines Rd - Closure of University Rd!BNSF at -grade crossing to the west P GENERAL LEGEND Future bridge t3 Future roadway 1 Future retaining wall (RAIL LINE LEGEND 1 Existing mainline Existing siding Future mainline i .. _ _ _ _ .. _ . • Future siding an 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Proposed solutions for the Pines Road/BNSF Railway part of the project include: • Grade -separation so that Pines Road passes under the BNSF railway • Add sidewalks and bicycle lanes to the Pines Road underpass • Lower the Pines Road/Trent Avenue (SR 290) intersection and add lane capacity • Close the University Road/BNSF at -grade crossing Benefits of the Project: • Overall project benefit -cost ratio is 5.1 using a 3% discount rate, • Decrease transportation costs and improve long-term efficiency, reliability, and costs in the movement of workers and goods, • Enhance the access and reliability to close to 600 acres of prime, buildable industrial -zoned and 170 acres of mixed-use and commercially -zoned land, • Generate approximately $1.2 billion in state economic output, including 8,700 new jobs (4,300 of those in Spokane Val- ley) and new general fund taxes ($8.2 million for City and $101.9 million for State), • Eliminates the growing risk of conflict between roadway users and trains by separating uses, would eliminate train -vehicle con- flicts, remove automobile delays, and improve the LOS for the intersection from "E" to "A", and • The addition of bike and ADA compliant pedestrian access on the overpass encourages alternative modes of transportation to nearby businesses, residences and schools. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering Right of Way & Construction Construction (CN) Total Estimated Project Cost = $1,200,000 = $3,000,000 = $15,565,000 = $19,769,000 13. Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements �S Val ley pplewayAve Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Barker/Sprague intersection is a unsignalized 4 -way stop controlled intersection. Barker Road accesses large tracts of undevel- oped residential land. Now, after several years of slow growth during the sluggish economy the area is beginning to see strong increases in building activity. As traffic volumes increase due to development, traffic analysis indicates that a roundabout or traffic signal will be needed at this intersection in the near future. In 2018, during the design phase and during a public process a preferred solution of either a roundabout or traffic signal will be built. Benefits of Project: The Barker/Sprague intersection improvements project will install a traffic control device that will accommodate future growth for many years to come. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) Right of Way (RW) Construction (CN) Total Estimated Project Cost = $39,000 = $12,000 = $422,000 = $474,000 This cost for this project will be a combination of City and Developer funds. 14. Appleway Shared Use Path - Pines to Evergreen si kan-e �.►� Val ley ppieway Trail - Pines to Evergreen 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: The City's goal is to complete the Appleway Trail across the City from Balfour Park east to Liberty Lake. The length of Trail, when complete will be about 6 miles. This project continues the Trail another mile to the East from Pines to Evergreen. The Trail will be a 12' hot mix asphalt path. The Appleway Trail project will be landscaped including trees and an irrigation system. The trail will include lighting, benches, architectural features and stormwater facilities. Where the trail crosses the highway at Pines, a High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) traffic signal is proposed. The purpose of a HAWK is to stop vehicles to allow pedestrians to cross the roadway and then permit drivers to proceed as soon as the pedes- trians have passed. At Evergreen Road where the trail crosses, a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) is proposed. Including RRFBs traffic control devices increases driver alertness for pedestrians. Benefits of Project: The trail accesses services such as banking, postal and government services, the City police department, retail services such as drug stores, supermarkets, office supply stores, and restaurants. In addition, the trail provides access to multifamily housing and single family housing along the corridor. Employees now have a safe choice to walk and bike to access jobs. The Trail provides facilities for healthy lifestyles giving people the opportunity to walk and ride bikes in a safe urban environment. Project Cost Estimate: Only the construction phase for this project remains. The estimated construction cost is $1,926,000. 16 Coleman Road Sidewalk, 4th to 2nd Avenue S`i6kan e� .000f Valley Coleman Sidewalk Project 4tOM to 2nd Avenue --- Sprat Existing Transit Stops Eagle Peale School, GId Pratt Elementary 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: The Coleman Sidewalk project will fill a gap in the sidewalk system from the Eagle Peak School to transit facilities on Appleway Boulevard and Sprague Avenue. Eagle Peak School is a special needs school staffed by over 30 professionals serving approximate- ly 100 students. This project will install about 430 lineal feet of sidewalk, curbing, and ADA compliant sidewalk ramps between 4th and 2nd Avenues along Coleman Road. Installing 430 lineal feet to fill this gap will provide more than 1,350 lineal feet of continuous sidewalk from the Eagle Peak School to permanent transit stops on Appleway Boulevard and Sprague Avenue. Benefits of Project: The absence of a safe accessible route discourages many students from non -vehicle transportation alternatives. Wheelchair bound residents in particular must travel along the edge of the roadway which increases potential vehicle -pedestrian conflicts. The transportation plan identifies sidewalk improvements for increased accessibility and installing sidewalks on streets that do not currently have any are goals of the plan. Eagle Peak School provides services to high-risk children with autism, behavior disorders, learning disabilities, and developmental delays. The staff has four mental health therapists and is a licensed mental health facility. Many of students attending Eagle Peak School use transit at Appleway and Sprague Avenue to get back and forth to school. Providing continuous sidewalks to perma- nent stops allows safe access to transit services. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) Construction (CN) Total Estimated Project Cost = $25,000 =$145,000 =$170,000 17. Argonne Rd Concrete Pavement: I-90 to Montgomery rgonne Rd Concrete Pavement, -90 to Mont• ome 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Argonne Road from Indiana to Montgomery Avenues is about a 1/4 mile (1400'), 7 -lane asphalt concrete pavement that has ade- quate capacity for the traffic that is there today and expected traffic that will use the facility over the next 20 years. But the road is quickly failing and has gone past the point where pavement preservation is an option. A full reconstruction is required. The solution is to fully reconstruct this roadway by rebuilding the base and constructing a thick structural reinforced Portland ce- ment concrete pavement surface. In addition, all pedestrian sidewalks and wheelchair ramps will be upgraded to meet ADA re- quirements. Benefits of Project: The City of Spokane Valley's Pavement Management Analysis Report (PMAR) allows staff to be good stewards by providing up-to- date roadway condition information when selecting projects. The PMAR has identified Argonne Road as a reconstruct. With the high amount of traffic on this street and the high maintenance dollars being spent to maintain this roadway it makes sense to invest in reconstructing this roadway using concrete rather than continuing to spend scarce resources trying to preserve it. Pav- ing this street with concrete will provide a long design life. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $512,000 Construction (CN) = $3,211,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $3,723,000 18 Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan Sinioliane Valley Appleway Trail - Evergreen to Sullivan a; R 1.419 Central Valle HS % 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: The City's goal is to complete the Appleway Trail across the City from Balfour Park east to Liberty Lake. The length of Trail, when complete will be about 6 miles. This project continues the Trail another mile to the East from Evergreen to Sullivan Road. The Trail will be a 12' hot mix asphalt path. The Appleway Trail project will be landscaped that will include trees and an irrigation sys- tem. The trail will include lighting, benches, architectural features and stormwater facilities. Benefits of Project: The trail accesses services such as health care, banking, postal and government services, retail services such as drug stores, super- markets, office supply stores, and restaurants. In addition, the trail provides access to multifamily housing and single family hous- ing along the corridor. Employers such as the Numerica Corporate Offices, Monaco Enterprises, H & H Molds, and various retail services will allow walkers and bikers to access jobs. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) Construction (CN) Total Estimated Project Cost 1 = $164,000 =$1,535,000 =$1,699,000 19. Citywide Sidewalk Infill Project SOokan' e�``" Valley of $ ±-1 s, • ^ .�- Railroad • • • • Centennial Trail School © Library Ea Transit Location ® Trail head Legend Pedestrian Network - Proposed Sidewalks - Sidewalks - Driveway Crossing - Existing Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Patt- - PedBike Bridge Proposed PedfBike Bridge- 2017 ridge 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: This project will continue the City's effort to fill in sidewalk gaps and improve transit access at selected locations throughout the City. The project segments will focus on improvements within the walking radius of schools, high density housing, commercial districts and transit facilities. Benefits of Project: The project would enhance non -motorized transportation with the goal of increasing transit ridership, walking and biking trips, while reducing the need to drive. Sidewalks improve the accessibility of services, public facilities, and jobs. The project expands the choices for non -motorized travel between schools, recreation, commercial districts and residential areas. This is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan to develop a balanced, integrated, multi -modal transportation system, which serves the existing and future needs of the area and provides convenient choice among modes for trips into and out of Spokane Valley: for work, school, shopping, personal business, and recreational purposes. Project Cost Estimate: Several funding sources are available for sidewalk projects. The City will pursue grants as they become available. The City match for these type of projects are from 0-20%. 20. Evergreen Resurfacing- Mission Connector to Indiana ndiana Evergreen Resurfacing - Mission Connector to (ndiana, Mission Ave 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: This preservation project will resurface and strengthen the existing pavement by grinding the existing surface down below the existing ruts and cracks and apply new asphalt overlay to the surface. This project provides a sealed road surface and reestablish- es roadway slopes for good drainage. This project will improve bicycle facilities on Evergreen Road over 1-90. There are bike lanes through this section of Evergreen Road but the bike lanes start and stop at the various ramp terminals and turning pockets. One of the desires for this project is to provide positive guidance for bicyclists both from the standpoint of the bike user for better wayfaring and to make it clear to the motorists to expect bicyclists and to give them the right-of-way required to negotiate such a high-speed, large roadway. Benefits of Project: This project was identified in the City's 2014 Pavement Management Analysis Report as needing a thin to moderate overlay. Streets requiring minimal treatment at the right time are selected as a priority for preservation for they provide the greatest cost benefit to the City—that is the greatest increase in life per rehabilitation dollar spent. This project benefits the City by using our limited dollars to preserve a key roadway that provides the greatest benefit for the least cost. Updating Bike Facilities over the Evergreen IC will provide positive guidance for motorists and bicyclists over 1-90. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $66,000 Construction (CN) = $591,000 Total Project Cost =$656,000 Trent (SR -290) to Wellesley Corridor Lighting Trent (SR -290) Spokane �. Val le 21. Sullivan Rd - Trent (SR -290) to Wellesley Corridor Lighting 2017 Project Description: 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 This project installs street lights along Sullivan Road beginning at Trent (SR -290) north to Wellesley Avenue. This project was iden- tified in the recently completed North Sullivan Corridor Study that saw increased night time crashes through this section of Sulli- van Road. Street lights have been shown to reduce nighttime crashes anywhere from 12-30%. Benefits of Project: By adding streetlights, this project will reduce the number of nighttime crashes along Sullivan Road between Trent and Wellesley Avenue. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $90,000 Right of Way (RW = $50,000 Construction (CN) = $600,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $740,000 22. Appleway Trail - University to Balfour Park Sgakan''nee .000Valley Possible site for Spokane Valley anch Library 2017 1 2018 r2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: The City's goal is to complete the Appleway Trail across the City from Balfour Park east to Liberty Lake. The length of Trail, when complete will be about 6 miles. This project continues the Trail another 1/2 mile from Balfour Park to University Road. The Trail will be a 12' hot mix asphalt path. The Appleway Trail project will be landscaped that and include trees and an irrigation system. The trail will include lighting, benches, architectural features and stormwater facilities. The Appleway Trail from University to Balfour Park connects the University City Mall, Balfour Park, and the City's future City Hall to the Appleway Trailhead at University. Benefits of the Project: This project is probably one of the most important components of the entire Appleway Trail project in that it connects walkers and bikers to shopping, a park, municipal government, and possibly a County/City library. Also, this portion of the trail would con- nect people to the Spokane Transit Authority's Transit Center, giving people the option to use the bus to work, shop, play, and conduct their business here in Spokane Valley. The Trail provides facilities for healthy lifestyles giving people the opportunity to walk and ride bikes in a safe urban environment. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) =$110,000 Right of Way (RW) =$120,000 Construction (CN) =$520,000 Total Estimated Project Cost =$750,000 24. Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Concrete Intersection (CN only) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: This project will reconstruct the intersections of Broadway Avenue at Argonne and Mullan Roads with a reinforced Portland ce- ment concrete pavement and provide ADA upgrades as necessary. Benefits of Project: The existing intersection is experiencing severe rutting, raveling and longitudinal cracking. Significant truck traffic continues to destroy the pavement. Preservation of the existing pavement is not an option in that the existing pavement section does not have the structural integrity to support the heavy turning trucks. To reconstruct this intersection using PCC Pavement at a de- signed depth with adequate base to support the type of traffic using it will many years of service This is the most cost effective solution and the least expensive for the taxpayer. Project Cost Estimate: This project has been designed and right-of-way is being purchased in 2016. The construction cost for this project is estimated to be $1,703,000. 25. Mission Ave -Flora Rd to Barker Rd rm pvl<rane Val ley Mission Ave- Flora to Barker Road Flora F Ave r b Greenac•res-._, 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Mission Ave from Flora Road to Barker Road will be constructed to a 3 -lane urban section with bike lanes in each direction. Mission is a minor arterial that connects the major commercial districts along Sullivan and Indiana to the North Greenacres Neighborhood and Liberty Lake. The route currently carries approximately 2,700 vehicles per day, but this is expected to significantly increase to a 20 -year projected ADT of 11,400. Benefits of Project: The project will accommodate the rapidly growing neighborhoods surrounding the project. Greenacres Park has recently been built on the south end of Long Road and a new elementary school is proposed for the SW corner of the intersection of Mission and Long. The school and the park will generate significant pedestrian traffic from the surrounding neighborhood along Mission Ave. The pro- ject also improves access to two trailheads for the Centennial Trail along the Spokane River at the north end of Flora Road and the west end of Old Mission Ave. Project Cost Estimate: The design and right-of-way is being completed for this project in 2016. The estimated construction cost for this project is $3,969,000. 26. Broadway Improvement Project -Flora to Barker Flora Rd Broadway Improvement •a Project - Flora to Barker Barker Rd 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: The Broadway Improvement Project between Flora and Barker Road will connect Broadway between Flora and Barker Roads and improves Broadway Avenue to a 3 -lane urban section with bike lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalks and swales. Benefits of Project: The project will provide access to large vacant parcels that have limited access because the current Broadway Avenue does not go through from Flora to Barker. Also, this project will allow those traveling east on Broadway to Barker and the interstate unre- stricted travel east of the Flora and Broadway roundabout. This project will give drivers, bikers and walkers direct access to Bark- er Road. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $543,000 Right of Way (RW) = $500,000 Construction (CN) = $4,163,000 Total Estimate Project Cost = $5,206,000 27. Evergreen & Broadway ITS ..rue ,e;;r ,ter Broadway Ines (SR -27) vergreen & Broadway ITS vergreen Note_. Blue Line indicates the extent of Communication and Traffic Signal Corridor that will be completed with this project. ask r;s'ra-ave co1® w'l6th Ave 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 1 Project Description: This project installs an ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) communication system to improve traffic flow, reduce congestion, and reduce emissions on Evergreen from Sprague to 16th Avenue and along Broadway from Pines Road (SR -27) to Evergreen Road. Benefits of the Project: The Project will reduce travel time and stops along Evergreen and Broadway. In addition, the project reduces emissions along corridors keeping the air clean in Spokane Valley. The project increases economic development by reducing delays to freight trav- el, reduces fuel and maintenance costs for freight carriers and the public, reduces the operational cost for traffic signal manage- ment, and improves the monitoring of the traffic signal system to enhance efficiency (emergency situations and operations). Project Cost Estimate Preliminary Engineering = $206,000 Right of Way & Construction = $80,000 Construction (CN) = $1,584,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $1,870,000 29. Barker Road- Euclid to Trent Spokan' ems'' Valley Barker Rd - Euclid to 0.1 mi S of Trent Ave (SR -290) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Barker Road from the Spokane River to Euclid intersection will be widened to a 5 -lane roadway with 2 lanes in each direction and a middle turn lane, and will include bike lanes, sidewalks and swales. Benefits of Project: Barker Road accesses the heart of the city's industrial area and traffic is expected to grow by 38% by year 2040. Widening the road anticipates future growth and will be in place as the industrial land is developed. New bike lanes and sidewalks will extend access to Trent Ave (SR -290) and neighborhoods on the north side of the highway and east to Otis Orchards along Wellesley Avenue. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $471,000 Right of Way (RW) = $100,000 Construction (CN) = $3,613,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $4,184,000 30. Barker Rd Improvement Project-Appleway to I-90 Barker Rd Imp Project - Appleway to 1-90 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Barker Road will be widened to a 5 -lane urban arterial section from Appleway to the Barker Road 1-90 interchange (IC). The east leg of Broadway Avenue will be realigned to match Broadway on the west side of Barker Road. The new intersection will either be a 2 -lane roundabout or traffic signal. Barker Road will include new bike lanes, sidewalks, and swales. Benefits of the Project: Barker Road between Appleway and the Barker Road 1-90 IC is an important arterial link. Appleway is the east end of the 1-90 Business Loop and accesses the heart of the commercial district in the City of Spokane Valley. New sidewalks and bike lanes will connect to the Appleway Trail on the south and provide a link over 1-90 to the Centennial Trail along the Spokane River. This area is ripe for development and redevelopment and this upgrade will provide good transportation facilities to facilitate that growth. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $382,000 Right of Way (RW) = $1,146,000 Construction (CN) = $2,397,000 Total Estimated Project Cost = $3,629,000 31. Barker Rd Improvements -South City Limits to Appleway Barker Rd Imp, S City Limits to Appleway 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: The Barker Road Improvement project from the South City Limit to Appleway is about 0.80 miles long and will be widened to a 3 - lane urban section that will include bike lanes, curbs, sidewalks, and swales. Barker Road traffic is steadily increasing due to significant housing development in both the City and the County. The existing road was constructed when this section of the City was primarily rural and Barker Road was a farm to market road. In most places the road is one lane in each direction, narrow, with gravel shoulders. The drainage facilities are at a minimum with few swales. Crash rates are slowly increasing and as the area becomes more developed, crashes are expected to increase. Benefits of Project: This project will upgrade the existing road to urban standards. A new center turn lane will provide left turn refuge out of the mainline traffic. New bike and pedestrian facilities will be installed to give residences more options in transportation. Rebuilding and widening the road is expected to reduce crash rates. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $326,000 Right of Way (RW) = $25,000 Construction (CN) =$2,502,000 Total Estimated Project Cost =$2,854,000 33. Pines I-90 IC, City Intersection Improvement Spvlane Walley 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: The Indiana & Pines (SR -27) Traffic Signal project installs a new double left turn lane for eastbound left turning traffic. The left turn bays will extend east beyond the 1-90 eastbound offramp. Two traffic signals will be updated to include the added lane. In addition, new lanes will be added to the Mission and Pines intersection for east and westbound traffic. Benefits of Project: Adding new lanes and upgrading the traffic signals along Pines near the 1-90 Pines Road interchange will reduce delay and provide added capacity will reduce the bottleneck that is beginning to develop at this key interchange in the City. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $250,000 Right-of-way (RW) = $300,000 Construction (CN) =$1,300,000 Total Project Cost =$1,850,000 34. Mirabeau/Mansfield Intersection Improvements Mirabeau Parkway MirabeaulMansfreld Intersection Improvements Project Project Description: The Mirabeau Pkwy & Mansfield Traffic Signal project installs a new traffic signal at the intersection. New commercial develop- ment along Mirabeau Pkwy and potential development along Mansfield Avenue will increase traffic volumes at the intersection. Benefits of Project: Installing a new traffic signal at Mirabeau Pkwy & Mansfield Avenue will increase the level -of -service at the intersection from LOS "F" to "LOS" B during the AM & PM Peak Hour. A failing LOS places the burden of mitigating this condition on new development which is oftentimes cost prohibitive to new development. Installing a traffic signal at this location will encourage business to lo- cate and develop along Mirabeau Pkwy and Mansfield Avenue. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $110,000 Right -of -Way (RW) =$100,000 Construction (CN) =$560,000 Total Project Cost =$770,000 35. Argonne Rd & I-90 IC Bridge Widening Spokane e_ 40►s Val 1ey 'OMEN BRIDGE TO 3 -LANES, ARGONNE WSDOT EXIT NUTABER 287 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Argonne Road north and south of the interchange is three lanes, except over the interstate, where Argonne Road travels over a 2 - lane bridge. This creates a bottleneck and significantly adds delay and congestion in the peak travel hours. The City recently completed the University Overpass Report that recommends adding a third lane and a sidewalk to the bridge. According to the report, adding an additional lane would significantly reduce delay through the 2040 design year. This project will add another 12 foot travel lane, a 6 foot wide shoulder and a 10 foot sidewalk to the Argonne Road bridge over I- 90. Benefits of Project: The project relieves corridor congestion and significantly reduces travel time. By 2040, according to traffic modeling, if no lane were added, the time to drive south from Trent to Mission would take about 7 minutes. By adding another lane to the bridge the same trip would take just under 2 minutes. The project supports future plans for STA's "Fly -over" Stop at Argonne Interchange when they implement the High Performance Transit Network (HPTN). Widening the bridge and adding a new 10 foot sidewalk and widened shoulder provides improved pedestrian facilities per the City's Comprehensive Plan. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $900,000 Construction (CN) =$5,760,000 Total estimated project cost =$6,660,000 36. Barker Rd Improvement- Spokane River to Euclid 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Description: Barker Road from the Spokane River to Euclid intersection will be widened to a 5 -lane roadway with 2 lanes in each direction and a middle turn lane, and will include bike lanes, sidewalks and swales. Benefits of Project: Barker Road accesses the heart of the city's industrial area and traffic is expected to grow by 38% by year 2040. Widening the road anticipates future growth and will be in place as the industrial land is developed. Adding bike lanes and sidewalks will ex- tend access to the Centennial Trail along the Spokane River, STA bus stop Route 98, and to various commercial businesses. Project Cost Estimate: Preliminary Engineering (PE) = $378,000 Right of Way (RW) = $25,000 Construction (CN) = $2,899,000 Total Project Cost =$3,302,000 City of Spokane Valley Draft 2017 - 2022 Six Year TIP =el-lesle Sullivan -Wellesley Intersection Improvement ent Project SullivanMMEN Warm 1111 - Trent to Wellesley Corridor Lighting E Sullivan/Euclid Concrete Intersection rt Roatl Euclitl toirent Barker Road Spokane River to Euclid —lam'; �'� Argonne Roatl & I-90 11 IC Bridge Widening Mirabeau/Mansfield Intersection Improvements Argonne Road Concrete 1-90 to Montgomery Pines 1-901C City Intersection Improvement Project Broadway/ Argonne S. Mullan Concrete Intersections ■ EMarASSIII Barker Road Improvement Project Appleway to I-90 ir�� Sprague Ave 1IPAI �� 7 Sullivan to Corbin Paement Preservation sal is 1 ill� _�■L■�1I'i- Appleway Trail University to Balfour Park • •iI �-•��• 4th to 2nd AveMEM Coleman Sidewalk I== - ZEN=M Appleway Park to Dishman-Mica Preservation ,,(2i)millninINI MOM MUM IMMIIIMMUMIMI *Waneil Walley May 19th, 2016 Appleway Shared Use Path Pines to Evergreen Appleway Trail Evergreen to Sullivan ■nor Sullivan to m � Barker Road South CBy Limits to Apple way 1111111 �� 119mAyesmewmk �■�• � MEM NM .. • �1� Raymontlto university ry� �'�111111r di ■�.■■.�� - �� X11. 1��■_ � �� Il hilt-) ate■_ AleruM 24m�a 2stn 1 ^ VV Y ` =cc ipp Y mint.` .0_1 i 11 4I — tt. �Lt 32nd �A,.ttt�l1..V A lmno' `N°II1r I t ' I� 44th' LW rogplatIllp r Legend Project Year 2017 2020 2018 2019 2021 2022 Projects Not Shown: Sidewalk Infill Project 2017 -2022 Street Preservation Projects CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 2016 Department Director Check all that apply: consent ❑ old business ❑ new business AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: Approval: EKI ❑ public hearing VOUCHER LIST 05/19/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/24/2016 05/26/2016 05/26/2016 05/31/2016 VOUCHER NUMBERS 38425-38451 38452 5478, 5488, 5489, 5491, 38453 38454 38455-38477 6587-6613 38478-38519; 525160210 38520-38524 GRAND TOTAL: TOTAL AMOUNT $313,837.85 $26,271.45 $71,760.28 $47.75 $101,236.89 $3,416.00 $181,841.15 $4,844.25 $703,255.62 Explanation of Fund Numbers found on Voucher Lists #001- General Fund 001.011.000.511. City Council 001.013.000.513. City Manager 001.013.015.515. Legal 001.016.000. Public Safety 001.018.013.513. Deputy City Manager 001.018.014.514. Finance 001.018.016.518. Human Resources 001.032.000. Public Works 001.058.050.558. CED - Administration 001.058.051.558. CED — Economic Development 001.058.055.558. CED — Development Services -Engineering 001.058.056.558. CED — Development Services -Planning 001.058.057.558 CED — Building 001.076.000.576. Parks & Rec—Administration 001.076.300.576. Parks & Rec-Maintenance 001.076.301.571. Parks & Rec-Recreation 001.076.302.576. Parks & Rec- Aquatics 001.076.304.575. Parks & Rec- Senior Center 001.076.305.571. Parks & Rec-CenterPlace 001.090.000.511. General Gov't- Council related 001.090.000.514. General Gov't -Finance related 001.090.000.517. General Gov't -Employee supply 001.090.000.518. General Gov't- Centralized Services 001.090.000.519. General Gov't -Other Services 001.090.000.540. General Gov't -Transportation 001.090.000.550. General Gov't -Natural & Economic 001.090.000.560. General Gov't -Social Services 001.090.000.594. General Gov't -Capital Outlay 001.090.000.595. General Gov't -Pavement Preservation Other Funds 101— Street Fund 103 — Paths & Trails 105 — Hotel/Motel Tax 106 — Solid Waste 120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve 121— Service Level Stabilization Reserve 122 — Winter Weather Reserve 123 — Civil Facilities Replacement 204 — Debt Service 301 — REET 1 Capital Projects 302 - REET 2 Capital Projects 303 — Street Capital Projects 309 — Parks Capital Grants 310 — Civic Bldg Capital Projects 311 — Pavement Preservation 312 — Capital Reserve 402 — Stormwater Management 403 — Aquifer Protection Area 501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement 502 — Risk Management RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve attached list of claim vouchers. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Voucher Lists vchlist 05/19/2016 12:08:03PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38425 5/19/2016 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 38426 5/19/2016 000135 APA 38427 5/19/2016 004278 ARCHITECTS WEST INC 38428 5/19/2016 001816 BENTHIN & ASSOCIATES 38429 5/19/2016 000101 CDW-G 38430 5/19/2016 005007 CHAR DON & ASSOCIATES 38431 5/19/2016 003221 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 38432 5/19/2016 000571 CODE PUBLISHING COMPANY 38433 5/19/2016 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 38434 5/19/2016 002385 DKS ASSOCIATES 38435 5/19/2016 005001 DOORMASTER 38436 5/19/2016 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC 61977 134254-1643 8553 2477 CXF8433 PARCEL 35132.1308 CIP 0215 CIP 0215 53161 RE-313-ATB60418090 60554R1 36-088 0416-0577 0416-0614 Fund/Dept 311.000.229.595 001.058.056.558 313.000.215.594 303.000.238.595 001.076.099.576 303.000.201.595 313.000.215.594 313.000.215.594 001.013.000.513 303.303.155.595 001.090.000.513 101.042.000.543 303.303.142.595 303.303.123.595 Description/Account Amount PRINT SERVICE Total : MEMBERSHIP 2016 K KENDALL Total : 0215 -CITY HALL DESIGN & CN ADN Total : 0238 -SURVEY SERVICES Total : COMPUTER GEAR FOR SWIMMING Total : ROW - ITS INFILL PROJECT #0201 Total : BUILDING PERMIT FOR NEW CITY GRADING PERMIT FOR NEW CITY Total : WEB HOSTING Total : SULLIVAN RD W BRIDGE REPLACE Total : CONSULTING RE CONTRACT 16-0° Total : REPAIR DOOR AT MAINTENANCE Total : 0142 -RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES 0123 -RW SERVICES 413.90 413.90 306.00 306.00 38,144.21 38,144.21 805.00 805.00 1,976.49 1,976.49 1,160.00 1,160.00 59,213.16 283.00 59,496.16 122.29 122.29 107.65 107.65 69,765.26 69,765.26 652.20 652.20 1,232.50 625.00 Page: 1 vchlist 05/19/2016 12: 08: 03 P M Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38436 5/19/2016 003682 003682 EPIC LAND SOLUTIONS INC (Continued) 38437 5/19/2016 001043 ESRI 93128279 38438 5/19/2016 003621 FAUROT, TAMARA 38439 5/19/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 38440 5/19/2016 000012 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS 38441 5/19/2016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 38442 5/19/2016 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING INC. 38443 5/19/2016 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS INC 38444 5/19/2016 002288 SARGENT ENGINEERS INC. 38445 5/19/2016 005012 SPOKANE CO ENVIRONMENTAL 38446 5/19/2016 000093 SPOKESMAN -REVIEW, THE 38447 5/19/2016 004740 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST EXPENSES EXPENSES 45613 45614 INV003132020 838920497001 44884 44885 44886 44887 28185 30421 CIP 0215 451708 833937314 Fund/Dept 402.402.000.531 001.058.057.558 001.058.057.558 001.058.056.558 001.013.000.513 001.058.051.558 001.018.014.514 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.011.000.511 101.043.236.542 313.000.215.594 001.013.000.513 001.013.015.515 Description/Account Amount Total : ARCGIS ONLINE LICENSES* ANNI Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION ADVERTISING Total : Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE Total : 2016 STREET & STORMWATER MA 2016 STREET & STORMWATER MA 2016 STREET & STORMWATER MA 2016 STREET & STORMWATER MA Total : PLAQUES CONTRACT 15-133 Total : Total : SEWER CONNECTION FOR NEW C Total : ADVERTISING ACCT 42365 SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES Total : 1,857.50 5,361.08 5,361.08 10.00 10.00 20.00 97.75 61.20 158.95 915.00 915.00 147.48 147.48 28,911.52 23,861.00 52,991.13 8,199.55 113,963.20 229.90 229.90 407.50 407.50 15,325.30 15,325.30 594.19 594.19 781.32 Page: 2 vchlist 05119/2016 12:08:03PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 38447 5/19/2018 004740 004740 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST (Continued) Tota : 781.32 38448 5;9/2016 001887 VALMONT CD289000465 303.000.207.595 POLE - IN563.07 Total : 563.07 38449 5/10/2018 001792 WHITEHEAD, JOHN EXPENSES 001.018.018.518 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 359.53 Total : 359.53 38450 5U9C2018 005002 WICK ENTERPRIZES LLC 18520 001.018D13.513 ADVERTISING IN THE CURRENT 124.00 Total : 124.00 38451 5M0/2018 002851 WOODARD, ARNE EXPENSES 001{)11.000.511 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 80.67 Total: 80.67 27 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank tota: 313.837.85 27 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 313,837.85 Page: 3 vchlist 05/23/2016 8:35:29AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 38452 5/23/2016 000692 GUS JOHNSON FORD 16572 501.000.000.594 2016 FORD EXPLORER 26,271.45 Total : 26,271.45 1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 26,271.45 1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 26,271.45 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: vchUst 05/23/2016 10:57:27AM Voucher List Page: --�� Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 5478 5/20/2018 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION 8en67216 001.231.50.08 IDAHO STATE TAX BASE: PAYMEN1 891.71 Total: 891.71 5488 5/20/2016 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 4O1AFL) 8anD7218 001.231.14.00 401A: PAYMENT 31,615.30 Total : 31,615.30 5489 5/20/2018 000682 EFTPS Bnn67220 001.231.11I0 FEDERAL TAXES: PAYMENT 32,01033 Total : 32.010.33 5491 5/20/2018 ODO145\ANTAGEPO|NTTRANSFER AGENTS, 4tBenG7222 00123118.00 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: 1 7.042.84 Total : 7.042.94 38453 5/20/2018 008210 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Bon67214 001.231.28.00 HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOL. 200.00 Total : 200.00 5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 71,760.28 vchlist 05/23/2016 12:00:46PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 38454 5/23/2016 000365 DEPT OF LICENSING DOL - Ford Explorer 001.058.057.558 VEHICLE REGISTRATION 47.75 Total : 1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 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 47.75 47.75 47.75 Page: vchlist 05/24/2016 8:02:40AMSpokane Valley Voucher List Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38455 5/24/2016 001081 ALSCO 38456 5/24/2016 004048 AMERICAN ONSITE SERVICES 38457 5/24/2016 000030 AVISTA 38458 5/24/2016 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 38459 5/24/2018 000572 CARTER, CAROL 38400 5/24/2016 000785 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING INC. 38461 5/24/2016 002807 HUB SPORTS CENTER 38462 5/24/2018 003718 INLAND PUBLICATIONS INC 38463 524/2016 001635 ISS FACILITY EVENT SERVICES 38464 5/24/2016 001987 JENKINS, ART LSP01751213 April 2016 May 2016 9749475 9751519 SU138242 S0136316 SO138349 8O13887O Expenses Expenses 351553 5794 33920 1031951 Expenses Fund/Dept Description/Account 001]316.000521 001.016.000.521 001.076.300.570 001.076.300.576 101.042D00.542 001.078.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.078.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.078.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.078.305.575 001.078.301.571 001.078.301.571 001.076.305.575 402.000103.531 Amount FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC FLOOR MAT SERVICE AT PRECINC Total : PORTABLE RESTROOMS AT PARK Total : UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTA UTILITIES: PW MASTERAVISTA Total : LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLYAT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT C LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT 0 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY ATC LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLY AT 0 LINEN SERVICE AND SUPPLYAT C Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : RECYCLING COLLECTION AT CP 4, Total : FIRSTAID CLASSES: SUMMER CAI Total : ADVERTISING FOR RECREATION F Total : EVENT SERVICES AT CENTERPLA Total : 20.39 20.39 40.78 144.00 144.00 8,355.77 26,644.84 35,000.61 130.36 228.23 33.13 129.29 20.00 34.38 575.39 16.80 254.25 271.05 20.00 20.00 675.00 675.00 400.00 400.00 221.25 221.25 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 30.01 vchlist 05/24/2016 9:02:43AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38464 5/24/2016 001987 001987 JENKINS, ART 38465 5/24/2016 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO (Continued) April 2016 38466 5/24/2016 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC 1st QTR 2016 CAM June 2016 38467 5/24/2016 001904 OVERHEAD DOOR INC 38468 5/24/2016 001133 PATRIOT FIRE PROTECTION INC. 38469 5/24/2016 001860 PLATT ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 38470 5/24/2016 000415 ROSAUERS FOOD & DRUG CENTER 38471 5/24/2016 004943 SMARTLITE 38472 5/24/2016 001140 SPECIAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS, INC 38473 5/24/2016 004131 SPOKANE CO SOLID WASTE MGMT 38474 5/24/2016 001472 TESTAMERICA LABORATORIES 38475 5/24/2016 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 334084 2314440 J382050 10-1329428 148900 150213 151214 INVC070839 20160505-5491-33370 59103159 May 2016 Fund/Dept 001.076.302.576 001.090.000.518 001.090.000.518 001.016.000.521 001.016.000.521 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.076.300.576 001.076.300.576 Description/Account Amount Total : UTILITIES: PARKS APRIL 2016 Total : 1ST QTR 2016 CAM CHARGES FOF CITY HALL RENT JUNE 2016 Total : WORK ORDER FOR PRECINCT 35< Total : ANNUAL INSPECTION OF BACKFL( Total : SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE Total : SUPPLIES FOR TRADE SHOWS Total : ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : CRACK SEALANT - PREMIUM QUAI Total : TRANSFER STATION CHARGES: P\ Total : J3351-1 MONTHLY DRINKING WATI Total : 30.91 1,579.51 1,579.51 558.05 36,221.75 36,779.80 196.20 196.20 320.67 320.67 191.42 191.42 31.34 31.34 550.00 550.00 550.00 1,650.00 18,626.70 18,626.70 82.86 82.86 28.50 28.50 UTILITIES: MAY 2016 PARKS 135.03 Total : 135.03 Page: vchlist 05/24/2016 9:02:43AM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38476 5/24/2016 003175 VISIT SPOKANE 8431 38477 5/24/2016 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0063503-1518-7 23 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 23 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim. Finance Director Date Council member reviewed: Mayor Date Council Member Date Fund/Dept 001.076.305.575 402.402.000.531 Description/Account Amount 2016 VISITOR MAP: CENTERPLACE Total : WASTE MANAGEMENT: PW APRIL Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 400.00 400.00 3,835.87 3,835.87 101,236.89 101,236.89 Page: vchlist 06/26/2016 8:18:19AM /0 '° Voucher List Page: Spokane Valley Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept cd Amount 6587 5/26/2016 005026 ANETI, RANDY PARKS REFUND 001.237j0.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 6588 5/26/2016 005021 BABAYEV, RUSLAN PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY P1 75.00 Total : 75.00 6589 5/26/2018 005014 BURSON, ANNDREA PARKS REFUND 001.337.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: LOUNGE 500.00 Total : 500.00 6590 5/26/2016 005028 COBURN, MICHELLE PARKS REFUND 001.23710.98 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY P1 75.00 Total : 75.00 6591 5/26/2016 005023 COMBS, JERRY PARKS REFUND 00123710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF 75.00 Total : 75.00 6592 5/26/2016 005017 EVERETTE-WHEELER, ROASCHEL PARKS REFUND 001.23710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: RM 213 52.00 Total : 52.00 6593 5/26/2016 005024 GARDNER, JESSICA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.80 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY Pi 75.00 Total : 75.00 6594 5/26/2016 005029 GIRL SCOUTS SU 454 PARKS REFUND 001.28710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU ME 300l0 Total : 300.00 6595 5/26/2016 005031 JOEL, ALWIN PARKS REFUND 001.23710f0 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 6596 5/26/2016 005033 JOHNSON, ANGELIQUE PARKS REFUND 001.23710.09 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 6597 5C26/2018 005030 KIEHN, DELROY PARKS REFUND 001.23710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: EDGECLIFF 75.00 Total : 75.00 6598 5/20/2018 005018 KNOPP, JANEA PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: RM 213 52.00 6599 5/26/2016 005013 KU, TRACY PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 210.00 vchlist 05/26/2016 8:18:19AM Voucher List Spokane Valley / Page: / ' / —2 - Bank code : –Q- Bmnhoode: pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6599 5/26/2018 005013 005013 KU, TRACY (Continued) Total: 210l0 8600 5/26/2016 005015 KUTSAR, OKSANA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10I0 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total: 210.00 6601 5/26/2016 005016 LDS CHURCH PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 210l0 Total : 210.00 6602 5/28/2016 002478 LITTLE LEARNER CHILD, DEVELOPMEN PARKS REFUND 001.23710.98 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSK 75.00 Total : 75.00 6603 5/26/2016 005034 LOKBOJ, MAROLINDA PARKS REFUND 001237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU 75.00 Total : 75.00 6604 5/26/2016 005036 LOUDENBACK, RICH PARKS REFUND 00123710.98 DEPOSIT REFUND: RM 109 52.00 Total : 52.00 6605 5/20/2016 005035 MUSTERED, ERIN PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 6606 5/26/2016 005032 NORD, KRISTINE PARKS REFUD 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUD: GREENACRES 75.00 Total : 75.00 6607 5/26/2016 005022 POWELL, BRIANNA PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY P1 75.00 Total : 75.00 8608 5/26/2016 001338 RIVERSIDE HIGH SCHOOL PARKS REFUND 001.23710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: GREAT ROOM 210.00 Total : 210.00 8608 5/26/2016 005027 SEEHORN, MEGAN PARKS REFUND 001.23710.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: DISCOVERY PL 75.00 Total : 75.00 6610 5/26/2016 008089 SERVATRON PARKS REFUND 00123710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: MIRABEAU MB 75.00 Total : 75.00 6611 5/28/2018 005019 SPOKANETRANSPORTATION CLUB PARKS REFUND 00123710.98 DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LDU| 210l0 Total : 210.00 6612 5/26/2018 000877 VALLEY FOURTH CHURCH PARKS REFUND 001.23710.90 DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOU210l0 vchlist 05/26/2016 8:18:19AM Voucher List Spokane Valley %z. Page: Bank code : pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 6612 5/26/2016 000877 000877 VALLEY FOURTH CHURCH (Continued) Total : 210.00 6613 5/26/2016 005025 WILSON, SARA PARKS REFUND 001.237.10.99 DEPOSIT REFUND: VALLEY MISSIC 75.00 Total : 75.00 27 Vouchers for bank code : pk-ref Bank total : 3,416.00 27 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 : 3,416.00 Page: vchlist 05/26/2016 3:44:OOPM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38478 5/26/2016 000921 ATO Z RENTAL & SALES INC 38479 5/26/2016 000958 AAA SWEEPING LLC 38480 5/26/2016 000648 ABADAN REPROGRAPHICS 38481 5/26/2016 004231 BELSBY ENGINEERING 38482 5/26/2016 002517 BROWN BEARING CO INC 38483 5/26/2016 002615 BULLOCK, SUSAN 38484 5/26/2016 005020 BUTTERS, JW 38485 5/26/2016 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 38486 5/26/2016 002920 DIRECTV INC 38487 5/26/2016 000645 ECONORTHWEST 38488 5/26/2016 004950 EIGHT31 CONSULTING 38489 5/26/2016 003392 EPICENTER SERVICES LLC 242714-1 55839 55840 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.018.013.513 CHAIR RENTAL 402.402.000.531 402.402.000.531 Total : STORM DRAIN CLEANING STREET SWEEPING SERVICES Total : 62228 001.032.000.543 PRINT SERVICE 62463 001.032.000.543 PRINT SERVICE 16166 6995674 EXPENSES FILE TEX-2016-0002 APRIL 2016 MAY 2016 28460074045 17016 1013 2016-12 001.058.055.558 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 001.013.015.515 001.058.058.345 001.076.305.575 001.076.305.575 101.042.000.543 001.058.051.558 001.058.057.558 106.000.000.537 Total : Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : REFUND SHORT PLAT EXTENSION Total : ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE ADVERTISING FOR CENTERPLACE Total : CABLE SERVICE FOR MAINTENAN Total : Total : Total : PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 380.45 380.45 11,494.70 52,196.60 63,691.30 191.14 134.57 325.71 1,017.50 1,017.50 210.61 210.61 330.25 330.25 80.00 80.00 106.03 2.94 108.97 52.99 52.99 6,000.00 6,000.00 500.00 500.00 9,032.33 Page: vchlist 05/26/2016 3:44:OOPM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38489 5/26/2016 003392 003392 EPICENTER SERVICES LLC (Continued) 38490 5/26/2016 004165 EXPRESS SERVICES INC 38491 5/26/2016 001232 FASTENAL CO 38492 5/26/2016 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 38493 5/26/2016 002992 FREEDOM TRUCK CENTERS 38494 5/26/2016 000007 GRAINGER 38495 5/26/2016 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 38496 5/26/2016 003177 GUTH, ERIC 38497 5/26/2016 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE & FITINGS 38498 5/26/2016 000864 JUB ENGINEERS INC. 38499 5/26/2016 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT 17296988-3 IDLEW 111238 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 001.032.000.543 EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW 45658 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 45660 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION 45661 001.013.000.513 LEGAL PUBLICATION PC001339849:01 PC001340497:01 9101003698 9107298490 108311 EXPENSES 545549 0100373-1 0100373-2 0100373-3 May 2016 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.043.000.542 001.090.000.558 001.032.000.543 101.000.000.542 311.000.233.595 303.000.201.595 303.000.238.595 001.076.305.575 SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : 9,032.33 Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES: PW 0233 -ON CALL DRAFTING 0201 -ON CALL DRAFTING 0238 -ON CALL DRAFTING Total : Total : OPERATING SUPPLIES: CENTERPI Total : 1,216.80 1,216.80 11.63 11.63 44.80 39.95 39.95 124.70 71.74 29.47 101.21 21.70 86.17 107.87 10,750.00 10,750.00 215.45 215.45 504.51 504.51 725.41 1,152.65 764.25 2,642.31 51.20 51.20 Page: vchlist 05/26/2016 3:44:00PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38500 5/28/2018 004289 MILLER, WILLIAM 38501 5/26/2016 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS 38502 5/28Q016 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 38503 5/26/2016 000675 RAMAX PRINTING & AWARDS INC 38504 5/26/2016 000031 ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS 38505 5/26/2016 000836 SCHULTZ, WILLIAM J. 38506 5/26/2018 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC 38507 5/26/2016 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 38508 5/26/2016 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS EXPENSES 736304 737040 737080 838384412001 838384807001 840145842001 28239 IN43222 EXPENSES 5-760944 5-763548 5-763835 5-763948 5-764029 5-764236 5-764535 5-764773 5-765233 5-765301 9928 50314283 Fund/Dept 001D18.014.514 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 001.078.305.575 001.076.305.575 001.018.018.518 Description/Account Amount EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES FOR MAINTENANCE SH SUPPLIES FOR MAINTENANCE SH SUPPLIES FOR MAINTENANCE SH Total : OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 001.013.000.513 NAME PLATE 001.058.057.558 001.058.056.524 101.000800.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 101.000.000.542 303.303141.595 402.402.000.531 MAY 2016 COPIER COSTS Total: Total: Total: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW CREDIT FOR PW SUPPLIES SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW SUPPLIES: PW Total: 0141 -ROW ACQUISITION SVCS Total : 15.00 15.00 19.15 44.45 6.48 70.08 112.59 44.74 16.80 174.13 26.41 26.41 1,285.71 1,285.71 717.52 717.52 177.51 8.49 152.18 31.74 -152.18 170.66 47.89 51.78 76.09 226.10 790.26 1,588.99 1,588.99 COUNTY IT SUPPORT APRIL 2016 12,982.06 vchlist 05/26/2016 3:44:OOPM Voucher List Spokane Valley / Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 38508 5/26/2016 000090 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS (Continued) 38509 5/26/2016 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 110100126 43500002 51503269 38510 5/26/2016 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC. 523381 38511 5/26/2016 001903 SPOKANE TRAFFIC CONTROL INC 1765 38512 5/26/2016 000273 SRTC TS -1963 38513 5/26/2016 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3301404640 3301404644 38514 5/26/2016 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 38515 5/26/2016 002423 T&T TOOLS INC 38516 5/26/2016 000335 TIRE-RAMA 78893 81488 8040064492 8080042918 38517 5/26/2016 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE LTD 50734 38518 5/26/2016 003210 WEST CONSULTANTS INC. 007620 38519 5/26/2016 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO CM4695 PC060833953 Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount Total : 101.042.000.542 ENGINEERING 106.000.230.537 MASTER COMPOSTER-RECYCLER 402.402.000.531 APRIL 2016 WORK CREW INVOICE Total : 101.000.000.542 101.042.000.542 101.042.000.542 001.058.055.558 001.058.055.558 001.018.016.518 402.402.000.531 101.000.000.542 001.058.055.558 001.018.013.513 001.058.055.558 101.042.000.542 101.000.000.542 SUPPLIES: PW SIDEWALK REMOVAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HAND HOOKS Total : Total : Total : 2,033.89 Total : Total : Total : 12,982.06 52,340.43 1,401.00 5,178.60 58,920.03 17.07 17.07 385.00 385.00 2,033.89 SERVICE: 2000 BACKHOE SERVICE: 40205D 2006 DODGE DA Total : POSTAGE SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Total : Total : 220.87 20.97 241.84 171.50 171.50 214.00 214.00 93.48 69.73 163.21 240.22 240.22 246.65 246.65 OVERPAYMENT OPEN ON ACCOUP -10.21 MAINTENANCE FOR CATERPILLAR 798.66 Page: 4 vchlist 05/26/2016 3:44:OOPM Voucher List Page: —a Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 38519 5/26/2016 002363 002363 WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT CO (Continued) 525160210 5/26/2016 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-77 001.016.000.521 Total : 788.45 APRIL 2016 REVENUE SPLIT FOR F 3,313.34 Total : 3,313.34 43 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 181,841.15 43 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 : 181,841.15 Page: vchlist 05/31/2016 2:27:34PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: Bank code ; apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 38520 5/31/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8573May 2O18 001.090800.518 RADIO SHACK 9.77 8573 May 2016 402.402D00.531 POLLARDWATER 189.11 8573 May 2016 106.000.230.537 WSRA 475.00 8573May 2O18 101.042.000.542 8|B8DN'SNURSERY 69.57 8573 May 2016 001.018.016.518 SKILLPATH SEMINARS 199.00 8573 May 2016 001.018D16.518 FRED-MEYER 80.00 8573 May 2016 001.018.016.518 BARNES & NOBLE 80.00 8573 May 2016 001.018.016.518 BRICKHOUSE 75.00 8573 May 2016 001.018.010.518 FLEET FEET 70.00 8573May 2O16 101.042.000.542 AMAZON 667.96 Total : 1,915.41 38521 5/31C2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8581 May 2016 001.058.057.558 VARIDESK 1 OF 2 405.00 8581 May 2016 001.058.051.558 GREATER SPOKANE INC 75.00 8581 May 2016 001.058.056.524 VARIDESK 2 OF 2 495.00 8581 May 2016 001.058.057.558 ICICLE VILLAGE RESORT 1 OF 2 138.30 8581 May 2016 001.058.057.558 ICICLE VILLAGE RESORT 198.30 8581May 2O1G 001.058.057.558 GUS JOHNSON 242.84 8581 May 2016 001.058.051.558 GREATER SPOKANE INC 2 OF 2 75.00 8581 May 2016 001.058.050.558 URM CASH AND CARRY 15.46 8581 May 2016 001.058.057.558 GUESTHOUSE INN 1 OF 2 197.06 8581May 2O10 001858.057.558 GUESTHOUSE INN 2 OF 2 197.06 Total : 2,189.02 38522 5/31/2016 001806 BANNER BANK 85G5May %01S 101D42.000.542 AUTO RAIN 33.72 8565 May 2016 101.042.000.542 AMAZON MARKETPLACE 333.98 85G5May 2016 101.042.000.542 GIBSON'S NURSERY 34.78 Total : 402.48 38523 5/31/3010 001006 BANNER BANK 859QMay 2U18 001.076.305.575 CHEVRON 8.49 85QQMay 2O1G 001.076.305.575 HOME DEPOT 108.09 85QQMay 2O10 001.078.305.575 ALL ACCESS PRODUCTIONS 90.78 Total : 207.34 38524 5/31/2016 001606 BANNER BANK 8557 May 2016 001.011.000.511 DELTA AIRLINES INC 25.00 Page: vchlist 05/31/2016 2:27:34PM Voucher List Spokane Valley lTe Page: Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount 38524 5/31/2016 001606 BANNER BANK (Continued) 8557 May 2016 5 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 5 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 001.011.000.511 SPOKANE LILAC FESTIVAL 35.00 Total : 130.00 Bank total : 4,844.25 Total vouchers : 4,844.25 Page: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 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 May 31, 2016 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN; BACKGROUND: Budget/Financial impacts: Employees Council Total Gross: $ 285,534.31 $ 4,773.38 $ 290,307.69 Benefits: $ 116,522.99 $ 8,307.36 $ 124,830.35 Total payroll $ 402,057.30 $ 13,080.74 $ 415,138.04 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to Approve above payroll. [Approved as part of the Consent Agenda, or may be removed and discussed separately.] STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembers MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington May 17, 2016 Staff Rod Higgins, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor 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 Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director John Hohman, Comm & Eco. Dev. Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer 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. AMENDED AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Designating an Acting City Manager — Mayor Higgins Mayor Higgins explained that the new item on the agenda tonight is a motion to designate Mr. Calhoun as the Acting City Manager. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to designate Deputy City Manager Mark Calhoun as the Acting City Manager, effective May 18, 2016, to perform the duties of the City Manager until such time as a permanent City Manager is selected or November 18, 2016, whichever comes first; and to authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the attached "Letter Agreement for Spokane Valley Acting City Manager" on behalf of the Council. City Attorney Driskell briefly explained the background of events with the former City Manager. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he assumes the timeframe could be extended if necessary for an additional sixty days by vote if a permanent City Manager isn't hired by November 17. Mr. Driskell said that the draft contract is for six months, but there could be circumstances beyond Council's control in hiring a permanent city manager, and this allows for flexibility. Councilmember Pace asked if "interim" is synonymous with "acting" and Mr. Driskell said he not certain those two words would always be the same, but it is Council's desire to have the functions of the city manager without necessarily naming him the interim. Mayor Higgins invited public comments. Nina Fluegal asked about the process for hiring a city manager and Mayor Higgins replied that has not yet been determined. Tony Lazanis said he feels Mr. Calhoun is a good man who can do the job. There were no further public comments. Several Councilmembers extended comments of praise to Mr. Calhoun. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Councilmembers extended their congratulations to Mr. Calhoun. NON -ACTION ITEMS: 1. Spokane Transit Authority's (STA) Proposed Fare Increase — Karl Otterstrom STA Planning Director Karl Otterstrom went through his PowerPoint explaining the STA's fare philosophy and policy, background, who sits on the Board of Directors, regular fixed and other routes, types of vans and buses, budget, operating cost comparisons, preliminary fare increase proposal, and example of fare changes. Mr. Otterstrom said that the fares have not yet been determined, and they are seeking feedback; Council Study Session: 05-17-2016 Page 1 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT said if this does go forth, it wouldn't occur until next summer. In response to a question from Councilmember Wood about rider demographics, Mr. Otterstrom replied that most of the riders are in the younger group; that although fares are regulated by the federal government, the actual rate is a local decision. Council thanked Mr. Otterstrom for his report. 2. Parks & Recreation 2016 Capital Projects — Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that some items have come up since the adoption of the 2016 budget which would require a budget amendment if Council concurs. Mr. Stone explained about the three items: Browns Park splash pad; CenterPlace's roof, and new water service at the Valley Mission Dog Park; with budget shortfall of $33,859 for the splash bad, $51,630 for the roof at CenterPlace, and $6,236 for the water service at the dog park. There was discussion about each item, including the idea of removing all the tile and replacing it with a new roof at an approximate cost of $475,000. Councilmember Pace asked about the possibility of other leaks and if the building if worth owning. Mr. Calhoun said if Council is interested, he could look into that as there are outstanding bonds on the building with the Public Facilities District paying about 80% of the bond payment, which runs through about 2033. Councilmember Gothmann said that CenterPlace is well -noted as an asset to Spokane Valley, that it is a valuable piece of real estate and branding point of view as well. It was noted that the cost of the dog park can be absorbed into the budget, but since it wasn't included in the budget for spending, that change needs to come forward. Mr. Calhoun said that Ms. Taylor will be explaining some of these issues in the next agenda item when she gives the budget amendment update; and if Council wants to add these items, she can add them to the budget ordinance when we come forward for a first reading. 3. 2016 Proposed Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor briefly discussed the proposed amendments, as noted in her Request for Council Action; adding that Parks & Recreation Director Stone's items and the Lodging Tax grant were not included; said that the Browns Park grant award was $60,650 and she mentioned that the Lodging Tax grant was awarded last December after the budget was passed. Finance Director Taylor stated that there are sufficient funds to cover the proposed budget amendment, and Council concurred to move this item forward. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:30 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:41 p.m. 4. Economic Development Marketing Contract — John Hohman Director Hohman explained some of the background of the 2016 marketing program; said the overall budget was $200,000, and this contract amount is $152,500; and that he seeks Council concurrence to move forward with a future motion for a contract with Atlas Advertising. Mr. Hohman also noted that representatives from Atlas will be coming in at various points in the process. In response to a question about Atlas owner Ben Wright, Mr. Hohman explained that Mr. Wright grew up in Seattle, has had some interactions with GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) and is familiar with the area; that Atlas stood out from the others based on their experience and expertise. There was some discussion about funding with Mr. Hohman explaining that each year funding has been transferred into the Economic Development budget. There was also brief discussion about the branding, and our City logo, as well as Atlas coming up with a unique economic development logo and emphasis on specific goals. There was Council/staff discussion about how this compares with what we spend for GSI, Visit Spokane, and the Sports Commission as well as GSI's functions. Mr. Hohman said GSI works with businesses here in a business retention effort; Visit Spokane has more of a marketing focus similar to the Chamber; and in Atlas' scope, they will seek means to leverage those partners and have them tell our story. Mr. Hohman said Atlas would like to do a multi-year contract, but these contracts are typically one year with various extensions; adding that they would prefer a five-year contract; he said they have a strong commitment to make sure we are satisfied with their products. Council concurred to move this forward for a future motion. Council Study Session: 05-17-2016 Page 2 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about the agreement with the Library District and asked to see those documents; Mr. Calhoun replied that staff can bring that forward, and that the Library has until October 2017 to pass a bond measure. Deputy Mayor Woodard also asked about the current rule regarding recycling and Waste Management as some citizens would prefer not to participate in recycling. Mr. Calhoun said that will be included with the May 31 report on solid waste collection Request for Proposal. Councilmember Pace also asked about the library district specifically what it would take if we decided to pull out from them and form our own library. Mr. Calhoun said he will include that on the pending list and should be able to address that over the next couple months. 6. Council Comments — Mayor Higgins There were no additional Council comments. 7. Deputy City Manager Comments — Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun reported that the second reading of the bond ordinance was held last week and the pricing of the bonds will be tomorrow; and said that he will report the results to Council at the May 31 meeting. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session: 05-17-2016 Page 3 of 3 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, May 24, 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 Staff Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director John Hohman, Comm. Development Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk INVOCATION: In the absence of a pastor, Mayor Higgins asked that a moment of silence be observed. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Everyone stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Gothmann said he attended the City Hall at the Mall and State of the City address, the Chamber business expo at the Spokane County Fairgrounds, the Junior Lilac Parade, and a Visit Spokane meeting. He said he also attended the funeral of John Pederson, an Air Force veteran and business entrepreneur who has contributed a great deal to our community. Councilmember Pace said he attended the Junior Lilac Parade and the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) board meeting. He said the STA board is revisiting their long-term plans and he questions the value of STA in the Valley. He said he attended the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) board meeting and was asked to approve several City of Spokane projects including road diets that take four -lane roads down to two lanes of traffic with a center turn lane and bike lanes. Councilmember Wood: no report Deputy Mayor Woodard said he attended the East Valley Community Coalition meeting featuring guest speaker Jermaine Galloway, a specialist on drugs and drug paraphernalia, about drug culture. He said he also attended the State of the City address, the Visit Spokane annual awards ceremony and the STA board meeting. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Higgins said he attended the City Hall at the Mall event where he delivered the State of the City address. He said he also attended the Visit Spokane annual meeting, he welcomed the Toastmasters at their convention in town, attended the Torchlight Parade, the Campfire Inland Northwest reception, and the debate between U -Hi and our 4th district legislators. PROCLAMATION: n/a Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 05-24-2016 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT PUBLIC COMMENTS: After Mayor Higgins explained the process and ground rules, he invited general public comments. Scott Maclay, Spokane Valley said that he received our update, it was mailed to his Park Road address but he said he will no longer be on Park Road after June. He said he puts the City of Spokane Valley first and supports public safety oversight. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2016 Amended Budget — Chelsie Taylor Finance Director Taylor said the public hearing will be on 2016 budget amendment, which was discussed at the May 17 Council meeting. She said the amendment will include the addition of the City Hall construction contract and related bond issuance and will effect ten funds and increase expenditures by $2.2 million. She said it will include the Parks and Recreation items discussed at last week's meeting, including a lodging tax grant award for Browns Park volleyball courts, water hook-up at the Mission Park Dog Park, a splash pad at Brown's Park, roof repairs needed at CenterPlace and contracting for a TIGER grant writing consultant. The amendment will also include an increase to the Peg fund for Community Minded Television and equipment needs in the new City Hall building. Mayor Higgins opened the public hearing at 6:27 pm. and invited public comment. There were no comments from the public. Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 6:28 pm. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on May 24, 2016 Request for Council Action Form, Total: $2,662,121.13 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending May 15, 2016: $361,793.70 c. Approval of April 22, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Special Meeting, Council of Governments d. Approval of May 10, 2016 Council Meeting Minutes, Formal Format It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-008 Amending 2016 Budget — Chelsie Taylor After Deputy City Clerk Koudelka read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance 1416-008 amending the 2016 budget to a second reading. Finance Director Taylor said this is a first reading of the proposed budget amendment that reflects the 2016 bond issuance, construction of City Hall and other items that have come up as detailed in the public hearing. Mayor Higgins invited comments from the public; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Economic Development Marketing Contract Approval — John Hohman It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award the contract to Atlas Advertising and authorize the Acting City Manager to finalize and execute the contract. Community Development Director Hohman said the City began its marketing program in 2012 and has used MDI Marketing since that time under four contracts. He said in January we sent out a request for qualifications and we received proposals from nine firms in February. Of those submitted, four local firms and two from outside the area, Denver and Portland, were selected to interview. He said the committee unanimously selected Atlas Advertising as the firm to recommend to Council. He said that Atlas is a Denver firm, but they specialize in marketing communities and they have worked with over 100 communities throughout the nation. He said they will study our community and prepare a five-year plan customized to us, as well as develop a brand, logo, and tag -line for media advertisements. He said the committee has vetted the company, held a second interview, contacted their customers and found them to be pleased with the company. Mr. Hohman said the cost is $152,000, primarily in creation of the five-year marketing program. He said by comparison, in 2012 we spent $76 thousand, in 2013 and 2014 we spent approximately $200,000, and in 2015 we spent $135,000. He said part of their task is to look at our current program and studies and recommend procedures for us to follow for our comprehensive plan. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if there is an opportunity to extend the Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 05-24-2016 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT contract beyond the current contract term. Mr. Hohman said we can create a new contract with them for subsequent years. Councilmember Wood said he likes to stay local when possible to spend our money in the Valley. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Pace said he thinks this is money well spent, a good investment for the City and it will complement the work of the department. Councilmember Gothmann said that law requires us to go with the lowest bidder and that we get the best service by using the best service. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public comment. No comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 5. Draft Amended Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth said this is the second amendment to the 2016 TIP that will add three projects and remove one. He said they would like to add the Sullivan Euclid PCC Intersection project because SRTC awarded $1.2 million toward that project; they would like to add the Barker BNSF Grade Separation project because we will lose the federal earmark we have been given if we do not use it. The funds are "use it or lose it" and Council approved moving forward with the design of the project using City match money. Lastly, he said they are adding the Pines Grade separation and removing the Sprague Low Impact Development (LID) because the Department of Ecology has delayed funding for that project. 6. Draft 2017-2022 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) — Eric Guth Public Works Director Guth said the state requires the city have a six-year plan is in place by July 1st of each year. He said the packet contains information on the projects and that typically the program rolls over from year to year, whereby completed projects come off the list and new projects might be added. He said in 2017, the 9th Ave Sidewalk -Raymond to University project is an STA and Federal Transit Authority program that they have advertised and recommended to the STA board for funding so we would like to add this project for 2017 and 2018. He said we are adding the Barker Overpass and Pines Underpass projects to the TIP in anticipation of TIGER and FASTLANE funding. The Park Road project was awarded design funding eight years ago and has a ten-year clock so he said he is proposing we move to the right-of-way phase, which will cost $150,000. He said this will negate us having to repay the money for design and will the put the City in a better position to go for construction money later. He said we can put that project off until June of 2017 but he would like to start sooner. Councilmember Wood asked if the 9th Avenue Sidewalk project has gone to the public for their input. Mr. Guth said that it has not, but he said sidewalks in that area would aid those people who have difficulty now in getting to the bus. Councilmember Wood said he hopes we will do more outreach for sidewalk projects. Councilmember Gothmann said there are a number of people who cannot speak for themselves, such as those in retirement homes and other facilities that treat such illnesses as Alzheimer's. Councilmember Pace said the staff and owners of Sunshine Gardens could speak on behalf of their patients. Mr. Guth said this topic will come back for a public hearing on June 7th and a motion consideration on June 28th. 7. Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell said the proposed electrical franchise with Avista is for twenty-five years. He said they discussed an underground program with Avista and did some research but decided to put a placeholder in the franchise in case we want to add that in the future, so as not to hold off any longer on entering into the agreement. He said he would like to bring the franchise forward to Council for a first reading. He said after the Avista franchise, they will move on to Inland Power and Light for a similar franchise. Councilmember Pace asked if undergrounding will be part of the franchise agreement with Inland Power and Light. Mr. Driskell said we will look to put a placeholder in that agreement as well, but he does not want to delay the franchise. It was the consensus of Council to move the Avista franchise forward to a first reading. 8. Advance Agenda - Mayor Higgins Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 05-24-2016 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Wood said he would like to discuss limiting Council to two terms and amending the Governance Manual accordingly. Councilmember Pace and Deputy Mayor Woodard said they would like to discuss the topic. Mayor Higgins said it will be added to the advance agenda. Councilmember Wood said that he would like to discuss having an independent negotiator negotiate our contract for police services. Councilmember Pace supports placing it on the advance agenda. Councilmember Gothmann said the contract is a cost only contract and he said he does not think we would want a negotiator to decide how many traffic officers we want, that should be the decision of Council not an unbiased negotiator. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like to think about it before consenting to add it to the advance agenda. Mayor Higgins said this item will not be added to the advance agenda at this time. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked about an annexation update. Acting City Manager Calhoun said Legal has finished their portion, Community Development is now working on it and we will bring it back to Council in the near future. City Attorney Driskell said he does not think there is much flexibility in state law with regard to annexation. He said if Council wants legal staff to present what the law allows, we will bring the item forward in the next couple weeks. Mr. Woodard said he would like it to come forward with the Community Development portion included. Councilmember Pace asked if undergrounding the whole city has been discussed as a Council goal. Mr. Calhoun said that it has not been brought to Council but was part of a finance committee discussion. Mr. Pace said he would like to bring discussion forward on undergrounding the city. Mr. Calhoun said the topic might come forward in concert with utility tax discussion and said it would be phenomenally expensive and long-term. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like to have the discussion at a later date. Mr. Calhoun said we can add it to pending items. Councilmember Wood asked into the process for public comment on advance agenda items. Mr. Calhoun said items come before Council first as an information item or an administrative report and if Council decides to move it forward for action on the item, there is opportunity for public comment. The (9) Department Monthly Reports, and the (10)Broadway Street Preservation Project were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Acting City Manager Calhoun said he emailed Council earlier regarding the resignation letter received from Councilmember Bates effective June 14, 2016 at midnight. He said staff will work on the process to fill the vacancy. He said there will be an executive session in two weeks to discuss the applications to fill the two current vacancies, then in open session that night Council will discuss who to interview. He said interviews will be held during the meeting on June 21st and the vacancies will be appointed during the meeting on June 28th. He said in addition, Chief Van Leuven retires on June 30th and interviews for a new police chief are scheduled for June 8th. He said we received good rates on the LTGO bonds with an average interest rate of 2.91 percent. He said that is $399,700 fixed per year and our current lease payment is over $400,000 and set to increase, so the bond payments are less than we currently pay for rent and that only gets better as time goes on. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 05-24-2016 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action June 7, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading of proposed Ordinance #16-008 which amends the 2016 Budget. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: In order for the City to amend an adopted budget, State law requires the Council to approve an ordinance that appropriates additional funds. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council last took formal action on the 2016 Budget when it was adopted on November 07, 2015. On May 17, 2016, an Administrative Report was delivered to Council regarding the need for a budget amendment. On May 24, 2016, a public hearing was held on this topic and Ordinance #16-008 was advanced to a second reading. BACKGROUND: Since the initial adoption of the 2016 Budget on November 10, 2015, a number of events have transpired in the normal course of operations that necessitate a 2016 Budget amendment. They include: #001 - General Fund Provide additional appropriations (expenditures) of $2,243,357 comprised of: • $6,300 reduction to Parks professional services in order to transfer to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for additional unanticipated funding needed for the hookup of water services at the Valley Mission Dog Park. • $13,000 additional in recurring Parks and Recreation professional services to include payments to the Kiwanis Club of Liberty Lake and the Spokane Valley Rotary Club for the Father Daughter Dance and Breakfast with Santa, respectively. • $85,500 additional in recurring professional services for a consultant to assist with the TIGER and FASTLANE grant application process (as approved by Council on March 15, 2016). • $6,300 transfer out to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for additional unanticipated funding needed for the hookup of water services at the Valley Mission Dog Park. • $34,000 transfer out to the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309 for the Browns Park Splashpad project. Bids for this project came in at an amount higher than expected during the 2016 Budget development process. • $198,734 transfer out to the LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund #204 for debt service due on the 2016 LTGO Bonds for December 2016. • $6,400 additional to complete the security camera upgrade at the Precinct. • $25,000 for construction of offices for the unit supervisors at the Precinct. This amount is being moved forward from a 2015 appropriation that was not spent. • $52,000 for repairs to the roof at CenterPlace for a variety of leaks. • $1,828,723 transferred to Capital Reserve Fund #312 which represents the 2014 yearend fund balance in excess of 50%. Increase revenues by $481,734 comprised of: • $270,000 addition to sales tax revenues resulting from revised 2016 estimates. 1 • $13,000 additional in recurring Parks and Recreation revenue to include admissions for the Father Daughter Dance and Breakfast with Santa, for which the City partners with the Kiwanis Club of Liberty Lake and the Spokane Valley Rotary Club, respectively. • $198,734 transfer in from the Civic Facilities Capital Replacement Fund #310 for lease payments during 2016 in excess of the 2016 Bond debt service. #105 — Hotel / Motel Tax Fund • The expenditures did not change in total; however, there was a line item change that moved $60,650 from the Tourism Promotion expense account to a transfer to Fund #309, which represents the lodging tax award that was made to the Parks and Recreation Department for the Browns Park volleyball court project. #107 — PEG Fund Expenditures are increased by $130,000 comprised of: • $105,000 in PEG reimbursements to Community Minded Television for PEG capital expenditures made as the City's public access channel manager including items for the Library studio/media lab. • $25,000 for professional services related to identifying equipment needs for broadcasting at the new City Hall building. #204 — LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund Expenditures are increased by $198,734 reflecting the 2016 Bond debt service payment due in December 2016. Revenues are increased by $198,734 for a transfer in from the General Fund for the debt service payment on the 2016 Bonds. #309 — Park Capital Projects Fund Expenditure increases of $100,950, comprised of: • $6,300 transfer in from the General Fund #001 for additional unanticipated funding needed for the hookup of water services at the Valley Mission Dog Park. • $34,000 transfer in from the General Fund #001 for the Browns Park Splashpad project. Bids for this project came in at an amount higher than expected during the 2016 Budget development process. • $60,650 transfer in from the Hotel / Motel Tax Fund #105 representing the lodging tax award that was made to the Parks and Recreation Department for the Browns Park volleyball court project. Revenues are increased by $100,950 for the same projects as described under the expenditure increase. #310 — Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund Expenditures increase by $198,734 for a transfer out to the General Fund for lease payments during 2016 in excess of the 2016 Bond debt service. #312 — Capital Reserve Fund Revenues include a transfer of $1,828,723 from General Fund #001 which represents the 2014 yearend fund balance in excess of 50%. #313 — City Hall Construction Fund Expenditures are increased by $12,451,520 which include: 2 • $12,355,005 additional for construction costs related to the new City Hall building. This amount includes the remainder of the $14,148,281 total project cost approved by Council less amounts already spent prior to 2016. • $96,515 additional for bond issue costs for the 2016 LTGO Bonds. Revenue increases are $7,946,088, which includes 2016 LTGO Bond proceeds representing a par value of $7,275,000 and a bond premium of $671,088. #402 — Stormwater Management Fund Expenditures/appropriations increase by $251,100 due to revised schedules on various capital projects, including: • $185,000 reduction to the Stormwater small works and various capital projects that were included in the 2016 Budget. • $378,100 additional for the McDonald Road Diet Project #221. • $8,000 additional for Pines and Grace Intersection Safety Project #166. • $50,000 additional for the Saltese Road Preservation Project #240. Revenues increase by $175,000 reflecting the receipt of grants for various projects. #501 — Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Revenues increase by $4,667 due to a revised calculation. The 2016 Budget amendment reflects the changes noted above and will affect 10 funds resulting in total appropriation/expenditure increases of $15,574,395 and revenue increases of $10,735,896. 001 General Fund 105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 107 PEG Fund 204 LTGO Bond Debt Service 309 Park Capital Projects Fund 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 312 Capital Reserve Fund 313 City Hall Construction Fund 402 Stormwater Management Fund 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 481,734 0 0 198,734 100,950 0 1,828,723 7,946,088 175,000 4,667 2,243,357 0 130,000 198,734 100,950 198,734 0 12,451, 520 251,100 0 10,735,896 15, 574, 395 OPTIONS: Options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in -part. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance #16-008 amending Ordinance #15-019 which adopted a budget for the period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. 3 Revenue Expenditure Fund Fund Increase Increase No. Name (Decrease) (Decrease) 001 General Fund 105 Hotel / Motel Tax Fund 107 PEG Fund 204 LTGO Bond Debt Service 309 Park Capital Projects Fund 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects Fund 312 Capital Reserve Fund 313 City Hall Construction Fund 402 Stormwater Management Fund 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund 481,734 0 0 198,734 100,950 0 1,828,723 7,946,088 175,000 4,667 2,243,357 0 130,000 198,734 100,950 198,734 0 12,451, 520 251,100 0 10,735,896 15, 574, 395 OPTIONS: Options are to accept the proposed amendments in whole or in -part. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance #16-008 amending Ordinance #15-019 which adopted a budget for the period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. 3 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This action amends the estimated revenues and appropriations for the 2016 Budget that was adopted on November 10, 2015. There are adequate funds available to pay for these amendments. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance #16-008 • Fund level line -item detail of revenues and expenditures. • Fund summaries for all funds affected by the proposed budget amendment. 4 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 16-008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 15-019, WHICH ADOPTED A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2016 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance 15-019 on November 10, 2015, which adopted the 2016 annual budget; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the November 10, 2015 adoption of the 2016 annual budget, it has become necessary to make changes by adding new revenue, appropriations, amendments, and transferring funds in order to properly perform City functions, services and activities; and WHEREAS, City Council awarded a contract for the construction of a new City Hall building on May 3, 2016 and authorized the City to issue limited tax general obligation bonds to partially pay for the construction, equipping and furnishing of the new City Hall building on May 10, 2016; and WHEREAS, the budget changes set forth in this Ordinance could not have been reasonably anticipated or known when the 2016 annual budget was passed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the best interests of the City are served by amending the 2016 budget to reflect unanticipated revenue, expenditures, transfers, and appropriating the same as set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington do ordain as follows: Section 1. Amended Revenues and Appropriations. Ordinance No. 15-019 adopted a budget for the twelve months beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2016. Each item, revenue, appropriation, and fund contained in Section 1 of Ordinance 15-019 is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A to this Ordinance, which is incorporated herein. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should 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 3. 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 of the City of Spokane Valley this day of June 2016. ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Date of Publication: Approved as to form: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 16-008 amending the 2016 budget Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT A Sources Uses Fund No. Annual Appropriation Funds Beginning Fund Balance Revenues Total Sources Appropriations Estimated Ending Fund Balance Adopted via Ord. 15-019 Amended via Ord. 16-008 Total Revenues Adopted via Ord. 15-019 Amended via Ord. 16-008 Total Appropriations 001 General 26,067.102 39,478,853 481,734 39,960,587 66.027.689 39,974,480 2243 357 42217 837 23 809.852 101 Street O&M 1,431.496 4,357,900 0 4,357.900 5.789.396 4,382.900 0 4,382.900 1.406.496 103 Paths & Trails 38,054 8,500 0 8.500 46.554 0 0 0 46.554 104 Hotel/Motel Tax - Tourism Facilities 182,347 357,500 0 357 500 539.847 0 0 0 539.847 105 Hotel/Motel Tax 208,702 550,300 0 550.300 759.002 590.000 0 590.000 169.002 106 Solid Waste 42,874 178,500 0 178.500 221.374 178.500 0 178.500 42.874 107 PEG 301,182 90,000 0 90.000 391.182 24.500 130,000 154.500 236.682 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 300,000 0 0 0 300.000 0 0 0 300.000 121 Service Level Stabilization 5,461,789 6,500 0 6.500 5.468289 0 0 0 5.468289 122 Winter Weather Reserve 444,472 600 0 600 445.072 500.000 0 500.000 (54.928) 22 123 City Facilities Repair & Replacement 559,108 700 0 700 559.808 559.786 0 559.786 22 204 Debt Service LTGO 03 4,049 547,100 198,734 745.834 749.883 547.100 198,734 745.834 4.049 301 Capital Projects 1,594,088 801.000 0 801.000 2.395.088 671.189 0 671.189 1.723.899 302 Special Capital Projects 1,728,297 801.000 0 801.000 2.529297 1,371.502 0 1,371.502 1.157.795 303 Street Capital Projects 75,538 11.767.791 0 11.767.791 11,843,329 11.767.791 0 11.767.791 75.538 309 Parks Capital Projects 98,461 264.550 100.950 365.500 463,961 352.050 100,950 453.000 10.961 310 Civic Facilities Capital Projects 1,182,548 345.400 0 345,400 1,527,948 0 198,734 198.734 1.329214 311 Pavement Preservation 2,605,219 2301,500 0 2301 500 4.906.719 3,050.000 0 3.050.000 1.856.719 312 Capital Reserve 4,576,597 0 1.828.723 1.828.723 6.405320 1524 559 0 1524 559 4.880.761 313 City Hall Construction 4,800,627 0 7.946.088 7946,088 12.746.715 294.400 12.451,520 12.745.920 795 51,702,550 61,857,694 10.556229 72,413,923 124.116.473 65,788.757 15.323295 81.112.052 43.004.421 Sources Uses Revenues Appropriations Estimated Beginning Ending Fund Working Adopted via Amended via Total Total Adopted via Amended via Total Working No. Working Capital Funds Capital Ord. 15-019 Ord. 16-008 Revenues Sources Ord. 15-019 Ord. 16-008 Appropriations Capital 402 Stormwater Management 1.896,925 1.871.500 175.000 2.046.500 3,943,425 2240.115 251,100 2,491,215 1.452210 403 Aquifer Protection Area 921,660 2.000.000 0 2.000.000 2,921,660 2.000.000 0 2,000,000 921.660 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 1,248,997 102.333 4.667 107.000 1,355,997 330.000 0 330,000 1.025.997 502 Risk Management 194,383 325.000 0 325.000 519,383 325,000 0 325,000 194.383 4,261,965 4,298,833 179,667 4,478 500 8,740,465 4,895,115 251,100 5,146,215 3,594,250 Total of all Funds 55,964,515 66,156,527 10,735,896 76.892,423 132,856,938 70,683,872 15,574,395 86,258,267 46.598,671 Ordinance 16-008 amending the 2016 budget Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget Amendment 2016 As Adopted Proposed Amendment As Amended #001 - GENERAL FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Property Tax 11,479,200 0 11,479,200 Sales Tax 18,210,500 270,000 18,480,500 Sales Tax - Public Safety 867,400 0 867,400 Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 1,556,400 0 1,556,400 Gambling Tax and Leasehold Excise Tax 333,700 0 333,700 Franchise Fees/Business Registration 1,154,000 0 1,154,000 State Shared Revenues 2,024,528 0 2,024,528 Fines and Forfeitures/Public Safety 1,443,500 0 1,443,500 Community Development 1,491,500 0 1,491,500 Recreation Program Revenues 595,200 13,000 608,200 Miscellaneous Department Revenue 95,900 0 95,900 Miscellaneous & Investment Interest 103,500 0 103,500 Transfers in - #101 (street admin) 39,700 0 39,700 Transfers in - #105 (h/m tax -CP advertising) 30,000 0 30,000 Transfers in - #402 (storm admin) 13,400 0 13,400 Total Recurring Revenues 39,438,428 283,000 39,721,428 Expenditures City Council 506,869 0 506,869 City Manager 717,303 0 717,303 Legal 479,951 0 479,951 Public Safety 24,703,749 0 24,703,749 Deputy City Manager 737,002 0 737,002 Finance / IT 1,253,080 0 1,253,080 Human Resources 255,694 0 255,694 Public Works 966,870 0 966,870 Community & Economic Dvlpmnt - Admin 272,107 0 272,107 Community & Economic Dvlpmnt - Econ Dev 545,157 0 545,157 Community & Economic Dvlpmnt - Dev Svc 1,486,637 0 1,486,637 Community & Economic Dvlpmnt - Building 1,344,165 0 1,344,165 Parks & Rec - Administration 281,871 0 281,871 Parks & Rec - Maintenance 838,343 (6,300) 832,043 Parks & Rec - Recreation 228,197 13,000 241,197 Parks & Rec - Aquatics 461,200 0 461,200 Parks & Rec - Senior Center 95,781 0 95,781 Parks & Rec - CenterPlace 882,223 0 882,223 Pavement Preservation 943,800 0 943,800 General Government 1,532,000 85,500 1,617,500 Transfers out - #502 (insurance premium) 325,000 0 325,000 Transfers out - #204 (LTGO debt service) 0 198,734 198,734 Transfers out - #309 (park capital projects) 160,000 40,300 200,300 Transfers out - #310 (bond pmt>$434.6k lease pmt) 72,500 0 72,500 Transfers out - #310 (city hall o&m costs) 271,700 0 271,700 Total Recurring Expenditures 39,361,199 331,234 39,692,433 Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 77,229 (48,234) 28,995 6/7/2016 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget Amendment 2016 As Adopted Proposed Amendment As Amended #001 - GENERAL FUND - continued NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Transfers in - #106 (solid waste repayment) 40,425 0 40,425 Transfers in - #310 (lease in excess of debt service) 0 198,734 198,734 Total Nonrecurring Revenues 40,425 198,734 239,159 Expenditures General Government - IT capital replacements 108,000 0 108,000 Public Safety (const offices for unit supervisors) 0 25,000 25,000 Community & Econ Dev (comp plan update) 350,000 0 350,000 Parks & Rec (upgrade dial-up modem at pools) 15,000 0 15,000 Police Department - CAD / RMS 140,281 0 140,281 Police Department - security camera upgrade 0 6,400 6,400 CenterPlace roof repairs 0 52,000 52,000 Transfers out - #312 ('14 fund bal > 50%) 0 1,828,723 1,828,723 Total Nonrecurring Expenditures 613,281 1,912,123 2,525,404 Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning unrestricted fund balance Ending unrestricted fund balance Fund balance as a percent of recurring expenditures SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS #105 - HOTEL / HOTEL TAX FUND Revenues Hotel/Motel tax Investement Interest Total revenues Expenditures Transfers out - #001 30,000 0 30,000 Tourism Promotion 560,000 (60,650) 499,350 Transfers out - #309 (volleyball court award) 0 60,650 60,650 (572,856) (1,713,389) (2,286,245) (495,627) (1,761,623) (2,257,250) 26, 067,102 26, 067,102 25,571,475 23,809,852 6497% 550,000 300 59.99% 0 550,000 0 300 550,300 0 550,300 Total expenditures 590,000 0 590,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance (39,700) (39,700) 208,702 208,702 169,002 169,002 6/7/2016 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget Amendment SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, continued #107 - PEG FUND Revenues Comcast PEG contribution Investment Interest Total revenues Expenditures PEG Reimbursement - CMTV Capital Outlay Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 2016 As Adopted Proposed Amendment As Amended 90,000 0 0 90,000 0 0 90,000 0 90,000 12,000 12,500 105,000 117,000 25,000 37,500 24,500 130,000 154,500 65,500 (64,500) 301,182 301,182 366,682 236,682 #204 - LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND Revenues Spokane Public Facilities District 380,300 0 380,300 Transfers in - #001 0 198,734 198,734 Transfers in - #301 83,400 0 83,400 Transfers in - #302 83,400 0 83,400 Total revenues 547,100 198,734 745,834 Expenditures Debt Service Payments - CenterPlace 380,300 0 380,300 Debt Service Payments - Roads 166,800 0 166,800 Debt Service Payments - City Hall 0 198,734 198,734 Total expenditures 547,100 198,734 745,834 Revenues over (under) expenditures 0 0 Beginning fund balance 4,049 4,049 Ending fund balance 4,049 4,049 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS #309 - PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Grant Proceeds 90,000 0 90,000 Transfers in - #001 160,000 40,300 200,300 Transfers in - #105 0 60,650 60,650 Transfers in - #312 14,050 0 14,050 Investment Interest 500 0 500 Total revenues 264,550 100,950 365,500 Expenditures City entry sign 70,000 0 70,000 Park signs 20,500 0 20,500 Browns Park Splashpad 82,500 34,000 116,500 Pocket dog park - phase 2 75,000 6,300 81,300 Appleway Trail (Pines -Evergreen) 104,050 0 104,050 Browns Park Champion Volleyball Court 0 60,650 60,650 Total expenditures 352,050 100,950 453,000 Revenues over (under) expenditures (87,500) (87,500) Beginning fund balance 98,461 98,461 Ending fund balance 10,961 10,961 6/7/2016 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget Amendment 2016 As Adopted Proposed Amendment As Amended CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS, continued #310 - CIVIC FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenues Investment Interest Transfers in - #001 Future C.H. bond pmt > $434.6k lease pmt Future C.H. o&m costs Total revenues 1,200 72,500 271,700 0 1,200 0 72,500 0 271,700 345,400 0 345,400 Expenditures Professional services 0 0 0 Capital Outlay - City Hall 0 0 0 Transfers out - #001 (lease in excess of debt servic 0 198,734 198,734 Total expenditures 0 198,734 198,734 Revenues over (under) expenditures 345,400 146,666 Beginning fund balance 1,182,548 1,182,548 Ending fund balance 1,527,948 1,329,214 6/7/2016 Note: The fund balance in #310 includes $839,285.10 paid by the Library District for 2.82 acres at the Balfour Park site. If the District does not succeed in getting a voted bond approved by October 2017 then the City may repurchase this land at the original sale price of $839,285.10. #312 - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND Revenues Transfers in - #001 0 1,828,723 1,828,723 Investment Interest 0 0 0 Total revenues 0 1,828,723 1,828,723 Expenditures Transfers out#303 (Sullivan Rd W Bridge) 1,010,509 0 1,010,509 Transfers out #303 (Pines Rd Underpass) 500,000 0 500,000 Transfers out #309 (Appleway Trail - Pines-Evergre 14,050 0 14,050 Total expenditures 1,524,559 0 1,524,559 Revenues over (under) expenditures (1,524,559) 304,164 Beginning fund balance 4,576,597 4,576,597 Ending fund balance 3,052,038 4,880,761 #313 - CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION FUND Revenues 2016 LTGO Bond proceeds 0 7,946,088 7,946,088 Total revenues 0 7,946,088 7,946,088 Expenditures Capital Outlay - City Hall 294,400 12,355,005 12,649,405 2016 LTGO Bond issue costs 0 96,515 96,515 Total expenditures 294,400 12,451,520 12,745,920 Revenues over (under) expenditures (294,400) (4,799,832) Beginning fund balance 4,800,627 4,800,627 Ending fund balance 4,506,227 795 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget Amendment ENTERPRISE FUNDS #402 - STORMWATER FUND RECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Stormwater Management Fees Investment Interest 2016 As Adopted Proposed Amendment As Amended 1,870,000 1,500 0 1,870,000 0 1,500 Total Recurring Revenues 1,871,500 0 1,871,500 Expenditures Wages / Benefits / Payroll Taxes 514,132 0 514,132 Supplies 15,900 0 15,900 Services & Charges 1,113,683 0 1,113,683 Intergovernmental Payments 67,000 0 67,000 Vehicle rentals - #501 11,000 0 11,000 Transfers out - #001 13,400 0 13,400 Total Recurring Expenditures 1,735,115 0 1,735,115 Recurring Revenues Over (Under) Recurring Expenditures 136,385 0 136,385 NONRECURRING ACTIVITY Revenues Grant Proceeds 0 175,000 175,000 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 Total Nonrecurring Revenues Expenditures Capital - various projects Maintenance facility storage unit Total Nonrecurring Expenditures Nonrecurring Revenues Over (Under) Nonrecurring Expenditures Excess (Deficit) of Total Revenues Over (Under) Total Expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 0 175,000 175,000 500,000 5,000 251,100 751,100 0 5,000 505,000 251,100 756,100 (505,000) (76,100) (581,100) (368,615) (76,100) (444,715) 1,896,925 1,896,925 1,528,310 1,452,210 #501 - ER&R FUND Revenues Vehicle rentals - #001 23,500 500 24,000 Vehicle rentals -#101 31,000 0 31,000 Vehicle rentals - #101 (plow replace.) 40,000 0 40,000 Vehicle rentals - #402 6,833 4,167 11,000 Investment Interest 1,000 0 1,000 Total revenues Expenditures Vehicle Replacement Snow Plow Replacement Total expenditures Revenues over (under) expenditures Beginning working capital Ending working capital 102,333 4,667 107,000 75,000 225,000 0 75,000 0 225,000 300,000 0 300,000 (197,667) 1,248,997 (193,000) 1,248,997 1,051,330 1,055,997 6/7/2016 H:\Budget\2016\Amendment #1\2016 06 07 Second Reading of Ordinance\2016 Amendment No 1 Detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget -Amendment #1 Line Item Detail 6/7/2016 Account Description Account Number Description / Justification Initial Budget Amendment Amended Budget #001 - General Fund Recurring Revenues Sales Tax Youth Programs 001.000.000.313.11.00 001.076.301.347.60.11 Recurring Expenditures Professional Services Professional Services Professional Services - Misc Studies Transfer out - #309 Transfer out - #204 001.076.300.576.80.41.05 001.076.301.571.20.41.05 001.090.000.513.10.41.05 001.090.000.597.30.00.90 001.090.000.597.20.00.40 Nonrecurring revenues Transfer in - #310 001.090.000.397.31.00 Nonrecurring Expenditures Improvements Building Maintenance Transfer out - #312 001.016.099.594.21.62.02 001.076.099.575.50.48.07 001.090.000.597.31.00.20 - Revised estimate - Kiwanis Father Daughter Dance - Rotary Club Breakfast With Santa Total recurring revenues 18,210,500 270,000 18,480,500 74,000 10,000 3,000 87,000 - Reduction to allow for transfer to #309 for Dog Parti - Kiwanis Father Daughter Dance: $9,975 - Rotary Club Breakfast With Santa: $2,780 - TIGER & FASTLANE application and support - Valley Mission Dog Park Ph2 - Browns Park Splashpad - 2016 LTGO debt service Total recurring expenditures - Lease payment in excess of 2016 Bond pmnt Total nonrecurring revenues - Precinct Security Camera - Construction of offices for unit supervisors - CenterPlace Roof Repairs - 2014 #001 fund bal > 50% Total nonrecurring expenditures 283,000 763,943 28,100 (6,300) 757,643 10,000 3,000 41,100 150,000 85,500 235,500 160,000 6,300 34,000 200,300 0 198,734 198,734 331,234 0 198,734 198,734 198,734 0 6,400 25,000 31,400 0 52,000 0 1,828,723 1,912,123 Total of all General Fund revenues Total of all General Fund expenditures 481,734 2,243,357 Page 1 of 4 52,000 1,828,723 H:\Budget\2016\Amendment #1\2016 06 07 Second Reading of Ordinance\2016 Amendment No 1 Detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget -Amendment #1 Line Item Detail 6/7/2016 Account Description Account Number Description / Justification Initial Budget Amendment Amended Budget #105 - Hotel / Motel Tax Fund Expenditures Tourism Promotion Transfer out - #309 105.105.000.557.30.41.00 - Reduce for City P&R Award 105.000.000.597.30.00.90 - Browns Park Volleyball Court Lodging Tax Award #107 - PEG Fund Expenditures PEG Reimburse - CMTV Computer Software/Hardware Total expenditures 107.000.000.518.90.49.01 - CMTV PEG Request 107.000.000.594.11.64.02 - Design of new City Hall broadcast system #204 - LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund Expenditures 2016 LTGO Bond 2016 LTGO Bond Revenues Transfer in - #001 Total expenditures 204.000.000.591.18.71.03 - 2016 LTGO Bond debt service - principal 204.000.000.592.18.83.03 - 2016 LTGO Bond debt service - interest Total expenditures 204.000.000.397.00.00.10 - 2016 LTGO debt service #309 - Park Capital Projects Fund Expenditures Capital outlay Capital outlay Capital outlay Revenues Transfer in - #001 Transfer in - #001 Transfer in - #105 309.000.241.594.76.63.00 309.000.242.594.76.63.00 309.000.243.594.76.63.00 309.309.000.397.00.10 309.309.000.397.00.10 309.000.243.397.10.50 Total revenues - Valley Mission Dog Park Ph2 Water Service - Browns Park Splashpad - Browns Park Volleyball Court Lodging Tax Award Total expenditures - Valley Mission Dog Park Ph2 Water Service - Browns Park Splashpad - Browns Park Volleyball Court Lodging Tax Award 560,000 0 12,000 12,500 (60,650) 499,350 60,650 0 60,650 105,000 117,000 25,000 130,000 37,500 0 75,000 75,000 0 123,734 123,734 198,734 0 198,734 198,734 198,734 75,000 6,300 81,300 82,500 34,000 116,500 0 60,650 60,650 100,950 75,000 6,300 81,300 82,500 34,000 116,500 0 60,650 60,650 Total revenues 100,950 Page 2 of 4 H:\Budget\2016\Amendment #1\2016 06 07 Second Reading of Ordinance\2016 Amendment No 1 Detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget -Amendment #1 Line Item Detail 6/7/2016 Account Description Account Number Description / Justification Initial Budget Amendment Amended Budget #310 - Civic Facilities Capital Replacement Fund Expenditures Transfer out - #001 310.310.000.597.00.00.10 - Lease payment in excess of 2016 Bond pmnt #312 - Capital Reserve Fund Revenues Transfer in - #001 Total expenditures 312.000.000.397.00.10 - 2014 #001 fund bal > 50% #313 - City Hall Construction Fund Expenditures Capital outlay 2016 LTGO bond issue Revenues 2016 LTGO bond issue 2016 LTGO bond issue Total revenues 313.000.215.594.18.xx.xx - City Hall construction costs 313.000.000.592.18.84.03 - 2016 LTGO bond issue costs Total expenditures 313.000.000.391.10.00 - 2016 LTGO bond issue proceeds - par value 313.000.000.392.00.00 - 2016 LTGO bond issue proceeds - premium 0 198,734 198,734 198,734 0 1,828,723 1,828,723 1,828,723 294,400 12, 355, 005 12, 649, 405 0 96,515 96,515 12,451, 520 0 7,275,000 7,275,000 0 671,088 671,088 Total revenues 7,946,088 #402 - Stormwater Management Fund Expenditures Stormwater Improve - Capital Outlays 402.402.000.594.38.63.05 - Various Stormwater Projects 500,000 251,100 751,100 Revenues Dept. of Ecology Grant Dept. of Ecology Grant Total expenditures 251,100 402.000.193.374.03.10 - E. WA Effectiveness Study Ph 2&3 402.000.000.374.03.10 - Stormwater Capacity Grants: 0 150,000 150,000 0 25,000 25,000 Total revenues 175,000 Page 3 of 4 H:\Budget\2016\Amendment #1\2016 06 07 Second Reading of Ordinance\2016 Amendment No 1 Detail.xlsx CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 2016 Budget -Amendment #1 Line Item Detail 6/7/2016 Account Description Account Number Description / Justification Initial Budget Amendment Amended Budget #501 - Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund Revenues Interfund Equip & Vehicle Lease 501.000.000.348.20.00 - revised calculation Total Revenues Totals Across all Funds 101,333 4,667 106,000 4,667 Total revenues Total expenditures 10, 735, 896 15, 574, 395 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 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 — proposed Ordinance 16-009 granting a franchise to Avista Corporation for electrical transmission and distribution in the rights-of-way. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.47.040. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report April 21, 2015; administrative report May 24, 2016; first ordinance reading May 31, 2016. BACKGROUND: Avista Corporation operates an electrical utility throughout this region, including parts of the City. The provision of those services requires use of the public rights-of- way for transmission and distribution of electricity via above -ground poles and wires, underground wires, and other related facilities. Avista has operated this utility for many years, formerly under the name Washington Water Power, and is one of four electrical utility providers in the City. This would be similar in many respects to other franchises granted by the City, and would be for 25 years, the same length as the natural gas distribution franchise granted to Avista in 2013. OPTIONS: (1) approve as drafted; or (2) request additional information. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move we approve proposed Ordinance 16-009 granting an electrical franchise to Avista Corporation. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: draft proposed Ordinance 16-009 granting electrical franchise to Avista Corporation. DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 16-009 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING TO AVISTA CORPORATION A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN POLES, ELEVATED AND UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES AND APPURTENANCES FOR THE TRANSMISSION, CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 authorizes the City to grant, permit, and regulate "nonexclusive franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways, structures or places above or below the surface of the ground for railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances, for poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires and appurtenances thereof for transmission and distribution of electrical energy, signals and other methods of communication, for gas, steam and liquid fuels, for water, sewer and other private and publicly owned and operated facilities for public service"; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 further requires that "no ordinance or resolution granting any franchise in a code city for any purpose shall be adopted or passed by the city's legislative body on the day of its introduction nor for five days thereafter, nor at any other than a regular meeting nor without first being submitted to the city attorney, nor without having been granted by the approving vote of at least a majority of the entire legislative body, nor without being published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city before becoming effective"; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been submitted to the City Attorney prior to its passage; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the grant of the Franchise contained in this Ordinance, subject to its terms and conditions, is in the best interests of the public, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meaning set forth below: "Avista" means Avista Corporation, dba Avista Utilities, a Washington corporation, and its respective successors and assigns, agents and contractors. "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee. "Commission" means the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission or such successor regulatory agency having jurisdiction over investor-owned public utilities in the State of Washington. "construction" or "construct" shall mean constructing, digging, excavating, laying, testing, operating, extending, upgrading, renewing, removing, replacing, and repairing a facility. Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 1 of 13 DRAFT "day" shall mean a 24-hour period beginning at 12:01 AM. If a thing or act is to be done in less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of time. "facilities" means, collectively, any and all electric transmission, and distribution systems and appurtenances owned by Avista, now and in the future in the franchise area, including but not limited to, poles, towers, overhead and underground wires and cables, conduits, vaults, transformers, meters, meter -reading devices, communication and control systems and other equipment, appliances, fixtures, attachments, appurtenances and other items necessary, convenient, or in any way appertaining to any and all of the foregoing for the purposes of transmission, distribution, and control of electricity, whether the same be located above or below ground. "franchise area" shall mean the entire geographic area within the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted. "hazardous substances" shall have the same meaning as RCW 70.105D.020(10). "maintenance, maintaining or maintain" shall mean the work involved in the replacement and/or repair of facilities, including constructing, relaying, repairing, replacing, examining, testing, inspecting, removing, digging and excavating, and restoring operations incidental thereto. "public property" shall mean any real estate or any facility owned by the City. "Public Works Director" shall mean the Spokane Valley Public Works Director or his/her designee. "right-of-way" shall refer to the surface of and the space along, above, and below any street, road, highway, freeway, lane, sidewalk, alley, court, boulevard, parkway, drive, trail, bike path, Grantee easement, and/or public way now or hereafter held or administered by the City, to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "streets" or "highways" shall mean the surface of, and the space above and below, any public street, road, alley or highway, within the City used or intended to be used by the general public, to the extent the City has the right to allow the Grantee to use them. "tariff' means the rate schedules, rules, and regulations relating to utility service, filed with and approved by the Commission during the term of this Franchise. Section 2. Grant of Franchise. The City of Spokane Valley, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), hereby grants unto Avista (hereinafter "Grantee"), a franchise for a period of 25 years, beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance, to install, construct, operate, maintain, replace, upgrade and use all necessary equipment and facilities to place electric facilities in, under, on, across, over, through, along or below the public rights-of-way located in the City of Spokane Valley, and other public places as agreed to by the parties in writing (which may be accomplished by written agreement of the City Manager and Grantee's Director of Operations), as approved under City permits issued pursuant to this franchise (hereinafter the "franchise"). The parties may renew this franchise for an additional 25 years by mutual written agreement, which may be exercised at any time within the final year of the initial franchise term. Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 2 of 13 DRAFT Section 3. Fee. No right-of-way use fee is imposed for the term of this franchise. Any such right-of-way use or franchise fee that may be imposed by subsequent ordinance would apply to any subsequent franchise, if any, between the parties; provided, however, that this provision shall not preclude the City from later adopting a subsequent ordinance imposing a utility tax in conformance with applicable state and local laws. Section 4. Recovery of Costs. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all costs of one publication of this franchise in a local newspaper, and required legal notices prior to any public hearing regarding this franchise, contemporaneous with its acceptance of this franchise. Grantee shall be subject to all permit and inspection fees associated with activities undertaken through the authority granted in this franchise or under City Code. Section 5. Non -Exclusivity. This franchise is granted upon the express condition that it shall not in any manner prevent the City from granting other or further franchises or permits in any rights-of- way that do not materially interfere with Grantee's rights under this franchise. This and other franchises shall, in no way, prevent or prohibit the City from using any of its rights-of-way or affect its jurisdiction over them or any part of them. City may not, however, award an electric franchise to another party under more favorable or less onerous terms than those of this franchise without this franchise being amended to reflect such more favorable or less onerous terms. Section 6. Non -Interference with Existing Facilities. Grantee shall have the discretion to determine the placement of its Facilities as may be necessary to provide safe and reliable electric service within the Franchise Area, subject to the following non-interference requirements. The City shall have prior and superior right to the use of its rights-of-way and public properties for installation and maintenance of its facilities and other governmental purposes. In the event the City, its agents or its contractors, perform grading, excavating, or other necessary road work contiguous to Grantee's facilities, the City shall give Grantee not less than 10 business days' notice of said work. The City hereby retains full power to make all changes, relocations, repairs, maintenance, establishments, improvements, dedications or vacation of same as the City may deem fit, including the dedication, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of all new rights-of-way, streets, avenues, thoroughfares and other public properties of every type and description. Any and all such removal or replacement shall be at the sole expense of the City. The owners of all utilities, public or private, installed in or on such public properties prior to the installation of the facilities of the Grantee, shall have preference as to the positioning and location of such utilities so installed with respect to the Grantee. Such preference shall continue in the event of the necessity of relocating or changing the grade of any such public properties. Grantee's facilities shall be constructed and maintained in such manner as not to interfere with any public use, or with any other wires, conduits or other facilities that may have been laid in the rights-of-way by or under the City's authority. If the work done under this franchise damages or interferes in any way with the public use or other facilities, the Grantee shall wholly and at its own expense make such provisions necessary to eliminate the interference or damage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Section 7. Construction Standards. All work authorized and required hereunder shall comply with all generally applicable City Codes and regulations. Grantee shall also comply with all applicable federal and state regulations, laws and practices. Grantee is responsible for the supervision, condition, and quality of the work done, whether it is by itself or by contractors, assigns or agencies. Application of said federal, state, and City Codes and regulations shall be for the purposes of fulfilling the City's public trustee role in administering the primary use and purpose of public properties, and not for relieving the Grantee of any duty, obligation, or responsibility for the competent design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its facilities. Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 3 of 13 DRAFT If Grantee shall at any time be required, or plan, to excavate trenches in any area covered by this franchise, the Grantee shall afford the City an opportunity to permit other franchisees and utilities to share such excavated trenches, provided that: (1) such joint use shall not unreasonably delay the work of the Grantee; and (2) such joint use shall not adversely affect Grantee's facilities or safety thereof. Joint users will be required to contribute to the costs of excavation and filling on a pro -rata basis. Section 8. Protection of Monuments. Grantee shall comply with applicable state laws relating to protection of monuments. Section 9. Tree Trimming All such pruning, trimming and removal shall be done by Grantee or its authorized contractors at the Grantee's sole cost and expense. State law requires electric utilities to comply with the National Electric Safety Code, including the guidance for the trimming or removal of vegetation interfering or potentially interfering with energized power lines. The right of Grantee to maintain its facilities and appurtenances under this franchise shall accordingly include the right, as exercised in Grantee's professional discretion, to utilize an integrated vegetation management program to minimize the likelihood that vegetation encroaching (either above or below the ground) on Grantee's facilities can lead to power outages and other threats to public safety and welfare. Grantee or its agents may inhibit the growth of, prune, or remove any trees and vegetation which overhangs or encroaches upon its electric transmission and distribution corridors within the franchise area, whether such trees or vegetation originate within or outside of the rights-of-way. Grantee shall consult with the City Parks Department prior to removing any tree in excess of six inch diameter at breast height. The parties agree to develop a pilot program under separate agreement that promotes the replacement of inappropriate vegetation that interferes with Grantee's facilities. Section 10. Emergency Response. The Grantee shall, within 30 days of the execution of this franchise, designate one or more responsible people and an emergency contact, along with the procedures to be followed when responding to an emergency. After being notified of an emergency, Grantee shall cooperate with the City to respond in a timely manner with action to aid in the protection the health and safety of the public. In the event the Grantee refuses to promptly take the directed action or fails to fully comply with such direction, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action to prevent imminent injury or damages to persons or property, the City may take such actions as it believes are necessary to protect persons or property and the Grantee shall be responsible to reimburse the City for its costs and any expenses. Section 11. One -Call System. Pursuant to RCW 19.122, Grantee is responsible for becoming familiar with, and understanding, the provisions of Washington's One -Call statutes. Grantee shall comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the One -Call statutes. Section 12. Safety. All of Grantee's facilities in the rights-of-way shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and operational condition. Grantee shall follow all safety codes and other applicable regulations in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the facilities. Section 13. Temporary Movement of Grantee's Facilities for Others. Whenever any third party shall have obtained permission from the City to use any right—of-way for the purpose of moving any building or other oversized structure, Grantee, upon at least 14 days' written notice from the City, shall move, at the expense of the third party desiring to move the building or structure, any of Grantee's facilities that may obstruct the movement thereof; provided, that the path for moving such building or structure is the path of least interference to Grantee's facilities, as mutually agreed upon by Grantee and the City. Upon Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 4 of 13 DRAFT good cause shown by Grantee, the City may provide more than 14 days' notice to Grantee to move its facilities. Section 14. Acquiring New Facilities. Upon Grantee's acquisition of any new facilities in the rights-of-way, or upon Grantee's notice of any addition or annexation to the City of any area in which Grantee retains any such facilities in the rights-of-way, the Grantee shall submit to the City a written statement with an electronic GIS map describing all facilities involved, whether authorized by franchise or any other form of prior right, and specifying the location of all such facilities. Such facilities shall immediately be subject to the terms of this franchise. Section 15. Dangerous Conditions - Authority of City to Abate. Whenever Grantee's excavation, installation, construction, repair, maintenance, or relocation of facilities authorized by this franchise has caused or contributed to a condition that substantially impairs the lateral support of the adjoining right-of-way, road, or other public place, or endangers the public, adjoining public or private property or street utilities, the City may direct Grantee, at Grantee's sole expense, to take all necessary actions to protect the public and property. The City may require that such action be completed within a prescribed time. In the event that Grantee fails or refuses to promptly take the actions directed by the City, or fails to fully comply with such directions, or if emergency conditions exist which require immediate action, the City may enter upon the property and take such actions as are necessary to protect the public, adjacent public or private property, or street utilities, or to maintain the lateral support thereof, and all other actions deemed by the City to be necessary to preserve the public safety and welfare; and Grantee shall be liable to the City for all costs and expenses thereof to the extent caused by Grantee. In the event the City were to undertake any actions contemplated by this Section 15, it would only hire third -party contractors previously approved by Grantee as having the experience and technical knowledge to safely perform such repairs for public safety purposes. Section 16. Hazardous Substances. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations and orders concerning hazardous substances relating to Grantee's facilities in the rights—of-way. Grantee agrees to indemnify the City against any claims, costs, and expenses, of any kind, whether direct or indirect, incurred by the City arising out of the release or threat of release of hazardous substances caused by Grantee's ownership or operation of its facilities within the City's rights- of-way. Section 17. Environmental. Grantee shall comply with all environmental protection laws, rules, recommendations, and regulations of the United States and the State of Washington, and their various subdivisions and agencies as they presently exist or may hereafter be enacted, promulgated, or amended, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages arising, or which may arise, or be caused by, or result from the failure of Grantee fully to comply with any such laws, rules, recommendations, or regulations, whether or not Grantee's acts or activities were intentional or unintentional. Grantee shall further indemnify the City against all losses, costs, and expenses (including legal expenses) which the City may incur as a result of the requirement of any government or governmental subdivision or agency to clean and/or remove any pollution caused or permitted by Grantee, whether said requirement is during the term of the franchise or subsequent to its termination. Section 18. Relocation of Facilities. Grantee agrees and covenants, at its sole cost and expense, to protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate, remove, or convert from overhead to underground any of its facilities when so required by the City, provided that Grantee shall in all such cases have the privilege to temporarily bypass, in the authorized portion of the same street upon approval by the City, any section of its facilities required to be temporarily disconnected or removed. The Parties agree Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 5 of 13 DRAFT that it may be appropriate at a later date to re -open this Agreement for the purpose of addressing undergrounding, including how it may be paid for. In order to invoke this provision, one party shall notify the other party at least 30 days prior to requesting a meeting on this topic. If the City determines that the project necessitates the relocation of Grantee's then -existing facilities, the City shall: a) At least 60 days prior to the commencement of such improvement project, provide Grantee with written notice requiring such relocation; and b) Provide Grantee with copies of the plans and specifications for such improvement project. c) After receipt of such notice and such plans and specifications, Grantee shall complete relocation of its facilities at no charge or expense to the City so as to accommodate the improvement project. Grantee may, after receipt of written notice requesting a relocation of its facilities, submit to the City written alternatives to such relocation. The City shall evaluate such alternatives and advise Grantee in writing if one or more of the alternatives are suitable to accommodate the work which would otherwise necessitate relocation of the facilities. If so requested by the City, Grantee shall submit additional information to assist the City in making such evaluation. The City shall give each alternative proposed by Grantee full and fair consideration. In the event the City ultimately determines that there is no other reasonable alternative, Grantee shall relocate its facilities as otherwise provided in this section. In the event the proposed relocation results in Avista being required to relocate outside of the right of way, City agrees to assist Avista in attempting to procure an easement or other rights. Additionally, if the City requires the subsequent relocation of any of Grantee's Facilities within five years from the date of relocation of such Facilities or installation of new Facilities, the City shall share one-half of the cost of such subsequent relocation. The provisions of this section shall in no manner preclude or restrict Grantee from making any arrangements it may deem appropriate when responding to a request for relocation of its facilities by any person or entity other than the City, where the facilities to be constructed by said person or entity are not or will not become City owned, operated or maintained facilities, provided that such arrangements do not unduly delay a City construction project. If the City or a contractor for the City is delayed at any time in the progress of the work by an act or neglect of the Grantee or those acting for or on behalf of Grantee, then Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorneys' fees to the extent arising out of or in connection with such delays, except for delays and damages caused by the City. This provision may not be waived by the parties except in writing. Section 19. Abandonment of Grantee's Facilities. No facility constructed or owned by Grantee may be abandoned without the express written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City has discretion and authority to direct Grantee to remove a facility abandoned by Grantee (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the rights-of-way to their pre- removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility and the location of Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 6 of 13 DRAFT the abandoned facility will impedes the progress of such project; (b) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; or (c) the facilities are owned by Grantee and have not been in continuous use for a 24 month period. Grantee may delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project in the rights-of-way unless (b) above applies. When (b) applies, Grantee shall remove the abandoned facility from the rights-of-way as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the rights-of-way that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. If Grantee fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the rights-of-way, and is entitled to reimbursement from Grantee for such costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 20. Maps and Records Required. Upon request, Grantee shall provide the City, at no cost to the City: 1. An electronic GIS route map that depicts the general location of the Grantee's facilities placed in the rights-of-way. The route map shall identify facilities as aerial or underground and is not required to depict service lines to individual subscribers and is not survey grade. Avista does not warrant the accuracy of such facility location information provided and, to the extent the location of facilities are shown, such facilities may be shown in their approximate location. 2. In connection with the construction of any City project, Grantee shall provide to the City, upon the City's reasonable request, copies of available drawings in use by Grantee showing the location of such facilities. Grantee shall field locate its facilities in order to facilitate design and planning of City improvement projects. 3. Upon written request of the City, Grantee shall provide the City with the most recent update available of any plan of potential improvements to its facilities within the franchise area; provided, however, any such plan so submitted shall be deemed confidential and for informational purposes only, and shall not obligate Grantee to undertake any specific improvements within the franchise area. 4. In addition to the requirements of subsection 1 of this section, the parties agree to periodically share GIS files upon written request, provided Grantee's GIS files are to be used solely by the City for governmental purposes. Any files provided to Grantee shall be restricted to information required for Grantee's engineering needs for construction or maintenance of facilities that are the subject of this franchise. Grantee and the City are prohibited from selling any GIS information obtained under this franchise to any third parties. 5. Public Disclosure Act. Grantee acknowledges that information submitted to the City may be subject to inspection and copying under the Washington Public Disclosure Act codified in RCW 42.56. Grantee shall mark as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" each page or portion thereof of any documentation/information which it submits to the City and which it believes is exempt from public inspection or copying. The City agrees to timely provide the Grantee with a copy of any public disclosure request to inspect or copy documentation/information which the Grantee has provided to the City and marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" prior to allowing any inspection and/or copying as well as provide the Grantee with a time frame, consistent with RCW 42.56.520, to provide the City with its written basis for non -disclosure of the requested documentation/information. In the event the City disagrees Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 7 of 13 DRAFT with the Grantee's basis for non -disclosure, the City agrees to withhold release of the requested documentation/information in dispute for a reasonable amount of time to allow Grantee an opportunity to file a legal action under RCW 42.56.540. Section 21. Limitation on Future Work. In the event that the City constructs a new street or reconstructs an existing street, the Grantee shall not be permitted to excavate such street except as set forth in the City's then -adopted regulations relating to street cuts and excavations. The City is a party to the Inland Northwest Regional Pavement Cut Policy, and shall maintain a copy of the currently adopted Policy on its website or similar broad means of dissemination. Section 22. Reservation of Rights by City. The City reserves the right to refuse any request for a permit to extend facilities. Any such refusal shall be supported by a written statement from the Public Works Director that extending the facilities, as proposed, would materially interfere with the public health, safety or welfare. Section 23. Remedies to Enforce Compliance. In addition to any other remedy provided herein, the City reserves the right to pursue any remedy to compel or force Grantee and/or its successors and assigns to comply with the terms hereof, and the pursuit of any right or remedy by the City shall not prevent the City from thereafter declaring a forfeiture or revocation for breach of the conditions herein. Section 24. City Ordinances and Regulations. Nothing herein shall be deemed to direct or restrict the City's ability to adopt and enforce all necessary and appropriate ordinances regulating the performance of the conditions of this franchise, including any reasonable ordinances made in the exercise of its police powers in the interest of public safety and for the welfare of the public. The City shall have the authority at all times to control by appropriate regulations the location, elevation, and manner of construction and maintenance of any facilities by Grantee, and Grantee shall promptly conform with all such regulations, unless compliance would cause Grantee to violate other requirements of law or the tariff. In the event of a conflict between the Municipal Code and this franchise, the Municipal Code shall control. Section 25. Vacation. The City may vacate any City road, right-of-way or other City property which is subject to rights granted by this franchise in accordance with state and local law. The City shall timely notify Avista of any proposed street vacations so that Avista may request the inclusion of an appropriate easement in the area to be vacated. Section 26. Indemnification. 1. Grantee hereby covenants not to bring suit and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from any and all claims, costs, judgments, awards or liability to any person arising from injury, sickness or death of any person or damage to property of any nature whatsoever relating to or arising out of this franchise agreement; except for injuries and damages caused solely by the negligence of the City. This includes but is not limited to injury: a) For which the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in performing the activities authorized by a franchise are a proximate cause; b) By virtue of the City permitting grantee's use of the City's rights -of -ways or other public property; Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 8 of 13 DRAFT c) Arising as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of Grantee, its agents, servants, officers or employees in barricading, instituting trench safety systems or providing other adequate warnings of any excavation, construction or work upon the facility, in any right-of-way, or other public place in performance of work or services permitted under a franchise. 2. Grantee's indemnification obligations pursuant to subsection 1 of this section shall include assuming liability for actions brought by Grantee's own employees and the employees of Grantee's agents, representatives, contractors and subcontractors even though grantee might be immune under RCW Title 51 from direct suit brought by such an employee. It is expressly agreed and understood that this assumption of potential liability for actions brought by the aforementioned employees is limited solely to claims against the City arising by virtue of Grantee's exercise of the rights set forth in a franchise. The obligations of Grantee under this subsection have been mutually negotiated by the parties, and Grantee acknowledges that the City would not enter into a franchise without Grantee's waiver. To the extent required to provide this indemnification and this indemnification only, Grantee waives its immunity under RCW Title 51. 3. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless Grantee and its officers, volunteers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of the City, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of the performance of this franchise. 4. If the comparative negligence of the parties and their officers, volunteers, agents, and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the Parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion. 5. Inspection or acceptance by the City of any work performed by Grantee at the time of completion of construction shall not be grounds for avoidance of any of these covenants of indemnification. Provided, that Grantee has been given prompt written notice by the City of any such claim, said indemnification obligations shall extend to claims which are not reduced to a suit and any claims which may be compromised prior to the culmination of any litigation or the institution of any litigation. The City has the right to defend or participate in the defense of any such claim. 6. In the event any matter (for which the City intends to assert its rights under this Section) is presented to or filed with the City, the City shall promptly notify Grantee thereof and Grantee shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to settle and compromise such matter as it pertains to Grantee's responsibility under this Section 26. In the event any suit or action is commenced against the City based upon any such matter, the City shall likewise promptly notify Grantee thereof, and Grantee shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to settle and compromise such suit or action, or defend the same at its sole cost and expense, by attorneys of its own election, as it pertains to Grantee's responsibility under this Section 26. Failure of the City to give notice as required herein shall not be a defense except and to the extent that Grantee demonstrates actual prejudice therefrom. 7. In the event that Grantee refuses the tender of defense in any suit or any claim, said tender having been made pursuant to this section, and said refusal is subsequently determined by a court having jurisdiction (or such other tribunal that the parties shall agree to decide the matter), to have been a wrongful refusal on the part of Grantee, then Grantee shall pay all of the City's costs for defense of the action, including all reasonable expert witness fees, reasonable attorneys' fees, the reasonable costs of the City, and reasonable attorneys' fees of recovering under this subsection. Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 9 of 13 DRAFT 8. Grantee's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City against liability for damages caused by the concurrent negligence of (a) City or City's agents, employees, or contractors, and (b) Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors, shall apply only to the extent of the negligence of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, or contractors. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction determines that a franchise is subject to the provisions of RCW 4.24.115, the parties agree that the indemnity provisions hereunder shall be deemed amended to conform to said statute and liability shall be allocated as provided herein. 9. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, Grantee assumes the risk of damage to its facilities located in the rights-of-way and upon City -owned property from activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee releases and waives any and all such claims against the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. Grantee further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City against any claims for damages, including, but not limited to, business interruption damages and lost profits, brought by or under users of Grantee's facilities as the result of any interruption of service due to damage or destruction of Grantee's facilities caused by or arising out of activities conducted by the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors, except to the extent any such damage or destruction is caused by or arises from the negligence or any willful or malicious actions on the part of the City, its officers, agents, employees or contractors. 10. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise. Section 27. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain for the duration of the franchise, insurance, or provide self-insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the exercise of the rights, privileges and authority granted hereunder to Grantee, its agents, representatives or employees. Applicant's maintenance of insurance as required by this franchise shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Grantee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall cover all owned, non -owned, hired or leased vehicles used in relation to this franchise. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage acceptable to the City, and shall cover products liability. The City shall be a named as an insured under the Applicant's Commercial General Liability insurance policy using ISO Additional Insured -State or Political Subdivisions -Permits CG 20 12 or a substitute endorsement acceptable to the City providing equivalent coverage. Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations; broad form property; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU); and Employer's Liability. Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 10 of 13 DRAFT The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Grantee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City as outlined in the Indemnification section of this franchise. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Grantee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Grantee's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled, except after 30 days prior written notice has been given to the City. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. Grantee shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Grantee prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies required herein shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. Section 28. Performance Bond Relating to Construction Activity. Before undertaking any of the work, installation, improvements, construction, repair, relocation or maintenance authorized by this franchise, Grantee, or any parties Grantee contracts with to perform labor in the performance of this franchise, shall, upon the request of the City, furnish a bond executed by Grantee or Grantee's contractors and a corporate surety authorized to operate a surety business in the State of Washington, in such sum as may be set and approved by the City, not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars, as sufficient to ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise. The bond shall be conditioned so that Grantee shall observe all the covenants, terms and conditions and shall faithfully perform all of the obligations of this franchise, and to repair or replace any defective work or materials discovered in the City's road, streets, or property. Said bond shall remain in effect for the life of this franchise. In the event Grantee proposes to construct a project for which the above-mentioned bond would not ensure performance of Grantee's obligations under this franchise, the City is entitled to require such larger bond as may be appropriate under the circumstances. Section 29. Modification. The City and Grantee hereby reserve the right to alter, amend or modify the terms and conditions of this franchise upon written agreement of both parties to such alteration, amendment or modification. Section 30. Forfeiture and Revocation. If Grantee willfully violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise, or through willful or unreasonable negligence fails to heed or comply with any notice given Grantee by the City under the provisions of this franchise, and an adequate opportunity to cure the violation or non-compliance has been given in writing to Grantee, then Grantee shall, at the election of the City, forfeit all rights conferred hereunder and this franchise may be revoked or annulled by the City after a hearing held upon reasonable notice to Grantee. The City may elect, in lieu of the above and without any prejudice to any of its other legal rights and remedies, to obtain an order from the Spokane County Superior Court compelling Grantee to comply with the provisions of this franchise and to recover damages and costs incurred by the City by reason of Grantee's failure to comply. Section 31. Assignment. This franchise may not be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the City, except that Grantee can assign this franchise without approval of, but upon notice to Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 11 of 13 DRAFT the City to, any parent, affiliate or subsidiary of Grantee or to any entity that acquires all or substantially all the assets or equity of Grantee, by merger, sale, consolidation or otherwise. Section 32. Acceptance. Not later than 60 days after passage of this Ordinance, the Grantee must accept the franchise herein by filing with the City Clerk an unconditional written acceptance thereof. Failure of Grantee to so accept this franchise within said period of time shall be deemed a rejection thereof by Grantee, and the rights and privileges herein granted shall, after the expiration of the 60 -day period, absolutely cease, unless the time period is extended by ordinance duly passed for that purpose. Section 33. Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of sections: 4, 5, 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 36, 37 and 38 of this franchise shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Grantee may have to the City at common law, by statute, by ordinance, or by contract, and shall survive termination of this franchise, and any renewals or extensions hereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations and requirements contained in this franchise shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of Grantee and City and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of Grantee shall inure to their respective heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned herein. Section 34. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should 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. In the event that any of the provisions of this Ordinance are held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to reconsider the grant of the franchise and may amend, repeal, add, replace or modify any other provision of the franchise, or may terminate the franchise. Section 35. Renewal. Application for extension or renewal of the term of this franchise shall be made no later than 180 days of the expiration thereof. In the event the time period granted by this franchise expires without being renewed by the City, the terms and conditions hereof shall continue in effect until this franchise is either renewed or terminated by the City. Section 36. Notice. Any notice or information required or permitted to be given by or to the parties under this franchise may be sent to the following addresses unless otherwise specified, in writing: The City: Grantee: City of Spokane Valley Attn: City Clerk 11707 East Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Avista Corporation Attn: Director of Operations 1411 East Mission Ave. MSC -46 Spokane, WA 99202 Phone: (509) 495-4590 Section 37. Choice of Law. Any litigation between the City and Grantee arising under or regarding this franchise shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Spokane County Superior Court, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Section 38. Non -Waiver. The City shall be vested with the power and authority to reasonably regulate the exercise of the privileges permitted by this franchise in the public interest. Grantee shall not Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 12 of 13 DRAFT be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this franchise by reason of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance, nor does the City waive or limit any of its rights under this franchise by reason of such failure or neglect. Section 39. Entire Agreement. This franchise constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to the subject matter herein and no other agreements or understandings, written or otherwise, shall be binding upon the parties upon execution and acceptance hereof. This franchise shall also supersede and cancel any previous right or claim of Grantee to occupy the City roads as herein described. Section 40. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of the Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2016. R.L. Higgins, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Accepted by Avista Corporation: By: The Grantee, Avista Corporation, for itself, and for its successors and assigns, does accept all of the terms and conditions of the foregoing franchise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, has signed this day of , 2016. Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 2016. Notary Public in and for the State of residing in My commission expires Ordinance 16-009, Avista Franchise Page 13 of 13 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 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: Bid Award Broadway Avenue St. Preservation Project, CIP 0233 Sullivan Rd to 200 Ft east of Moore Rd. 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. Info RCA provided by Staff on May 24, 2016. BACKGROUND: The Broadway Street Preservation project will place a two-inch asphalt overlay on Broadway Avenue from Sullivan Road to 200 feet east of Moore Road. The project includes upgrading of ADA compliant curb ramps; upgrading the Walmart Entrance signal and connection of the signal to the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) by installation of new conduit. This project is funded with City Street Preservation funds. Public Works staff designed the project. Bids were advertised on May 6th and were opened on Friday, May 20th. Two bids were received and the lowest responsible bidder was Inland Asphalt Company with a bid of $424,424.24. The bid is under the Engineer's Estimate and within the overall project budget of $550,000. A copy of the bid tabulation is attached. OPTIONS: 1) Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Broadway Street Preservation Project, CIP #0233 to Inland Asphalt Company as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in the amount of $424,424.24 and authorize the Acting City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total project budget is $550,000. Of the total, $50,000 will be paid out of Fund 302 for the ITS work and the remaining $500,000 will be funded from the Street Preservation Fund 311. There are sufficient funds in Funds 302 and 311 to cover the cost for this project. STAFF CONTACT: Craig Aldworth, PE- Sr. Project Engineer Steve M. Worley, PE — Capital Improvement Program Manager Eric Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation BID TABULATION Broadway Ave St Preservation Project CIP No. 0233 - Bid Opening Date 05/20/2016 Item 8 Units Quantity Engineers Estimate Inland A phalt Co. Shamrock Paving Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Base Bid Schedule A - 100 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 LS 546,000.00 LS 539,930.89 LS $50,404.50 101 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING L.S. 1 LS $2,000.00 LS $8,915.00 LS $12,000.00 102 MINOR CHANGE EST 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 EST $15,000.00 EST $15,000.00 103 SPCC PLAN L.S. 1 LS $500.00 LS $550.00 LS $1,000.00 104 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1 LS $40,000.00 L5 $32,000.00 LS $65,000.00 105 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN HR. 3360 53.00 510,080.00 $2.20 $7,392.00 $1.50 $5,040.00 106 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE MEDIAN CURB AND ISLAND S.Y. 20 $20.00 $400.00 $21.90 $438.00 $25.00 $500.00 107 REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 5.Y. 500 $7.00 $3,500.00 $21.90 510,950.00 $27.00 $13,500.00 108 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB L.F. 305 $10.00 $3,050.00 56.60 $2,013.00 $17.00 $5,185.00 109 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK / DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 200 $15.00 $3,000.00 $36.00 57,200.00 $15.00 $3,000.00 110 SAWCUT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF -IN 20000 $0.30 56,000.00 50.25 55,000.00 50.35 57,000.00 111 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 2IN. DEPTH S.Y. 86 $20.00 51,720.00 $21.00 51,806.00 $10.00 5860.00 112 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 4 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 200 $25.00 $5,000.00 $20.20 54,040.00 $20.00 $4,000.00 113 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE, 8 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 500 $30.00 515,000.00 525.65 $12,825.00 526.00 513,000.00 114 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, TAPER GRIND S.Y. 3274 55.00 $16,370.00 $2.50 $8,185.00 $2.50 $8,185.00 115 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, 3/8 IN. DEPTH S.Y. 6650 $2.00 $13,300.00 $1.55 $10,307.50 $2.00 $13,300.00 116 HMA CL. 1/2" PG 70-28 0.50 FT. DEPTH, PATCH S.Y. 500 $50.00 $25,000.00 $52.52 $26,260.00 $52.00 526,000.00 117 HMA CL. 1/2" PG 70-28 0.17 FT. DEPTH S.Y. 9833 $11.00 5108,163.00 $9.35 591,938.55 513.00 $127,829.00 118 JOINT ADHESIVE L.F. 1550 51.00 51,550.00 $1.65 $2,557.50 $2.00 53,100.00 119 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 120 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 51.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 121 SPILL CONTROL SEPARATOR RETROFIT EACH 1 $300.00 $300.00 $219.00 5219.00 51,500.00 51,500.00 122 EROSION CONTROL L.S. 1 LS 51,000.00 L5 $550.00 LS $1,500.00 123 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB L.F. 100 $25.00 $2,500.00 $20.75 $2,075.00 $21.00 $2,100.00 124 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 224 $35.00 $7,840.00 $28.10 $6,294.40 $28.00 $6,272.00 125 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 5.1. 96 $50.00 $4,800.00 $42.50 $4,080.00 $43.00 $4,128.00 126 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL A EACH 6 51,200.00 $7,200.00 51,765.00 510,590.00 51,800.00 $10,800.00 127 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL B EACH 2 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 $985.00 $1,970.00 $990.00 $1,980.00 128 CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB L.F. 164 $20.00 $3,280.00 $26.20 $4,296.80 $26.35 $4,321.40 129 RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND S.Y. 20 $60.00 51,200.00 $130.00 52,600.00 $128.00 $2,560.00 130 ADJUST EXISTING GAS VALVE EACH 2 5350.00 $700.00 $440.00 $880.00 $550.00 $1,100.00 131 ADJUST EXISTING CATCH BASIN OR DRYWELL EACH 4 $600.00 $2,400.00 $635.00 $2,540.00 $650.00 52,600.00 132 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE EACH 8 $350.00 $2,800.00 $635.00 55,080.00 $550.00 54,400.00 133 BARK MULCH S.Y. 33 $20.00 $660.00 522.00 $726.00 $25.00 $825.00 134 SOD INSTALLATION S.Y. 6 $20.00 $120.00 $66.00 5396.00 570.00 $420.00 135 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION EACH 9 $400.00 53,600.00 5495.00 54,455.00 5500.00 $4,500.00 136 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING - SHORT DURATION L.F. 10000 50.50 $5,000.00 $0.33 $3,300.00 50.35 $3,500.00 137 PLASTIC LINE -TYPE B L.F. 312 52.00 $624.00 $3.30 $1,029.60 53.30 51,029.60 138 PLASTIC LINE - TYPECI L.F. 4824 $4.00 $19,296.00 $1.60 $7,718.40 $1.60 57,718.40 139 PLASTIC WIDE LANE LINE -TYPE B L.F. 240 $6.00 $1,440.00 $6.40 51,536.00 $6.50 51,560.00 140 PLASTIC WIDE LANE LINE - TYPE C1 L.F. 2027 $6.00 $12,162.00 $3.30 $6,689.10 $3.30 $6,689.10 141 PLASTIC STOP LINE L.F. 70 $15.00 51,050.00 $13.15 $92050 514.00 $980.00 BID TABULATION Broadway Ave 5t Preservation Project CIP No. 0233 - Bid Opening Date 05/20/2016 _,. Item # Units Quantity Engineers Estimate Inland Asphalt Co. Shamrock Paving Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost X 142 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE ** S.F. 656 $10.00 $6,560.00 $9.00 $5,904.00 $9.00 $5,904.00 143 PLASTIC BICYCLE LANE SYMBOL EACH 4 $350.00 $1,400.00 $257.00 $1,028.00 $260.00 $1,040.00 144 PLASTIC SHARED LANE SYMBOL** EACH 10 $350.00 $3,500.00 $268.00 52,680.00 5270.00 52,700.00 145 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW EACH 6 5300.00 51,800.00 $257.00 51,542.00 $260.00 $1,560.00 146 BULLNOSE MARKER EACH 1 $400.00 5400.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 147 PERMANENT SIGNING L.S. 1 LS $2,000.00 LS 51,100.00 LS 51,100.00 148 CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY APPROACH * S.Y. 5 560.00 5300.00 5110.00 $550.00 5125.00 $625.00 149 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKING* S.F. 330 $5.00 $1,650.00 $2.20 $726.00 $3.00 $990.00 Total Sched A - 5413,617.00 $369,286.24 5458,808.00 Base Bid Schedule B - Traffic Improvements 200 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM MODIFICATION L.S. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 LS $2,900.00 LS $9,000.00 201 INDUCTION LOOP, TYPE 3 EACH 4 $700.00 $2,800.00 $864.00 $3,456.00 $600.00 $2,400.00 202 CONDUIT PIPE 2 IN. DIA. L.F. 1080 515.00 $16,200.00 $18.25 519,710.00 $17.00 518,360.00 203 ADJUST EXISTING JUNCTION BOX EACH 2 $100.00 $200.00 $164.00 $328.00 $200.00 $400.00 204 JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 2 EACH 4 $700.00 $2,800.00 $740.00 $2,960.00 $900.00 $3,600.00 205 JUNCTION BOX, TYPE 8 EACH 3 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 51,778.00 55,334.00 51,650.00 54,950.00 206 NON -INTRUSIVE VEHICLE DETECTION SENSOR SYSTEM L.S. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 L5 $20,450.00 LS 521,000.00 Total Sched B - $46,500.00 $55,138.00 559,710.00 TOTAL (All schedules) $460,117.00 $424,424.24 $518,518.00 *Addendum 1Change **Addendum 2 Change Bid Proposal Checklist Proposal Form Contractor's Administrative Information Bidder Qualification Statement Bid Deposit Form Bid Deposit Surety Form Representations and Certifications X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 2016 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Per RCW 36.70A.130(1), every county and city in the state is required to conduct an update of its comprehensive plan and development regulations every 8 years. The City of Spokane Valley's update is due no later than June 30, 2017. Staff and the consultants are continuing to develop the Draft Comprehensive Plan. On May 3, 2016, staff conducted a joint workshop with the Council and Commission. The workshop consisted of interactive exercises allowing for feedback from Council and the Commission. The information collected has been compiled. Tonight, staff is looking for feedback from Council on the workshop results to provide direction to City staff and the consultant team on the development of the land use alternatives and the goals and policies. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation; Goals and policies activity results; Land use options activity results Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update Workshop Feedback Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Project Status ■ Debrief May workshop ■ Finalize policy framework ■ Finalize land use map ■ Complete Comp Plan Chapter ■ Develop regulations Spokane _Valley 2 Land Use Options Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 3 Districts Summary ■ District concepts received moderate support ■ Significant differences of opinion existed ■ City Hall & Medical district received high levels of support ■ Participants noted district concepts should remove barriers not increase regulation ■ 25% of participants used write-in space to suggest the use of overlays PROPOSAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MIN MAX MEAN AVG. DEV. •L 4-' Industrial Improvement District Waterfront District City Hall District Auto Row District Medical District Stadium District 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 2 5 3 4 4 4 2 5 5 2 1 3 3 4 2 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 2 3 2 5 4 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 3.08 2.92 3.42 2.58 3.17 2.75 1.57 1.60 1.68 1.35 1.50 1.42 Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update Corridors Summary ■ Corridor concepts received the highest levels of support ■ Changing mixed-use designations along Trent received high levels of support ■ Consolidate 0 and GO designations received very high levels of support PROPOSAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MIN MAX MEAN AVG. DEV. Change CMU Along Trent 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 4 5 3 5 4.60 0.56 Consolidate 0 and GO 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.73 0.40 Open Spaces - Appleway Trail 5 4 3 4 4 5 3 5 5 3 5 1 1 5 3.92 0.94 Change Office to Mixed -Use 5 5 4 1 3 4 4 5 4 5 1 1 5 3.73 1.12 Change MUC Along Trent 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 4.80 0.32 Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 5 Neighborhoods Summary ■ Significant differences in opinions, especially on issues of residential density ■ Expanding NC & creating new NC received substantial support ■ 42% of participants used write-in spaces to indicate support for the inclusion of tiny homes or cottages in appropriate neighborhood designations PROPOSAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MIN MAX MEAN AVG. DEV. Convert some MDR to LDR Convert some MDR to HDR Retain and Revise MDR Consolidate and Revise R-3 and R-4 Expand existing NC Designation Designate new NC area 1 2 1 4 5 2 3 3 3 3 2 5 4 5 2 4 5 5 5 5 3 1 3 5 4 2 1 4 4 1 2 5 3 5 3 4 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 2 4 5 3 5 5 1 5 3.09 1 5 5 1 5 3.55 5 3 1 5 4.00 3 4 5 1 5 3.18 5 2 5 5 2 5 4.00 5 1 5 5 1 5 4.00 1.21 1.22 1.20 1.26 0.91 0.91 Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 6 Residential Development Post Incorporation ■ Low Density Residential (LDR) = not to exceed 6 units/acre ■ Current implementing zoning classifications • R1 = 40,000 sq. ft. min lot size • R2 = 10,000 sq. ft. min lot size • R3 = 7,500 sq. ft. min lot size • R4 = 6,000 sq. ft. min lot size ■ Rezones within LDR • 67 approved • 1 denied (criteria changed for subsequent rezones) • UR -3.5 to UR -7 (57 approved) • R2 to R3/R4 (None) • R3 to R4 (10 approved ) Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 7 Goals and Policies Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 8 Land Use Element Summary ■ The participants provided moderate support, with little disagreement, for the goals and policies in the Land Use Element ■ Highest support for: • Goal: maintain and enhance the character and quality of life • Goal: provide for a mix of land uses to Spokane Valley residents, employees & visitors • Goal: ensure efficient regulations and review processes • Policy: promote a variety of housing types ■ Lowest support for: • Policy: Provide incentives for building energy performance and/or renewable energy • Policy: support water -saving techniques with new development Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 9 Economic Development Element Summary ■ Of all elements presented, the participants provided the highest support for the goals and policies in the Economic Development Element ■ Highest support for: • Goal: improve economic vitality and provide opportunities for all residents • Goal: support business and employment growth • Policy: ensure the development review and permitting process is efficient, predictable and flexible ■ Lowest support for: • Policy: encourage new development that enhances the City's image, neighborhoods and business districts Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 10 Transportation Element Summary ■ The participants provided moderate support, with little disagreement, for the goals and policies in the Transportation Element ■ Highest support for: • Goal: provide for safe and efficient freight mobility • Goal: ensure that the transportation system is designed to preserve and enhance community character ■ Lowest support for: • Policy: provide current and easily accessible information about the bicycle and pedestrian networks, programs and facilities Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 11 Housing Element Summary ■ Of all elements presented, the participants provided the lowest support for the goals and policies in the Housing Element ■ Highest support for: • Goal: provide a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of all members of the community ■ Lowest support for: • Policy: pursue incentives and mechanisms to encourage affordable housing units, such as the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program, density bonuses, expedited permitting and reduced parking requirements • Policy: evaluate surplus city land for use for affordable housing Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 12 Parks ik Recreation Element Summary ■ Participants disagreed the most about the goals and policies in this Element, while providing moderate support for the goals and policies ■ Highest support for: • Policy: implement innovative strategies for park maintenance, park safety, and park accessibility to reduce operating costs • Policy: parks shall be designed and located to provide ease of access for pedestrians, bicycles, autos and public transit ■ Lowest support for: • Policy: provide incentives for the use of art in private development • Policy: develop design guidelines to promote common open space, public art, and plazas in new development Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 13 Capital Facilities Element Summary ■ The participants provided high support, with little disagreement, for the goals and policies in the Capital Facilities Element ■ Highest support for: • Goal: ensure efficient and cost effective public safety and emergency services • Policy: seek a balance between the quality and cost of providing public facilities and services ■ Lowest support for: • Policy: encourage public and private efforts to conserve water and to provide public education regarding the safe and appropriate use of the waste treatment system • Policy: encourage use of less water -intensive, native vegetation Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 14 Utilities Element Summary ■ The participants provided high support, with little disagreement, for the goals and policies in the Utilities Element ■ Highest support for: • Policy: promote the undergrounding of utility distribution lines in new development ■ Lowest support for: • Policy: promote the incorporation of utilities in greenbelts, and open space within common corridors Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 15 Spokane _Valley Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update 16 SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary G / P GOAL OR POLICY PROPOSAL 3 G Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley's neighborhoods. 6 III Provide for a balanced mix of land uses essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees and visitors. 9 10 Promote neighborhood -scale commercial uses in residential areas. 12 4 Preserve site characteristics that enhance residential development (trees, bodies of water, vistas, and similar features). 4 5 Promote common open spaces in residential development to foster a stronger sense of community character. 5 5 Ensure compatibility between adjacent residential and commercial uses by regulating height, scale, setbacks and buffers. 5 MrPromote III community gardens in residential areas to enhance community character. 5 5 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. 4 ii. Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections and circulation serving residential neighborhoods. 3 5 Transform commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas into vital, attractive, accessible districts that enhance community character and create economic vitality. 5 5 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 5 2 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 5 2 1 1 4 5 4 3 1 1 4 4 5 5 3 5 3 5 4 2 1 1 4 2 5 3 4 5 4 5 5 4 1 5 3 5 4 4 3 5 2 5 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4 3 5 3 4 4 4 5 1 1 3 4 4 4 2 1 3 1 5 3 1 5 5 5 4 4 1 1 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 4 4 MIN MAX MEAN AVG. DEV. 3 5 4.7 0.5 2 5 4.3 0.9 2 5 3.8 0.8 1 5 3.2 1.5 1 5 3.2 1.2 1 5 4.1 0.8 1 5 2.6 1.0 2 5 3.7 0.7 1 5 2.7 1.2 1 5 3.6 1.4 3 5 4.3 0.7 1 I— Z W 5 Expand allowable uses and development types on commercial, industrial and mixed-use land. wEncourage w W H 0 4 freight intensive operations to locate along designated truck routes and intermodal terminals. Z Z 5 Discourage incompatible land uses and residential densities along rail corridors. 2 5 3 3 5 Support the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites to return the land to productive commercial and industrial use. 5 3 P Discourage the conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses. 1 5 P Plan capital facility expenditures to facilitate the development of lands designated for industrial uses. 4 5 P Incentivize residential mixed-use development. 3 3 P Promote a variety of housing types. 3 5 P Encourage development in commercial and mixed-use zones by reducing parking requirements. 4 4 P Use development agreements as a tool to address potentially large impacts. 5 P Maximize the density of development along major transit corridors and near transit centers. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 2 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 2 4 3 3 5 4 5 3 5 1 1 5 3 3 4 5 1 4 3 3 4 1 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 5 5 1 5 3 5 3 5 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 5 3 4 3 5 5 2 5 4 3 5 3 5 2 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 1 1 5 2 2 2 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 3 5 4 5 2 4 5 4 3 3 5 5 5 5 1 4 2 3 4 5 4 5 2 1 1 4 5 3 4 5 4 3 4 5 5 1 4 3 5 3 2 2 5 4.1 0.9 1 5 3.4 1.1 1 5 3.4 1.0 1 5 4.2 1.0 1 5 2.7 1.4 2 5 3.8 1.0 1 5 3.1 1.4 2 5 4.3 0.8 1 5 3.8 1.1 1 5 3.4 1.2 1 5 3.8 0.9 Incentivize residents and businesses to improve building energy performance and/or incorporate onsite renewable energy. Create an integrated open space network that defines and enhances the built and natural environment. Support opportunities for new development to incorporate low impact development techniques. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 1 Improve economic vitality and provide opportunities for all residents. 4 5 Support business and employment growth. 5 Create a city brand and image that supports economic growth and leverages existing community, economic and natural assets. 1 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability. 1 2 Collaborate with other economic development organizations and the business community to grow a strong and healthy regional economy. 4 Encourage new development that enhances the City's image, neighborhoods and business districts. 3 5 4 3 1 1 2 SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 1 1 4 5 3 5 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 3 5 4 3 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 4 1 3 1 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 5 4 3 5 1 5 3 5 2 4 1 3 5 3 3 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 1 4 5 4 2 2 5 3 5 4 1 1 4 4 3 4 1 1 5 4 5 4 3 1 5 2.3 1.3 1 5 2.5 1.3 1 5 2.3 1.3 3 5 4.6 0.6 3 5 4.6 0.6 1 5 3.9 1.1 1 5 3.6 1.1 1 5 3.6 1.2 1 5 3.1 1.4 SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 4 1 5 Identify and encourage business and employment growth in new and innovative industries and occupations. 4 3 Encourage businesses that are sustainable providers of jobs and grow local markets. 1 3 Promote key retail, office and industrial opportunity sites, as identified in the City's economic development studies and other planning documents. 4 4 Promote Spokane Valley as a great place to work, visit and do business. 3 5 I— Z W 4 Promote development/redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. 2 J W Z W 2 a 0 W U.1 0 u 2 0 Z Q w 1 Develop and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. 5 Encourage the creation and retention of home-based businesses that are consistent with neighborhood character. 3 Leverage federal, state, and regional economic development resources and programs for city economic development purposes. 4 1 5 4 4 3 3 1 3 5 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 1 5 5 3 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 1 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 1 5 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 3 2 5 4 5 4 5 1 1 3 3 5 4 4 1 5 3.5 0.9 1 5 3.8 0.9 1 5 3.5 1.2 3 5 4.4 0.7 1 5 4.2 0.8 1 5 4.3 0.9 3 5 4.4 0.7 1 5 3.5 1.3 SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 4 5 Leverage community assets (e.g. trails, natural amenities and facilities) to grow the local economy. 5 4 Collaborate with businesses, organizations, and the community to organize and promote events and festivals that attract visitors throughout the region. 5 5 Pursue opportunities for creating public-private partnerships that will advance the City's economic development goals. 3 5 Develop and maintain a strong labor force that is globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace. 4 5 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability and clear direction. 5 5 Use technology solutions to improve assistance to businesses. 5 5 Coordinate with local educational institutions to develop educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. 4 5 Coordinate with local educational institutions to develop educational and training programs that meet the needs of businesses. 4 5 2 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 4 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 5 4.3 5 4 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 2 3 1 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 3 5 5 5 2 4 3 5 4 5 3 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 3 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 4.3 0.9 3 5 4.3 0.8 3 5 4.3 0.8 1 5 3.7 1.2 3 5 4.5 0.6 2 5 4.0 0.9 3 5 4.3 0.8 3 5 4.6 0.6 Engage local businesses to understand their needs and leverage their strengths and assets. Provide a positive, accessible and customer -oriented atmosphere to those seeking municipal services. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 4 Ensure that the transportation system is designed to 4 preserve and enhance community character. 2 Consistent with the State's `Target Zero" safety campaign, strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero by 2030. 1 Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential adverse impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting and construction phases. 5 5 5 Consider aesthetics, beautification and safety in designing and locating transportation facilities. 5 Promote landscaping and beautification along all streets. 3 Restrict high-speed traffic from residential neighborhoods and utilize traffic calming strategies to reduce vehicular speeds where appropriate. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 4 5 4 1 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 2 5 4 5 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 5 3 5 3 5 5 1 3 1 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 5 5 3 4 3 4 4 1 1 2 3 4 3 5 1 4 4 4 2 3 1 1 4 4 3 5 1 3 3 4 2 2 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 6 1 5 3.8 1.3 3 5 4.5 0.7 2 5 4.2 0.7 1 5 3.6 1.2 3 5 4.0 0.5 1 5 2.8 1.2 1 5 2.8 1.1 1 5 3.6 1.3 Where possible, street plans and designs shall provide for connectivity between residential neighborhoods and collectors/arterials. Develop connected transportation/circulation plans for areas experiencing new development to facilitate trips by walking and biking. Increase multimodal connectivity through public improvements, development incentives and supportive regulations. Provide current and easily accessible information about the bicycle and pedestrian networks, programs and facilities. Coordinate with regional jurisdictions, area schools, and health providers on transportation safety education. Leverage community assets (e.g. trails, natural amenities and facilities) to grow the local economy. Maintain quality street, sidewalk and shared use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. Provide a connected multimodal network that supports the City's planned land use pattern and promotes economic vitality. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 2 5 4 3 4 4 5 3 4 3 5 3 1 5 4 3 4 5 1 3 2 1 5 3 2 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 5 2 3 3 3 1 4 5 1 5 5 3 2 2 4 5 3 4 3 5 1 2 5 4 4 3 3 5 4 5 4 5 1 5 5 3 5 3 1 1 3 5 4 2 1 1 3 3 5 2 7 2 5 3.8 0.8 1 5 3.1 1.3 1 4 2.2 0.9 1 5 1.8 0.8 1 5 3.1 1.1 1 5 3.6 1.0 1 5 4.0 1.0 1 5 2.6 1.3 Provide for safe and efficient freight mobility. Develop a city-wide trail system that provides improved access and linkages between Spokane Valley's commercial/industrial/mixed-use areas, ApplewayTrail, Centennial Trail, residential neighborhoods and community amenities. Allow narrower public street sections that are economically viable for infill development, meet transportation, emergency access and pedestrian needs while reducing stormwater impacts. Designate appropriate freight corridors to ensure that streets/intersections are designed to safely accommodate trucks and other modes. In major commercial/industrial areas, provide redundant truck routes to minimize the effects of congestion and provide alternate routes. Provide a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of all members of the community. Enable a supply of affordable housing for all income levels. Establish building rehabilitation and preservation programs and incentives to conserve and upgrade existing residential properties and buildings. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 4 5 3 5 4 3 5 5 5 4 5 3 1 3 3 5 4 4 5 1 4 1 5 2 4 1 1 3 3 5 5 2 3 2 3 1 4 3 5 4 5 5 1 4 3 4 3 3 5 4 5 2 4 5 2 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 3 2 5 5 1 5 2 5 3 2 1 4 1 2 5 1 3 3 3 5 3 8 3 5 4.3 0.8 1 5 3.2 1.3 1 5 2.9 1.0 1 5 3.7 0.9 2 5 3.9 0.9 4 5 4.7 0.4 1 5 3.7 1.3 1 5 2.8 1.1 SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 1 1 Balance the cost of constructing housing with regulations to improve housing quality and design. 1 2 Integrate new development that complements existing neighborhoods, and provides effective transitions between different uses and intensities. 1 5 3 3 Expand housing choices in all neighborhoods by encouraging new and innovative housing types including small units, accessory dwelling units, pre -fabricated homes, co -housing, cottage housing. 3 3 3 Pursue incentives and mechanisms to encourage affordable housing units, such as the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program, density bonuses, expedited permitting and reduced parking requirements. 4 5 4 Evaluate surplus city land for use for affordable housing. 5 4 3 5 3 5 Promote safe, healthy and attractive housing that provides convenient access to jobs and to goods and services that meet daily needs. 4 2 1 Consider land use incentives (e.g. density bonuses, lot size reductions, height bonuses, fee waivers, accelerated permitting, parking requirement reductions) in appropriate locations to facilitate the development of new housing. 5 1 Promote homeownership by establishing development regulations that allow for different housing types. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 1 1 3 1 2 5 1 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 5 4 1 5 4 3 5 3 5 5 4 2 1 5 5 1 2 4 3 1 4 3 3 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 4 1 3 3 4 2 2 4 1 1 3 3 1 2 4 3 3 2 5 1 1 5 4 5 3 4 1 4 3 2 5 1 1 5 2 2 2 4 5 4 3 4 5 1 3 2 3 3 3 9 1 5 2.8 1.3 1 5 3.7 0.9 1 5 3.2 1.5 1 4 2.3 1.1 1 4 2.4 0.9 1 5 3.3 1.2 1 5 2.7 1.3 1 5 3.3 0.9 Recognize the important role housing plays in social services and coordinate with human service providers assisting individuals and families. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 5 Develop and maintain a diverse and accessible park, recreation, trail and open space system that enhances community character. 4 Promote the expansion of art within the community. 2 Support development of facilities for performing arts and community events. 1 Acquire land for the development of parks or the preservation of open space within the City's boundaries and adjacent UGAs. 3 Using the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, periodically assess recreational facilities to identify potential gaps and improvements. 2 Implement innovative strategies for park maintenance, park safety, and park accessibility to reduce operating costs. 5 Parks shall be designed and located to provide ease of access for pedestrians, bicycles, autos and public transit. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 5 3 4 3 2 5 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 1 2 4 4 3 5 1 5 1 5 1 3 3 2 4 4 3 5 1 5 2 4 2 4 5 3 4 4 4 5 1 4 3 5 2 3 5 3 4 2 4 5 3 5 3 5 3 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 10 1 5 3.1 0.8 2 5 4.0 0.7 1 5 3.3 1.5 1 5 3.2 1.0 1 5 3.7 0.9 2 5 3.8 0.9 3 5 4.2 0.7 3 5 4.2 0.7 Seek grants, private land donations, and other funding sources for land acquisition and recreational facilities development. Identify and protect regional open space lands, natural areas and corridors of environmental, recreational and aesthetic significance to form a functionally and physically connected system that supports recreational uses. Promote the incorporation of parks, open space, trails and bikeways in new development. Identify public art opportunities that highlight the cultural and historical connections. Promote a stronger sense of community character through the use of art in public places. Provide incentives for the use of art in private development. Develop design guidelines to promote common open space, public art, and plazas in new development. Partner with public and private entities to encourage, sponsor and support a range of public activities and special events within appropriate open spaces. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 3 5 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 1 4 5 4 4 1 1 4 2 5 3 4 1 3 5 4 3 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 2 2 5 4 3 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 2 1 4 3 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 4 4 3 1 1 4 2 3 1 4 5 2 4 4 3 5 3 5 3 5 2 11 2 5 3.9 0.8 1 5 3.1 0.8 1 5 3.1 1.3 1 5 3.2 1 5 3.2 1 4 2.2 1.2 1 4 2.4 1.1 2 5 3.8 1.0 Identify opportunities to transform vacant land located in neighborhoods into pocket parks. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 4 5 Coordinate with special districts, other jurisdictions, and the private sector to effectively provide facilities and services. 5 5 4 Provide public facilities and services necessary to promote Spokane Valley's economic development goals and community priorities. 1 Provide public facilities and services necessary to promote Spokane Valley's economic development goals and community priorities. 4 5 3 3 5 Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources. 4 4 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 4 5 Seek a balance between the quality and cost of providing public facilities and services. 5 5 5 5 5 5 Optimize the use of existing public facilities and promote compact urban growth. 5 4 4 5 Coordinate the construction of public infrastructure with private development to minimize costs. 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 4 5 2 5 5 4 5 1 5 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 4 4 1 3 5 3 5 3 3 5 3 4 4 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 2 2 4 5 3 5 5 5 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 3 3 12 1 5 4.0 1.0 1 5 3.7 0.9 2 5 3.8 0.8 4 5 4.7 0.4 3 5 4.5 0.6 4 5 4.7 0.4 1 5 3.2 1.4 2 5 3.8 1.2 Require adequate emergency vehicle road access and water supply/pressure for new development within the City. Encourage property owners to take active steps toward reducing fire risk, especially in forested areas. Facilities and services shall meet minimum Level of Service standards. Maintain a comprehensive emergency management plan that meets the needs of the City and coordinates with regional emergency planning efforts. Coordinate sewer planning with appropriate jurisdictions. Support continued planning for domestic water needs in partnership with water purveyors, the Joint Aquifer Board, Washington State Department of Health and the Washington State Department of Ecology. Encourage public and private efforts to conserve water and to provide public education regarding the safe and appropriate use of the waste treatment system. Require new development to connect to public sewer and water. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 5 4 1 1 3 5 4 3 1 1 4 4 5 4 3 1 5 5 1 3 5 1 4 3 5 4 1 5 5 5 4 4 5 1 5 3 5 4 3 5 2 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 4 3 1 4 1 4 3 1 2 4 3 4 3 3 2 5 5 3 5 1 5 4 3 5 4 13 3 5 4.3 0.8 1 5 3.0 1.3 1 5 3.3 1.3 1 5 3.9 1.1 2 5 4.3 0.8 3 5 4.4 0.6 1 4 2.8 1.0 1 5 3.8 1.1 SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 3 1 Encourage use of less water -intensive, native vegetation. 3 4 5 1 1 Establish a City Hall recycling program, reduce waste at City -sponsored events, and provide educational information on the City website to present a positive example of civic and environmental responsibility. 1 4 2 Provide links to reduction, re -use and recycling information on the City web site. 4 1 Encourage the recycling of construction site waste. 4 5 Require stormwater management systems for new development, including the multiple use of facilities, such as integration of stormwater facilities with recreation and/or open space areas, when possible. 1 3 Consider the adequacy of school facilities when reviewing new residential development. 4 2 The City shall coordinate with school districts in their planning processes. 4 Coordinate with school districts to use school facilities as community centers where appropriate. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 3 1 4 3 4 5 1 1 4 1 4 2 3 4 1 3 4 5 5 1 3 2 4 2 4 4 3 3 4 5 1 2 4 2 5 3 4 4 3 3 2 5 1 3 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 1 3 4 2 5 3 3 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 3 5 4 4 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 3 4 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 3 14 1 5 2.8 1.3 1 5 3.1 1.1 1 5 3.3 1.0 1 5 3.3 0.9 1 5 3.4 0.9 3 5 4.2 0.8 3 5 4.3 0.7 3 5 4.2 0.7 Coordinate with utility providers to balance cost- effectiveness with environmental protection, aesthetic impact, public safety, and public health. Promote compatible incorporation of utilities, greenbelts, and open space within common corridors. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 4 5 For all projects and programs, the City shall evaluate a variety of capital funding sources including, but not limited to, grants, local improvement district developer impact fees. 5 4 Plan and coordinate the location of public facilities and utilities in the potential annexation areas. 5 3 5 3 5 Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions in developing capital improvement programs. 4 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 Work with the Spokane County Library District to provide efficient and cost effective library services. 1 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 Collaborate with all Spokane County jurisdictions in determining the best locations for public and private essential public facilities. 5 3 2 Anticipate infrastructure systems and prioritize public investments necessary to support catalytic economic development and redevelopment projects. 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 Coordinate with utility providers to balance cost- effectiveness with environmental protection, aesthetic impact, public safety, and public health. Promote compatible incorporation of utilities, greenbelts, and open space within common corridors. SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 4 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 1 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 2 4 3 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 1 3 5 4 5 2 3 5 4.3 0.8 4 4 5 0.8 5 5 5 1.0 1 1 4 5 4 4 1 5 3 3 5 3 15 3 5 4.3 0.8 3 5 4.3 0.8 1 5 4.2 1.0 2 5 3.8 0.9 3 5 4.3 0.8 1 5 3.5 1.1 3 5 4.3 0.7 1 5 3.3 1.3 SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary Promote the co -location of new utility transmission, distribution and communication facilities when consistent with industry practices, Department of Transportation requirements, and building and electrical codes. Promote the development of city-wide communication networks using the most advanced technology available. Promote the undergrounding of utility distribution lines in new development. Prevent obstructions to regional utility corridors. Require the placement of cellular facilities, substations and antennas in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on adjacent land uses and utilizes existing structures. Coordinate with utility providers to ensure that sizing, locating and phasing of utility systems are appropriate for planned growth. Participate in regular updates of the Regional Utility Corridor Plan. Encourage the construction and maintenance of utility, communications and technology infrastructure that will help attract business and industry. 2 4 4 4 3 1 4 1 3 4 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3.4 3.6 4.5 4.0 3.8 4.3 4.1 4.4 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 16 SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Goals and Policies Feedback Summary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LAND USE ELEMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT HOUSING ELEMENT PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT UTILITIES ELEMENT 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.4 3.8 3.8 2.8 2.3 4.1 2.8 4.1 3.1 4.2 4.5 3.9 4.7 3.7 4.2 3.7 3.3 4.9 3.7 4.5 3.5 2.7 3.6 3.0 3.8 3.6 4.0 3.5 2.4 3.6 2.7 4.2 2.7 3.8 3.2 3.7 2.7 2.5 4.8 2.0 2.5 3.5 2.9 3.8 2.6 3.7 3.5 2.7 4.3 3.9 3.8 4.0 1.7 4.8 2.4 4.4 2.2 3.2 3.5 3.7 4.5 3.9 4.5 3.7 3.4 4.4 3.1 4.7 3.3 2.9 3.3 4.0 5.0 4.1 4.6 3.0 4.6 4.5 3.8 4.7 2.9 3.4 3.7 3.5 4.2 3.7 4.2 3.3 2.8 4.3 3.0 4.4 3.0 3.5 0.5 4.1 - 0.4 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.9 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 17 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update City Council and Planning Commission Workshop Land Use Scenario Feedback Summary PROPOSAL 11 12 MIN MAX MEAN AVG. DEV. Industrial Improvement District Waterfront District City Hall District Auto Row District 5 4 4 2 4 5 4 5 1 1 1 1 4 5 4 1 5 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 4 5 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 3.08 1.57 1 5 2.92 1.60 1 5 3.42 1.68 1 5 2.58 1.35 Medical District 4 5 5 4 3 5 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 3.17 1.50 Stadium District 3 3 5 2 4 5 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 2.75 1.42 Change CMU Along Trent Consolidate 0 and GO Open Spaces - Appleway Trail Change Office to Mixed -Use Change MUC Along Trent Convert some MDR to LDR Convert some MDR to HDR Retain and Revise MDR Consolidate R-3 and R-4 Expand existing NC Designation Designate new NC area 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 3 5 5 3 5 1 5 5 4 1 3 4 4 5 4 5 1 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 1 2 1 4 5 2 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 2 5 4 5 2 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 3 5 5 3 4 2 1 4 4 1 2 5 3 4 5 3 5 3 4 3 4 5 5 2 5 5 4 5 4 4 2 4 5 5 1 5 5 3 4 1 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.60 4.73 3.92 3.73 4.80 0.56 0.40 0.94 1.12 0.32 1 5 3.09 1.21 1 5 3.55 1.22 1 5 4.00 1.20 1 5 3.18 1.26 2 5 4.00 0.91 1 5 4.00 0.91 1 Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action June 7, 2016 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed Marijuana Regulation Amendments GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); RCW 69.51A; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses on December 9, 2014, and further extended it on December 1, 2015. City Council adopted a moratorium on licensed marijuana uses on October 6, 2015. City Council adopted regulations regarding zoning and buffering restrictions on licensed recreational marijuana on July 22, 2014. City staff provided numerous updates in 2015 on the 2015 State Legislative amendments to marijuana laws. BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of developing comprehensive local marijuana regulations, as required pursuant to moratoriums on unlicensed and licensed marijuana adopted pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 14-021, 15-017 and 15-023. The moratoriums were adopted to allow the City to contemplate and respond to extensive State Legislative amendments in 2015 that reconciled recreational and medical marijuana laws. Those 2015 State Legislative changes and the rules being proposed and considered by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) and Washington Department of Health (DOH) are described in detail in the staff report, which is attached to this RCA. However, generally, the 2015 Legislative changes eliminate the unlicensed medical marijuana shops and create a single system of licensed marijuana production, processing, and retail stores. Retail stores may apply for and obtain a "medical marijuana endorsement" that allows them to sell "compliant marijuana" to qualified patients and designated providers in greater amounts than recreational marijuana and with an exemption from State and local sales taxes and the marijuana excise tax. The term "compliant marijuana" was developed by the DOH for those types of marijuana that may help alleviate medical symptoms in patients. However, since there has not been sufficient medical research on the medical benefits of marijuana at this time, the DOH has determined it could not call such marijuana "medical marijuana." Notably, anyone may purchase most types of compliant marijuana, but non -patients do not receive the tax exemption like qualified patients. Further, as part of the 2015 Legislation, the State increased the number of marijuana retail stores to be able to meet the demands of the medical marijuana market. Preliminarily, the WSLCB provided no increase in the number of stores within the City due to our ongoing moratorium. However, if the City were to allow additional marijuana retail stores, the number would likely increase from the three existing stores to six total retail stores. All currently unlicensed medical marijuana stores must close or obtain a license from the WSLCB by July 1, 2016. The City currently has three licensed retail stores, 21 licensed producers, and 25 licensed processors. The Planning Commission has been working since October 2015 to develop a proposal in response to the 2015 Legislative changes. The Planning Commission conducted an extensive number of meetings to take extensive public and expert input before developing and considering the proposed marijuana regulation amendments. Initially, On October 22, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a background study session on the 2015 State Legislative amendments. As part of the session, staff provided an update on the 2015 Legislative changes, background on the City's prior marijuana regulations, and the options available for the Planning Commission to develop marijuana regulation amendments. Those options ranged from leaving the existing regulations as they were (zoning and buffering for licensed marijuana retail, marijuana production, and marijuana processing), to adopting additional buffers between marijuana stores, to adopting a full ban on all new marijuana uses. On November 12, 2015, the Planning Commission took public comment to assist with the development of marijuana amendments. The Planning Commission requested input from the Police, Fire Department, and School Districts, and on December 10, 2015, the Planning Commission received testimony from the Spokane Valley Police and Spokane Valley Fire on the impacts that each respective department had seen with the legalization of marijuana. Further, Central Valley School District provided a written statement regarding impacts it had seen within the school system. As part of that December 10, 2015, meeting, the Planning Commission deliberated and developed a proposal that banned all new marijuana uses. Specifically, the proposal banned new licensed marijuana retail, including any new retail stores that seeking a medical marijuana endorsement, new licensed production, and new licensed processing. Further, the proposal banned marijuana cooperatives, which are small four-patient groupings that may grow marijuana in a domicile for medical purposes, and marijuana clubs. Finally, the proposal would have imposed strict indoor-growing standards on any home-growing by qualified patients, which was authorized by the 2015 State Legislative amendments. Staff took direction from the Planning Commission and drafted appropriate amendment language implementing the Planning Commission's proposal. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments at study sessions on February 25, 2016, and March 10, 2016. Further, on March 3, 2016, the Planning Commission visited two marijuana production/processing facilities (one as a drive-by, and one as a guided tour) and toured a licensed retail shop. On April 14, 2016, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on its proposed amendments and one interested party spoke. After the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and ultimately decided to consider a modified proposal. Pursuant to SVMC 17.080.150, the Planning Commission conducted a second public hearing on the modified proposal on May 12, 2016. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5- 2 to approve the modified proposal that is now before City Council for its consideration. The modified draft amendment proposal developed by the Planning Commission that is before City Council will amend chapter 19.85 SVMC, SVMC 19.120.050, and Appendix A by (1) adding definitions for medical marijuana endorsed retail stores, marijuana cooperatives, and marijuana clubs, (2) prohibiting any new licensed marijuana retail stores from all zones, (3) allowing existing licensed marijuana retail stores to locate within the existing designated zones in compliance with existing buffering requirements, (4) prohibiting marijuana cooperatives from all zones, (5) prohibiting marijuana clubs or lounges from all zones, and (6) requiring any home- growing by qualified patients as allowed by state law to be conducted only in single family residential zones in permanent structures that are opaque and not visible by neighbors or from the public rights-of-way, and to clarify that renters may be required, as may be authorized by federal, state, and local laws, to give notice to landlords of their intention to grow marijuana plants in a rental dwelling. The major changes to the original proposal were to (1) allow licensed marijuana production and processing in existing zones in compliance with existing buffering requirements, and (2) allow existing licensed marijuana retail stores to locate within existing allowable zones in compliance with existing buffering requirements. Note that the Planning Commission considered an extensive amount of information and had extensive detailed discussions regarding the 2015 Legislative amendments and development of the proposed amendments. Accordingly, copies of all RPCAs and minutes from all the Planning Commission meetings on this subject are included as attachments to provide City Council with the full background on this item. OPTIONS: Consensus to proceed with first reading at a future council meeting; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to proceed with first reading at a future council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Christina Janssen, Planner; Jenny Nickerson, Senior Plans Examiner ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation; and A. Updated Staff Report for May 12, 2016 modified proposal B. Copies of Ordinance Nos. 14-021, 15-017, and 15-023 (adopting moratoriums on unlicensed and licensed marijuana uses) C. Proposed Amendments to chapter 19.85 SVMC, SVMC 19.120.050, and Appendix A D. Copy of RPCA from October 22, 2015 Planning Commission meeting E. Copy of minutes from October 22, 2015 Planning Commission meeting F. Copy of RPCA from November 12, 2015 Planning Commission meeting G. Copy of minutes from November 12, 2015 Planning Commission meeting H. Copy of RPCA from December 10, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 1. Copy of minutes from December 10, 2015 Planning Commission meeting J. Copy of RPCA from February 25, 2016 Planning Commission meeting K. Copy of minutes from February 25, 2016 Planning Commission meeting L. Copy of minutes from March 3, 2016 Planning Commission tour M. Copy of RPCA from March 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting N. Copy of minutes from March 10, 2016 Planning Commission meeting O. Copy of RPCA from April 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting P. Copy of minutes from April 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting Q. Copy of RPCA from May 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting R. Copy of minutes from May 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting S. Copy of Findings of Fact adopted by Planning Commission at May 26, 2016 meeting T. Copy of draft minutes of May 26, 2016 Planning Commission meeting U. Police crime tracking information requested at December 10, 2015 meeting Marijuana Regulation Amendments Purpose for Amendments? Moratorium on new medical marijuana uses (unlicensed marijuana uses) was established December 9, 2014 (extended in late 2015) Moratorium on new marijuana uses licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) was established October 6, 2015 Both moratoriums require City to develop appropriate local regulations giving effect to 2015 State Legislative amendments Marijuana Laws —Brief Background • Marijuana is governed by numerous laws and codes —Federal Law —State Law —City Code Spokane \aI1c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION Federal Law: Controlled Substances Act — 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq —Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance • "high potential for abuse, lack of accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) -Production, processing, sale, distribution and 4 use is illegal Spokane Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN C7 DIVISION State law: Background • Prior to 2015 - Two Different Regulatory Schemes — Recreational Marijuana (Initiative 502) • Producers, Processors, Retail stores licensed by WSLCB — Medical Marijuana - chapter 69.51A RCW • Unlicensed chapter 69.50 RCW Spokane Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION Reconciling Medical and Recreational Marijuana — 2015 Legislation 2015 — State Legislature passed bills to reconcile medical and recreational marijuana markets Goal to eliminate black market and have all marijuana licensed or registered with WSLCB Variety of rulemaking by the WSLCB and Department of Health (DOH) related to the 2015 legislative changes Rulemaking is ongoing Spokane Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ReconciingMe.ica an • Recreationa Marijuana — 2015 Legislation Allow retail stores to obtain medical marijuana endorsement to sell "compliant marijuana" • Qualified Patients and Designated Providers may obtain increased amounts of marijuana and tax benefits • Anyone over 21 may purchase most types of "compliant" marijuana, but no tax exemption to non -patients • "Compliant" marijuana is DOH term certain types of "medical" marijuana due to lack of medical research — E.g., high CBD ratio, no pesticides, high THC ratio Spokane .00015 \aI1c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION Reconciling Medical and Recreational Marijuana — 2015 Legislation Increased number of retail stores statewide No increase to Spokane Valley, but if moratorium lifted, likely increase from 3 retail stores to 6 retail stores No cap on number of production or processing stores, but cap on total canopy space statewide for production 8 Spokane Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reconciling Medica an • Recreationa Marijuana — Eliminates collective gardens (unlicensed medical marijuana shops) effective July 1, 2016 — Establishes cooperatives • Up to four patients; must be in a "domicile" (residence); cannot be located within one mile of licensed retailer; must be registered with WSLCB; maximum of 60 plants • Specifically allows cities to prohibit cooperatives State buffers remain; cities may reduce the State buffers to 9 100 feet (except schools and playgrounds) Spokane neopeolF \alley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION Reconciling Medical and Recreational Marijuana cont. Establishes transportation license Establishes research license Allows qualified patients to grow up to 15 plants per housing unit • But maximum is 15 plants per unit regardless of number of patients Background on City Regulations Pre -moratoriums: City regulations for licensed marijuana • City zoning and buffer restrictions on recreational marijuana • Adopted in July 2014 • Applied to licensed retailers, producers, and processors 1 1 Spokane Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION City Regulations cont. • Marijuana Production — Permitted in heavy and light industrial zones outright (indoor and outdoor); permitted in limited manner (indoor growing only) in RC and C zones. • Marijuana Processing — Permitted in heavy and light industrial zones outright (packaging and extraction); permitted in limited manner (packaging and labeling of useable marijuana only) in RC and C zones. • Local buffers for both marijuana production and processing — Cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library 1 property, and vacant school property. 2 City Regulations cont. • Retail sales — permitted in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Community Commercial zones. • Local buffers for retail sales — Cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property, vacant school property, the Appleway Trail, and the Centennial Trail. 1 3 Planning Commission Proposal Process • Extensive process for Planning Commission to develop proposed amendments — Meeting October 22, 2015 — Study Session on legal background and range of options — November 12, 2015 received public input — December 10, 2015 received testimony from Police, Fire, and local School District 1 — March 3, 2016 visit to production and retail stores 4 Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION Planning Commission Proposal Process • Range of options considered — 1. Maintain same • Allows more retail, production, and processing • How to deal with cooperatives? — 2. Some additional regulations • Potentially allows more stores, but market may restrict store options — 3. Prohibition • To date legal for cities to prohibit, but challenges are pending and so result is uncertain 1 5 Spokane Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PL'ANN G DIVISION Initial Proposed Amendments • Initial proposal: — Add applicable definitions to Appendix A — Prohibit new retail, production, or processing stores — Prohibit cooperatives — Prohibit clubs or lounges — Additional regulations for home -growing by qualified patients or designated providers Spokane \aI1c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION Initial Proposed Amendments/Modified Proposal • Public hearing on April 14, 2016 • Planning Commission approved a modified proposal for consideration based on testimony and deliberations • Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150 Planning Commission conducted a second public hearing on the modified proposal on May 12, 2016 1 7 Marijuana club or lounge: A club, association, or other business, for profit or otherwise, that conducts or maintains a premises for the primary or incidental purpose of providing a location where members or other persons may keep or consume marijuana on the premises. whether licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board or not, or such other similar use pursuant to RCW 69.50.465, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Marijuana cooperative: A marijuana cooperative formed pursuant to chapter 69.51A RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. A marijuana cooperative is comprised of up to four qualifying patients or designated providers and formed for the purposes of sharing responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources. and producing and processing marijuana for the medical use of the members of the marijuana cooperative. Marijuana processing: Processing marijuana into usable marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates, packaging and labeling usable marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates for sale in retail outlets, and sale of usable marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates at wholesale by_ a marijuana processor licensed by the Washington State Liquor Control and Cannabis Board and pursuant to Cchapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Industrial, light use category." 8 Marijuana production: Production and sale of marijuana at holesa1e by a marijuana producer licensed by the V ashingLon State Liquor Controland Cannabis Board and pursuam to Cchapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Agricultural and animal.. -use category." Marijuana sales: _Selling usable marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates in a retail outlet by a marijuana retailer licensed by the \Vashingtou State Liquor Controland Cannabis Board, along with any applicable other use allowed as part of the marijuana sales pursuant to an endorsement associated with marijuana retail, including but not limited to marijuana sales with a medical endorsement. operation of a marijuana club or lounge pursuant to an endorsement, or delivery of marijuana that may require an endorsement_ all as provided and pursuant to Gchapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Retail sales, use category.' 1\i.irijuarka sales with a medical eiurlorselnent: Means marijuana sales and medical marijuana sales by a marijuana retailer licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board that has been issued a medical marijuana endorsement pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 69.51A RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. h•1{irket, outdoor: A tempora or seasonal location where produce and agricultural products including, but not lizrlite€1 tai_ puirlf)kius, Christmas trees and firewood,. its well as i'1al'ts and other itemils_ are offered for sale to the public. See "Retail sales, use category." 9 2 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Nr G DIVISION IL S :MC 19.120.050 19.1 Mil -O Permitted use- matrix_ Permitted Use Matrix Use Catedorv1rlpe Iteardentml prone Dist' ie'is Il:amrnerr.nl and rarruatrrnl frame Dish itis Suppienie Mal Conditions If- 1 11- 2 14- 3 14-1411 4 - 7 11I - 2 MllCCridiUGO0 NCC RCPJOS 1- 7 1- 2 /J.ic:uILurI and Alsirrra1 KenncI b ; s I-' 1-' See zo iiri iclic-trick; for cdrir]ItIdrr:; Mkirijukiria NrudlurLiuri S S S S 01ikplei 19.85 SVP:t . LA -chard, tree tarmin' , commercial I Food ami B+av+araw-u Survice E9rbreman P.9tiih i_ghrnFnt P. r n- P n- r P A rs' r MarIIuana club or lounge cm p.iar'Ig.85 SVFv1C 2 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN_ G DIVISION Permitted use Platnx Use CategoryrT.I7e Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industnel Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF•MF- 1 2 MUC CMU GC 0 NC C RC PICS 1- 1 1- 2 Mobile rood ver'dui s S S SSSSS S S S SVMC 1 g.154.d 1 d(L), 19.7O_910(B)(2) Industrial, Light f 1anuTacturIng. light P P P Marijuana prnressing S S S S Chapter 19 i SVL1C: I'i-i tic injection rnolr:ing, tfcrrncplastic 1 ' Ir 1' I' 1' I' Residential Dwelling, townhouse P P P N PP P r.;iiriLIraLLured liurrie park SSS S S SVMC 19. 0.130 2 2 Valley. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Permitted Use Matrix Use Category/Type Residential DI R- 1 stncts R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 Zone MF -MF- 1 2 Commercial MUC CMU GO and DIstn 0 Industrial NC Cts C RC Zone PfOS 1- 1 1- 2 Supplemental Conditions Marijuana cooperative P P P Chapter 1 Q. SVMC Retail Sales f larluractured home sales marijuana sales S S S S chapter 1 g.BS SVM' htarlcet. outdoor p p p P p P A - Accessori use. L: - conditional use_ P - Permitted use I-1- Regional siting. S - Permitted with supplemental conditions 1 - 1 emporary use COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 19.85.010 AIariittana iiforhiction standards, A. Marijuana production shall be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana production facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts pursuant to RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts pursuant toas established in Cchapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City: provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under this sectionSVMC 19.8:5.010: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan or program adopted by the cCity cCouncil; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility; or building, campus, or collection of buildings designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the city council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities or: buildings, campus, or collection of buildings as the city's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. 2 B. Marijuana production in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall only be 3 permitted indoors. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN_ G DIVISION 19.85.020 Marijuana processing standards. A. Marijuana proc-essing shall be located or maintained at lust 1,000 feet from the nearest property lin, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana processing facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels wormed by public school districts pursuant to as established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts pursuant toas established in Qchapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under this sectionSVIC 19.85.020: a. Any storin=atcr facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stonrnwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan or programs adopted by the GCity Gemmel"; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility, or building, campus, or collection of buildings designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the city council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar terra that identifies such facilities: or buildings, campus, or collection of buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlace. 2 B. Marijuana processing in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall be limited to packaging and labeling of usable marijuana. 4 2 5 A. New marijuana sales shall not be permitted within any zone. B. Marijuana sales uses in existence and in continuous and lawful operation prior to the date of these regulations shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use subject to the following: 1'Vlmarijuana sales shall be located or maintained at least 1.000 feet from the nearest property line-, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana sales facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: Al. Centennial Trail: 132. Appleway Trail; C3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts pursuant tons established in RCS' Title 2 SA; D4. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts pursuant tori established in chapter 27.12 lei '\F; 5- Vacant nr unde— elrped parcels leased nr owned by the City; prnvided any starmwater facility or right-of-way parcels MATtled or leased by the City and designated nr identified as a stormwater facility or right -of -say in any document, plan or program adopted by the c jty GCouncil shall be excluded from consideration under this section; or F6. 4-a. Any facility or, building, campus, or collection of buildings designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the city council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other similar term that identifies such facilities, or buildings, campus, or collection of buildings as the City's primary administrative and legislative location: or 2-b. Centel -Place. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION 19.85.041:1 Other licensed or re#istereil marijuana rases prohibited. Marijuana Droduction, marijuana processing, and existing marijuana sales shall be permitted pursuant to SYMC 19.85.010, 19.85.02_1), and 19.85.030. All other commercial and non-commercial licensed or registered marijuana uses are prohibited within all zones of the City. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, marijuana clubs or lounges and marijuana cooperatives. This prchibi:ion does not apply to home growing or processing of marijuana by qualified patients or designated providers in residential zones as set forth in SVMC 19.8.5.050 and in compliance with state law. 2 6 19_85.050 h'Z:1ri liana p1'odllction and processing 111 residential zones_ raslhington State law authorizes qualified patients and designated provide's to produce Illarijualla and to process rxlarijuana ill dwellings, residences, domiciles. and siIrnlar hlousillg units under limited circumstances and with limited processing methods_ Subject to applicable federal_, state_, and local laws_ any owner, lessor_ or leasing agent may request or require disclosure of a renter or lessee's desire to produce or process marijuana within a rented or leased dwelling unit_ in addition to compliance with any applicable state or federal laws and regulations, lawful production or processing of marijuana by any person in a dwelling_, residence_ domicile_, or other similar housing unit shall be subject to all locally applicable land use, development_ zoning, and building regulation requirements, including but not limited to all applicable requirements set forth in Titles 17, 118 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24 SV1VIC as the same are now adopted or hereafter amended, and the following regulations: A. Any home production or processing, of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law shall not be permitted outside of the dwelling or accessory structure; 13. Any home production or processing of marijuana by any person as allowed by state law in a dwelling 01. accestinTy F:tTLicl.lire shall be erlcic)l.e(1 blockel1, 1}T' sight -tic eerleil ITulrI the public Tight -of -way :x17111 IT[3Trl ma i:ice-at properties so 111;A1 T10 IIc3r11c371 Trlriy be reriilily t;ee71 li r 71C3TTrlril 1171'r1ii1_eil vis11371 13r -readily smelled 1i737r1 S11LlI 113G:i1.i1371ti. AL:CCSb41}Ty s1.r11c1.11TeS AMU i)e 19ei1n:JTIe711 :41 -rad -Ines e71cic)secl by :i 713131' iinld Wills c3ri :ill Sikes :17111 co7171ec ecl t.1} :i perrr1:i71eT11. ICS 11TIc1:i1111T1. Foi. i111Tpose4 01' SNI1M-C 10.55.050, accessory structures shall not include cargo containers, recreational vehicles or other similar types of structures. Accessory structures shall be completely o-paque in addition To necessary site-serecrling; C_ Horne processing of marijuana shall not involve any combustible method and shall comply with all federal, state, rend local laws and rules, including all standards adopted by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board; and 2 D. Production or processing of marijuana by any person pursuant to state law in a dwelling or accessory structure shall only be allowed in the R-1. R-2. R-3. and R-4 zones. 7 2 8 Spokane Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION Questions ATTACHMENT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THF PLANNING COMIssI0N CTA -2016-0001 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 12, 2016 (updated from April 14, 2016 version for public hearing based upon modifications sought by Planning Commission). }TEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 12, 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. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley. Municipal Code (SVMC) to amend SVMC 19.85 anti Appendix A to add definitions and modify the regulations to prohibit any additional state -licensed retail sales of marijuana, including regulations for licensed retail stores with medical marijuana endorsements, to allow existing licensed marijuana retail stores to locate within existing allowable zones in compliance with existing buffering requirements, to prohibit marijuana cooperatives, and to add general requirements for all home -growing by qualified patients in residential zones. PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206. APPROVAL. CRITERIA; Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMmENDATIOF: The Planning Division makes no statement of recommendation regarding the proposed amendments other than that the proposal complies with City text amendment requirements pursuant to SVNvIC l7.80.150(P). STAFF PLANER. Christina Janssen, Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Ordinance No. 14-021, adopting a moratorium on all marijuana uses other than recreational production, processing, and retail uses licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, Ordinance No. 15-023, adopting an extension on the unlicensed marijuana uses. Lxhib t 2: Ordinance No. 15-017, adopting a moratorium on all marijuana uses required to be licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. Exhibit 3: Proposed text amendments to SVMC 19.85, SVMC l 9.120.050, and Appendix A. A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Ordinance 14-002 passed, adopting interim definitions and regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana 2111/14 Ordinance 14-004 passed, adopting amendments to the interim regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana 4/22/14 Ordinance 14008 passed, adopting definitions and regulations for state-licensed recreational marijuana and repealing interim development regulations adopted pursuant to ordinances 14-002 and 14-004 7/22/14 Ordinance 14-021 passed, adopting a moratorium on the establishment of all marijuana uses other than marijuana producers, marijuana processors, arid marijuana retail sales as licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (previously the "Liquor and Control Board"). 12/9/14 Ordinance No. 15-017 passed, adopting a moratorium on all marijuana, uses required to be licensed or registered with the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board. 10/6/15 Ordinance No. 15-023 passed, adopting a six-month renewal of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses originally adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021. 12/1115 SEPAL Determination April 8, 2016, for CIL pi.op,}sal, and Jain .U, 20 i,.- 1er Published Notice of Public Hearing :'%i' i'i l 22, 201 b and April 29, 20 le Sent Notice of Application for Optional Determination of Non-Significance to staff/agencies February 26, 2016 PROPOSAL, BACKGROUND: Through the course of meetings on October 22, 2015, November 12, 2015, and December 10, 2015, Planning Commission heard multiple reports from staff, Spokane Valley Police, and Spokane Valley Fire, as well as receiving extensive public comment on the City's regulation of legal marijuana. Staff reports included discussion of existing City regulations, State law, ongoing rulemaking by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board ("WSLCB") related to all licensed marijuana types and the Washington Department of Health related to medical marijuana (although the Department of Health has since categorized medical marijuana as "compliant marijuana' due to ongoing questions about its beneficial medicinal qualities), and a range of options for Planning Commission to consider. Planning Commission also visited a marijuana production/processing operation and retail store on March 3, 2016. The background of these discussions are included as part of the RPCA for the public hearing On this code text amendment. Planning Commission considered various options and ultimately gave a consensus for staff to draft proposed amendment language that would ban all new marijuana uses, allow home growing, require notice by renters to landlords for home growing, and ban home extraction. On April 14, 2016, Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, which generally would prohibit any new marijuana uses. One interested party spoke during the public hearing. As part of deliberations fallowing the public liearing, Planning Commission approved considering Page 2 of 8 substantial modifications to the proposal as described below. Piiinnnun io Svfnn. 17.M.150(E), the (ornmissioniII il uh,dify a proposal, i)tv 11111 1)1-til innirin on the iiindifinki proposal nLibstantial. Aceordinnly, the Plainiiml, liokling i1LM inn. on the Han inind propn.-i!I nil May 12, 2016. modijiLL1 proposal is to arinnid Spok.niie Valley Municipal CoLlo (SVNIC) 0_ F10,050, and Appendix A by (1) adding dnfiniticns for medical rriarijuJni enihic.,cd reLil mialuana C 1 11 lad marijuana clubs, (2.) pronib;611?, ruly new licensed marijuana retail storn: from all zones, nllowinn nxisting licensed nnirijanini tenni ,iores to locate within the c\i'Hiin LInsignated zones in compliance with existing 1)4Ln-inn raluirninnins, 1:04veratives from all zones (5) prohibiting mrn n.in arijua I im 1.11 1 11111ft--: 21[9OI1LZillti (6) rcquiri-n any home-growing by qualified patients as ,;iniL. him, 7,7 I7C coEiducted only in single. re -;:cicritial zones in permanent structures that are opagac :nnl L1L isibln by neighbors nr from the public rinlits-of-way, and to clarify that renters may be requirnd, as Linn, be a by federal, sni re, and local Iriws, to give notice to landlords of their intention to grow marijuana plants in a Fel-IL:11 dwelling. The major changes to the original proposal were to (1) allow hinnisnd riariliaini production and processing in existing zones in compliance with existinn buffering and (2) allow existing licensed marijuana retail stores to locate within CNktilt, allowable zones in Conniliance with existing buffering requirements. _Recreational _Marijuana Background: Recreational marijuana was fegaliz.ed within Washington State with the passage of Initiative 502 (1-502) iu November 2012. The State has worked over the last three years to develop extensive regulations for I and permitting of production (growing), processing, and retail sales of recreational marOtLana. 'nil recreational marijuana facilities must be licensed by the WSLCB. The WSLCB began accepting and processing applications in November 2013, and issued the first production and processing licenses within Spokane Valley in March 2014. As provided by law, the WSLCB developed rules to allocate a limited number of retail licenses within each jurisdiction. The City was allocated three recreational retail licenses and the WSLCB has issued all three licenses and all shops are open and operational. Tinder state law, there is no restriction on the number of production and processing facilities allowed. State law provides 3,000 finot buffers between licensed marijuana facilities and several sensitive USS, iacluding schools, libraries, and public parks, bot excludes trails and undeveloped school or library nmperty. The WSLCB enforces the state buffers through the state licensing process. On January 16, 20 II, a Washington Attorney General Opinion was released that provided that the Attorney GenertH 0:linion was that local jurisdictions were not preempted by 1-502 from adopting local re.sulatipils anti restrictions an state-licensed recreational marijuana uses. The City's buffers are in addition to the state- mandated buffers and are enforced by the City. All marijuana use remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, However, din United State Department of Justice has released policy to not prosecute licensed marijuana providnrs slates which have legalized marijuana and which have a strong enforcement and rcgulatory scheme. Medical Marijuana Background: In 1998, voters approved tlIn medinal use of mat-Jana by initiative, though approval was Limited in scope. In, 2011, the Washinrinn Snite Legislature adopted amendments to the medical marijuana laws that would have created a stew rcgistry for patients and Legalized dispensaries and collective gardens. .1 he, Governor vetoed sections related to the state rc--.istry and dispensaries, creating a Large amount of confusion and [caving collective gardniis as the sole means for producing and procuring medical r1),11ijuarta, The City did not adopt regulations at that time, but issued business registrations far nnliectives, provided they were located in a zone where peinii sales were appropriate. With the passage of 1-502 and legalization of recreational marijuana, there. Ilene lord two very distinct and separate marijuana Page 3 of 8 regulatory regimes a Licensed and regulated recreational market and an unregulated and unlicensed medical market. In 2015, the Washington State Legislature passed major changes to existing medical marijuana laws in an effort to rL::oc.ilc the mecJi.,i! and recreational marijuana mrhrl,ecs_ liheic were two prirnaq. bills passed as part c}_- tli.: e1i rtges: Second Substitute Senate Bill (152 (Carinabk Patient Protection Act) and Second Eiigr:.,� d second 1Jnuse Bill 2136. The major changes included the full, �irr< I! i.'cre s ions! Afartitio o ?i'irir'kets €?:,ittl'Ii4Ii s :r--rrtidical marijuana endors ment" for licensed marijuana retailers. This r1Lls>r�',,t„i ;11h.-1,; a licensed retailer to sell medicinal marijuana to qualifying patients and i-,nojckrs. a 'Ow iiic.di .I marijuana endorsement does not prohibit the licensed retailer from also ;tlli11 ,eorrlio:lal ;nar•ILIaI1a. • tlu<11 1�'i,hJ :hrilit:nl ,,l slw_rieriated providers may receive an exemption from the State's „1 rrijiiaiii! lax Furl— Iial.,i;lg medical marijuana from a licensed retailer with a medical marijuana 4,:ri iDr:-;e'wiCnl. • :Anyonc ovL'i- 111, age: of 21 may purchase any of the marijuana sold at a retail store, it is "medical" (now referred to as "compliant" marijuana by the Ci h ill ?i ii Department of Health) or "recreational'). - Crc;u s a medical marijuana authorization database that qualifying patients and designated providers ['nisi be centered in to. • Pal; n.ntw and l:I .iders will obtain "recognition cards" that authorize them to purchase rrJ.2.C. t rl rlht.,ljll[!lrit. • 'l he databas- must be operational by July 1, 2016. - Collective gardens must cease operations as of July 1, 2016. Cha►rg€'.r - 1.'4'1:(13 must reconsider and increase number of retail. outlets to accommodate medical in�rriiu;l:ifl ,tceds. Enlist develop merit based application process for new retail licenses. W'SL.CE; crust iriercase canopy limits for prod lacers to account for medical marijuana needs. - Restricts the use of butane or other gases for marijuana extraction to validly licensed marijuana processors (no home extraction }Villi these types of gases and solvents). - Retailers may not sell through vending machines or by drive -up windows. - Establishes a cransp':rrt,`tlion license for common carriers delivering between licensed facilities. - Establishes i research license- • Allows licensed resc"ircl,rs to research cliFinical potency, clinical irk) marijuana-dcrivt.::.1 :Int:,'. ;,r-oducts; and 1,41i:a:-v :i!i(1 tlr::riju.t:la as lnedjca tr"l`.ilit,il llt.:;,�d tti5 CorldLl4:1 i{7iii or iL"ri�tllla.ra 1t'}t'ill:'1 - Requires signage a: LIIL premises of piuspectivc I?1't,'dliccrri, 17l'" C' '?i:i. , :11 11 I'et.tl r I};c7�'li ll] notice to the public of the inrcrll a license the Ine1111i ; _t r ri,,triivarla pn7 !11.c:1- ?r:lti[::;5ca- Lir retailer. Allow for "Coon}e.>r•rarives" (effective July 1. 2,916) - Allows 1',,t Il,c creation of medical marijuana "cooperatives" that may be formed by up to four qua]ii : inn. pat cn's or designated providers. • C;r,.; �r,i °: cannot be located within a mile of marijuana. retailers or within 1,000 feet of sullo k, recreation centers, child care centers, public parks, public transit 1ib ;lry. or ;11.mlicable game~ arcades. Page 4 of 8 • Cooperative locations must be registered with the WSLCB. • The location of cooperative Limst be a domicile of one of the participants and only one cooperative may be located Lona single propL11} is : i . reel • Cooperatives finny grow up to El maximum of 60 lllnitts. • The WSLCB may adopt rules relating to security and traceability requirements for cooperatives. • Cooperatives are not considered buiirosses Once they only distribute to the four members), so no business licenses or tti s. • May not locate where prohibited by a city or county zoning provision_ Qua) ed Pah-erns and Designated Providers - Must receive authorization from health care professional. - Authorization cid recognition card issued once entered into the database are; nese sit -ti• to receive arrest protection. - May keep amounts of marijuana 1 in -ed a.ut`loriyatinn card. - May grow up to 15 plants in house. • No more than 15 plants per housing triait ininLrelless of how many patients reside in the housing unit (except for cooperatives, whi h urn. II:Lti c r~,(1 plant, L -- Ni:, n••r-•duction or processing if any portion can be seen [rout 11il.lidcd e`r timed.Lal .ruin ul rubliw pI,Lcc private property of another housing, L�ilit. •- Stale njII ;Ono rtilws ,LIlL71wi.Itg tion -combustible extract i: LL 1L tiii alili Ll p) tiell! !L•]d designated. pri,\, id.r . - LII:,i he ;i.t[iL iltS, with parents serving as designated providers. Luca! Authorrt' - Repeals i,{ " kb' ( . ;1,x.1 alt], which granted cities and counties the authority to adopt and enforce recluirci•lcnts related ki medical marijuana including zoning, - Cities are authurized to adopt civil penalties for patients and designated providers growintg/keeping plants outside the limits set by SB 5051 - Cities may adopt ordinances reducing the buffers between licensed facilities and recreation centers, child are centers, public parks, public transit centers, libraries, or game arcade which is not restricted to those over 21 from 1,DD0 feet to not less than 100 feet, provided such distance reduction will not negatively impact the jurisdiction's civil regulatory enforcement, criminal law enforcement interests, public safety, or public health. • Buffers to schools and playgrounds may not be reduced below the state required 1,000 feet. Subject to any rules adopted by the WSLCB, cities and counties may adopt an ordinance prohd.)iting a marijuana producer or processor :r.:1 rn opnr<,li Lg or locating a business within areas zoned primarily for residential use or rural nisi willi 1:irtlain in lot size of five acres or smaller. Ongoing Ride/wit-inn: As part of the Stelic law chant is. [He Slate ;mtti;i. inc;1 15.( tits Ilkinlber t,C Li•t.Lil .iores to accotint for the :Indical marijuana market `I 1.rouglt elnergeney rulci1i.ikiiai• the WSLCI3 total retail lrrc to 6. The WSLCB has left the allocated nuni_)er of sc;ertis in the City at three E) L.Aed upon the .,11i u ng ]moratorium. In the event the moratorium is lifted and the tit}. <iIIow additional retail stores, the :Liloo;;acrd dumber is likely to double to six total stores. O11 SciAenita.cr 23, 2015. flim W 1.CR issued, ti'r�'L'?tti'C. liiililtdiate]y, its Emergency Rules #15-18, which a ntr:W SLLB i;: nen in and processing marijuana retail license app Iic:lti.1'Ll LLlniil;2 ,1L, +; LL lt.l)c)r 12 1 Il. . Page 5 of 8 The WSLCB recently released revised proposed rules implementing the changes from the Cannabis I',Iti�.rit 1'I-t*_eei c,ri Act anJ titi4olyc' 1`Ieques..:;1 Second Substitute Itolrse liil: 21:6. Those. revised rules include:, but otic not liilaii d to tree follci \ ine. provisions: isions: - Expanded definition of"licensed premises". - Removed requirements for "Mr, York" Stickers to he on labels for infused edible and liquid. products. A different label will he required. - gddeei teendatory signs at the point of sale on rietail licensed premises. - Mod ii1 e< elri'cleei .ciit provisions to clarify that persons operating without a WSLCB license will be discontinued. - Added lata ua e rckarding authority of WSLCB to deny registration for cooperatives that do not meet the Vel.SC13 rule requirements. Modified pcualties so that failure to address monetary penalties for two or more violation notices in a three: year period will result in license cancellation. Modified penalties for producers and processor, ...i dill ,ll t7c.ri:alt:ies arc monetary; product will not be destroyed as a penalty. The WSLCB final rulein kin is anticipated to be complete in `.ate spring!em.1y ,i:rni ier ref -21116 Further, the Washington Department of Health is in the nilemalcing, prose se ben Iii tiro id tl ihreLILih emergency rulemaking that in lieu of"medical marijuana", certain tyles eierijairn;t will 11i`''_gtIIII:]]::III' marijuana that will be subject to certain testing and which may contain ;Hither (.HI) ratios or lii{_;ier II lt' ratios. Other than one particular variety of high THC marijuana, wiyone over t]ic ,I_ or t l ti i pun_ alae compliant marijuana. In discussions with the WSLCB, they have t1i :v not ct5rlsicltr .trot' differentiation of medical retail stores and recreational retail stores, but will instead sirr.p y eons:d r .l l tiertsed retail stores. The Department of Health has adopted final 'tiles requiring any :ciuil store whit a medical marijuana endorsement to have a certified medioal mariiiiali _ consultant on staff. Final rulemaking on the other aspects of compliant marijuana and the medical to iriitinna authorization database is :anticipated to be complete by June, 2016. Cay Regulatory Background: In response to I -S02, the City adapted permanent regulations on July 22, 2414. The regulations, as they now exist, are set forth in SYMC 19.170,0`0 (fee witted use matrix) and SVMC 19.85 and provide as follows; - State lic.cmcci air*-ijli n .: prnkluwtit:n is a pan -lined use itt Heavy Indo tri,,tl and i_.iebt Industrial zones, and iiiI c;r i.nc v.•ing only is pee/141M in Regional Commercial and Commie -14v Commercial z.olics. k a permitted use in the Heavy Industrial and 1_iglit Irulil:�tri :l eolies, and pael.<<_i;a and lalyeliitg of osceble marijuana only is permitted in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. - Both productiort and processing uses may not he Ioz.aterl within 1.000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City property (other than etor:te ater and I ui)li_ rigllts-gat'-wa3), vacant Library property, and vacant school property. Production end located within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail, provided that iit is in the appropriate zone (there are few Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones within 1,000 feet of the Appleway Trail). - State licensed marijuana sales arc permitted in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor lblixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Ccinnunity Commercial zones. Paac6of8 - Licensed retail sales may not be located within 1,000 feet of City- Hall, Centcrplace, vacrinr property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant libnir} I r1 l;wi11 ctl slit schol:I property, the Appleway Trail, and the Centennial Trail. Further, after the passage of 1-502, the City saw an increase in the nuirlhc,- or l l •ctives (unregulated medical marijuana) seeking business registrations. The City passed a flit?ratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses (e.g., primarily medical marijuana) pursuant to Ordirinlice No. 14-02 on December 9, 2014 to allow the City to determine what action the State would take to reconcile the medical and recreational marijuana markets and to develop its owm regulations. In reponse to the WSLC13's Emergency Rules on September 23, 2015 (described above). the City' adopted Ordinance No. 15-017, which established a trtorurtoriurn 011 rimrikrIna uscs by the WSLCB in order to allow the City to complete the consideration, do*c]np:ri nt, s>Ilyd ridoptionof its regulations without allowing additional liccn.es to vest or create potentially iiicoia ist nl Ur irtct}lrlp<<tihic uses. The moratorium did not impact existing marijuana uses which had :rfre.a(iy rcc.l;ived a license from the WSLCB. However, it will prevent the City from processing any applications from colIL:c•.ti).,cs which wish to receive a retail license from the WSLCB. Further, the moratorium dice not impact any home ise or consumption. This proposal stems from a requirement originally adopted pursiiaol -c} Orc{in:rncc Ni:. 1-1-021 ::rill subsequently also Ordinance No. 15-017. Pursuant to both ordinances. the Cir?ti [:1l: k :ii .,.1 a •oiork plan to work through and adopt permanent regulations for all marijuana 1I c:, 111is I}ivii;:-; iI constitutes the permanent regulations required pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance Ni 14-021 and e:ction 3 of Ord i nance No. 15-017, B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL COAL TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spei,anc idle Municipal Code a. Findings: SVNIC 17.80.15Ci 1:'1 Code° Icy Amendment Api rc'' al (. rireri,r The a.), [nay Apr.),.t Te1 1 ino,: tl t4c (1) The proposed 1cx'. altt.:ridnic:nt :S c;u1: stAt t :ll;l)lical,I.. pru.i J_:IJ c,t'I`.:c Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals by protecting residential areas, protecting commercial uses, maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment, and promoting compatibility between adjacent land uses. Further, the proposed amendments maintain the character of residential neighborhoods by prohibiting cooperatives and limiting secondary impacts on surrounding properties for any medical growing within residential zones through compliance with land use and building codes. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: LIJP 1.I: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential nei;;hla;-arhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use rei uIry>_ions and joint planning. 1,1.:1}-1 "_ Prr,tcci residential a:'cos from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/cc hiller ioetCnsity tISCS ti71o411 die development and enforcement of the City's Ia3r.cC use rugulatiLlns and joiiii t71a17: ing. Land Inc Goal al L>.II' I (}.?° EIlc:Turas!c a diverse: afar\ 1)t industries t0 locate in 5pakanc l'a,gC ; oI 8 Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP -7.1: Evaluate, monitor and improve development standards to promote C[][li'.]:Ltibil to adjacent lan :Coil r.,2Ln)ittiit pr.}.: asses to ensure float they an: _:L[.Lir<<l.nL', cost -effect • •:u, iti Economic Policy El Review developrrr<.:irl /e ill:.l CrLSure clarity, consistent:;. and prLi.fLttability. Neighborhood Policy NP -2.1; Maintain and prot.•vt th:: i:1-rr' rules of .~i:+itt and future residential neighborhoods through the dc,y:lt?pnrc l Lii4C 4r:forr_t°rnkrlt of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to pubh frtal•-1'.. welfare, and protection of the environment; Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow cotnpCi,tnXX k itlt tine Iat. ,incl Lilt••:• existing state -licensed recreational and medical mariju::nii I:ii.,inesses ter ci.:i iris_ to operate within the Spokane Valley while separatin_' ku.1 mes from :clontified sensitive uses and the City's existing and future l ,wilier the amendment will limit additional adverse impacts nom Ili;\ rltar-Wr:iii:1 LDCs on tither existing commercial uses. Finally, the prole+:;,A protect the residential character of residential neighborhoods. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval cri1Crm er•rrtrliiiet1 in i 1,! V MC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date on the modified proposal. b. Conclusions): Adequate public noticing will be conducted for CTA -2015-0006 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusions): No conecrns are rioted. C. t)VC1L'iLl. CONCLUSION t:sIc N 1 11<._'. [.lit:i )i. ti•_i code tc=,;t it!' Clic LYVti Plans r)L.5, tt. S]1'AFF RE.LIOt •IMENDI.I.IoN The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application and applicable approval criteria, makes no recommendation as to the approval of the regulations related to production, processing, and retail sales of state -licensed recreational and medical marijuana, and land use and building code compliance for niale;:I ntari natia production and processing within residential zones, except that such proposed amendments are. consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and goals and meet the criteria set forth in Slr'Cvle 17,0.150(9. Page 8 of 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY. WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 14-021 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL MARIJUANA USES OTHER THAN MARIJUANA PRODUCERS, MA UJUANA PROCESSORS, AND MARIJUANA RETAIL SALES AS LICENSED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 69.50 RCW AND REGULATED BY CHAPTER 19.85 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE AND SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.120.050, MW OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, based an the Federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of arty, accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment.' Gonzales v. Reich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005), Controlled Substance Act, 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 et sect; and WHEREAS, initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of Washington State an November 3, 1998, and now codified as chapter 69.51A RCW, created an affirmative defense for "qualifying patients" to the charge of possession of marijuana; and WHEREAS, in 2011, the Washington State Legislature considered and passed ESSSB 5073 that, among other things, (1) authorized the licensing of medical cannabis dispensaries, production facilities, and processing facilities, (2) permitted qualifying patients to receive certain amounts of marijuana for medicinal purposes from designated providers. (3) permitted collective gardens by qualifying patienla whereby they may, consistent with state law, collectively grow marijuana for their own use, (4) and clarified that cities were authorized to continue to use their zoning authority to regulate the production, processing, or dispensing of marijuana under ESSSB 5073 and chapter 69.51,E RCW within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, on April 29, 2011, former governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions of ESSSB 5073 that would have provided the legal basis for legalizing arid licensing medical cannabis dispensaries, processing facilities, and production facilities, thereby making these activities illegal; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, voters of the State of Washington approved Initiative Measure No. 502 0-502"), now codified in chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21, and 46.61 Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"), which provisions, (1) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (2) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marduata; and (3) established a regulatory system licensing producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older, and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (the "LCB") to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1, 2013 for issuing licenses to produce, process, and sell marijuana; and WHEREAS, an August 29, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo providing updated guidance an marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of 1-502. Several ongoing federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing distribution of marijuana to minors. Further, the memo provided that the Department would not seek ongoing prosecution of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana, provided that those state and local governments "implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public Ordinance 14-021 Page 1 of 5 health, and other Lar, c lfDrcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedure.; cin paper; it roust also be effective in practice;' and WHEREAS, the LCB has established a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the licensing, operation, and enforcement of recreational. marijuana production, processing, and retail sales shops under chapter 314-55 WAC; and WHEREAS, in 2014, the Washington State Legislature considered, but did not adopt E3SSR 5887 that would have reconciled the comprehensive state regulatory scheme for recreational marijuana under 1-502 and the lack of regulatory oversight and controls aver medical marijuana under chapter 69.51A RCW; and WHEREAS, the possession or medical marijuana, operation of colic:ti= gardens, and services provided by designated providers remain illegal under chapter 59.51A. RCW and Cannabis Action Caa!itiori v. City of Kent. 180 Wn. App. 455 (2014), certgrained, with such activities only entitled to an affirmative defense; and WHEREAS, RCW 69.50445 prohibits the opening of a package containing marijuana, useable marijuana, or a marijuana -infused product, or consumption of marijuana, useable marijuana, or a marijuana -infused product "within view of the general public,' but does not otherwise regulate operation of any "private" marijuana consumption facility, "vaping" of marijuana extracts or oils, or other unlicensed marijuana operations; and WHEREAS, unlike recreational licensed marijuana production, processing, and retail sales under chapter 69.50 k.CW, all other marijuana uses, including medical marijuana and businesses offering "private" consumption or "vapin&" remain unlicensed marijuana uses that are largely unregulated and are not subject to review, Licensing, or enforcement by the LCR; and WHEREAS. the Washington State Legislature is likely to propose and consider legislation on medical marijuana in the upcoming 2015 Legislative session, brat the City cannot determine what that legislation may provide or when or if it will be passed; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley Police have informally documented 45 marijuana -related crimes since November 13, 21313, with at least 30 of those involving persons under the age of 2.1; and WHEREAS on July 22, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-008, which established in chapter 19,85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Cade (SVMC") and SVIAC 19,120.050 regulations, zoning, buffers, and other limitations on marijuana producers, processors, and retail sellers licensed under chapter 69.50 RCW, but which did not regulate unlicensed marijuana uses; and WHEREAS, as of October 28, the City had at least 18 medical -marijuana related businesses registered within the City, all of which provide marijuana outside of the Licensing, regulation, enforcement of the LCB, none cf which are licensed marijuana producers, processors, or retail outlets under chapter 69.50 ROW, and none of which are subject to the City's regulations under SVMC 19.85 or SVhdC 19.120.050; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, tl-.- Cite . Spokane Valle' is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sameir.• zine other regulations as are not iv conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption cif rL ='.thele goveraing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.7C.A..390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim toning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a Ordinance 14-021 }a"r.' 2 0:5 public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning reap, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effeoti'e for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods ifa subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal," and WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under F&C\V 35A.G3.220 and/or RCW 36.7OA-390 is a method by whieh local governments mai• preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 6.70A390 both anthorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearine; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-SSO, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements ofa threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act; and WHEREAS, the lack of regulatory oversight at any level over unlicensed marijuana uses, such as medical marijuana collective gardens, clesigaated providers, and "private" marijuana consumption businesses, (1) creates a market for marijuana that is inconsistent with the highly regulated market established by licensed producers, processors, and retail sales by the LCB, (2) allows increased access to marijuana by minors, and (3) creates a risk to the public health, safety and welfare because oldie tack of regulatory oversight and potential for abuse; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council adopted its 2015-2017 Legislative Agenda, which included an item wherein the City Council stated it would "support the reconciliation of the recreational and medical marijuana statutes," "support development of one system that would regulate medical and recreatianel marijuana, (including the elimination of medical marijuana), in Washington State," and would "support State regulations which close gaps within current legislation: Vaping, edibles, oils, and `private' consumption/facilities; and under age possession and consumption;' and WHEREAS, additional time is necessary to allow the City to conduct appropriate researeh to analyze the allowance, siting, and necessary land -use regulations for unlicensed marijuana uses under existing state law, and to determine what, if any, regulations may be passed by the Washington State Legislature in the upcoming 2015 legislative session regarding unlicensed marijuana uses and the impact of such laws on unlicensed marijuana uses within the City; and WHEREAS, a moratorium will provide the City with additional time to review and amend its public health, safety, and welfare requirements and zoning and land use regulations related to the establishment and operation of unlicensed marijuana uses; and WHEREAS, Washington State Law, including RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A390, authorizes the City to adopt a moratorium, provided the City conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, the City has authority to establish a moratorium concerning the establishment and operation of unlicensed marijuana uses as a necessary stop -gap measure: (1) to provide the City with an Ordinance 14-021 Page 3 of 5 opportunity to study the issues associated with allowing, siting, and regulating unlicensed marijuana uses, including determining what, if any, regulations are passed by the Washington State Legislature in the upcoming 2015 legislative session and the impacts of those laws upon unlicensed marijuana uses; (2) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley by avoiding and ameliaratine negative impacts and unintended consequences of additional unlicensed marijuana; and (3) to avoid applicants possibly establishing vested rights contrary to and inconsistent with any revisions the City may make for its rules and regulations as a result of the City's study of this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this Ordinance is necessary For the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property ar d public peace. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as futlowsi Section 1. Preliminary Findinits, The City Council hereby adopts the above recitals as findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 2. Motator m Esrablishzd. A. The City Council hereby declares aid imposes a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for unlicensed marijuana. use. 13. For purposes of this moratorium., -.unlicensed marijuana use" means the production, growing, processing, manufaetoring extraction, infusion into edible solids, liquids or gummies, allowing consumption on the premises of, sale, distribution, or delivery of marijuana, marijuatia-infused products, extracts, concentrates, oils, or any other form of product containing or derived from marijuana and intended for human use by any business, association or other for-profit or not-for-profit establishment, including but not limited to collective Gardens, designated providers, medical marijuana dispensaries, or private marijuana "vapin.g," smoking, or consumption clubs; provided, however, "unlicensed marPuana use" shaft not include any marijuana producer, marijuana processor, or marijuana retailer that has received and holds a valid marijuana producer, marijuana processor, or marijuana retailer license from the Washington Liquor Contra] Board pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC; provided farther, if a building permit for work within a business is necessary in order far sr business to obtain a valid marijuana license from the Washington Liquor Control Board under chapter 69.50 RCW the City may accept and prowess such permit prior to the applicant receiving its license from the Washington Liquor Control Board. C. ;`Unlicensed marijuana use does not and strati not include any personal possession or use of marijuana, marijuana -infused products, marijuana extracts, marijuana concentrates, marijuana oils, or other form of product containing cr derived from marijuana and intended for human use by any person pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW or by any qualifying patient pursuant to RCW 69.51A.D40. 13. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already - submitted complete land -use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as provided under Washington law. Section 3. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted to address the issues involving the City's regulation of, and the establishment of unlicensed marijuana uses A. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to fully receive and consider statements, testimony, positions, Ordinance 14421 Page 4 of 5 and other documentation or evidence related to the public health_ safety, and welfare aspects of unlicensed marijuana uses. B, The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to the establishment of unlicensed marijuana uses, which regulations may provide provisions restricting or limiting unlicensed marijuana use up to and including Mans, to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. Section 4, Public Hearinz, Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and 3&70,4.390, the City Council shall, conduct a public hearing on January 27, 2015 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall, 11707 East Sprague, Spokane Valley, 99206, City Council Chambers, to hear and co-nsider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance. Section 5. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall he in effect as of the date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect for a period of 355 days from the date of this Ordinance, 'unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. Section 6, Ratification. Any act consistent with tlic authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. Severability. lfany 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 ofthis Ordinance. Section 8. Declaration of Emergency; Effective Date. This Ordinance is designated as a public emergency necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and therefore shall take effect immediately upon adoption by. the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 9th day ofDecernber, 2014. A TTgS Dean Grafos _ yar `--City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as Qrm: Office&' e Cite. ttorney Date of Publication: December 12.2014 Effective Date: December 9, 2014 Ordinance 14-021 page 5 et CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOItAw COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-017 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE ours.' OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL NEW MARIJUANA PRODUCERS, MARIJUANA PROCESSORS, NIARIJUANA RETAILERS, MARIJUANA RESEARCHERS, MARIJUANA TRANSPORT AND DELIVERY USES, AND MARIJUANA COOPERATIVES, LICENSED BY OR REGISTERED WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR AND CANNABIS BOARD, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, based on the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high potential for abuse, Zack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment.- Gonzales v. Rage)), 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005), Controlled Substance Act, 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seri and WHEREAS, Initiative Measure Na, 692:, approved by the voters of Washington State on November 3, 1998, and now codified as chapter 69.51A RC W, created an affirmative defense for "qualifying patients" to the charge of possession of marijuana; and WHEREAS, in 2011, the Washington State Legislature considered and passed ESSSB 5013 that, among other things, (1) authorized the licensing of medical cannabis dispensaries, production facilities, and processing facilities, (2) permitted qualifying patients to receive certain amounts of marijuana for medicinal purposes from designated providers, (3) permitted collective gardens by qualifying patients whereby they may, consistent with state law, collectively grow marijuana for their own use, and (4) clarified that cities were authorized to continue to use their zoning authority to regulate the production, processing, or dispensing of medical marijuana under ESSSB 5073 and chapter 69-51.x. RCW within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, S, on April 29, 2011, Former governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions of ESSSB 5073 that would have provided the lege] basis far legalizing and licensing medical cannabis dispensaries, processing facilities, and production facilities, thereby making these activities illegal; and WHEREAS, ort November 6, 2012, voters of the State of Washington approved initiative Measure No. 502 ("1-502"), now codified in chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46,21, and 46.61 Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"), which provisions, (1) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (2) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence of intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (3) established a regulatory system licensing producer's, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older, and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (now the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, and referred to herein as the "WSLCB") to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1, 2013 for issuing licenses to produce, process, and sell marijuana; and WI-IEREAS, on August 29, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a nterno providing updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of 1-502. Several ongoing federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime and preventing distribution of marijuana to minors. Further„ the rnemn provided that the Department would not seek ongoing prosecution of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana, provided that those state and local governments "implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will Ordinance 15-017 Page 1 of6 address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health, and other late enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures ort paper; it must also be effective in practice;" and WHEREAS on July 22, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. L4-04S, which established in chapter 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (" SVMC") and SVNMC 19.120.050 regulations, zoning, buffers, and other limitations on marijuana producers, processors, and retail sellers licensed under chapter 69.50 RCW, but which did not regulate unlicensed marijuana uses, including medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, the City's regulations were premised, in part, upon the laws and regulations then in effect (chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC), that allocated a total of three marijuana retail licenses within the City and provided a maximum limit on. marijuana production space; and WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-021, adopting a moratorium on the establishment of new unlicensed marijuana uses in order to allow the City to consider any marijuana- related Legislation adopted as part of the 2015 Washington State Legislative Session and to develop comprehensive marijuana regulations incorporating such changes; and WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by the City otl December 9. 2414, did not impact existing licensed or unlicensed marijuana facilities and did not prohibit the City from processing applications related to. licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers because the City had already adopted regulations for such uses that were premised, in part, upon the laws and regulations toren in effect (chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC), that allocated a total of three retail licenses within the City and provided a maximum limit on marijuana production space; and WHEREAS, to date, the City has 19 licensed marijuana producers, 21 licensed marijuana processors and three licensed marijuana retailers located within its boundaries. All three licensed marijuana retailers are operational and are selling marijuana at their locations within the City. The City processed five business registrations related to medical marijuana in 2013 and 1.0 business registrations in 2014 prior to the adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, in 2015, the Washington State Legislature adopted the "Cannabis Patient Protection Act," Laws of 2015, ch. 70, and additional comprehensive rrrarijuana-related regulations pursuant to Laws of2015, ch. 4 and other enacted legislation (collectively, the "20 5 Marijuana Le2islatton"); and WHEREAS, as part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, the State (1) reconciled the medical and recreational marijuana markets by establishing a `medical marijuana endorsement" that retail licensees will be able to obtain to sell medical marijuana to qualified patients and designated providers, while also making unlicensed collective gardens illegal by July 1, 2016, (2) expanded the amount of marijuana production that may be conducted state-wide to accommodate the needs of marijuana retailers with medical marijuana endorsements, (3) created "cooperatives" which must be registered by the WSLCB, and (4) created a new license for common carriers to deliver and transport marijuana between licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers deliveryltr~ansportaticn and created a new marijuana research license for pertnitees to produce, process, and possess marijuana for certain limited research purposes; and WHEREAS, as part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, the State required an increase in the number of marijuana retail licenses to "accommodate the medical needs of quelif3. patients and designated providers" and directed the WSLCB to promulgate rules and regulations 4ti ° ° rti:7 the number of incieeeL.l retail licenses, accepting new retail license applications and accepting app ii..atier£ f::r iiir dical man; Ilia endorsements; and Ordinance 15.017 Page2.of6 WUEREAS, on September 23, 2015, the WSLCB issued, effective: immediately, its Emergency Rules #15-1P (the "WSLCB Emergency Ru1es") to amend chapter 314-55 WAC to provide that (1) the WSLCB will begin accepting marijuana retail license applications on October 12, 2015 and it will not set a limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses until a later date, (2) the WSLCB will begin accepting applications for medical marijuana endorsements, and (3) the state cap on maximum marijuana production space is reinneed and will be set at a later date; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2015, the WSLCB also issued its Proposed Ruses : 15-17, which will be subject to public comment, and pursuant to which the WSLC$ has provided that it will not set a limit an the number of marijuana retail licenses or a state cap on marijuana pruduc.ti.on space until a later dare; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 ofthe Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits ail such local police, sanitary and other regulations as arc not in conflict with general taws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.7QA.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning Snap, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body i-ec.eived a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to are year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed Eoi one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is Held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 andlor RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which focal governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-580, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt ftatas the requirements of threshold determination under the State Environ naert.aI Policy Acta and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No, 14-021, the City is in the process of developing comprehensive medical and recreational marijuana regulations. However, the Planning Commission and City Council will not have an opportunity to fully consider and develop comprehensive marijuana policy decisions that give adequate consideration to 2015 N'[arijuana Legislation, or to adopt such City regulations, prior to October 12, 2015 when the WSLCB will begin accepting and processing additional marijuana retail licenses; and WHEREAS, new proTios Els for additional marijuana retail licenses that may be submitted beginning October 12, 20 pose an imminent threat to the public health and safety as they may create incompatible land uses subject to II'e City's existing regulations which were premised, in part, oh atotal of Ordinance 15-017 Page 3 of6 three marijuana retail stores and a state cap on the maximum amount ofmarijuana production space, waithcrut allowing the City to fully consider the impacts of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation or the WSLCB Emergency Rules. Further, allowing an unknown number of' marijuana retail licenses to vest or be located within the City prior to completion. of the City's review and development of its marijuana zoning and land use regulations impairs the City's ability (1) to give full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and currently uncapped increase in marijuana retail stores arid statewide maximum marijuana production space, (2) to develop a reasoned approach to the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation„ WSLCB Emergency Rules, and the currently uncapped increase in the number of marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space. and (3) to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land use regulations governing medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Was; and WHEREAS, additional time is necessary for planning Commission and City Council (1) to give full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and currently uncapped increase in marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space, (2) to develop a reascncd approach to the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and the currently uncapped increase in the number of marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space, and (3) to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning, and land use regulations governing medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 20151Vlarijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Rules; and WHEREAS, Washington State law, including RCW 35A.63,220 and RCW 36.70A,394, authorizes the City to adopt a moratorium, provided the City conducts a public hearing an the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption of the moratorium; and WHEREAS, the City has authority to establish a moratorium concerning the establishment and operation of licensed or registered marijuana uses as a necessary stop -gap measure: (1) to give full consideration to the 2015 ,Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Erne gency Rules, and currently uncapped increase inti marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum marijuana production space, (2) to develop a reasoned approach to the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and the aurrentiy uncapped increase in the number of marijuana retail stores and statewide maximum, marijuana production space, (3) to adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land use regulations governing medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Rules. and (4) to avoid applicants possibly establishing vested tights contrary to and inconsistent with any revisions the City may make for its rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. NOW, THEREFORE, the CityCouncil of the City of Spokane Walley ordains as follows:. Section 1. Preliminary Findians. The City Council Hereby adopts the above recitals as findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 2. ivloratorium Established, A. The City Council liereby declares and imposes a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or Cu: any new licensed or registered marijuana use. Ordinance 15-017 Paged of B. For purposes of this moratorium, "licensed or registered marijuana use" means any marijuana pi duccrs, marijuana processors, marijuana retailers, including any licensed retailer seekutg a medical marijuana endorsement, marijuana researcher, marijuana delk,ely or transportation by cammatt carrier between licensed facilities, marijuana cooperative, or other use that is required pursuant in chapters 69,50 and 69,51A RON' and chapter 314-55 WAC to be licensed by or registered with the WSLCB. C. This moratorium shall not affect, and "licensed or registered marijuana use shall not include any personal possession or use of marijuana, marijuana-infused products, marijuanaextracts, marijuana concentrates, marijuana oils, or other form of product containing or derived from marijuana and intended for human use by any person pursuant to chapter 69.50 RCW or by any qualifying patient or designated provider pursuant to chapter 69,5IA RCW. D. Nothing herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing and already- submitted complete land-use or building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as provided under Washington law, or any processing or consideration of any land-use or building permit for a marijuana producer, marijuana processor, cr marijuana retailer that has, as of the date of this moratorium, already received its license from the WSLCE and which permit application is for a modification or renewal at the existing location listed on that license for that rrrarijivana producer, processor, or retailer. Section 3. Work Plan. The following work plan is adopted to address the issues involving the City's regulation c}f. ,r. l ilia establishment of licensed or registeredmarijuana uses: A_ T ity of 5p;: atie V,iiley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to hold public hearings and pub! is llcetim to filly receive and consider statements, testimony, positions, and other documentation or evidence tel=ki to the public health, safety, and welfare aspects of licensed or registered marijuana uses. B. The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to work with City staff and the citizens of the City, as well as all public input received, to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to the establishment of licensed Cr registered marijuana uses, giving full consideration to the 2015 Marijuana Legislation and WSLCB Emergency Mules, and which regulations may provide provisions restricting ur limiting unlicensed marijuana use up to and including bans, to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration_ Section 4. Public Hearing. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and 36.70A,390, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing on October 27, 2015 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the City of Spokane Valley City Hall, 11707 Fast Sprague, Spokane Valley, 99206, City Council Chambers, to hear and consider the comments and testimony of those wishing to speak at such publi hearing regarding the moratorium set forth in this Ordinance. Section S. Duration. The moratorium set forth in this Ordinance shall be in effect as of the date of this Ordinance and shall continue in effect for a period of 365 days from the date of this Ordinance, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public bearings) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date af this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed_ Section 7. Sevcrahility. 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 nut affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Ordinance 15-0 l7 Page 5 of Section S. Declaration of Emer cncv. Effeckive faute. This Ordinance is designated as E public emergency necessary For the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and therefore shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 6th day of October, 2015. )r ATTES 11 Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date afPublieatien: Effective Date: October 6, 2015 Ordinance 15-0l7 Page 6 of CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON OIINANCE NO. 15-023 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE RENEWAL AND EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM ON ALL UNLICENSED MARIJUANA USES, ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO ORDNANCE NO. 14-121, FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTE YTNG THE RENEWAL AND EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM ON UNLICENSED MARIJUANA USES, AND OTHER MATERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing lana uses within the City; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing ori the proposed moratorium, interim zoning neap, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective For not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed For related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and WHEREAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 andfor RCW 36.70Ai90 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.7UA.390 both authorize the renewal of a moratorium, interim zoning reap, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control for one or more six- month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, on December 9, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-021 establishing a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit applications or licenses by or for unlicensed marihuana. use; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 14-021, the moratorium shall remain in effect "for a period of 365 days from the [effective datel, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A390;" and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35,.63.20, RCW 36.70A.390, on November 10, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing an the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originallyestablished pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months; and Ordinance 15-023 Page 1 of 5 Wi-TEREAS, City Council heard testimony from two in:eiested parties during the public Bearing; and WHER.EAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, the City Council is required to adopt findings of fact after conducting the public [leering and prior to renewing the. moratorium. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390, and Section 5 of Ordinance No. 14-021, on November 10, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of sic months. The City Council hereby adopts the following as findings of fact in support of the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months; 1. Since 1970, federal law has prohibited the manufacture and possession of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, based an the federal government's categorization of marijuana as having a "high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical rase, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." Gonzales Reich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); Controlled Substance Act, 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. 2, initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of Washington State on November 3, 1998, and now codified as chapter 69.51A RCW. created an affirmative defense for "elualifying patients" to the charge of possession of marijuana. 3. In 2011,.the Washington State Legislature considered and passed ESSSB 5073 that, among other things, (1) authorized the licensing of medical cannabis dispensaries, production facilities, and processing facilities; (2) permitted qualifying patients to receive certain amounts of marijttana for medicinal purposes from designated providers; (3) permitted collective gardens by qualifying patients whereby they may, consistent with state Law, collectively grow marijuana for their own use; and (4) clarified that cities were authorized to continue to use their mine authority to regulate the production, processing, or dispensing of marijuana under ESSSB 5073 and chapter 69.51A RCW within them respective jurisdictions. 4. On April 29, 2011, former governor Christine Gregoire vetoed the portions of ESSSB 5073 that would have provided the legal basis for legalizing and licensing medical cannabis dispensaries,. processing facilities, and production facilities, thereby making these activities illegal. 5. On November 6, 2012, voters of the State of Washington approved initiative Measure No. 502 ("1-502"), new codified in chapters 69.50, 46.04, 46.20, 46.21, and 46.61 Devised Code of Washington ("RCW'"), which provisions (1) decriminalized possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia; (2) amended state laws pertaining to driving under the influence cif intoxicants to include driving under the influence of marijuana; and (3) established a regulatory system licensing producers, processors, and retailers of recreational marijuana for adults 21 years of age and older, and required the Washington State Liquor Control Board (now the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board arid hereinafter referred to as the "WSLCB") to adopt procedures and criteria by December 1, 2013 for issuing licenses to produce, process, and sell marijuana. 6. On August 29, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a memo providing updated guidance on marijuana enforcement in response to the adoption of 1-502. Several ongoing federal enforcement priorities were outlined, including prevention of crime an,d preventing distribution of marijuana to minors. Further, the memo provided that the Department would not seek ongoing prosecution of marijuana providers, users, and local officials in states that authorized marijuana, provided Ordinance 15-023 Page 2 of 5 that those state and local governments "implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice." 7. On July 22, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-008, which established in chapter 19.85 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMMMC") and SVMC 19.120.050 regulations, zoning, buffers, and other limitations on marijuana producers, processors, and retail sellers licensed under chapter 69.50 RCW, but which did not regulate unlicensed marijuana uses. 8, Unlike recreational licensed marijuana production, processing, and retail sales under chapter 69.50 RCW, all other marijuana uses, includiirg medical marijuana and businesses offering "private" marijuana consumption or "eapieg," remained unlicensed marijuana uses that were largely unregulated and were not subject to review, licensing, or enforcement by the WSLCB or other State or local agency. 9. The City believed the Washington State Legislature was likely to propose and consider legislation on medical marijuana in its 2015 Legislative session, but the City could not determine what that legislation may have provided or whether it would in fact be passed. 10. As of October 28, 2014, the City had processed business registration endorsements for at least 1,8 medical -marijuana related businesses within the City, all of which provide marijuana outside of the licensing, regulation, and enforcement of the WSLC13, none of which were or are licensed marijuana producers, processors, or retail outlets under chapter 69.50 RCW, and none of which were or are subject to the City's regulations under SVI IC 19,85 er SVMC 19.120.05'J. 11. On December 9, 2014, the City adopted Ordinance No. 14-021, adapting a moratorium oft the establishment of new unlicensed marijuana uses in order to allow the City to consider any marijuana - related legislation adopted as part of the 2015 Washington State Legislative Session and to develop comprehensive marijuana regulations incorporating such changes. 12. The moratorium adopted by the City on december 9, 2014, did not impact existing licensed of unlicensed marijuana facilities and did not prohibit the City from processing applications related to licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers because the City had already adopted regulations for such uses that were premised, in part, upon the laws and regulations then in effect (chapter 69.50 RCW and chapter 314-55 WAC), that allocated a total of three retail licenses within the City and provided a maximum limit on marijuana production space. 13. Pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 14-021, the City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission was directed to conduct public hearings and public meetings to consider the impacts of unlicensed marijuana uses, and to work with City staff and citizens of the City to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to the establishment of unlicensed marijuana uses, which regulations may include provisions restricting or limiting unlicensed marijuana use up to and including bans, to be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. 14. The 2015 Washington State Legislative session began on January 12, 2015, and was extended through a third special session that concluded on July 10, 2015. 15. lti 2015, the Washington State Legislature adopted the "Cannabis Patient Protection Act," Laws of 2015, ch. 70, and additional comprehensive marijuana -related regulations pursuant to Laws of 2015, ch, 4 and other enacted legislation (collectively, the "2015 Marijuana Legislation''), 16. As part of the 2015 Marijuana. Legislation, the State (l) reconciled the medical and recreational marijuana markets by establishing a "medical marijuana endorsement" that retail licensees Ordinance 15-023 page 3 ofb ~will be able to ohtain to sell medical marijuana to qualified patients and designated providers, while also ineking unlicensed collective gardens illegal by July 1, 2016, (2) expanded the amount of marijuana production that may be conducted state-wide to accommodate the needs of marijuana retailers with i.tedicaL marijuana endorsements, (3) created "coopeertives" which must be registered by the WSLCB, dad (4) created a new license for common carriers to deliver and transport marijuana between licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers delivery/transportation and created a new marijuana research license for permitces to produce, process, and possess marijuana for certain limited research purposes. 17. As part of the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, the State required an increase in the number of marijuana retail licenses to "accommodate the medical needs of qualifying patients and designated providers" and directed the WSLCB to promulgate rules and regulations for .etting the number of increased retail licenses, accepting new retail license applications and {-accepting applications for reed icai marijuana endorsements. 18. On September 23, 2015, the WSLCB issued, effective immediately, its Emergency Rules 15-18 (the "WSLCB Emergency Bailee") to amend chapter 314-55 WAC to provide for (1) the WSLCI3 to begin accepting marijuana retail license applications on October 12, 2015, with the limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses to be set at a later date, (2) the WSLCB to begin accepting applications for medical marijuana endorsements, and (3) the state cap on maximum marijuana production space to be increased to an amount to be set at a later date. 19,. On September 23, 2015, the WSLCB also issued its Proposed Rules 05-17, which are subject to public comment, and which, as of October 27, 2015, provided that the limit on the number of marijuana retail licenses and state cap on marijuana production space will be set at a later date. 20, Due to the WSLCB Emergency Rules, and in order to maintain the status quo to allow the City to (l) give full consideration to Cie 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, WSLCB proposed rules, and potential increase in marijuana retail stores and marijuana production space, (2) develop a reasoned approach to the public health, safety, and welfare impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, WSLCB proposed rules, and the potential increase in marijuana retail stores and marijuana production space, and (3) adopt appropriate comprehensive zoning and land use regulations governing medical and recreational marijuana based upon the impacts from the 2015 Marijuana Legislation, WSLCB Emergency Rules, and WSLCB proposed rules, the City established a moratorium an new Licensed or registered uses on October 6, 2015 pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-017. 2l. Although the City has begun the work plans established in Ordinance No. 14-021 and Ordinance No. 15-017, the Planning Commission and City Council will not have an opportunity to fully consider and develop comprehensive marijuana policy decisions that give adequate consideration to 2015 Marijuana Legislation, or to adopt such City regulations, prior to the termination of the moratorium on unlicensed nxarijnana uses established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021 unless such moratorium is renewed and ettended for a six-month period. 22. Pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to "make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with general laws," which includes the adoption of regulations governing land uses within the City; and 23, The renewal of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14021, for a six month periled provides the City with additional time to review and amend its public health, safety, and welfare requirements and zoning and land use regulations related to the establishment and operation of unlicensed marijuana uses. Ordinance 15-023 Page 4 of 24. RCW 36.70A.390 provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without balding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance; or interim official control within at least sixty day of its adoption, whether or not the governing body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning cornrnission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a Longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map; interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed far one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and hidings of fact are made prior to each ren .wal.,' 25. A moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 andlor RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. 26. RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the renewal ofa moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control for one or more six-month periods if a public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. 27. The City properly published notice of the public hearing on the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months, on October 30, and November 6, 2015 in the Walley News Herald, the City's legal publication. 28. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RC1II 36.70A.390, on November 10, 2015, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana. uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months. 29. The City Council received testimony from two interested parties who spoke at the public hearing. The City Council has given due consideration to all public testimony received. 30. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-830, the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. I4-021, for a period of six months is exempt from the requirements of threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act. 31. The renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 32, The City Council finds that the renewal and extension of the moratorium on unlicertsed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, for a period of six months is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. Section 2, Renewal and Extension. The moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No• 14-021, is hereby renewed and extended for a period of six mouths from December 9, 2015,.unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.76A_390. As part of the renewal and extension of the moratorium, the City shall continue to work through the work plan established pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 14-021. Ordinance ] 5-023 Page 5 of 6 Section 3. Ratification, Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is Hereby ratified and affrrned. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5, Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this l9S day of December, 2015. ATTEST42 peon Grafos, Mayor 67. • t w r y Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk pr t'iV to Form: Of ice/of the City Attorney Date of Publication: 12,04,2015 Effective Date: 12/09/201.5 Ordinance 15-623 Page 6 of 6 Attachment C PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 1. Definitions APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS A. General Provisions, 1. For the purpose of this eCode, certain words and term are herein defined. The word "shall" is always mandatory. The word "may" is permissive, subject to the judgment of the person administering the oCode. 2. Words net defined herein shall be construed as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary_ 3. The present tense includes the future, and the future the present. 4. The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular. 5. Use of male designations shall also include female. B. Definitions. Mianufaetirring, petroleum and coal products: The manufacture of asphalt paving, roofing and coating and petroleum refining. See "Industrial, heavy use category." 1l.triju:r nu clu b or Iuungc: A c1lIL). iLti'L1C;L1tio11, or other lausinLgss. ?or.i1r [..i1 Lrr otl erv.i . Lll4lt conducts L3 L' I1lzllnrtllll a premises Lir thi..2 1)initlrk (11" incidental ourp 'tic E71' Iw[l%idli11L i It1C:iiio11 Mlece I11SW111i]L:I'ti 01' L)i.h4 I I?''I LiI1a may I+Lep u1 consul -tic I1iarij.i iiia on Ow lizcnsccl bv the SILL e I-iuLI11I' :IIIA C'annrthis Board or not. lw sii l' oli]ct'.si..I1.IiIxur klti pursuant to R.0 W 6.11,-1.65, as inn.. oplL-d o:11L'rtxrtFrer zt,lltinthcl, I11riinn.p;i _cooperative: A IflIriivana cool)Crtlwti e I011llcd ,Lirsua1L ti3 chnpt,41r 69_5 1,A I.C''a\'_ .Iti rov.. adol,tl"cl or llcrti:xlicr 41inelldcd.. A IllarL t11 til CCI '. I':11 ik e is L'.omprit;ed. ol` tip to I1:1ur ILIL 1 I' ii i T patients or (lk. I 11:1iC[I privkAdcrs Lind tbrL11L.i t0I' rho purposes ortilw;Ii lI I"L.til'c1I 1L1I Cil iol' L1ccittiI'h)fl and sunr1k1ILi Tile :'i s 1ureti5.1iiiiid `producing and pn LessLIL marijuana "orLI'i+: 111 .d 4..i� Llys' cat- L1'L 111en1 icr:; til tk. 111ai ij Ii:II'.[l cooperative. Marijuana processing: Processing marijuana into usable marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates, packaging and labeling us -able marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates for sale in retail outlets, and sale of usable marijuana, marijuana -infused products, and marijuana concentrates at wholesale by_—a marijuana processor licensed by the tl'Ilsliington State Liquor Control anti Cattllrll,is Board and ;,.III =, 1. Gchapter 6950 RC\V, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See "Industrial, light use category." Attachment C Marijuana production: Production and sale of marijuana al wholesale by a marijuana producer licensed by the 14'.LsI1iilLtiolt State Liquor CentreLLinLI t..i11111t1bis Board and 1111 41t111t l0 chapter 69.50 RCW, as now adopted or hereafter amended. See `Agricultural and animals, use category." Marijuana sales: _Selling usable marijuana, marijuana -infused product, and marijuana concentrates in a retail outlet by a marijuana retailer licensed by the W,L 11inL!,11' l State Liquor ControkLnd titlnn;ihi,; Board, ;7lcxn+„ 1.11 <i111artpl cahie c,llicr a allovvocl as purl or the nlar'i olin1L stilus t4Lr LItI 1 In ;L11 �n1:l��r;i n1 nt associ:1tocl lti'itll marijuana i. i. iii, io,..71ticiiou but mil linliic£I l41 In'siri.Llill 11'I -:Liles 1iLIi L ink.tdical ei14Iul'scln ri[, lel era11or S'I it IlItir1141";1llil 61111 O1" I0u11'_'ti 1741r1,11all; Ill Un 011C101tielli ;'I1t. i.,r (ltll?4"l'1'".. 11112111iLlalla. [hal Iilili r��tplir� n cnclt'rtic.'nl°„'11L. L 11 >• pro id.d—d C.hapter 69_50 RCW, as now adapted or hereafter amended. See '`Retail sales, use category" Marijuana tinder with, at medical endorsement: I1solei and n1ctlic:11 111:K1.41;111L1 Malas 1v a 611111"If llilll:l r 1nikt' 11 •114LL 170ti tli Slat' slid C:1L1ttab1 BoarL. II::L Itas KSLRd a Incdic l nlariii1;;11L1 QI1'.I(1rti.::iieii1 cliLll?Itir 69.51) RCW .' and diai}l :r 6c) 5 1 \v. L1 Ilsvo arloitcd iii I)L1•L',11Ll r.tlltc'I1dLkI. Market, outdoor: A temporary or seasonal location where produce and agricultural products including, but not limited to, pumpkins, Christmas trees and firewood, as well as crafts arid other items, are offered for sale to the public. See "Retail sales, use category. **tie Attachment C Ii. SVMC 19.120.050 19.120.050 Permitted use matrix. Permitted Use Matrix Use Categoryffype Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions R. 1 R. 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -MF- 1 2 MUCCMU GO 0 MC C RCP/OS 1- 1 I- 2 Agriculture and Animal Kennel 8 8 $ 8 S P P See zoning districts for conditions Marijuana production 5 8 S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Orchard, tree farming, eornrrtercial P P Food and Beverage Service Espresso establishment P P PPPPP A PP Marijuana club or lounge CFiapier 19.85 SVMC Attachment C Permitted Use Matrix Use Category(Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplement& Conditions R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -MF- 1 2 MUCCMLiG0 0 NC C RC MOS I- 1 1- 2 Mobile food vendors S S S SSSS S SS SI MC 19.60.010(L),19.70.010(B){2} Industrial, Light Manufacturing, light P P P Marijuana processing S S S S Chapter 19,85 SVMC Plastic injection molding, thermoplastic P P P P P P Residential Dwelling, townhouse P P PP PP P Manufactured home park SSS S 8 SVMC 19.40130 Attachment C Permitted Use Matrix Use Category/Type Residential Zone Districts Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Supplemental Conditions R- 1 R- 2 R- 3 R- 4 MF -MF- 1 2 MUC CMU GO 0 NC C RC PIOS I- 1 I- 2 MarljtLana cooperative Chapter 19.85 WAG Retail Sales Manufactured home sales P P P Marijuana sales 5 5 S S Chapter 19.85 SVMC Market, outdoor P P P P P P A = Accessory use, 0 = Conditional use, P =Permitted use R = Regional siting, 5 = Permitted with supplemental conditions T = Temporary use Attachment C 111. SVMC 19.85 I'l,�i ,itlfl f4't:rri,jtusn:t lrrmtrilriett .r'itantlyrrte... A. Marijuana pmductian shal] he looted Or 1cast 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property ]inc of the Otienct production facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts peeyeint tom este.blished in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts pursteue tons establie --lee t✓_hapter27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shall be excluded from consideration under this scctiorei ' lC.' I 9x5.0 LI: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a storrnwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan ar program. adopted by the e ity cCounoil; and b. The Appleway Trail; or 4. a. Any facility, e _building, designated or identified in arty document, plan, or program adopted by the city council as "Spokane Valley City Halle" or other similar terns that identifies such facilities eee buildings, campus, or collection of beeldinge as the city's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPIace. B. Marijuana production in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall only be permitted indoors. ' .e.5.020 etnrijunnrt pre tee,ele steed:; .! A. Marijuana processing shall be located or maintained at least 1,004 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana processing facility to the nearest property line of any one or more of the following uses: 1. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts pursuant to:, n. established in RCW Title 28A; 2. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public Library districts pursuant toes established in G hapter 27.12 RCW; 3. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided the following shal] be excluded from consideration under deis section5V MC 19.8 .1120: a. Any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated ar identified as a stormwater facility or right -of --way in any document, plan or program adopted by the eCity cCouncil; and b. The .Appleway Trail; or 4. a.. Any Iacil:ty, building, designated or identified in any docuim.mi, plan, or program adopted by the city council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" or other Attachment C sirrli]ar tctm that identifies such facilities; or building , . as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; or b. CenterPlaee. B, Marijuana processing in the regional commercial and community commercial zones shall be limited to packaging and labeling of usable marijuana. 1 9,K5.03it \1;t1"1ptin raa retail sales.st:lu A. \r,u I11i9ri tI II t 4::114:; sllzall 11C1t 1'l. INATriilLt:al within a t1: Lt�a1c. B. i,lrijttallll Sale LI Ls 111 .,\,iS“:11'and ii1 continuous and lavLlilt L1L1.I'.ltion prior to tile date of these 1 t.i.ilatli111; slink he deemed Ill1nLio111w?r;niiiu :anti tillnl' be permit:L(1 :ls i le al iiNL2 subieet to the l'1, I I,, % i I1 NI -marijuana sales slinll be located or maintained at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line, measured from the nearest property line of the marijuana sales facility to the nearest property line of any one or mere of the following uses: A I . Centennial Trail; B2. Appleway Trail; Gd. Vacant or undeveloped parcels owned by public school districts L1cr ti;i11 tk,... e5" RCW Title 28A; ID -I. Vacant ar undeveloped parcels owned by public library districts ptiN ianl tow established in C•ihapter 27.12 RCW; L. Vacant or undeveloped parcels leased or owned by the City; provided any stormwater facility or right-of-way parcels owned or leased by the City and designated or identified as a stormwater facility or right-of-way in any document, plan or program adopted by the e'ity e!_ouncil shall be excluded from consideration under this section, or -1- . Any facility u1; building, -. , : - • o designated or identified in any document, plan, or program adopted by the city council as "Spokane Valley City Hall" ar other similar terrn that identifies such facilities,eff buildings, :amps, or collection of fa4idingr, as the City's primary administrative and legislative location; er 2h. CenterPlace. 19.S.i.t111 Other iicenscd or rc,!istercd n irl,ittai? 1ins.es lrcllllhiteal, lill liiCilCl:l 11 i „Lii. 1, '., ill l"I�!i 111 1 lll'� � >ti!!1`" 11(1 cAistiru4 IllarlitIi111't7 ..sale:,; shall bt permitted l urt. dill[ IL SVNIC i't ti M'{l rued 19.85.010. All other ct1li nivr ia1 iltltl non-commercial: licensed or tc i is reel L1:..rijuanra u•:4..; lrl. prohibited within all zont.s of die City. Ills prohibition incl Licks_ hot w pot li 11ited to. marijuana elall1s Or 1D1.111',LS an(l 111;1ri''Viln 1.11j.SLIOLs I1L1.41. €1pp1\' to I1oinc nr5,4kin`, -or processiragt}1 marijuana a by qualified patients or cl'tisianalt!LI ,prL1vIdcrs in residential zones EIS 3Lt di:1rt11 i11 SV'IC 19,85.050 aid 111 Compliance tikirll slag 19.8;.1751) 11•Iirijutill.i 1 I'r1iJuttitln Limit i)rucessinE in residential zones. Washintiron Stale. law a tiiliorilc; cluaiitlitc1 eluents uiid JL'la Il Lted providers to proclii n1ar.juiln 1 and to process inarijcnlla incI eI1 11,5. I\silences. Lla,li,icil4 . oncl tiilltiI it Ilau inu coils under Ii111il:Ll circumstances aoc ssi"1ft! methods_ tiL,biecr lc} applicable federal, aaat,e. and Ici4;al laws, Inti' owner. lessor. or l asini7 al {?a :ll 111:,'. I'L 4IL'til [7," require disclosure iLIC a renter or lessee's desire Lo li •altitIce or process marijuana u ithii1 LI r.Illccl or Leased cl ; ell in" Lillil_ In addaioi1 to compliance with an,.. ilpolieahlc state or federal laws lllltl l't"Ltllntion' . i ltti 1.111 production or processing! 1 1 marijuana by ally person inn L114' lllil{'_ r tiiiJun��. dcorrkiLe. or other sin]] lar unit shall bL subleCL to X111 locally Attachment C ;ro7119i ;i111L Lind LI L_ fIt:'w4IR1I1Il1011, Al11111u., :111L1 hl111(11'UL! ,-LT,i1I LIf111 rckli,irL11i Ills. intluLlin�L h'.11 110. Iirli.cL1 to all :11 )In j1ylL i c uiruuncnls v .t li,r't l 111 'i1lLs 17, 1:i. 1 4. 21}. 21. _").2 224 SVIMC" as &L.: Yore now adopted or hrrL;afl`r t1Yner1L,It:cl. ,111r1111t. follow II12 rt.uuI iii[]11s: 1. :4rly IIlJL11e production or 11rok.:(. �:Ii.0 LFI i1 t'ijli 1 1 i l Jl1V' n4I`a;t111 jllll•tiLIaIl1 lL1 slaw law Ahitll not lrt J1L'rIUi1LLCI toultside VC. 1I') lkw *LliIi rIl• )L' �ti�lr~ a11•ucttll•C B. r\nw' iiLliilL t71'oCltlttll111 or nrocesiint" .11 IIiLYrlitiallt1 t'++ ;111E' lllltiilll as allowed bw' sL'Llte law in Ll {lww2.ll'.I1t or acccssit'1• stt'tetLlt'G sI1alI be enclosed. blocItir:cl. or Ii'L+:n the public ritI11t-uE'-was., anti 11r+lm at iittcent properties so lIi it no l+c+i'1ion our,. hk: rLLrdil. :1 by normal uii fide l sim.dled tl"olil qIchl locations. cct;;sork' till'11c1Lileti;dl:tLl 17L I'.L`i'1'1illl[:n1 slrLi!*II,lves encloscd L'v a fool and twal1 [SYI tell sicfLs -And .i+illls:il[:tl tt+ n pLrtnancl 1 ILIu11dotit+n. For purposes ril` SVi'1C 19.85.050. ;IGi.:ess[1r1' till'Lic:II?'tti shall not Iii tilde Qitr+s[+ tt7ll1:1iI1trs. i'C'LI`F~11t14711i11 %'ehk'Ic5 ❑r other s1111;1'ci1' t l)eS t1t 11'lIkLLII'es, iw[ [ LLyr1 LrtiL1iH�'s w 1.3 1 11c L:o111oIetel\' JIlacitL1 in .11.1.iL1,C111 Co nicce;;lrw' . ic-screL'illllti 1`'. t'1+.}n1= )rL1cessin X11 Illatrittana _shall not it olve any L;L1lrbustihLc incl.h +(l and slink cam )1Y with all lcdei itl. stoic. and local laws and rules. ill4llldiii2� all staii.,clarciw ado Med by the 11`:rs',linC°ton State 1.:gLior ttnc1 Cannabis Board: and D. Frociuct <1n or l?l[>LLtitii:1i_' [+I 111ariivartil 11y an\° person 1 LIILIJlll IL MLILO dwi:l1inLi or accessui.y tructtlre shall :sulk lie alio er..1 in the R- 1. R-2. R-3. alRt R-4 zones. CI n OF SPOKi Nlr ' LLl i Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: October 22, 2015 Item: Check all that apply: n consent 71 x:k{ ::t sirtess nen Inl;;iness ❑ public hearing n Hil-urinat lt?11 t:LIJLL1II ri;pore i 1 [}em.11ILL leals.1;]ln7Ty FILE lYLT1VIBF1t: CTA -2015.-0006 .k(FNDrA ITEM TITLE: Study session — Recrezitien{rl :Irlrl Medical Marijuana Rt ulaiI_ lyti DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 11 RI'. if,1111g a update and background on current recreational and medical marijuana Inns_ inelLaill'.1' re•.:L:nt 20:5 State Legislative amendments and the City's current marijuana regulations Die:nas possible. :r,1 i ,yrs far amendinents to City regulations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A-106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); RCW n'a.;51 A; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: City Council has adopted regulations as set forth in SVMC 19120.050 end SVMC 19.85 for the zoning and buffering of recreational marijuana and furiher adopted a mowtcrium on all new marijuana uses which are not licensed by die Was]rinaton Stat. Liquor and Cannabis Board (primarily medical marijuana). On October 6, 2015, City Council adopted a rnoratorium on marijuana uses licensed by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board, BACKGROUND: In December of 2014, the Spokane Valley City Council adopted Ordinance leu. 14- 021 which established a moratorium CO the establishment of all marijuana uses other than marijuana producers, marijuana processors and marijuana retail sales as licensed by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB)_ This included all medical marijuana establishments. which at the time were not regulated by the State or WSLCB. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-021, the City established a work plan to work through and adopt parmanent regulations for such medical marijuana uses. On Ocher 6, 2015, the Spokane Valley City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-017, which established a moratorium on all marijuana uses licensed by the WSLCB. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-017, the City established a work plan to work through and adopt permanent regulations for all marijuana uses licensed by i he WSLCR. This study session will provide background material on the development of marijuana laws. Further, staff will outline three types of possible options in order to initiate Planning Commission discussions ort City marijuana regulations. Once Planning Commission has given direction on what type I-e41;ulations, City staff will return ata later meeting with proposed amendment language for further PIA nninR Commission discussion and a public hearing. i •L. r cordorsaI Marijuana Background: Recreational marijuana was legalized N•''itllin Washington State with the passage of Tnitiative 502. (1-502) in ;. uvember2012. The State has werkc.:ni over the last three years to dcvcI..i) I-L•t=IJ1L tions for lie: using and permitting of production (g!,? ring), processing, and retail sale.;; :ai rtc1,.: i penal Marijuana. All recreational marijuana facilitics must ne Ile.:el ed by the 1WSLCB. The <ILL:e1)ting and processing applications in November 20 I i. .IiL1 issued the first production arid preceNsin 1IC. I es v.1rltit� wl,c, slat Valley 1n 'March 201.1, A.; p,c i ltd .0 :.Iloi::tte a ]incited ,i,:r, bet 4+I rctail licenses M'iLhirl li l tiny litre ilii . 11 t l';1 . it,~, t:s allocated three reer.:ational retai; licenses and the WSLCB has issued all threc- staff ul,dersizir,tls that all dorse retail hops are open and Opel ill lanae.. 1. radcr state law, 611 ere is no restriction on till t]l produetI rt .],eii 11, iocc icing facilities althekigk1 there was originally a cap on the total atxtount of production sp cc scinev. isle. Currently, the City has 19 licens d production and 21 liii-tin4t.c! ],r rev.=ir,:: h:tc;ihues, State law provides 1,000 foot buffers between licensed llltlrii4la ri fiLil ities l uses, including schools, libraries, and public parks, but exclllilc t,:ril Laid unirkl ItT;ti ;cIic .I or library property. The WSLCB enforces the state buffers thio ugh ],1, ,.6:,c: licensing prut:es;, thi .1art,r u)r 16, 2014, a Washington Attorney General Opinion was released that provided Thai the Attorney General's opinion was that local jurisdictions were not pr,u.rr ,l]tcd by adopting, luteal regulations and restrictions an state -licensed recreational marijuana Lise5 111k2t.'i1\ s i 1i LerS are in addition to the state - mandated buffers and are enforced by the City. Ail marijuana uses remain illegal under the federal Controlled Stib-i nates Act. 1 the tended State Department of Justice has released a policy to riL4 proscianc1 c i ;cel inariiu.'.n °I crov kit:Ls states which have legalized marijuana and which have a strong enforce -rim -it .u:ti rtl;lt, i �. t llcna�. Medical Alimijuana Background: In 1998, voters approved the medical use of marijuana by initiative, though approval xA ..; limited in scope. In 2011, the Washington State Legislature adopted amendments to themarijuana laws that would have created a state registry for patients and Iegalized dispensaries and collective gardens. Governor Gregoire vetoed all sections related to the state registry and dispel, titles, creating a lame amount of confusion and leaving collective gardens as the sole legal means for l,rcduc.i.ng and procuring medical marijuana. The City did not adopt regulations at that time, but issued business registrations for collectives, provided they were located in a zone where retail sales were appropriate, 'kith the passage of 1-502 «gad legalization. of recreational marijuana, there developed two very distinct and separate lrlariirliiria regulatory regimes —a licensed and regulated recreational market and rn unretmiatcd ai1J unlicensed medical market. In 2015, the Washington State Legislature passed major changes to existing medical marijuana laws in an effort to reconcile the medical and recreational marijuana markets. There were two primary bills passed as part of the changes: Second Substitute Senate Bill 5452 (Cannabis Patient Protection Act) and Second Engrossed Second Substitute House 13i11 2136. The major changes included the following: Rocnarcaie Medical ravel liecreciiior,alari�uana Markeis a "medical marijuana endorsement" for licensed marijuana retailers. This cnaloriiii lit allows a licensed retailer to sell medicinal marijuana to qualifying patients and deli;ii attd providers. • The medical marijuana endorsement does not prohibit the licensed retailer from also selling recreational marijuana, • Qualifying patients :end designated providers may receive an exemption from the State's marijuana tax when purchasing nu :c:ical marijuana from a licensed retailer with, a medical marijuana endorsement. Creates a n e,iica, marijuana ;atithor•ization database that qualifying patients and designated providers lutist be entered in to. • Pal iems and prt,viders will obtain "recognition cards" that authorize them to purchase medical marijuana. • The database must be operational by July 1, 2016. - Collective gardens must cease operations as of July 1, 2016. Changes to Licensing - WS! CB must reconsider and mcftii:il' r,i tiI er1)f 1'..tail outlets to aw.e.i iirir,likiic ii vJicari, iil rijut:t':a r;4°ids. - 1VS[ .t. 13 must develop merit based fipplia ti on process for new retail licenses. W'S[..t. 11 must increase canopy limits i41r r-r,°t111: _r° to account for medical marijuana needs. - ReslrlcI: the use of butane r citllcr �!tiLti I:lr 11 : ijn:°lt,l =_ i;i tinl7 to validly licensed marijuana tlrr€1ccsNca s (no home extractii'n '...-.T11111CSLlti l sL.l cs ;1nd solvents), - f e1<lili,r.; may not s::11 through vending r:� !cl;irii.2r3 ,] 11 ' drive-up windows. - lsst.11 l i 11 . u trultspnrtation license for common carriers delivering between licensed facilities. - i:..:1111)litilics a research license. • �•_Il, v.s licensed researchers to research chemical potency, clinical investigations into nl,trinl.lrrt-derived drug proilMs. and i:iticacy and :safety of administering marijuana as Med it:.11 tl"i:'l:!llilll, andto C[lriJiiLi _;t'iOrtli::: &Yr agrll.;.tutu]-;tl rE'sc-areh- i1ie ! Ii.11!I LI 01 pr.„) ]-e„211w'e producers, proccssri. , and r'ernileu, r oviding notice to 111 iY'<l:}lie •.`j L e I]llcnt to license tll : racilitics els a r1 -irji.iail i prt)dueer. processor, or retailer. Allow fir "(.;r, ,t "ciruai,'c°.I;,F,• r'fi16l - Allows for the creation cf ltl4°tlitrrll Irl.'r ijuana "cc•,ri c7,-;ltivts '" tli.lt ,T1._; he formed by up to four qualifyina patients Or designated prclv id,,,r. • Cooperatives ca'lr,r,j of iu r iitlnna retailers or within 1,000 feet of schools, playgroun:1k, r:TreLtli4'r1 cvntcrs, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, library, or ;rpplicahlc gam, ;u,';Ici;xs• • Cooperati'.•k !L:i:atiorns ttnist with the 1•k'S1,.CB. • The loc;tri;fly •al a coop41ativc I,llttit be a domicil,' or one of the participants and only one c4,iJllct a.iw e 11rej be locate c (}1] 'l ti;ltglc property tae': • (.(1, perm l't may grow up ti' ii niaiximum of 60 plants_ • l•Ilc \\.,;•-1_,C13 may [:Licipt date's relating to security and traceability rerpUr€ menls 1cr" • 1 lc 1;; G']"itl t:.; .,ire not cansiderA I:1-rtiinesses (since 1h v only distribute to the four f enil)er:;), ti:? no but; in +. Iii;.. LS [•r" ; . '; • 1b40 not locate ',vlic': L I7:-ohibi1 :.il 11;• _ cit., or county zoning provision. (h' 1hiledPae !eras ei1i;++ +. •,aS,!'rrlf. i:i 1"(:i°,'fiiGrs - lw[sr. , , .ccive autIi r i_: ,rl iiin v MMrl? :icalth care professional. - ;\i iIiorirjkion and recd ,alai, n card issued once entered into the database are necessary to R'+:cive :1r1 pr01(CIiCrl- - '•1-.ti kccp amounts or marif.r trig listed on srl1I 71.7.! lion c.s•"d. `;:y grow up 15 plantsiia !ioij c. r No rr orc than 15 plants per I ousina, iin it r„;"ard1clis of how many patients reside in the housing :I'.lil (except for coopLr;ac.i,:,' t 11l; 11 riy; y have 60 plants). - No production or proccs iii . if ;Irli .'ti,'011 rrorn unaided vision ar smelled from a public place 1,r priyak' 1tfop.i.. rly :of l!Fi 11). i ul.i ii . LI17it. ticjclpt ruins :all?]€ti•Ii Iiu1)'' !nbuslil,l- extraction by qualified patients and designated providers. -Minors may be pat etlr , v‘'itil ltarotts serving as designated providers. Ke -peals 40.:',1 40, WIECI rained cities and e:.,[intic-; ii authority -to adopt and enforce requirements related it- itiedter. marijuana. - Cities arc atitleiriaid to adopt civil penalike, for patients and desinated providers growinEfixepin!4. 1'[,i'-idc the limits sot by SB 5052. - may adopt ordinances redileing the buffers between licensed fi.e..nice-, and recreation ceette'!.:;, child one:: centers, public parks, public transit centen,, aldQ whi,L-11. nal restricted to those over 21 from 'ON feet to not less than 100 fect... preetded such distance reduction will not negatively impact the jurisdiotion's eziminal law enforcement interests, public safety, or public health. • Buffers to schools uud playgrounds may not be reduced belcw thc suite 7,.....T.11, -ed 1,000 feet. - Subject to any rules adopted by the WSLCB, cities arid counties may ;it Lopan ordinance [LL}1hL iii .iaterijuariaproducer or processor from operating or locaiinu e erea-&' prinee.i1,, l:01" residential use or rural use with a minimum lol SI aC1'.1. I ler. As :i•iii 1irili ilio State must increase the number of retail stores to account for the inA moriphina ivai lxt 111c fiscal note indicated an estimate that approximately 400 new .rt.titil sterte, !etc -cd, which would effectively double the number of allowable retail stores throu ou the '-inft :the WSLCB is curren" II, in it rulemaking process as discussed in further detail below. OP, Pgitiatory Bat.k..fro in response to 1-502. iiic 1 idopted permanent regulations on July 22, :01.-4. Thu reLl.ulill.ion3, as they no'. L.:74:12iL 17c.1.111 111 19.120.05D (permitted 1150 matrix) [Ind SV: 195 provide as follows: - State licensed reariiinn production (outdoor and indoor 21-overu4) is Li pcianine.e ii 1ice-teir Industriat iiid l.LaI1l luilustrial zones. Indoor growing only -k; rcrmilufi and Commulity zones. - ut nc1marjuana processing (labeling and packaging, a.nd chemical or other extraction) N ;i pennitted LLS e 'he lleavy Industrial and Light Industrial zones. Packaging and labeling of 'useable marijuana only is permitted in Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones. - Both production and processing use nine not be located within 1,000 feet of City" Hall, CenterPlace, vacant City prol.),N-ty. ,11:111 :..,;tormwater and public rights -o1 -way), vacant library property, and v::1(.1"“ ni Proctuciion ;Ind ITIRy Li iL." 11:1:11ted 1,Nithin 1,000 feet of the Applew-eyIiail. pee.icei 1 lini Ii k":: L1C1CIOil i. ii11 h: App:'opriarLs zine (there are few Regional r % „..,t)leitterultil ;Ind (•oniritinivy Corninerial zort,'s wehin L.001./ feet of the Appleway Trail). - State licensed rriarijiana Niel I are peril limed in the :`,..lied Use Center, Collider Mixed Use, Regional Com ::101 Licensed retail sales rna:!.. Ali;oc..-aied v ihin 1,000 vacant City property (other Ci.ste ,L1.11-11.vitcr and pub Ii rights-of-weiy")„ vacant iihi7 L".Calt school property, the AppkvL y • It -a it, and the Centennial Trail, Further, after the passage oL I-502, the City saw an increase in the number cif eolletlives medical marijuana) seeking business registrations. The City passed a n-ior:11.n-i ri I lc marijuana uses (e.g., primarily medical marijuana) pursuant to Ordinance : .4-021) I nr ...cce.nhcr 2014 to allow the City to determine what action the State. would take to the mecllea I and recreational marijuana markets and to develop its own regulations In roil se. to the WS Emergency Rules on September 23, 2015 (described in detail below), tlie(iity aduptcd i riklettoriiiiti Lei icensed tho W SI...CB in order to 21i,4. iaLl ,„I'lry 10 CO 1I!;t_' tl,A(Lrailon, doelopnicni, and adoption of its regulations without all C iL1SL LuvC.-;T: L-]-catek potentially inconsistent or incornpal:ble uses. The rnoratorrimi didii 1 i 1 1112 111 11!) 1-.171a uses j-,ich !lad already received a7,9c.7.•..'ntw rriml 'the WSI CR+ Ptiwover, IL vyi:11 h.V11, 1hc City from col wish to nve ictaii WSI_113. FtLthc.sr. the moratorium did hoiric u.se ,t)r consumption, Thus, as it stands, the C :7,Ltr-eS, 19 licensed producers, and 21 licensed processors, with two moratoriums that cit.!(: I vv -.1 ;Inv illrther licensed retailers, producers, or processors until the City aclo7ts its regulations, it'SLCB 2,C115 R.+1tkiv OTI Scpicitfocr 201 5, tile WS[ CII3 b-511,21 irilmeili;lely, its Emergency Rules 415- [8, which removed the cap tile number of riArijii.:1 ,,vith the cap to be '-aa at a later date, and prded 1(',r the 165i S I C B to begin accepting aid proce riitiami retail License applications hLiLl 11 it1 Ii Octobcr 12, 2015. Fufl i hc Itinergency Ri: I cci1 L prucciliirCS for marijuana retail [iCaliCUS 1.1J itpp:y t'oi- medical marijuana endors....!1.;'.,..:ii!, dud 11-ic Aate-t.vide: c-ap on the total ninottif, oarijuana ion space, wilt the total amount to be sct at a lut,er dit Concurrently with the Emergency Rules, the WSLCI3 issued its proposed Rules #15-17. Those ruiu:s implement the new laws adopted in 2015. The rules include the following: Specifies the priority to determine the order in which marijuana retailers are licensed. • First priority is tIin pplicants- who (1) owned. or were members ofa marijuana clectivJ r!rdcil pi ior .January 1. 7.:0 1 3, (2) appiia for ;1 retail FAxrise WH,1.4213, (3) liavc 11aintairiL,1) slate .1-1nd Local 1)u si 1 i.ei and (4) arc current in FL...Timed taxes. • Scaond priority is to those appliraats who (1) own,,,Li or irxttiLicTS of a rn;niiitana gmleu prier to January :. I i Miii[Mi [led !;IaLC_ and local basinc.s. (3) are current in all required taxes. • Third priority is to all other applicants. - Matches state laws and allows applicants to locate within 100 feet of sensitive uses (other than schools and playgrounds) if the local city has passed an ordinanc]lowing such buffer reduction. - Provides that outdoor grows cannot share a coalition fence or wall and must be located at least 20 feet from each other. - Sets .rnaxirriurn production space at an amount to he determined at a later date. Previously the maximum space was to be set by market requirements up to 8.5 million square feet. - Provides that a producer may add a processor license at that same production location. - rules for aud maintaining a medical marijuana endorsement. • lunst.•;) oldie 11-vciii,1r; intKt be rnedicil m.:yrijwina 10 maintain tit,- irKdical [1 khrLIrIcilt Specifies that the WSLC3 Riad 14;(1:,-;k: ipplications during the time rail) v,..clasite. Farther, rn:txiinum 111.111lber of retail licenses per I 1-,c set at a later date. - Expands requIR!rliem.!, types of processing extraction sy,-;terns, - Allows two i'al ziid.r.s (up from ore). Each sign may b _HU square ,..1112.1102.,.. - <cts rules for eepe..eri !' Ili' reeeer.iee and maintainintr lee r1SpOrtattol1 license. • `1'ranspor' Bion :met tic UTC pernnineet C'S`i1111!i,41 lI iCrS. - Sets ILII.^.S for Leopeneik Cis..1 1 Ili Iiii I'c ,1 .1!':11:4111 requireI)14nt4, •-root it+Mit oleic icLII'11.4? iene ' i'•I wall For outdoor grow, :eel I eeee kc:ping. • No chemical solecrt extraction. Wily Regulation Options Planning Commission may consider a range of options for the City. T[i op1iCxn.i rti:1<u^e 'I;,;r. lI1; iIihiiIIIIi current regulations to adopting some further limitations (that would allow a limited increase in liLereed marijuana uses) to adopting a ban on additional licensed marijuana uses. S!aatt presented r.>t. nn i.31 concepts to City Council at its August 1 g, 2015, meeting. During that meeting. Col Elti 11 i II i .11421 a1 dl,i: restrict marijuana uses to their current levels or to minimize increasing the number o eeres. ~ttr:_ Ili would likely preclude the City from expressly setting the number of stores to be: nll.l�aL d hvith; rl 1i1c i:, it 4 , but the City may adopt reasonable land use regulations governing the siting and location of suet: One option Council discussed was possibly including an additional buffer preventing rct, [l stor4e fres locating within 1,000 feet of any other licensed use. Option 1: Rely en existing regulations. This approach would leave the existing City reguldtione i11 p to deal with any additional retail, production, and processing licenses. Under Illi; i:prion, PlanIIlii Commission should consider whether there should be any additional regulation!-; [or cooperative, can only be located in residential zones). This would allow a potential increase et the ntlnllier r); rcla;il, production, and processing stores within the existing zones and subject to the butlers, Ile: li ei would ultimately be set by the State. Under this option, staff would recommend mince eliaree te L itililr: definitions to aunt for retail Stores with medical marijuana endorsements.I. rider tl>is 727 available parcels for retail stores. However, not all are available due to market constraint:a 1,4 a I.11cr commercial operations that take up a significant number of those parcels. Option 2: Adopt additional limitations, such as buffers between licensed marijuana uses, proiiibililig cooperatives, or further limiting the allowable zones where licensed uses may locate_ For example, i1` Planning Commission wished to further limit stores, it could adopt a 1,000 foot buffer between licensed retail stores and all other licensed marijuana uses. This would limit the number of available parc•err.v to 61. However, this does not take into account any existing commercial stores oeeupying those parcels or other market -factor limits an those parcels. Further, since there are licensed stores and due to potential nuisance -type impacts on neighborhoods, Planning Commission could consider prohibiting cooperatives (home grows of up to 60 plants). Licensed marijuana uses are currently allowed in four zones — CUP, MUC, RC, and C. This could be further restricted to limit the areas where additional licensed shops could locate by either reducing the available zones or adopting an overlay zone limiting where licensed marijuana may be located- Existing stores that might otherwise be impacted by any new regulations would become legal non -conforming uses and so would not be adversely impacted. Option 3: Adopt a prohibition on some or all types of licensed marijuana uses. Existing licensed usee would become legal non -conforming uses and so would not be required to stop operatillats, 1-1110.'Ct'i•r, a prohibition would prevent any additional licensed uses. Note that •.. t1i, <taf'f eelic• e Li. prohi°L ilii. r e: valid, there have been no appellate eourt decisions validating a. cit\'. at11h( rit 1 1 lx<:,, lig cn crl In drriiu ul,l uses, and so staff cannot definitively state what a court may do if 1114' i iLv ... I c chill ILni.L .gid prohibition, NOTICE: Notice of any proposed amendments will be provided in a tirrlcly Inanner to comply with applicable provisions of SVMC Title 11. APPROVAL C1tITER 1A: S'k'ip -1i tie Li4a❑ 17,80.150(F) i--ovi,.1 . ppitioval criteria for text :ii-imntlrtionik lc the SV C- The uriiurio:i ',ti]}i!l,r ; !Hi 'Ile proposed amend iri -tis.)r must be consiste,!t will', the applicable provisions of eli. L n;,p34It::it ivc: Pian and f . irrelation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protoeticra cif the env ironment- RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Sul i'i' i% seekiita, Planning Commission development of and consensus on an option. Once an option is deiyul:,pt'd and apps oved in concept, staff will draft appropriate proposed amendments lei cl tipnr th t co u:upt for further Planning Commission cansideratipn. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — .Planner Jenny Nickerson — Senior Plaits Examiner Erik Lamb — Dcputy City Attorney A'FTACI4Ri1.NTS A. Pfe7;ei ELLI+>rr B, I4 .ip t}I'L 1-tirt ,.;t , Arid potential additional buffers CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission. Action Meeting Date: November 12, 2015 Item: Cheek all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing, ❑ information admin. report ❑ pending legislation. FILE NUMBER: CTA -2015-0006 AGENDA LTF,M TITLE: Study session --Comprehensive Marijuana Regulations D Esc I t b,Tft) N OF PROPOSAL: Providing :3°r iiI1tlk?tl <Inll 11 %. lti7tJ±a: 'ill cur:'..:Ht iI1tl I til ti. II1 Il1:.IllL I' C`':II i1` Iail1 }.lative amendments I`,.I tlr{' E !ty's cu.ri' 11: for am...n;.:i eats to City regulations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.704.106; RCW 69.50 (colli -yiiig ROW 69.51A; SVMC 17-80- ] 50 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN; City Council has adopted regulations as set forth in SVMC 19.120.050 and SVMC ]9J- [or t:'.: zoning a,J,:l hiiLelilrg of rLL:rcation' marijuana. On December 9, 2014, City Council acoljtc..1 ;, ,:,5t,r.t : iutr onu,,li znr'cel 11'.:rl 1 ina ll5C5. (primarily medical marijuana). On October 6, 2015, Cit., Council ncil i!t:f:prc1:; a moratorium on :::,rijll.;na uses licensed by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis lioar:l 1:"\k' S1 l''•3'-1. Nanning Comm i,J.,ion conducted a study session on October 22, 2015. BACKGROU l): [ ti. l ir_: is to the process &developing comprehensive la -cal marijuana regulations, as required to :t;o,•W.ori::rns described below. The Planning Commission conducted a study sen=ior, f 111 ()I:10111''C 22. 2015 and requested to take public comment and to hear from Spokane Valley Police :Anti w1-0':ane Valley Fire before deliberating and developing such regulations. Planning Ct)111:r:i i.''r7 wi public comment on November 2, 2015. Spokane Valley Police and Spokane '' ylitiy h ,: ,+i[I )i-L•Scr.t information at Plar►ning Commission's December 10, 2015 meeting. New Irrfr 1 ? ,rr„E; ,ri ,,,� t _tiL'I3. Since October 22, 2015, the WSLCB has released some additinnai information r. s2;L:lirrF, it, ':ongoing rulemaking process. First, it indicated that it has been working with a consultant to ;3c:tti-'Jr,il7k lk:t: appropriate number of additional retail stores, both statewide andjurisdiction- hy-.jtlrisdictiui°.. 1•]lL WSJ .CR anticipates having the numbers by mid-December to be incorporated into the proposed (r;Ik:; Thi!!,, while the proposed rules currently provide for an amount to be determined later, by adot ti; i7 [1-Icry will be either a set amount or methodology. Further, the City will know what n -1:» ::I i,,c.q.xd by the State as was done in the first round of retail store licensing. Additionally, i:,cc the ruies ar ;u r:ptwd with the increased number of retail stores included, the WSLCB will only iici~nse that nuinb, i of Ala 1:1,1101 .lows, regardless of the number that have applied. As of November 2, 2U15, the I!.yr .ecoivcd i'G4i license applications, compared with 2100 that applied during its initial round of Iio.":1 111!... Questions from !'+c:Nl1?r11ry '- flrll+li:..,1'r'J., :dr ;r.; s � r; i:,;a, 22, 2015 meeting. During the October 22, 2015 meeting, tires<° '.` a'n t.s r.i. c iI :t,r : Ii Irt}m PlarE•i: Commission regarding a variety ce issues. Staff will answer those N.v..'tirnber 12, 2015 meeting. One issue that has been brought to staff's atter.li(in since. the October 22. 2015 meeting was clarification on ixhhai. die v:ii ouw ITT�.Ii :ll i1l.iri rl;l ':'.o ILrms ideal` - specilkally `'GOl]L`.C'13''W' versus "medical dispensary'' versus ";:cape :1tiw'e- E'L:1'.'L! ll'.L : It -o, medical IlmIi•jtlanci stores. .4 ".affective garden is a term that 14':15 Ori+;in illy 1n chanter RCV 69.51A I11.1: referred to a group of 10 (;will:ied patic:us who could ,row ai'ii ,lis:ribi.•Ie IllarliLlana alnon: wt Tiic.nlsellw•u.s. However, there were no les;rctioms on We how patients eocld :filer or leave the collective, and so in many cases they developed into de facto dispensaries. A m dic;ii marijuana dispensary '..vas contemplated in 2011 by the State, but ultimately vetoed by the CioveniL!r. Accordingly, a medical marijuana dispensary is not a legal use under clearer 69.5 IA, T:-Lougli reef. lit.aI': collectives were flip means under chapter 69.51A RCW for patients to obtain medical nnr•ijuarttl fote_side of grave:1,ng it ihenl eivcsj. the terms "collective," "dispensary'." an::I "rTl'.'tl'C::il marijuana store, `;➢r oiler. used H'i!11I ..lian;,Lovably t0 refer to the existing medical marijuana :c,; lilt :i. t' • ct:,oration. Regardless of term, all. such [I;'11t- litil'tl Y cot.:<:.I rlL:.l:'!I.litll,'1 iltik`+ must ceti4 ' i Il I' 111471 : ilr itlly 1, 201:7% After that time, only (1) liven L°4 1';2t.' motes :iiiG.I eoaperatk,,cs. tw';II }i :1111 44';`il ttiYi ti;t::7.1.170.1e. to operate. A new medical 111: riitl:lrli.l ?i' I : i'i}lL' y lieensecl r 1 .]! `--:a,>]' Il ".' ..731 :;'i'.i 11, niedi al marijuana endorsement, whet:::. i:. .1tca] ITii13'1_ .;;11;1 li? I1:i'.IL[YL tat.; m`xentrt. A i. -....„operative is a completely [le1V term that 1e.1 r. °1.D rc7t.Ir of up t0 fair t:'L:6x'.111:; ',1.'11x➢ C::1:7:l; 11.7.14,..71!...`t :o grow marijuana for themselves only.. They ti:irlrli}, .4•,`I ,7r distribute. Ilie 7r..:11 (jUL111.,1 :lift,' li+V. 1[ .II ➢: (it`iL'r than the four patients in the C:Yolrerativ I :1k:r may i:l IS' I';;, c, :: Ccxip ..fLb`, I!1 :L dtriticilc c:11 i i'Ylllrrt', be located within ane mile ora licensed retail 1,Li:lin. For I'L'IrIXr L5 ofcourpnr ren, iii. 4t like]ti r:^,,til ,tclres with medical marijuana endorsements will he:l:c rllc}s:r lIl . Ly annlcu us? L., L1'ct-y'y, "co]li:.1:,-c5' cr "dispensaries". ()prions City Regulation OTir ;i' Pia:tninq C:oinnlissionn iuuY consider s! ,ince of options for the City. The nptiiens r'art r. h'ilni cintnt regulations to adoL:irE .r:.on'e iL.:r11ter limitations that would allow a. limited i,1(r�tti in t:clis�ci marijuana uses) to adoptint t bt;t1 on ad<thitnal l:cc:[std rnarijuana uses. Si '41' talc`;'L:IiTcL] llnL':•ti:it c(incepts to City C'. Ilrlcil :li its, - iL Ltsi 18,1'21)15. r!itCtirlk'. During that illeeting. C'i,!.IrL11 iintlle:LL•.:Ll restrict marijuana kr..-.els CTI' 10 rllanimize i 1i. re b.;:lam til' itLlnil't:"1' 411 would likely preclude t:':: ;IIS From c <presslr• .Leitinj :he number t !'slures to 7 ul_l`L.tIlcd '.•, itl Iii 1r t'i't4, but the City nay atop' r.:.i.tio11at71e land tiSF 7eg[ikitic➢:l5 c;ovcrning the .L.ziling and 10._ativI1 L1I Atoll sLatftt . One option Council di.-:L:!_itis:ed was possibly including an additional 1.1L1t'fer p:c\-tL-Ilirlg r l,ril :: it Ii'o:n locating within 1,1}{10 otlher :,ccn4cd use. Option 1: Rely on existing regulations. This approach would leave the existing City regulation's in place to deal with any additional 1-2tail, p:..odi,ction. and proves nil licenses_ tlncer this option, Planning Commission should consider whether 'flo=ra' :~li{iiLId be any a.i;li1 c'n;t: regulaiio[1.; List cooperatives(which can only be located in residential '.vc1:dti rove:reuse.. in the ilislllber of W'ctail, production, and processing store.; '.'tit .I.n _ .It, c: i rine.:',nes and sri1 jc: t to 11ie buffer;. l'l;c linlit 1.votild ultimately he set by the State_ 1lnihrr t:l1s rllt',.tn. <t.!11 would r�.contiiicr:c: rumor cha[1+acs to existing definitions to account for retail siotes 1 L:I'_cic:I n1.tE'IlLiaria endorsement[;. I. In ler iIlis option, there arc 727 available parcels for retail stores. However. 1 !1.1 :Ire ,1ti'ci'ablc due Lc, ;i:;i I.1..:[ c,➢:L. lraiitts and other commercial operations that take up a significant numb' -r (111110Se pLircek_ option 2: Adopt ad.?:tional limitations, such as bufli2l; lscl'.',c.:li licensed '11:'ri L::iiL; u.. . 1:Eo1'1ii)i:11Lr (c a perati ar furt]icr limiting the ailov+,table fc1; cls tvlic1-c 1i111='1L:CC, -ISc`. nick' iL11.r.e_ Fc+r till '[ill _ 11 I}I:IIIT1;li4' t .,[I=[ll';41[,rl ,.s•ished to further limit stores. it could _.Ii [,•t iI 1)..ailtr ti,i'}': r'c:LSiI . 1.:Y j and all otl..:r licensed marijuana uses. 'l This would 1.1:1111 Il"t'. li.lilll7 ' ii i'.'i.itable i '.iF".';. i 1.(i i..r 1. . {Ilis does not take into account any existing commercia- stoics occ.lp_`.:. 1.l iips s ilarcels or other market -factor limits on those parcels.. licensed stores and due to potential 11 Iisac1cc.1ype rllpacts on neip1111oncclr:*. i' rF'll'il'S[' ('4 re:]?,i.;,i0.t could consider prohibiting cooperatives (home ef up to 60 plant). i.icer:sec ni riiu:iI1a urL etirieritly allowed in four zones — CUP, I li iC. RC. `.n;' C. This could be further restricted to !inn-. llie areas where additional licensed shops could locate by ii]: r reducing the available zones or adoptin.i., ari overlay zone limw.ting where licensed marijuana niay be loc.ite;l. Exi:..,ting stores that v,,i-;c he impacted by any new regulations ,,'M'ould become legal non -con [Orin ing uses and so would riot be adversely impacted. Option 3: Adopt a prohib.tion on some or all types of licensid marijuana uses. Existing licensed uses would heconi 1: a1 non-avontor]t:in uses and so would not be required to stop operations. However, a prohibition '.':,.'_tld prevent any additional licensed uses. Note that while staff believes a -prohibition is valid, there l'eels no appellate court decisions validating it city's authority to ban licensed marijuana 1.jsC5. arid so Star cannot definitively state x'. hat a court inn. da i I the City were challenged on a profiibitiol.. (Jlstf,oa. •1 (pi•ovkJ'd at October 22 rneetrrr; 1: • Allow only irin:r`SUIf mirnh r c':1I]i'rc ,l h,,, la's}. • '4•lL l; - 1 lil;l' 11.L li';:3 II':tt.tit be sold oril': Lt rC' (11..0 311et1 ":'1?] outlets, r:lalllt;ll"1 ih,' t'xi -1i c1 D, retail 1,u I t,l;ll:' thou] to obtain `ai medical Clldor5CI11er1t. • BLit 7c.8sibility restrict under ante people from ens l ing the stores. • :'+.11vwy coopertti•.c..n'[le:r the .L(L,ti r:oning rules as ] .ii..':'..lon,LI }r c s and with the state cooperative reguir.nicrit that one [nay only ',l:Er a cor+pe:..t in za c1c-ii i:0. • Allow medical ]i:e]r;ivair.:. ierow.i:i Iii p: -.vote residence: for personal prrT°',':al is received from the property o•.. rtkr ':] iIie L: ,7c: of rented or leased facilitic • Do riot allow any solvclr. cxtraction l nit:lit'. any residenc'eldomicile c>r iirnperly. • Require all infused product or <+n ., ii -:te to be purchased from n1,.:Lh_,lf!re2rcational retail outlet. A copy of the proposal i5 proti iC L`d a: poi it tills packet. iiel!trr I Ruck ;r rear.0k/ General information regarLin :I-_ background actions by the C:t Find state law requirements are provided in the RPC'A from tic C]etahei. 22, 2015 meeting„ which is attached. N{)TIC.[: Notice 01' thi opportunity for public cottltnerrt was provided t.nrDugh a publication in t e Volley :b'eti}".S Ileralci. Clf1 Mlle City's 5-ucbsi7e, by t;aetll<i re.,:ej,e, and by disv.i •tlltirr'. C7lllll114tilC�rl i,m1.1l distribution list. Further. ilali• corlacied known industry ustry atl {>'C;tl(- iifl.i t iii='.i'[I directly regarding the opportunity to provide public comment. APPROVAL CRITERIA.: SV1v1C Section; 17.80.150(V provides approval criteria for text amendments to tiic S VMC_ Tile. ornerier stills, ztcs rhoit the proposed amendment(s) must be consistent with the applicable provisions of ih'e Comprehensive Pion] Grid bear a substantial relation to the public health. safely, welfare, arid protalion of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION' Staff is seeking Planning Commission development of and consensus op an option. Once an option is developed and approved in concept, staff will draft appropriate prn ri sm: anicridtncnts based t,purt chart cnriczpt for funher I l:rnnin�. C ,,m nissinn consideration. STAFF CON E'. (: : Cluistirt. J :rlH_•n 1'I,�II:7 1 Nlcken7:i.-o, •• C1,1:=•i NLiii : I -..a1:1i11L. Erik Lamb--Dcliuly (An. A.n(niey. ATTACI11w1 : A. Prvscninion B, Propc,^:c1' ;'rl,ni Commissioner '\ncerson C. Cony ol` RICA from Oct«bwr 22 7. 15 D. Mr;p 0 - existing licensed laciliLies :11'1`4ti4'l::l '\Iiuult,s Spokane Valley I"1aiim Cn omission Council Chambers — City Hall, November 12, 2015 Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.nr_ Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Heath took roll and the Follow members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Heather Graharrl. Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy, absent - excused Sam Wood Erik 1.anth. 1 ):'.I:''j 1 ' (.ii r\it . i ney Lori Barlow. '=. Planner Jcnm. litIersun, Sr. Plans Examiner Christina Janssen, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Elisha Heath, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioner Stop was excusedfrom the November 12, 2015 meeting. Commissioner Graham rrTOVC'r1 to aVpror'r' vire amended +Vw rnher 12, 2015 agenda as presented. Th vote on the motion was six 47 favor, .-er"o against, the. notion passes. Commissioner Wood mover! Ir: cxct'c'pd the October 22, 2015 niin lees m pre.5errie f + 'orrrrrrr;ti.s�r r:.'r .S'1 r,rr corrected the minutes on pcige 'e1P. :r ri' three to alp th' work and "5-enooi districts Graham moved lo accept the corrected rrrinuires Penn October 22 .2015. 1 Tri! vie il!r t7; f' 1,1.'1.1104 ma six in favor; rem against, motion passes. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had nothing to report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori'Barlow reported that the City Council determined that they would be appointing the nes:' PIrrrrning. Commissioners rrr the first regular City Council meeting in January rather than the 1)ecciube Ili ;lily; . .1s a rc-;lllt there will not be a Planning Commission meeting January 14, 2016, and the labii:int 2016 ine Lirng will be a training n sting iii order to brit::: the new Planning Commission members 1111 r;r sfcoti_ i\-'ls. Barlow stated that the annual Cor11prchcnsik': Plan Amendment Cycle was opened and onc Sri;ien(imerit request was received. The Docket has h r•n presented to the City Council for,tllllrck,ail. I ht P'I:Inniru.Conmmissioit will Iik.e.ly hegin its review cy;:' February. She also gave an updn'.e on lllc- prr(.,z:I.:itio:i allocation 1' 1': U pro...:es 'Or the Cortiprcli nsiv Plan Update. The Steering Comiiria:,: yrs 1:Ice c.d Officials mel .}:r Niortinhcr „'I' and forwarded t11 Spokane County Planning Technical Adviso:-t' recoil-innendal.iiw, r01 the Board of Cnurt•,- Camrztissioners. The recommendation -was to r.i}4 ".Juice of Financial Mang ,eitierit's medirr•n population forecast for the 20 -year planning PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMNIISSION BUSINESS: Study Session; STY -2015-0001, street vacation of3' 1 Avenue Planner Karen Kendall presented. the street vacation request of 311 Avenue located between Appleway Trill and 44' Avenue just ).,:t.,-;( of Skipwortlr Ford adj rcerlt ssiw parLelis, The request is for an area approximately roximately 340 feet in lr�:1Li17 Lind ranig,ing in width 'nom 40 to 50 ietit The northerly three parcels r,:-, proposed to Ixc consolidated into one, South of 3:d Avenue the two westerly, p_irccls ti'rII be consolid.ii5:il into one and a c•c;44 will he by an existini ,°.iwement from 4111 Avenue. The final :-5:nlaininp. ra7c.v. w. 11 llv LP1 Iimiged. \iis . Kendal! ! pra'sente i five re.nuirr5 identified by the applicant for the request; st; I. The arca s unimproved and not maintained 2. Lo:t;,iiic i t}I i';,.ic: 1iii,ii ni:s;,Urtan rise of abutting properties 3. All r :cls rtbiiiti ,z,: -.I :^55 r u : (northlsouth) are owned by the same property owner 4. The ,,'trrctures alon the 5 ,.•i r71-operty line hinder future right cf way connection 5, No Parcels use 3' Ar,•'cs+rrc ic.racCesS. I•J2.1 PI:9rlrilap C`,:;urri.iaioi Page 1of9 T'he Public Hearing date is set for December 10, 5. Cornrnis,yionerilmli?.-8on w.-kcfcl f the procv changing the 101 lines iv li 1. Wf(.1;07--VL(M and they were not then, why the two (..honging ihe 101 fhl,'S and the sti-,A.r 1Icic snl,,aneolislu 1s. Kcrida .1 c\plaiiied that not knowing licw the parcels ar.±.,2(Fing ILO end 1/p iiid 117;-:1 (his applicAion has six. pEtrcels, Iirt. ?oteintifil for a .parci'l io hcc.pme land locked and we dc not want that to Iiiiprieir..che property ovin'r has pre.nted IiQ1.R:would orient the parcels so that all of- them would have direct dL:CL:SS to a public st],._.ct. Currenthp. the paic,els ow not propo.-,.ed to be consolidated Di - adjusted. That will be nr...-c.:osed puing forward at -,he 7irae of hile street vacation is being finalind. Typically, the lot line adjnisent is handled by the record of son.e., ilmi ia1ic the ..7t.rect Commkcioner ihe Chi.. can produce a viable ro,0 orc a .121e.,1 covcment Ms. Kendall replied that it is an ,211:-;ernelit that does pro,Arle ctiI-,,,c.,„-7ess to an e,..iminp home. That easement will aot c'.1.anP,c- Commisswner Phillips Janda(' that it did nor make suirw ir: of a street ap.,ci ci:c parcel be limited to a f2 ous.eownr. iic akcei what rho piii:;,ved to do will! fJ..-)rflf. M. Kendall stated that the property owner has not discinsecl throuph the ..u7iDlication thc intendedLJ cir th property. In Giatilicd that the easement cstab:ished in tF pas', access fot Th.et,..vo parcels w„....)e et:Till-lined creating a larger ii)arcel :::;1I 1 utilizin:2, the folit easement ji commissioner asked C.41- !ALT! n' righe )VaY. N't Kerldal L stated that the City Council would determine v.Ii.it they would ik Ei Ir e,..5iriperrsor ion of the vacation of the street. Commissioner Anficrson ROW' is Rol fly the C:fly rev‘..'ris Po the property owner. Mr. Lamb stated, there is a pro,.-sik-in for pIal. pl:c.t..c..1.-oc fore 1903 the right -4 -way did not open then it does revert back to the °wile!. rei :Ill (-Met. hk- or -way, the right-of-way remains with -.he City regardless if it is open or not. Commissioner Graham asked about I 1,70? peirc.c.1..,. m:;\i:liia11 statcci that the property owner has spoken with the Developueni :rind 1 hc'..timiir:Jukt 'ATI., 11,..L..ed to he provided for vehicles travelinil down Skipworth Rc.a6. r▪ c cul-de-tc with 1-11/111-01-Wdy dedication for vehicles to turn arour d. and it would be public. Commissioner Graham asked n011, ciF7crgeneT.' 1;.-'111(rOS pijrCels ir -was developed /Ai -d the buck hull 11.i ! fire departim.mt in on the procs through ..:ornrient. CrirpHmissionc7- Groirr?,,0 cPivIfiCarr017 01 fire depargmcni1»ig yetp/ of land actiofi ItT. linnoees.,, Jr eeV,:'1, Ms. Kendall clarified the lin: dcpartinent was CillIC;.:!rITIUd al_10111 creating [arid locked without enier.2eneyL'..-...-irtiment fetters hill -All a requi'..c men( Fr apptication sired they will be asked thr .comments as the pro.- ntinues. C1 -20 5 -.0i)116 1-Zegulations ..)cptilv1 ,A[K,r-nLy beganTI CevenioR explaining1 11.1c ortinkisionor. thc current status inutijuaria in the statedianp......7; in the lav, . • A moratorium on medical in us (11[111C011SVAI Mal -4171:1a was establishott by City Connell on Doc. 2014. ▪ A Inoraioriutri On new MiLlii1171!1:1 11: -;CS 110EISCI by the W1.-,11iLiLjoil Sial. Liquo ii (a1rnal3is P pard (WS1,C11) s est hl Council on ( 6, 20 ▪ Ruth rrii.:ratoriums require. the (lily appmprhitA.:1o▪ i 1 reKidni 2iving. effect to the 2015 Stale 1..egishitic.....2 COrMniSSIOner (j;-,-1;Ren oske.,1 questi(,??? P('11PirTviiPIGar.? USE", fiC'E??2Si'a: that is to put a hold YINTS (1061 (•10-14.-qttly 1icensf.:(1 medical ntarifilana shops _from applying for a .2.7t101„'“:lihHVtivir. Lamb stated the 1 -12.1 5 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 af 9 moratorium will prohibit any nee Iicc::seo from sl: mime who ( '17-leenly+ does not have a license. For the current three retail stores, tee rieraivr;i'in will no al't`eet ::i ii ce ion a medical marijuana endorsement, The WSLCB will not be issuing those endorsements until July u1.2016. Mr_ 12ll1+i- Mr_ Lamb presented the questions posed at the October 22, 2015 meeting: Could we require individual qualified patients to license or register with the City? Th. Ftil1 legal review has not been completed, liowever there appears there are several problems pre.crtcd with this: HIPPA requirements, which requires the City to keep that information confidential dad private which goes against our mandate, under the public records act, to be a transparent go‘ c:'!'<lticnt. Secondly, there could be some preemption issues given how the state hue set out the law ke Intieins to be qualified patients and reeeive their authorizations, File:illy, iIlerr arc. e•.}1tccrir!-, from :t I :fits Amendment standpoint, in terms of requirieg 2 patient to I'cuisLi'.r 1 L'r %'. hli' i4 [i 11 1.101 ;1I r;:4' & r federal Iaw•v. Regrair•in p itients to notify landlords. Again it raises similar issues with the Fifth Amendment_ It .tl.en would be diffrc:.11t from an enforcement standpoint. It re. IIS:• is a private issue and the landlord ouid the able to p1ireue that though their contract ct with the toner-. +` �J1r�Ff!;titi'�Iirrf r- t:':?h,Ifi r asked for clarification On !f f! i .'r'trcr'c:.'/r.,c- J• -i[ tdl ircr1°C' C7 srczt'i"i.-/ der.:'?C7ratsin f'':J1r: r!?t iCr/i(ir+!f':i -.r. Lamb clarified thatwhere l tilii all' 1 .r111 ri,iiii'ntti he is rcfcrilig to idividuals. :7lriii!r:.5'rr,oer" Ands .S•on asked r there wcrs on pulfing v../Ph.in their contr'Cr%f l' fir L r7()lr/re d r cr tenant will be grill l trs;' or rnoGl ;1'114 i t "!' r'rr'siclL'ize 7 i g1'111k ir't,E,'. Mr. Lamb stated that Ile is not aware of any, but the landlords are not tris ::.iel,ts mid hL h- not able to give them legal advice. Clarification regarding terms used for medical marijuana. Medical collective, medical dispensary, and medical shop all refer to an unlicensed medical facility, under prior RCW 69.51A. A dispensary was originally slated to be a legal use back in 2011, however the state through the Governor's veto eliminated the "dispensary." Medical collectives, are a group of 10 patients coming together and growing the marijuana amongst those 10 patients for the same 10 patients. From a practical standpoint, since there is no enforcement of those collectives, many shops may operate as de facto dispensaries. The City has net regulated them or looked at them and treats them as collectives. Those are the unlicensed medical shops that we had register prior to our moratorium, we do not know how many are in operation now, diose are the ones who will be seeking the license from WSLCB to become a retail shop. A cooperative is a group of people taking the place of the collective. They are required to be in a domicile. n. c:ooperalivi: is up to four qualified patients coming together to grow marijuana therriselve ...'OLIL. rniivr-w circ ri.aluired to he registered with the WSLCB but they do not obtain a license and they are not ar r.:i ii1 shop. Only allow medical marijuana? Preemption will prceelit the City fr€iiil breaking tlr . up into medical and retail. The license that is obtained is a retail tic r.s r. it is sold; ul} trr the oo.rkci if they wish to seek the medical endorsement. The question was raised Call the (":Iv require a loceei3ii only sell recreational or medical marijuana. Mr. Latish Fated that the challen e would be tilt•,L is no requirement at the state level that a shop be just it medical shop or sue .1 reeor..; iowl1 Commissioner Scott asked if Cie)" can be sti•rt'lc!r than ..S'/ We. Nit. 1',tailed that tlic. City cen enact lays that are not in conflict with the state lav'rs. 1 rain a land u-,:! t:r. Cay determine where land uses are appropriate, zoning and btifreriaig iequilcnr• tats for rnurijui°..I. l licensing standpoint and the products a shop is s.:•II;ng is a highly rccul,lli'd :rale activity_ Mr. Lamb presented dial shoe die other type 1,1' fes ti that tilt: City rri ht wr'trit to regulate for example a marijuana c:Ub. C::11r141t"ly. il; A iw . nr considered .i 120 Fieroi1_y lounge where you are able to consurne marijuana but net rue:lose r i irijuaria. Discussion returned to the collc::riec and nit•dial dispensary. Mr. Lainb explaineir th;L:t scenic lilicratc under the definition of collective sate dice.: are taking a donation from .a member. i:nl)Lrs have expanded and operate 2.5 a lilrtiin'cr4 201:1 and 2014 fifteen bu.;lricss licc'n boas '_i '�:cl services for medical marij.1 111 :I. 1 I1y,w.t.::i, tiiat docs newt i1iCII1ijt t11175'C v]io {ipplii•d :r,iterliarive medieine. If they do not a Hid r 11!": 2016 it 1'...s 17ec1Irric ars illegal acti•t•ity. WSLCB 11-12-15 Planning Comrai;; ion 741iu n ., Page 3of9 stated in a webinar that they will not be in the enforcement business against those unlicensed collectives or dispensaries. 1t will he up to the local level for notification or policing. Commissioner Graham rr.shc'r/ a !:`iirit the c 7y1.5'7rr'Icr?:' WSLCB w be present 117 a medical endorsed wad shops, that lb..- cn- rtiohr 11.'4(1r1 Jr.:+be available till July 1, 26116. Mr, Lamb stated that he would have to research that further and that the State is working with the Department of Health on those regulations. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Cif), had banned recreational marijuana where x onld we he today on the subject of medical rear uata? Mr. Latnb sated that we would 11c i11 .L ;inti,ar pltai:4 .n terms of defining terminology, no one would be able r:} 4shiain a naarjjuannit thc1'c would be no marijuana. 5 �` s n +5 j 1r Discussion from Lhe \ '.5 rr 11111 411jr' 11:rii.id ' tho {r4 L.]ii513��n�F tii move aht.rud yILll issui 1 Z L O neW licensing. what tlic City \vouli] Iii with 1]7c11e:u1 marijuana. l tic, exists:i stores viAllcl be the only rallirics that would be able to applb, itlr the medical endorsement.. [_::rotor lhi.s- option medical dispen. grits would not 6e able to obtain a license within the ('i. .1 111 ',vcxlld have to relocate to 2nolli..r alt} Cornlrlissionc- Graham clarified dint lilt ...:coperatives would not have to le lti'S'. til.ltti: ['KA. I! Itll" private Hii.ents iri a domicile. 'ir. i.'rrilll3 stated that is a dist1T]i'11Clri that could be nr uile. Inc Cooperatives are Galled out in the Stag ,:15h ilr Li In15 of a city oning and up to Mr. 1.mnb presented information from the WSLCB Lhey are and sulking to d�'t the coupler of retai: locations. One of the primary thin; the W.cd _('13 iLLili Sited is they are wiirl•; il1!? with a consultant to determine the appropri:1C1~. number of ret, -i1 ;1'?r s. They felt it was important ls.' get the licensing process going, which is why they opened lip the Octobcr 12, r. -M c]c.niilin+L`- Ht1y'.ver, similar to hots they did before using population numbers they will come 1111 xt i'Ii ,I h,:Jr,k number for retail tors for the statewide broken down hi, county and Lk« final rli1c . Hopefully .vitt hi• determined by December. LI.tufcd on due, tt11.11S1?Cr. v.'c't'e had 19 new applical.w1, submitted, however, whatever number the WSLC8 set that is the nunrb: r rhea will license. Mr. Lamb continual with the presentation on the background on City reguiniior, + City zonin and buffer restrictions cn recreational marijuana o Adopted in July 2014 Q Applied to licensed retailers, producers, and processors o 11,.•12i,;cd for .tiitiirtg of 19 prcaducers,21 pro(!essors, clrl.l retailcrs o Note that II::['.y'.n 1)° State limited eiiv f;s .'s re:ai]ers nciv 11n1-_ Lix.r1 n1.1;l:)C • \•Nissl sena Production: Pen ii11 c1 117 ITI:.a'.'i• and til:ht indi. sial zones outl-igl]t (indoor and nrrtili'r r' 1i1 rl1Lillt Ll in limited nlwiivi'vl' (indoor •'i:i i11 1'.'1 In R.C.and (` 7fns~S. wi rrijli ui 1 1'i -rig: Permitted in Ilea ; p;icl.iit;inand ion): pc-rnlil:cd in limiter] T1r11T11ar 4paAat;in4 tiL:I(l a only) in and C 1.11�r" k I.11l'vr k'1- lentis mal'IILl:i1'ai.J rrodUL'.1ic1n and 111+-'1tt tiL:1L_ C71111h0i i'.°�' li}' :ctcd \' Illllli OQ cosi ill Ullk 1 l•:r11, t t'_rlter'1'lacc til rlrli 1, I1y pI :1pc±rty ({alter than Sts>I IlL'.'. Lll'I' i rli; pl11}il': v;it':1 Iil-Hrary lrroper\.:iiia ~.aca11t school properly. • l 4'trill ,;1 :;. pi:l'nr]tIL!d 1]1 Ow [se Coiner, C1.lrriili-lr 1,TS.. 1 .c. -L ll}n1 11 1.: iilrlicre".)1. and Coninr1r11ity Commercial • 1.0,:,t1 1 ,:'cols for retail .tiJ1cs: _1L11i?i Ire loc:lli!d within 1,000 fc::t elf City 1 -tall, CcnterPlaacc, vaizaln.. City properly ic5(In_l' ilinn stonnw.iL.r :slid puh];e right -(11 -Nay), vacant library prcrl1er t',Lc:rJnt ;�lri�crl prop.Tty. ;Ii :A1rpIi .vay Trail, and the C eI' iL'11 tial. Trait. Christina .l;u"^L'Ii. l'I 3nrr Y i rC,E11t U the cptions }] nli.'' Ill; ICarLti:1!li ;.Y':1.1) the rcgu:ations Option 1) l iain: lin regulations • Add del i:lticns r gurd1rg retail Store_ kl itll 1L1i:ill ,21klorse,rlrw,:ut 11-12-15 L'::ilul11 , 1 • ;n[ll,ssion Minutes Page 4of9 • Allow cooperatives • Clarify permitting requirements for any modifications for home grows • Would allow 727 parcels for retail, though riot all available due to market and existing other commercial uses Option 2) Additional regulations • Additional buffer, 'Itc p siIv1itic i ctiu: l bs:: ,Otltl Ice -L fi•orn rL :ai1 store rr .this: results in is I al '.,.td,i,l.. p:trccls • dditi;,lia! httffer COI i t 1,000 feet from a residential zone • .inti: ill lea}vablc zones • C .crltr}'- limit areas where allowed, eg. just along west Sprague area • Limit or prohibit cooperatives • Ciarrl'y ,.-c.rmLit inb requirements for any modifications for home grows Option 3) prohibition • All beense types ar.lust particular ones e.g. ban retail but allow production or processing • Coop,.. r.ii • Chill\ x uiiitl n<g requirements for any modifications for home grows • Potential with challenges, ongoing appellate cases, with nc decisions yet, so result is unLc1r.lin t?m�rit,�1,1) Prd:PV;dncl dl 1h0 October 22, 2415 meeting. • r'llta?•ty 11 ini:111mi nu[111 r required by law. • Mc111c1ri snlcl ::m aa.H cru11 .Is - existing stares obtain medical endorsement • l�1Cairt49irl currelo. hrit'tei;, possibly restrict under age ▪ Allow cooperatives but only in same zones as producers • Allow qualified patients to home grow, assuming approval from the property owner if a rvimi1 or leri,cd property • No ;.;ivetit extraction within any residcl1celdOmicile • l wtic;ir4 iI infused product or concentrate to be purchased frow rt rtt,ii1 store Di,;tl cion on the tax 1 -,.refits of having a retail 5Io'c, processin!_ Iii:;11fe and production 1:It'lllt}' ill the City \Ir. Lamb .Aaiudd that the City does not sew much. In lax rck•'criue lI'1. I1: II s' :7r,SL'L',:4..0 or production. ::ail; k- tiii c tl-_ey are wholesale. The retail store ills CMI} rcccive the standard tiiiR tax, the additional 1�c-n l 1L iti .. pori ion 01 the thirty-seven percent tax ilnt-,,,ed by the State. Public C'1ti>nni,ent: Mar•ilvn Miller, x.124 S. Harold Road: Ms. Miller stated she was new to Planning Commission rneetill 2. , and unless you want to work on this tilt the end of your lives which you would if you adopt option I, 2.., 1.)r 1. I think prohibition is the best way to go. Ido not believe you are going to be denying any paticste. he right or Ability to get their medical marijuana. l ilere is access in very close localities.. I don't tililll Stir l-:lnc _needs to indulge in this. Tara Harrison. 513 N. Locust Road: Ms. Harrison stated. that she is the i.nterint admin for the Collation for Cannabis ttirlre.lt;rds :trtd Ethics (CCSE). Her involvement with th6 CCSE began last year when she unregulated medical marijuana dispensary. Site realized there was a lack, of comma, ication on t'ti,s wide of the State. Many business owners were unaware of the legislation that was wine or,. In efforts to the communication and information gap she sought out the CCSE. One prOlect that L11 are working OP is the Washington Cannabis Commission through the Department of Agriculture_ \4s_ I l ii 1:4 .11 stated that while prohibition may sound great, but nn amount of prohibition is going to keep drugs out of school. Ms. Harrison stated that she is a mother of a el -did in a Valley School DisIric•t. I lc.r child dors witness drugs dealing at school each day. The programs that are being utilized in school are inefic.c.iive_ She has taken the time as a parent to educate her child as to what is medicine and whais not and why. Her child is not interested in partaking, she sees it as a medicine. That is a parent's tc 6r„•, oilier licensed 11 -t? -1? I'lF-nrioq COI1l fission Minutes Page 5 oto responsibility and nc one else's. Ms. Harrison stated you have to teach your children. When it comes to something like this, the reason Ms. Harrison is involved and why it is so important is the patients. The patients that she has meet in the last two years have touched her life in a way she could never have halms ined She stated that she did not seek out this career. If her father r~ould have had this option she may not heee lost him at nine. Tons of her family have died from cancer, she has witnessed people with that, their cancer is gone. There are medical studies that prove this, we know there is a very valid opportunity here in order to best take care of public health, what is important to the City and how you want to reflect. You want to embrace the health of people. Nat everyone has acoess to transportation, public transit is what they rely on. So having an option for medical here in the Valley is very. important. That may be their only option. Luckily with the way legislation happens people do have options. They can choose not to register at all and pay extra taxes, they have the ability to get the products that the Department of Health will not be overlooking. Ms. Hasrisee slated that you can have a producer that grows medical and recreational in the future, the L1 ews i:.n i caro that he is only growing one strain, ones deemed medical and ones deemed recreation:,]. I log one t^^at is deemed medical under goes more testing and regulations. Being able to have that is very, very ell -mutant. People are seeking this out in droves, the people that come to us as patients eighty percent arc (i its '!'hat means a lot, this is growing. We need to embrace the fact that this is happening, 111 is is a :uo+: s ist e n1.. In my opinion it will be rescheduled in ten years. If we don't look at what's happening in the Heels and where this is going we are going to be left with moratoriums trying to scramble to put in reinilations to keep the dangers away, That's all we want to keep the dangers at bay. It's something that IN and fresh and people are scared. There is also very beautiful things being born out of this and to turn a blind eye on it that you don't want to have anything to do with it is really foolish. We need to take care of our city and our health and our wellbeing. We make ,guidelines, make sure that everything is pesticide tested. Did you know that right now aur laws do not require medicine on the recreational shelves to be tested for pesticides? That is appalling to me. As a City you may be able to require that everything on the shelves within City limits is required to have those kinds eftests. Then you can boast about how healthy and viable your city is because you are taking care of and making sure that your City and the people are getting those medicines, and that it is guaranteed to be healthy medicine. The tax benefits, public education, Daly three schools, I believe, in Spokane County are receiving any kind of benefits for drug education and prevention. Three in the whole county -that's horrible_ One of the tax benefits is to be able to give education and prevention to our youth. It is very important that we do that. On the moratorium, I understand why because of the unregulated businesses, there are a few businesses that have given the Valley a black eye. Ms. Harrison staled that she understood why the moratorium exists. It is important that everyone followed the rules and goes by the book. When an eighty year old woman walks in to get her medicine, she does not walk into something that she r,uw get shot aver. She doesn't need to walk in, not for her meds, she does not need to see someone [inures s bong or trimming their product on the table in front of everyone in the lobby. Certain things lite. LI x31- I would never want my mother in a place like that. We need to have standards. You have recrcatil:.ral lc7tc; in the Valley that already have their medical endorsement. So in July they can open their doors .ir.(1 l,_ ready. So we do have options for medical here in the Valley. She stated that having more peel iners and processors is not going to hurt anything. People work behind the scenes, they bring in income and spending money within the Valley. They are buying their products here they have employees l lerc paying taxes all of that is very viable for our City and our economy. There is a medical research license, allow someone to grow specifically for research purposes, All of their product goes through the same rraceability system but its turned over to a school or university that is going to do specific medical tests. W .should allow that. it doe not hurt anyone or anything. This isn't something that interacts with the esa,lic what -so -ever. Balite Alverts, 1801 S. St. Charles: Mr. Alverts stated his problem is the amount of medical shops p;,pping up. We seem to have [acre of those than we have espresso stands. He state that he did not believe lies' contribute to the taxes that we collect in Valley, the revenue that could come in. He was embarrassed when he read in the Spokesman Review that Millwood is measuring their revenue from recreational marijuana in the hundreds of thousands, where we are at tens of thousands. With our proxim icy to Idaho and Liberty Lake, we should be kicking Millwood's butt, Bring in much more revenue than this. Mr. Alv ert suggested that decrease the number of purely medical. they should ell be retail combined, i le asked for a reasonable number of recreational shops, that three is not enough. t 1-12-15 P1anning Commission [minutes 1.);11,0 6 c John miller, 2124 S. Herald: Mr. Miller stated that he is a child of the sixties, he grew up and went to school at Berkley. He knows a little bit about marijuana, not because he uses it but because he's seen it abused. The question came up about the amount of money that i; coming into the City of Spokane Valley over and above the sales tax, he believed he read it was abLve $1 8,000 and he also read that, that money is used to enforce the laws concerning marijuana. So if we arc bringing in money just to enforce die laws, not sure if that is a win-win for anyone. He stated that he dil not vote for marijuana in this state, ;aril fees it is a mistake. He asked that the Commission consider Option M. adapt a policy of prohibition. Medical marijuana is a little different, he asked why if medical Taairijaran;r i, considered to be a medicine why su't a prescription written by a doctor, perhaps it is, But is that prescription not taken to an establishG4- drug store? The marijuana delivered to those folks could bc tested, certified, safe for the intended use and that would take care of that problem, Fla ,r_i[cd that recreational marijuana arirtkes no seitsc t:a him what so ever. He would like the Comnilss:ion rtia ear;:id' r Option 3 at the least, maintai i The moratt}rituta and make it permanent. Commissioner.4nder•,•or1anyone rant a medical marijuana dispensary. One member of the audience used to work at one. Another audience -mamba stated that they run a recreational shop and would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Kelley asked if the retail ui ner saw challenges laking the medical endorsement and separating the recreational marijuana time .'s• taxed from the medical marri}mane which is untaxed. Doug Peterson, 16404 E. Rocky Top Lane. Mr. Peterson stated that he did not see a problem separating the taxed from the untaxed. He has met with the Department of Health which will be larir, ink= on sas lama in the spring which his business will help beta test. His business is embracing it. One survey asked 11 ale business would train its people in more of a consulting role for the medical, if they would pa .'or it, t Ia: ,aotiuld like everyone in his stare to be trained medically through the state. Revenue questions, he staitad that his business has only been open for three months, it's not going to show like some of the 'r igtcr sures open on Trent in Millwood. Part of the challenge is that the Valley has a tougher zonina I;atiw �, I Ic worked with the City and with Christina Janssen. Originally there were three licenses for the Valla . Th,: Applcway Trail and ether trails made it tough to find a location. When the State revamped goat Lr .1,1t; r, it is challenging as a business owner who just opened, since he just got opened under the old laws. Mr. F'! iarson stated one of his concerns as a business owner, the restrictions were difficult and the now Iicana.cs may have less restrictions. He's heard that the zones are going to drop down to 500 feet from I tttt!I ,iiid that the licenses are not one specific. You have "x'° amount of licenses For the Valley but they L.rn h;u ii•nm anywhere. The original licensing process was you were licensed in the Valley if you had a id location. As a business owner he embraced the clma:tics and will continue to meet the standards of ha..! mak!. 1 -le irav'ited the Commission to visit his shop, it Leiaf: 4sioiial Q-nwiro 1m ent they take very s riCari ]]'. It is a nice place, he stated that it is not like V,11:11 ,,41 Inlaid think it is like. Mr. Peterson ;1;_+<<-1 that he does not go to the medical shops, he understands thai ;h:; 1.6 g,ICl n11011 prOccss Wend to take. pl;aaa. 1 la addressed the earlier comment on pesticides, growers havc of pesticides thrti are approved: the marijuana that is going rhreugh recrca1 lanai st£:IL - iti tasted pretty eaten si, specifically pesticide tested. There are Labs that will test it.. Ile is in talks with labs to ria innra it their products that have been tested more. Commissioner Kelley compared business -L ho sell to customers czs at l as .. r r.rricrxed as a comparison to medical marijuana and retail marijuana will there be cornu pros:" -r+;,s•' Mr, Peterson stated that it's about building the process in the store and making it logistically make sense. Ni.cci to Ixt very lt,.r 1`.":th patients and regular recreational uses. There would naed to bc I�ti�!I-i ill pla;:c, he will wad,. v arta ihe WSLCB to see what kind of process would need to be in place. Mr. Peterson as a stoi u ,a `aats that process is important, the experience of the customer is important, i c=',i lntion is important. A. 2,ia.i know retail marijuana is ane of the most regulated processes in the world. Thea is so :flack that a store has to do to be open, we gladly accept that challenge. .°f,11;;,1i.w.sitiner Graham asked for clarification on the consultant part required by the medical r'rr•17; :••e menr. The reference tv patients would imply that they are seeking out medical marijuana as a ,r',atr'i, •inion, the pharmacy is typically where you think offor• where a medication is obtained. What rules, I I- 12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of9 IS' %,'(' 1`)•71[1l'".1r+i 7"i 0f �ff['allg1 drflfr+;In' i)1 that Wf+iifti ilfffl! �7i' {!t'f.'i.+l li 1!i!`r as aCO17Sifr?iani frOM OfG'1rPIIs; 11.'t'[ a": [fig iitll lz i' A Mr. Pette air! ceded 1t ie e('`IIle to be eery `'.ri•„:1. I le \i t, ;t 171ect:I1l1 �i4C Week that 4W'itS & illing what a eonseeele ieue I.i.:\ I.. .! iM net ping to be able to i,;lee 'i eL':i' tilt' I. Dif urge nn marijuana malice! LTl�l become a I-ei1 sician. 4 le he l ig•\ ; e Ilaere v.ee ee. trainiir en hew eiel what you can tell i itiint. it will 1101. be a position of giving medical advice rather- expluiniag the product and what potential the effects are of the product. Commissioners had questions about the ccncentrutiort levels of medical verses recreation marijuana. Mr. Peterson confirmed that there i not a cLifference in concentration levels. Discussion continued on packaging and labeling differences for medical and recreation marijuana. It is the same product but regulated and taxed differertly. Commissioner Anderson decl anal a ler minute break. Commissioners Continued wit i discu.e 'c'n. Commissioner Anderson suggested narrowing down the discussion to four subjects: who should get a retail license with a medical endorsement; should we make regulations beyond the state in regards to borne grow; extraction and where it should be allowed; finally should we allow co-ops. Concerns alloet commercial rentals renting to marijuana retail affecting the surrounding businesses. Mr. Peterson addressed that it is very difficult to find a location as well as higher rate are being charge for this type of business. Additionally marijuana businesses are having issues with banks being willing to accept funds. Mr. Peterson also brought up the fact that since it is federally illegal that the businesses are not allowed to take any tax write-offs for operating their business. Discussion moved to the Options 2 of increasing buffers and the locations ofco-ops. Interested in the 1000 foot buffer between stores and the residential zones and to look at how to allow cooperatives. Commissioners asked what happens to a business that becomes legal, nclnconforrning. Mr. Lamb stated that ifa legal, nonconforming use abandons their use for a year they are dame. If there is damage up to eighty percent they can continue that use. Ms. Janssen stated that the legal, nonconforming had to resume operations within twelve months. The question was raised as to whether a business may move locations and still be maintain that legal, nonconforming status. Mr. Lamb stated that the nonconforming use allows them to continue operating in that location with that use. If they moved they would be subject to the new rules. Commissioners asked about maintaining the status quo of current retail, producer, and processor would that be considered prohibition. Further they asked if it would be possible to allow the current retail shops the option of moving locations and rnaintairling license. Mr. Larn.b stated he would need to think about this further. The issue was raised that maintaining the three retail locations and that only one of these shops is located on a bus line. This may cause transportation and accessibility for medical marijuana patients. The issue of capacity was raised, Mr. Lamb explained that there will be a three tier structure related to square footage and this will remain the same size, but allow more stores, he will confirm. Discussion turned to the possibility of regulating the concentration of marijuana as well as the packaging. Ms. Harrison returned to further discuss the different compounds within marijuana. Commissioners asked about controlling signage and promotion of the marijuana. Mr. Lamb stated that the State regulates the signage as it relates to the location. The City does not allow off site signage. Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner, presented an update on a proposal before the State Building Cade Council to limit The number of plants to 15 in a buildings other than a Moderate Hazard Industrial Occupancy building. If any entity wanted to grow snore than 15 plants it would have to be in a lvloderate Hazard industrial Occupancy building, a residential use titi•m ild typically not be allowed in this zone without a fire sprinkler system. For the most pan a large number of our existing buildings that house residential uses would not be appropriate for the growth of any more than 15 plants. The Commission asked why growing marijuana plants is considered to be a fire hazard. Ms. Nickerson stated that it is not necessarily a fire hazard. However a limitation needed to be set to determine if it would be a factory occupancy or a standard garden. A co-op which is able to grow up to 60 plants would need to be an F1 occupancy. She further explained that the types ofoperation in a building and size of the building would determine when fire sprinkler systems would be required. Wan extraction system is in place that include chemicals they can trigger a fire sprinkler system requirement at a much lower threshold. Mr. Lamb it-12-15 Maiming Commission eviinutvs Page 8 of ibilowcd !Ai) co-cp would be lim[iccl 5 i:int i located in a domicile, unless Olcv L1fl industrial zone. rs:11-11,:w rLiLurded thc :h;11 1:nt 1T11.21:7C1112. thein lie 11onH7.12, rrnm Ii )!1CI iA vi iII a marijuana spz..ricik., Ms Iiarnson exphimd that a jciaI,clinic is a iitii. ii72 lint have doctors who do airihorizAcii-n mcdical 11dr1i u Ann. Ph') sims 1I 41lowed to write thirty authorizations a month alter that they have to report the limber to 11)..2 ',tae. AL ()L 'no oTher 1)usincss adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Kevin Anderson, Vice Chairperson Date signed Sccretar,..; 11-12-15 P:;inild I.: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: December 10, 2015 Item: Cheek all that apply: f consent. ❑ public hearing [] information old business admin. report ❑ new business ❑ pending legislation FILE. NUMBER: CTA -2015-0006 AGENDA ITEM T1TLE: Study session — Comprehensi'..j Marijuana Regulations DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Providing an update and background 013 c`lrrruril rat rriji�.lil;r I r.w _ [�1��t1il'ti31_„ r'eceat 20115 Stale 1._ ,i:,liltive amendments and the City's current nariju nttr'L' `I.11.ii1.}^l 131�;;i: ;: pi... ;llllL: !7f I wt'Is 16r lin:L.lidnuents t0 City regulations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70,`4.106; RCW 69,50 (couit,-in II3ittitit.. =02); RCW 69.51A; SVMC 17,80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: City Council has adopted regulations as sct forth in SVMC 19.120.050 and SVMC 19.85 t..r i.I-:c: r..>ning and buffering of recreational marijuana. On December 9, 2014. itt: Council adopted a milta`.L>ii1In on unlicensed marijuana uses (primarily nlccll-:R.,1 r31ari-j1rdlr a). On Oc:1.01:_a- 6, 2015, City Courr:il a moratorium on marijuana uses licensed by the Washington Liquor dad C'a311iahis Board ("Wl1.CB"). Planning Commission conducted a study session on October 22, :201.5 and lyes\ 4,•i Der 12, 2015. 13;tt'KGROUND: The City is in the process of developing comprehensive local marijuana reguidwAis, required pursuant to moratoriums described below. The Planning Commission conducted a study ,cti<ion on October 22, 2015. On November 12, 2015, Planning Commission conducted a second :r,Ll., cs inn and received public comment regarding development of City marijuana regulatianLz. P[:r'3'1ii3u Commission has also requested to hear from Spokane Valley Police, Spokane Valley Fire .+t3,1 a'1ii1u1 districts before discussing and developing such regulations. Planning Commission will :°bear Ii-om l-i,k,_.i,c Valley- Police and Spokane Valley Fire on December 10, 2015. Staff has invited Central Valley c 1001 District, East Valley School District, and 'west Valley School District to pal ticipat; cr provide con -In -cuts as ' well. .. L shorts from Planning Commission at its November 12, 21!5 treeing. During the Novemhcr 1 2015 meeting, there were several questions from Planning Commission regarding a variety of issues. Staff answer those issues at the Deeember 10, 2015 meeting. One issue that ;as discussed was whether the City could allow "medical -only" retail stores in 1iwu o1' combined recreational-T:iedical retail stores. Please note that the State system is set up solely for licensing of retail stores. Thn 4' an option of then seeking and receiving a medical marijuana endorsement :11 oral. 1t; .;cII maiijii.iwl to qualified patients at a tax-exempt rate. Accordingly, there is no distinction :: l aic:: 1:1 \V I t .v.::lt "riled iG:11 stores" and recreational stares, as all wl+}res are simply retail stores, with son)c hciuR marijuaI1a tax-exempt to certain qualified par icnts,. Thus, (I -i issue of "recreational vs. 1rti:il]t' 11` i s :1 1kL-Asir1tx one :a III tii,'t [Live: mitell II1i+rL sea t2ari be pal sed 01,it F'r,1111 ] Llrul utir i I:irYi:r91 Arandpr?.11t ai [lie loa.il leve! Further !cerin and l-.ral;tteal tispects of this issue will bL ditieusa...el,rt the 1)::eeini-e: 10. 2015 n1Leting. After hearing from S17ole;tne Police. and peel;<tl,c' Valley Hie, looking for direction frons F'iatinina. esr1 Ek II,r- rhe t,.1[V's accomplish_ After receiving that direction, staff ;Irait proposed amendments lo 6nateh Planning Commissions direction and Planning Commission 1•.'111 conduct :Y l::t:lei' study seasii i an -.he proposed amendments as welt els a fooled public: beari09 qn ts1 proposed arlaraiidieene= As a re ii ir1(ier, there are numerous options that I).Aree i;', Commission may conaeler as to 11•11<Y*•. the C:itv`s in iri,itl.tri.t regulations should accomplish. Stall- liar provided e iiiipit...:s alt paiur meetings ami t ]; exarl1rtik , arc included again below. OptioNs City Regulation Options Planning Comini -ion may consider a :ani,a op..iialis :or the City. The options range from maintaiiiiie: current regulations to adopt i3i` .,Y`rrl i`6.:' i r Fi11lil,rtil,ri: (ilei[ ',could. allow a limited increase in lieettaied inarijuana uses) to adoptin a a I.-auu1 call iiddili.11i1 Licensed rn:ii-kinana uses. Staff presented potentiiil concepts to City Council at its August LS, 2015, meeting. During that meeting, Council indicated a desir:` !.estrict marijuana uses to their current levels or to minimize increasing the number of stores. Stat. law weurid likely preclude the City from expressly setting the number of stores to be allocated within the [._'ity. but the City may dtdept reasonable land use regulations governing the siting and location of such One option Council discussed was possibly including an additional bul•frr preventing retail wt r tti ilr.'111 locating within 1.000 feet of any other licensed use. Option 1: Rely, on existing regulations.. This approach ould leave the existing City regl>1a11.ions in pl,r;`e 10 deal wi111 ;;1 i..111itianal retail, production, and processing licenses. Under this optier:, 1}I;►r i iL Commission conaider whether there should be any additional regulations for cooperative:.: (kwhic.i tam 'oil'. la, in residential zones). This would allow a potential iner-i.nae its lhe number of retail, 11roilucTito . iin•:1 pros Sing stores within the existing zones and subject ea illy leil'iene I he limit would hit:lately be set by the State. Under this option, Staff would reconhiread i`iiilor i11i:61't!s`.; 1:1 existing doI.I1i'iiir r1s to account F'or retail stores with medical marijuana endorsement a I (Haler this option, there t]i'i 72.7 pi ii .ls that wo'ild allow retail stores_ However, not all are available due to market eerist]alllts and ()lac!. c!. crirnrnercial operations that take up a significant number of those parcels. t )f 1n;ir _•.'kdopt additional limitations, such as buffers between lie c`nsed marijuana ii. i, prr'~hibitin i,xri7lit r;.Y1i1'e.` . or further limiting the allowable zores where licensed rues may locate: Poi exaniele. Planning Claminission wished to further Emit stores, it l:otlld adopt :t 1,000 feet hurler between licensed rpt;ail ,[r,I : ;0111 .]11 otlict licensed marijuana uses. IlUsthe number of allowable pairctis to f I ]s'.t•c 5t'r. this rlr_•cs newt lake into account any existing commercial stores occupying those parcck or other inarl,L:i-I-iieti:ar tililitti c}tl those parcels. Further, since there are licensed stoles and due to potential Y141i.�.iiice rvp' Ii71F3iie;lti ort neighborhoods, Planning Cori:tnission could CC}11ti1i1:`,1' p:ohibitii'9`" tiooperritives (horn of up to (O plants). Licensed marijuana uses art, currents;- allowed in leer :.e11L •- t"t Ii', 'viUC, RC, tuui C. This conic] he further restricted to limit the areas where additional licensed shojis t ' Li1:1 locate by either reducing the available zones or adopting an overlay eche li:laiting where lice'us'.d marijuana may be located. Existing Storrs that n1i«!1f otherwise ho impacted by any rice l'eguIatio11ti would become legal non -conforming uses and so would 11,11 1::' :l'l cr,4 iIIYr`.2Cicdi. Option 3: Adopt a prohibition on some or .011 types 0L I::2:21NNC,1 ij11n111.1 ICP-,0`._ 1 .N1•;i lilt` licensed us =S would become legal noir-conforming uses and sit'rL':.ItJId ii. he'. r.`'cll]Ii d !.01) 1:•I't:1'1ttI1r11•, I I ',�;t';�r a prohibition Would prevent cw '3[it1:111iilo-1l 1 ".Lense..1 uses.. Note ilea }'1111 ` r.ili beIicea. .i pinhibttion is valid, there have been no appellate court decisions .'illlil'rT'lrl .; 1 L:i1\ °; ;f91111ii Lt\ I:: I? Il", IrCCrlS •:i marijuana uses, and so staff cannot definitively oak' titi'k t ,L tic?ilii may iiir I', lIi {, !iv wLrc ch:LllerlgLJti illi a prohibition. Option 4 (provided at Oc ober 22 tweeting.1: • Allow only minimum number required by law. • Medical marijuana must be sold only at recreational retail outlets, maintain the existing retail outlets but require them to obtain a medical enciiorsement. ✓ Maintain the current buf`ers, but possibly restrict under age people from entering the stares. ✓ Alla)..\ c_ucTerotivcs under tit tii iii 7aning rules as recreational rro.!!ocers and with the state cooperative requirement than 1'+Il; or:14' have a. cooperative in a (low • Allow medical marijuana \ LIC` residence for per• -.-!,al use aw�uruiri ,ltprrl,;�l is received from the pr.',L:•r:rty Da\-!tcr i 1. t},c v 1 -i I. i r nteii i7: ]t i:sc t'_ lac it 11 i ✓ D( not allow i 11 `sale°Gilt resident;c,'Eir !s:id IL 11r 717111r171, . • Require t11in.usct. product or ' oncc:ltratL' t.7 be pL1r:liasi:C1 lr[%l11 r?:cdke l i a:.E' i1°:ls:}ilei I'it,L!1 outlet. . [o v of ti ii: pror rtii.1 i i trio+Ido,:i as lliil'1 of 'hk psiuke.l. General ilcW grCni SLi+ General information regarding the background actions by the City and state law requirements are provided in the RPCA from the October 22,20 1 5 meeting, which is attached. NOTICE: Staff contacted Spokane Valley Police and Spokane Valley Fire to present information Staff invited local whoa] districts to participate or provide comments. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Sc.. tiora 17.51 .150( ') 1''¢'= vides approval 'r.tt'ri tt forrt-�.l 11119 `E!11 n1L�1!S to the SVMC. The Criterion stipulates that the prop-os,ed Eintkuidrue- {c� :ru 1 l c 4.,Itsi tt!lt �,4:i1h 1Il applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relatio.i is r11c public lie:illll. safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff is seeking Planning Commission development of and consensus on an option. Once art option is developed and approved in concept, staff will draft appropriate proposed amendments based upon that concept for further Planning Commission consideration. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — Planner Jenny Nickerson — Senior Plans Examiner Erik lamb — Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposal from Commissioner Anderson B. Copy of RPCA from October 22.. '2015 C. Copy of RPCA, Crum November 11 2015 mccring D. Copy nt•draft minutes from NLlti'el iber 12.201 5 ttiectin+g (included in packet) E. Map of existing licensed marijuana facilities Chairman Anderson called the the pledge of allegiance. Kevin Andersson 1 -leather Graham Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stay, absent - excused Sam Wood Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers —City IFla�ll, December 14, 2015 meeting to order at 6.00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Jolut Hallman, Community Development Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Jenny Nickerson, Sr. Plans Examiner Christina Janssen, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Woad moved to excuse doe Stay from the meeting. The vote on this nation was six i favor, zero against and the motions passed. Commissioner Grahame raved to eitcept the December 10. 2015 agenda as presented The vote on the emotion TL'a sib in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Scott asked for clarification regarding a sentence in the November 12, 2015 minutes. She said on Page 3, second to last paragraph, the sentence reads "Mr. Lamb presented that there are other - types of rises that the City aright want to regulate for example ca mar teana club. Currently there is one considered, at 420 friendly lounge where you are able to consume marijuana but not purchase marijuana." it was determined the `at' in front of '420' should be replace] with an 'a.' There were no other corrections to the minutes. Commissioner Wood proved to approve tete November i2, 2015 minutes as amended. The Vose on the ?notion ~vers six in favor, zero against (Ind the hration passed COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelly reported he attended a meeting at CenterPlace regarding marijuana usage. A11ivnNYSTRATIVE REPORT: Community Development Director John Hohmart reported the deadline for Planning Commission openings is December L 8, 2015. Mr. Rahman thanked the Planning Commissioners who would be leaving at the end of this year, Commissioners Anderson, Scott and Wood. Mr. Holman also reported the first meeting of the Planning Commission in 2016 would be January 28, 2016. This will allow for the delayed process ref choosing the next Planning Commissioners. The January 28 meeting will be training which is required each year for the Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public. comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS; Public Hearing: STV -2415-3001, Street Vacation of portion of 3" Avenue Karen Kendall presented the street vacation request of 3rd Avenue located between Appleway Trail and 41b Avenue just west ofSkipworth Road adjacent to six parcels. The request is for an area approximately 340 feet in length and ranging in width from 40 to 50 feet. The northerly three parcels are proposed to be consolidated into one. South of 3'd Avenue the two westerly parcels will be consolidated into one and access will be by an existing easement from 4111 Avenue. The final remaining parcel will be unchanged. Ms. Kendall presented five reasons identified by the applicant for the request: 1. The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved and not maintained 2. Location of road limits maximum use of abutting properties 3. All six parcels abutting 3`d Avenue (north/south) are owned by the same property owner 4. The structures along the west property line hinder future right-of-way connection, and 5. No parcels use 3'° Avenue for access. Commissioner Scott said the staff report mentioned the abutting property owners along 3,d were notified but was anyone on 4'h Avenue notified. Ms. Kendall responded based an the City's noticing 12-lCk L5 Planning Cemmissk n Minutes Page of 9 requirements, only the property owners who were abutting 3"1 Avenue were nctiFied_ Commissioner Scott mentioned the peen with the easement was not notified. Commissioner Wood asked about the noticing on the property and Ms. Kendall explained the posting requirements for a street kation and the location of the signs which had been posted on the property. Mr. Wood mentioned the sign hanging on the fence was difficult to see. Commissioner Anderson asked why the southern lots were not combined into one parcel. Ms. Kendall asked for clarification, Mr, Anderson said the northern parcels were proposed to be combined into one parcel. The southern three parcels are being proposed as two parcels instead of one as is being done on the north side of the right-of-way (ROW). Mr. Anderson wanted a reason why the parcels were being configured as proposed. Ms. Kendall stated there are two single family residences on the land and in order for each residence to have its own pnrcel this is haw the configuration was proposed. Mr, Anderson said he thought the goal was to develop the property into multifamily development. M. Kendall stated staff was not aware of any future development plans for the property. if in the future, the parcel configuration did not work for the property owner, then steps could be taken at the rime of development to realign there, Commissioner Scott stated site was concerned about the size of the easements. One of them is a 12-foot driveway easement which was granted in 2002 to serve as a driveway for one of the homes on the applicant's property and an easement which will be grunted to the City for a path to the Appleway Trail which is shown to be 1 5-feet wide. Ms. Kendall stated as part of the proposal, adjacent parcels with access are not looked at. Ms. Kendall said only during future development would access to the parcels need to be addressed. Ms. Scott was concerned tire parcel to the west, with the driveway easement was not notified of the street vacation. Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained the noticing practices to the Commissioners. The noticing requirements for a proposed street vacation are in place to alto people who use the street to comment. Ms. Barlow said the property to which Ms. Scott is referring is not affected by the vacation of the street, Ms, Barlow said the noticing requirements have been met. Any discussion of the need for more access would be taken up if further development was proposed. Commissioner Anderson opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant if he would like to speak, the applicnnt stated from the audience he did not really have anything to say. Commissioner Anderson asked him to step tip to the podium tc' speak because he wanted to question him. Dan Hultquist, 14502 N. Freya: Mr. Hultquist stated he had no connment. Commissioner Anderson asked to clarify whether the driveway easement, which serves ane of the houses on Mr. Hnkquist's property, would be an easement as it is. Mr. Hultquist said it was just a driveway to the house en his property. Commissioner Anderson asked if lie had to leave it as an easement. Mr. Hultquist stated he did not understand the question, Commissioner Anderson asked if he developed the property in the future, if the easement would change. Mr. Heiteplist stated it would be hard to say, he didn't know what else it would be. He had been planning an developing the property For 20+ years now and it still looks the same, He said lie could, not at this time, anticipate what would happen to the property. He would not want to give tip the easement since it serves his rental property. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr, Hultquist if the easement was as it is, where it is and would not change, Mr. Hultquist again stated he was not sure what Mr. Anderson was asking, but it was an easement to the rental property. Ms. Barlow clarified that in this process the easement will remain as it is. Mr. Anderson stated he was tiyine to look out for the property owners nut involved in this process. Having no one else who wanted to testify, Commissioner Anderson closed the public hearing at 6:33 p. m. Commissioner Wood stated he had no issues with this proposal. Commissioner Kelly said he did not have a problem with it either, Commissioner Phillips was only concerned there would not be a landlocked parcel. Commissioner Anderson said he had no problem. with the street vacation, but lie was fixated on the easements. He was concerned the easements for the property would not be sufficient for future development. Commissioner Scott asked if the property had been investigated to he one which the ROW would go back to the property owner. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated, although he did not look up to see if this plat was dated previously to 1904, if it had been then the land would have reverted L2-10-15 Planning Commissien tvlinutse Page 3 at 9 I}ACk to the property owexer. Ms. Scott wondered if the City would have to btry back the ROW if there was future development. Ms. Barlawv stated if them VeRS future development, the ROW would be dedicated to the City. Ms. Scott was concerned the increase in the amount of square footage of the properties would increase the density allowed in the area, if the property was developed. Comrnissiorier• Graham proved to approve e STI- 2015-0001. The vote on the ?notion was six in fauot% zero against and the motion passed. Planning Commission Findings: STV -2015-01001} Street Vacation of porliort of 3r4 Avenue Ms. Kendall stated the City preferred process is to bring the findings back at later meeting after the public hearing. However because of the Holidays and the Planning Commission's next available meeting for business would not be until February, staff' is bringing the findings forward now. Ms. Barlow stated the proposed findings reflect the decision made at the public hearing. Commissioner Graham moved to approve the Planning Commission findings for STY -2015-0001. The vale on the ,porion ir+as six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. CTA -2015-0006 Marijuana Regulations Commissioner Anderson asked the Commissioners if they wanted to proceed with the study session or to defer the discussion until new Commissioners are appointed in the New Year. Deputy City Attorney Lamb said this would be up to the Commissioners, but there were people in attendance who came to speak to the subject and there would be a written record of previous actions for the new members to review. There was consensus to continue with the study session and listen tc the people who carne to share information regarding marijuana in the City and related fire codes. Lt. Khris Thompson, Spokane Valley Pollee Department (SVPD): Lt. Thompson stated it had been a long process in changing the regulations regarding the legislation of marijuana. Serrate Bill 502 brings together how medical or compliant marijuana will be handled. The City's numbers since the passing of 1-502, which is when the police department started tracking marijuana related driving under the influence (DUI). In the first period after tlbe law was enacted the police made 15 arrests, four of which were mirrors. In 2013, there were 43 arrests with 20 being minors. Lt. Thompson clam ified the law reads a `minor' would be anyone 21 years of age or younger. Commissioner Kelley asked if these were just marijuana arrests, or all DUI arrests, Lt. Thompson stated these were all intoxicants, including alcohol, marijuana and outer intoxicants. He continued in 2D14 there were 62 total incidents, with 22 of them being under age. So far this year there have been 50. DUI arrests with 15 of them beim under age, These were DUI, by drug, specifically marijuana. Commissioner Wood asked if there was a blood test associated with the DIJI arrests. Lt. Thompson said there are many methods used to confirm the use cf drugs. 1 -le said there are people trained specifically to determine if someone is using dregs at the time they are pulled over. In 2013/14, Mien the SVPD started tracking marijuana related calls there were 55 calls related to marijuana. These could be burglary, theft, property crimes and so on. In 2015 there had been 95 incidents so far. He stated about half of the arrests were minors and there was a trend ofynuth becoming involved in these crimes Commissioner Orehern asked if Lt. Thompson was aware of any increase in funding too support the police departments. Lt. Thompson said he was not aware, but this would be a question for administrative staff. Commissioner Kelley asked haw the police department handles cases where plants were involved if the person owning the plants stated they were for medical use. Lt. Thompson stated there were different Levels of enforcement between the different police departments and the Washington state Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB). A medical patient is required to keep paperwork on site to show if there is ever an issue with plants being grown in a home. Lt. Thompson stated patients who wished to grow their own, would need to be licensed in order to avoid potential prosecution. Commissioners had questions regarding a cooperative grow. Lt. Thompson stated the rules for a. cooperative grow have changed, from allowing 10 people to participate to four, it also reduced the number of plants which will be allowed. Registration would assist officers in knowing where authorized growing would happen, but it is voluntary for individuals. However the medical card received from the doctor would state how rnaity plants the patient needs. Commissioner Kelley asked if the increase in crimes could be pia -pointed to occurring around schools, siting the Commission has been tasked to consider new regulations including new possible buffers around certain facilities, Lt. Thompson stated he did riot have that detail of information With hire, but it ,night be passible to find the 12-10-15 Planning Car: missies Minutes page 4 of 9 information al a later time. Commissioner Scott asked about enforcement from the WSLCR. Lt. Thompson stated there are different levels of enforcement and the 4SLC13 enforces the licensing, the police enforce the criminal violations. She also asked Witte infcrrnation regarding an in-home grow was supposed to be posted on the door of the room containing the plants. Lt. Thompson stated the patient is required to have the information readily available, it should be posted but this is not always the case. Commissioner Wood asked if there was a portion of the City getting more criminal incidences than another. Lt. Thompson stated it was all over the City, not in any one place. Commissioner Scott also asked if, in his personal opinion, the officer could see the trend continuing. Lt, Thompson said he could see the trend continuing with the availability of the product. Greg Rogers, Spokane Valley Fire Dept. Fire Marshall: Mr.. Rogers stated he did not have the numbers, like the police department does because they do trot associate these things with their response with the chemical components which are used. They have seen an increase in call volume, mainly from older adults who are experimenting, based on people thinking they are having symptoms of larger issues such as a possible heart attack. Said he has seen the call volume increase in the last month, of unauthorized burn of harvested plants and feels this is in part due to fewer extraction processors in the county. In these incidents, the fire department is required to turn these incidents over to the Clean Air Agency, and they are responsible for the enforcement, Tracy Harvey, Spokane Valley Fire Dept. Fire Protection Engineer: Ms. Harvey stated she has hecorne involved in the marijuana regulations through the building permit process. She has noted a need for regulations to make sure the growing and processing of the marijuana are done safely. She has been involved with the International Fire Code 2015 amendments. She stated there have been some emergency amendments to address some of the extraction processes. She said she would be participating in a Cannabis Technical Advisory Group for the State wilding Code Council next year. She said the fire departrnent is learning from the growers and processers how things work and how to regulate these businesses. Commissioner Graham asked about the extraction processes and the medical facilities which are licensed to do business, but are not licensed to operate as a medical business. Ms. Harvey explained as the new rules take effect and `medical' marijuana gets rolled into the recreational stores the requirements for the recreational will apply. A new permit, which has been adopted by the Fire Code, states any new extraction processes must be reviewed by the local fire department. There will be inspections of the processes, facilities and an annual review will be required. Commissioner Grabens asked if the fire department had responded to any calls at one of the City's processor or producers. Mr. Rogers stated they had not. He said the processors and growers have invited the fire department to Inak at what they are doing so they are more aware of what is going an at the property in case of the need for response. Mr. Rogers said he was glad the medical would have to follow the seine regulations as recreational, which means they will not be able to open business unless they have been through the fire department permitting process. Ms. Harvey explained currently there is not a processor in the City which is using a chemical extraction process. Some are using a CO2 system, but not a chemical extraction. Commissioner Anderson asked if harvested plants can be taken to the "clean green" process at the transfer station. Ms. Harvey stated there is a process where the plants must be taken to the Waste-to- Energy Plant for destruction. Mr. Larnb offered there are also state regulations which require the addition of non-edible materials in with the plants so there is no useable material. Commissioner Wood asked if you have a cooperative grow of two to four people, and they can grow up to 60 plants, aren't they using halogen lights to grow the plants, which could be a fire hazard. Ms. Harvey stated many are using LED lights now. Commissioner Wood said he felt this type of operation could cause trouble for the fire department. Ms. Harvey stated a couple of years ago, there was a fire in a garage, which had a grow operation in it. The two minors running the operation had medical cards. But this was seldom. Commissioner Wood asked if using so much energy, changes to amperage systems, those kinds of thingss, wouldn't this be a concern to the fire department? Ms. Harvey stated a permit would be needed to snake any changes to the home. Changes to the electrical systems are governed by Labor and Industries, which the City does not have a hand in_ Commissioner Kelley asked if there was not a way to make suggestions requiring these types of changes and these types of growing operations have to meet a certain standard to be safe. Ms. Harvey stated the regulations already require a change of occupancy to an F-1 occupancy, which would require a permit and City review. An F-1 occupancy is a factory/industrial moderate-hazard occupancy. In an F-1 occupancy there is a 12,000 square foot 12-10-15 PlurmingCpmmissior1 P4linutes l'a e 5 49 minimum at which the building is required to have sprinklers, Most cooperative gnaws would root trier this requirement, Sprinklers are based on the size and square footage of n building, not on how many plants might be growing in a home. Jenny Nickerson, Senior PImis Examiner{ Ms. Nickerson responded to a question from Commissioners regarding the ability to require sprinklers in a cooperative. Ms. Nickerson pointed out some of the rules being discussed are proposed, and have not been adopted by the State Building Code Council, and are not currently requirements. She said in theory if an in-home grow had 17 plants, was classified as F-1 occupancy, there would be minimum life safety requirements in place. Sprinkler thresholds are generally at 12,000 square feet for an I -1 occupancy. However an F-1 occupancy of any size is going to be subject to certain fire sensitivity, egress in an emergency situation, including address and posting measures which would allow the fire department to respond adequately in aim emergency. Commissioner Kelley asked if a daycare with 7,000 square feet would not require a sprinkler system. Ms. Nickerson stated a day+ca-e is a different occupancy and the requirement would be based an the age of the children, number of exits, and the number of children which would be accommodated in that building. Ms. Nickerson felt a 7,000 square foot daycare would probably be a sprinkled building. Commissioner Kelley asked if the Commission could suggest lowering the limits far a home grow operation. Ms. Nickerson said canopy space could be something which could be considered. She said it could be considered, tighter sprinkler thresholds for those types of uses. Commissioner Graham asked if a co-op has 17 plants, have registered with the state as a co-op, do they need to apply for a change of occupancy. Ms. Nickerson said, assuming the proposed regulations are adopted, which would trigger the F-1 occupancy requirement, a single family dwelling would not be considered an F-1 occupancy classification. She said what had been discussed at the previous meeting was if a grow was (moused in a building which has an F -I occupancy and a person decided to live in the building, that would trigger the fire sprinkler requirement, no matter what the square footage was. Sprinklers are only going to be required ifa person is living in the same building. A detached garage would need to maintain at least 20 feet of separation. Then came a question regarding a domicile, which is in the state code as a requirement for a co-op, but Mr. Lamb stated it would not fit the City's regulations for residential zoning. Commissioner Wood stated he did not understand a cooperative very well. He offered a likely suggestion of a person with a medical card for marijuana. That person wanted to grow 15 marijuana plants in their home, tt person could dc, that. Mr. Larnb stated unless that person wanted to modify their (home in a way which would trigger a standard building permit, there would be no way anyone would know about the plants. Commissioner Wood confirmed no one in the City would know about the growing plants, ifa patient decided to do so. A cooperative is up to four individuals who decide to grow plants together. Mr. Lamb said this would be legal under current local zoning codes. However, there are proposed changes to the building code, where once a person is growing ower 15 plants there would be a requirement for a change in occupancy. Currently zoning does not allow for an 'iirdti trial' building in a residential zone, A co-op hes to register with the state, however there is no mechanism which shares that information with the a urisd lotion. Mr. Rogers stated once a permit is applied for a change of occupancy and is approved, then it would trigger annual inspections from the fire department. It would be considered part of a home business and allow for the inspections. Commissioner Kelley asked if the City had the power to require anyone who applies for a medical marijuana card to register with the City. Mr. Lamb stated he did not feel this would. be possible based on the need to protect an individual's medical records according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and it could be a possible violation of an individual's rights. Commissioner Wood asked if the suggestion of not allowing cooperatives in the City would be a problem. Mr. Lamb stated it was in the new state law to allow the prohibition ©f cooperatives if a jurisdiction chose. Mr. Lamb stated the cooperative was allowed for more rural areas, where some patients might not be able to get to a store to purchase what they need. Mr. Lamb said he felt the City could site other stores in the areas in the county as well as a person could grow for themselves. Lt. Thompson added regarding medical authorization charges, patients do not need to enter into a registration, they can purchase marijuana at retail amounts, and pay time extra lax. If a patient does voluntarily register, then they are able to purchase a higher quantity than a regular retail customer and they will not have to pay the taxes. Lt. Thompson said he would try and get more information For the Commissioners regarding property crirnes around within a quarter mile around a retail store, 12 -10 -ES Planning Commission Minutes Page a pf9 Commissioner Graham asked if there were regulations in place where if a person went into a retail location and they appeared to be `intoxicated' does the retail stare have the right to refuse service to them, and Lt. Thompson said he did not know Mr. L.atnb then suited he would like to address some of the questions which were raised at the last meeting. • Question: Huw much money in taxes is the City getting from nmariijuana? The taxes being received are a 37% excise tax, but also general sales taxes. Producers and processors are considered wholesale and so they generate no taxes. Said we do see secondary benefits of employees who work for these operators wlio would live or shop in the City. Mr. Lamb said at Least one producer/processor employees l08 people. The City's distribution in 2016 of the excise tax is $75,000, based an the 37° tax collected at the point of sale. The retail operations are generating a fairly good business and the sales tax for this year should be in the area of $58,000. The state must use a portion of the revenue generated for education and enforcement, The distribution to the City has not been tied to this. WSLCH reported for their fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 in all of Spokane County, who were allowed 18 retail shops total, from producers was $816,000, 514,004,000 from processors and $37,000,000 in sales from retailers. • Question: Can the City restrict retail outlets to be medical only? Mr. Lamb said after looking at case law there could be significant legal questions from a preemption stand point, primarily based on the way the state has set the Licensing oldie retail stores. The City would not be looking at it from a land use basis, but how they do their business and that is governed by the licensing scheme. Based on this the City would be hying to step into the state's role. There were questions regarding the Health Department. The Health Department Inas acknowledged there could be some beneficial properties in marijuana. They can't make it a prescribed medicine so what people are commonly referring to as medical marijuana is not being recognized by the Department of Health as `=medical" marijuana.. The terra used is "compliant" marijuana. There will be three different types of compliant marijuana. There will be "genera( carnpfiant" marijuana which is safe handling and limits use of pesticides and contains less than 10 milligrams of THC, this will lead to patients having a cleaner product. The next is "high THC campliorrr this cannot be in bud form, it roust be in capsules or patches. The high THC compliant has a higher THC than is allowed for recreational, the THC will be between 10 and 50 milligrams per serving and is only available to qualified patients. The third type is "high COD compliant" which is similar to the high THC but the ratio of the CPDs is higher than the THC. This marijuana has more pain relieving affects, but is allowed for purchase by any buyer. Only the high THC compliant will require a medical card for purchase. The Health Department will not be regulating the marijuana more than this at this time. This would be why it would be difficult for the City to separate the two types of stores. Commissioner Wood asked if the City could regulate growing in homes. Mr, Lamb said it would have to come from a health/safety standpoint which would require talking about any gardener and what they want to grow. Commissioner Kelley asked if the City had the right to make a prohibition an medical marijuana home grows. Mr. Lamb corrected saying the City could limit the cooperatives, but the individual patient wlta wants to grow up to 15 plants, there would be a very difficult time in prohibiting them. if it was done there was a healthfsafety standpoint which would apply to all plants being grown. Commissioner Andersen said he felt the Health Department supported his theory of it being a public, health/safety issue for having segregated facilities. Mr. Lamb said the Department of Health has made different classifications for compliant marijuana, Commissioner Anderson said the only thing common about the two types of stores is the word marijuana. He feels there would be different inventories, there should be a separate wall between the two facilities in order to keep the public safe from the sales of the wrong product to the wrung person. He offered that he would be willing to take the chance in a court morn on his idea. Mr. Lamb said he did not know from an enforcement standpoint, how this could be done. Compliant marijuana can be sola to anyone. The only time a sale would need to have a check for a medical card would be if a person wanted to: L) buy in higher than recreational amounts, 7) buy the high THC compliant marijuana or 3) didn't want to pay the sales tax. Mr. Anderson continued he still felt that medical and recreational should not be in the same building, then there could be more medical shops and we could get away from allowing more recreational shops, Mr. Lamb said the t2-10-15 Planning Commission Minutes Pnge7 Dr challenge for the City would be trying to enforce the fact that a retail store would not be selling to recreational users ns well ae a medical store. Commissioner Graham asked Mr. Lamb to explain this. At a retail Jmuumuu' store any person can go in and buy any kind of marijuana they would like, EXCEPT for high THC compliant marijuana. Mr. Lamb said if the City were to only allow more medical marijuana stores, anyone over the age of21 would be able to go in and buy any of the products, except the high THC compliant marijuana. Commissioner Graham asked what would be the problem with this proposal. Mr. Lamb asked what the goal would be in trying to do this. Mr. Anderson asked if medical marijuana wouldn't be more expensive, have to have training, a consultant is requited, tighter product regulations, tighter packaging regulations, in general a recreational user would want to go somewhere else and buy their product. Commissioner Kelley said many businesses sell retail/wholesale in the some place. Ms. Janssen asked the Commissioners to clarify why they would want to separate the two businesses. Commissioner Anderson said to keep the number of major retail stores from graving and medical has a legitimate point, and the state is saying we have to have more outlets. The Commissioners said they are frustrated the rules keep changing while we are trying to make the rules. Commissioner Graham said as ofiuly 2016 all of the unlicensed dispensaries will have to be out of business or moved to a retail stare. She asked if it was fair to these business owners. She asked if the City adopted something like Commissioner Anderson was proposing,, couldn't those businesses apply to be one of those places. It would protect their business, they are used to providing medical marijuana. Mr. Lamb said they could and it would be up to the Commission, but before moving forward he would like to highlight, first although they are going to say they are going to be medical stores, they could sell to anyone who comes in at this time. Second he wanted the Commissioners to know this decision would be subject to a legal challenge. if someone wanted to sell recreationally and did not want to sell medical, it could be subject to challenge. There was a discussion about the current medical dispensaries and wanting to allow them an avenue to continue their business without allowing any more recreational shops in the City. Mr. Lamb stated the state is going to allocate to the City more retail stares based on the need of the community. He said there is no requirement for those to get a medical endorsement. The state created a retail system in which patients can get a tax break. The City is not mandated to have the allowed number of stores. Stores who sell compliant marijuana will need to be able to prove to the state they have the appropriate documentation in order to not be collecting the taxes owed. Commissioner Scar asked if there was a way to prohibit any more new stares in the City until the dust settles' and we have better defused rules regarding the selling of marijuana. Mr. Lamb said this would be one option, • If the City prohibited any more new stares could existing stores be termed Iegal nonconforming uses and be allowed to move around the City. There is a rule for that for billboards. There is no statutory rule which would prohibit it. Mr. Lamb cautioned there is no other business in tete Ctry which would be allowed to do that under our non -conforming use provisions. Commissioner Scott wondered if this would not be a problem because we do not allow other businesses to do this. She Said these businesses have already said they know this is a high risk business and she did not feel obligated to allow special accommodations. Mr, Lamb said the City's current nonconforming regcrlations would take are of these concerns. • Signage restrictions; Mr. Lamb said he etas concerns about the First Arnendtnent and trying to regulate the content of signs. He said there was a question about comparing it to cigarette advertising. He said this law was written with extensive studies on how long a minor sees that advertisernent can directly affect their likelihood of using that product, There was a strong factual basis for those laws. if the City were to develop a factual record, we might be able to develop a regulation along those lines. There was a recent court case (Reed vs. the Town of Gilbert which has strengthened First Amendment protections and further restricted cities' authority for their sign codes. The state has significant restrictions on signs. The state does not allow more than mo signs on site, and signs are limited co 1,600 square inches. The City sign code does not allow any off-site signage. The 1%'SLCB also does not allow the signs to be appealing to children. They have stated, but it is not in the rules, -they will not allow signs with cannabis leaves in them. I2 -I0-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of Commissioner Wood said his opinion inlaying forward would be to allow the three existing retail stores to became licensed medical marijuana stores. He said he felt the three retail outlets were enough, the number of processors and producers was sufficient. He said we should allow a private individual patient the right to grow up to 15 plants, but not to allow cooperatives in the City The City should maintain all of the current buffers around schools, parkas and city land. Commissioner Scott said she agreed with Commissioner Wood and would make the three existing stores a legal nonconforming use. Commissioner Phillips said he agreed with Commissioner Wood, he would like to reduce the ones we already have but did not feel that was possible. Commissioner Anderson said he did not see any reason why the City would change or expand its processing and producing regulations. He is in favor of eliminating cooperatives. He would like to require the home owner be aware when someone is growing plants on their property for medicinal purposes. He feels all the boundaries should remain the same. He did not feel the City should be allowing home extraction. He would allow more stores if they could be medical only, even though he feels it would work, but if not then he would not allow any more stores in the City. Commissioner Kelley said he agrees with the all the guidelines proposed, but he would increase the buffers. Commissioner Wood said some of the retail stores came in and said their landlords Were not going to allow them to continue their leases, which w euld be no fault of their own, and he wanted to allow the nonconforming laws to move with the stores to allow them to continue on if they were a business in good standing. Then there was discussion regarding legal nonconforming uses and of the ultimate goal of the Commissieners. Do you have to make the three retail shops nonconforming" Commissioner Anderson said no more than the three outlets without making them legal ncncoiiforming uses, which would prohibit any more marijuana uses. Because of the state licensing system, there isn't a. way to just restrict three to our City, so we have to prohibit and use the nonconforming regulations. Mr. Lamb summarized the Commission's desired direction for the regulations to be drafted: • No more marijuana retailers, producers or processors • No clubs • No cooperatives • Allow home grows, but look at the possibility of requiring the grower he the (home owner • No home extraction Commissioner Scott asked if it was possible to restrict chemical extraction in the City. Mr. Lamb said he would allow the fire department to speak to the subject, but to keep in mind there are other processes which uses chemicals which are not related to marijuana. Ms. Harvey said the permit has a reasonable amount allowable which would allow the process in most any room in order to keep control of the chemicals to avoid problems. Chemical extractions require many systems to monitor. Extractions at home are using rubbing alcohol which is not likely to be a problem, but there could be a prebleni with the propane or butane. Most are using a CO2 process, She said it was highly tutliltiely to see one of these systems in a home because they are expensive systems. Commissioner Graham said she would like to see horse grow be in an enclosure and that they can't be seen from a neighbor's yard. How could enforcement of this happen, only after they were reported? At this point it was agreed staff will begin to draft regulations based on the Commissioners agreeing this was the direction they wanted the regulations to move. Commissioner Graham asked about accommodating the current business owners through zoning, -and Mr. Lamb stated an overlay could be created but that spot zoning would not be allowed. Commissioner Wood asked about renters who had permission to grow, and it was clarified this would be allowed. There was consensus not to come back with a zoning alternative to be able to allow the existing medical stores (dispensaries) in a veining overlay. Commissioner Graham asked if a marijuana grown, or a federally illegal activity, was. something which would have to be disclosed when selling a building. Commissioner Wood said he would say no, but he felt they were damp and would generate black mold which would be required to be disclosed. Commissioner Kelley 'wanted to know if the City could make it a requirement to inform ofa home grow. Mr. Lamb said it would require some investigation. 12- t 0.15 I'1aimi ins enirtmissikn Minutes Page 9 or 9 GOOD OF THE ORDER; There was a discussion regarding Planning Commissioners notes. Do they to be turned in to staff at the end of the year. These were their own notes, but Commissioners need to be aware they were subject to a public records requests. They should probably be destroyed at the el cl of each subject. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m, r Ke qr ice -Chairperson 1 Deanna Horton, Secretary Date signed CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 25, 2016 Item: Check all that apply- 7 :n_l tl U lIJ ll .r ilrv;ti M. new business I pulll'c admin. I o1i1111 1e 151$tl4Tll FILE NUMBER: C, t A-2 J l-Li111}�Z AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study .`i4.'`.ti?C}il- 5t:II Iii:a l;s i '_ L➢I:i 11'115 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated cede text iitmiendluent to the Spokane 4� allr-�:-7viilnieim s 1 Code (SVNiC) chapter 19.85, SVMC 19.170.050, and Appendix A to add dernnions I11111n1i1rt;.1 uses, prohibit all new ma1'111Ia11e1 L1S.S, production, processing, rcLil, cooperatives,. and From any zones within 1111,: City. and to provide ide additional regulations for 11 •:-•dLlction and processim1. ,sC in_..inie-grown marijuana by. qualified patients and designated providers for I .-r.(slial use in r.c:n'.;s. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106: RCW 69.50 (cm111Vinu lniiitilive: 502); RCW 69.51A; SVMC 17.80.150 and 1930.040; SVMC 19.85; SVIv1C 19.120-050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN; City Council has :1 En1rr ;l r`.I,l rticlns as set forth in SVMC 19.120.050 and SVMC 19.85 for the zoning and buffeting i;:` ro:.R'irti `m1 ir;.:rij,iana. On December. 9, 2014, City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijllln.3 lJ: :11,71111 int medical mariivarl.!) i }n OetciF'cr• 6. 2015. City Council adopted a moratorium on mar j71;iii:i nyiL.s1.11.411'-c'a! liy the Washington Liquor ;yl;4i Cannabis Board ("WSLCB"). Planning Commission conducted study sessions on October 22, 21115, November 12, 2015, and December 10, 201.5. BACKGROUND:. The City is in the process of developing comprehensive local marijuana as required pursuant to moratoriums as described in the Staff Report. The Planning (•. es ➢i➢: �i,e➢, conducted study sessions on. October 22, 2015, November 12, 20I5, and December 10, 201- 11 tllrr: study sessions, Planning Commission received information from staff regarding recent changes tog}Il.: law, ongoing rulemaking by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) and. Washington Department of Health, testimony from the public, information from Spokane Valley Police and Spaka-i.. Valley Fire, and a range of various types of available options. Further, Planning Commission considered various options and ultimately gave a consensus for staff to draft proposed amendment language that would ban all new marijuana uses, allow home growing, require notice by renters to landlords for borne growing, and ban home extraction. Planning Commission will now be considering draft amendments that would amend chapter 19-g5 SVMC, SVMC 19.120.050, and Appendix A by (1) adding definitions for medical marijuana ender VJ retail stores, marijuana cooperatives, and marijuana clubs, (2) prohibiting any new licensed 1l'. L kjn:t 1 1 production, pi-ocessing, or retail stores from all zones, (3) prohibiting marijuana cooperatives i'n711 :➢I1 zones, (4) prohibiting marijuana clubs er lounges from all zones, and (5) requiring any home=.-S,r<nl iii. 1 ti qualified patients as allowed by state law to be conducted only in single family residential nc ! t permanent structures that are opaque and not visible by neighbors or from the public rights -of -wily, and to clarify that renters may 1.-,c 1tutIR)i-ia<<tl 13} IBJ ,:.i st:flc_ ;end local laws, to give notice to landlords of their intention lf,,_.i ti.• un,,riif!,t,i.1I:hilly In .i et°ul.yl c.I,v_'llfn,�. Mier consideration of'the stud•. 1'.,mf7ing ComniiyS,ion E i°I coi cff,ci a public hearing on March 24, 2016. For informational purposes, :11 inl'orinatio1 from th{t. prior study sessions have been included as attachments to this RCPA NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendments will i[c'rcr1Ld in accordance with the requirements of Title 17 SVMC. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Section 17.80.150(F) F --i I rovrides approval critc°rici tc l amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amcndui1ertt[s) roust b. consi-r.: u with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan ar-d bear a substantial relation to the public health safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed amendments on March 24, 2016. STAFF CONTACT. Christina Janssen -- Planner Jenny Nickerson — Senior flim' Examiner Erik Lamb— Deputy Ciiv ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report, including copies of Ordinance Nos. 14-021 and 15-017 B. Proposed amendments to chapter 19.85 SVMC, SVh"1C 19.120.050, and Appendix A C. Copy of RPCA from October 22, 2015 D. Copy of RPCA from November 12, 2015 meeting E. Copy of RPCA from December 10, 20 l5 meeting F. Copy of minutes from October 22, 2015, November 12, 2015, and December 10, 2015 meetings G. Police crime tracking information requested at December 10, 2015.meeting Chair Graham called pledge of allegiance. staff were present: Kevin Anderson ]-feather Graham James Johnson Tim Ke11ey Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos The Stoy APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hull, February 25, 2016 the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience Mood fur the Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll. and the following member and Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Planner Karen Kendall, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Catrrmisstoner Stoy moved to accept the February 25, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote an the motion was seven in favor, aero against and the ruction passed Commissioner Stay moved to approve the February 11, 2016 minutes as they were presented. The vete on the rraotiora was seven in favor, zero against, and the emotion paysed COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelley reported he attended the Trader's Club meeting. The other Commissioners had no reports. ADi1MINISTRATIVE REPORT: Staff had no reports. PIJBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION D1JSINESS: A. Public Hearing: CPA -2016-0001, A privately proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, near Elizabeth and Utah, requesting a chane from Low Density Residential to Light Ind ustrial. 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 -2416-0001. 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 parol 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 swa]es. Ms. Kendall contacted the Spokane Valley Fire Dept. regarding response times, they indicated when a call comes in they 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 hay -mat response unit, but it for larger spills. Commissioner Johnson asked if there were no approaches installed along Elizabeth, then what kind of improvements wouId 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. O2-25.16 PlariningCommission Minutg Page 2 0f4 Ron Statoo, 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 20] 4 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, Staten said this was a non -project related request, meaning Avista does not have a specific project corning 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 roarn to grow for future growth. Mr. Staten 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, Staten 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 $55,000 to clean up. Mr. Staton said Avista is a quiet neighbor, the crews erne in and leave the yard around 7:3D 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 an those roads, Commissioner Anderson asked if there is no project what will happen to the property, Mr. Staten replied the purchases came abnut 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 acrd lead levels. Mr. Stators responded Avista had removed 58 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 durnp.' Commissioner Stoy asked if there was enough room on the site for Avista's needs. Mr. Staten said they felt this should he 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 Pathos asked if they would continue to only store prping on the properly. Mr. Stators 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 curvy property line between the flees maintenance facility and the Elizabeth Road properties, and were there any ocher places where Avista iias storing natural gas piping. Mr. Staten 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 them 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. Staten 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. Fie wondered what kind of a timeline there would be for the improvements. Mark Shollenberger, 2105 N Bradley Road: Mr, Shollenberger said the only access would he on to Utah and down Dollar Road. He said that is not true, that every morning and every night, the truck are coming down Bradley. Dollar Road is backed up and so they use Bradley to get around the problem. Ivir. 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 corning from Avista, along with Mutual Materials and Standard Battery. O2 -2e-16 Planning Commission hiinutcs Pap 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 lock at the yellow pipe alt the time. Ron Staton, Avista Facilities Manager: Mr, Station 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, Staten 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 en the corner and there will be someone living in it until May. During the study session the sale on the comer property was not final, Mr. Staten said the sale was completed this day and aLL the cars had been removed from the property. Having rro one else who wished to testrff, Chair Graham closed the public testimony at 6; p -ray. Commissioner Stoy moved to recommend approval of CPA -2016400i. 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. Plattner 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 se it was not required at that time. Commissioner Johnson said, ifthis were not approved for Light industrial but was combined for residential, there could he 21 homes built upon the sane 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 aroundit, 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 Phillips said he would ordinarily be in favor of including the extra lot ie 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. Comrnissioner Crahem said she was not in favor of blanket zoning, artd would rather leave the other lot as R-2. She said she had concerns about the project but would support it if the other cumrnissioners 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 eine lot remaining residential. Commissioner Kelley said he had changed his mind and he would support the one lot remaining residential. The vale on the motion was seven in fervor, zero against, the motion passed. B. Steady Session — CTA -2015-0006 proposed amendment to Spokane Walley 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 confined the five collectives currently selling `medical' marijuana can apply for a retail license or they roust 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 ofd change in regulations kr 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 $75,000 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 Bels 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 a-oigarettes 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 5:3C p.m. was agreed upon for the field trip. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order, ADJOLIRNME.NT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at $: l7 p,m. cam- / f b/1 0 Chair Graham Date signed El_6(e.efieeec-4/ Deanna Horton, Secretary Chair Graham called pledge of allegiance, staff were present: Kevin Anderson I-leatlier Graham Janes Johnson C irn Kelley \like Phillips u7 nne Stathas Joe Stoy Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission APPROVED Minutes Speeiall Meeting Spokane Valley Planning Commission Cauncil Chambers — City Hall, March 3, 2016 the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood For the Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roil and the following members and Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christina Janssen., Planner Jenny Nickerson, Senior Plans Examiner COMMISSION BUSINESS: The meeting was recessed while the Commission and several members of the public took a field tour of the following marijuana facilities: • Grow Op Farm located at 2611 N Woodruff, This facility was just a `windshield tour' of the site. It was commented this is the highest -producing facility in dollar value in Washington but very nondescript from the exterior • Toured Driftboat productiOniprocessing facility located at 18101 E Euclid Avenue. Manager- Stan Fong and property owner Paul Bielee discussed the operations located at this faciiiry. • Visited Locals Carina House retail facility located at 9616 E Sprague Avenue where we were irnrnediately asked for our identification and spoke to shop owner Doug Pederson about his operations. • Commissioners and staff then returned to City Hall. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m, I z- /1 Chair Graham Date signed k) �. Deanna Horton, Secreta.y CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 10, 2016 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information lid admin. report © pending legislation FILL N UNIB i ll.: C..1'A- 2 t i L 6-0001 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session — Comprehensive Marijuana Regulations (continued from LII nary 25, 2016) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated code text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) chapter 19.85, SVMC 19,120,050, and Appendix A to add definitions regarding marijuana uses, prohibit all new marijuana uses, including production, processing, retail, cooperatives, and clubs from any zones within the City, and to provide additional regulations for production and processing of home-grown marijuana by qualified patients and designated providers for personal use in residential zones. GOVERNING LEGISLATION; RCW 36,70A.106; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); RCW 69.51A; SVMC 17,80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85; SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: City Council has adopted regulations as set forth in SVMC 19.120.050 and SWAG 19.85 for the zoning and buffering of recreational marijuana. On December 9, 2014, City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses (primarily medical marijuana). On October 6, 2015, City Council adopted a moratorium on marijuana uses licensed by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board ("WSLCB"). Planning Commission conducted study sessions on October 22, 2015,, November 12, 2015, December 10, 20] 5, and February 25, 2016, Planning Commission visited a production/processing facility and retail facility on March 3, 2016. BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of developing comprehensive local marijuana regulations, as required pursuant to moratoriums as described in the Staff Report. The Planning Commission conducted study sessions on October 22, 2015, November 12, 2015, and December 10, 2015. At those study sessions, Planning Commission received information from staff regarding recent change, to Stritc law, tangoing rulemaking by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) and Washington Department of Health, testimony from the public, information from Spokane Valley Police and Spokan. Valley Fire, and a range of various types of available options, Further, Planning Commissiar7 cnnsidcrud various options and ultimately gave a consensus for staff to draft proposed amendment language: that would hart all rac:ty mariitiana ar cs. allow home growing, require notice by renters to landlords tor hoot°c ;rowing. home c ir,rc.tim. Planning C (Iiiirii;sion hdraft amendments that would amend dialler 19,85 SVMC., `i''' MC. 19 :2Cr-(i5cl, A rpLnal i:.. /\ i, ti- [ ! adding definitions for medical marijuana endorsed retail an l :ilarija!aIaa clubs, (2) prohibiting any new licensed marijuana pn:u ;rcticin. pros s:lig, or 7 -ma :1 .,tares from :d1 .',:'nes, (3) prohibiting marijuana cooperatives from all zuit4r , t r;r:.1�:1'iit][7_ rrt;uiiurar�tir ::Ilal�., or ,ounges frons all zones, and (5) requiring any home -growing by qualified patients as allowed by state law to be conducted only in single family residential zones in permanent structures that are opaque and not visible by neighbors or from the public rights-of-way, and to clarify that renters may be required, as may be authorized by federal, state, and local laws, to give notice to landlords of their intention to grow marijuana plants in a rental dwelling, A. copy of proposed amendments were distributed at the February, 25, 2016 meeting. Staff has updated those amendments for grammatical issues, consistency with the existing Spokane Valley Municipal Code, and to incorporate legislative proposals that are not moving forward this session (specifiiccily, the "marijuana lounge" definition was deleted). The changes are highlighted in yellow,. After consideration of the study session, Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on .April 11, 2016. For informational purposes, all information provided as pail r t' t] -c pa,:hot for the February 25 study session has been included with this RCPA. NOTICE: Notice for the proposed amendments will he provided to th y News Herald in accordance with the requirements of Title 17 SVMC.. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Section 17.80.150(F) provides approval i, t'ria for text i iendrncnts to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed ancr,cinieni() r;i,r t be consistent ;.villi clic applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial w.i; I ity, to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOIMIENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time 'Hie Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed amendments on April 11, 21116_ STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — Planner Jenny NickersonSenior flans Examiner Erik Land) Deputy City AL;Laney ATTACEl ftF:N'1 A. SMf.I ituport, inc:udingcopies ofOrdinare, }>;. r 11." ,incl 15-017 1B, Proposed updated amendments to chapter 19.85 51� MC, SVMC 19.120.050, and Appendix A 13. Copy of RPCA front October 22, 2015 C. Copy of RPCA from November 12, 2615 meeting D. Copy of RPCA from December 10, 2015 meeting E. Copy of RPCA from February 25, 2016 meeting E. Copy of minutes from October 22, 2015, November 12, 2015, and December 10, 2015 meetings F. Police crime tracking information requested at December 10, 2015.meeting APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, March IO, 2416 iflilnun + aLk:.ci iIi ine Airs ,, t, c,r(-101 �t 6:00 p,rn. Commissionexs, staff and audience stool for the 1-,lw.d4,i of - i llc; i.:i - ;1c e:iini: irt>tive .assistant Deanna Horton took roll and Lha: following mein bers and staff were pr4senl; Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Daren Kendall, Planner Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stoy, absent excused Deanna Horton, Secretary oldie Commission Hear i,ri, no Obit dLLit,s ,)7i,21.` rs [t* ['-'s USedifrOni the Jkforch 10, 2016 meeting. Commissioner move( Ito accept he March 10, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote on the rrratiOn was in tlr favor, ticr7 agiiLJTSt told Ow motion poss2d. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Fehr•ara€-t' 25, 2016 mlrrtraes as they were presented. The vote on the motiOP'r WCS six ire ja't or, zer0 agw sit, :Tet flits nil" J!,, passed. COMMISS1OM REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Furlow reported the city of Liberty Lake is holding a Planning Short Course on April 2 . 'rF 1(i_ `3hc said it .rr;y. of the Commissioners are interested in attending to let Ms. Horton know and she would assist their. its their registration. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. COMMISSION 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, on the privately proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, CPA -2016-001. The Planning Commission found the proposed amendment was consistent with the approval criteria in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) I7.80.140(H), it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Cammissrioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission findings for CP4-20)6--0001. The vote on the emotion 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 thechanges 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 ti L pi 0po - H changes to the SVMC. The definitions have been updated to reflect the current state ILLI 'ti_ Al -:i , li d will he cnr-rent when the state updates its definitions as ours will be updated by reference. Sc- :6c!1.'1.).1: {1.il5O Permitted Use Matrix has been updated to remove any `S' which means permitikd with supplemental conditions. These uses are no longer permitted, but the reference to Slit MC 1 9.85 in the'supplemental conditions" will stili 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 he allowed to continue. 03-10-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Se.e ion 19 leie been updated to reflect the ('Qinmltitilcn ..L;irc to prohibit any new prciduelien, 1'reecesir1 and i _t:lil sales in the City. A sei:tien ii,iw I.)ccai added Its ,iddress the collective's, which allows litaa14: lecC+ws for individuals with a liiti`ical k`T.414°]ti4n'4'111. 111121',.' is a restriction Car Corri�al rii�l typccifprocessing inahome gree, wituaa"Hone ate:Yein:aislimited toresidential [a- 1 ihrou •l: R-.1 Bones only. 'vlr. Lamb said the public hearing is e t for .April 14, 2016. Commiswir'7 er Anderson raised a question regarding taxes. Mr. Lamb explained the excise tax on nmrijciaii t .kaie', is 3 Tee, which does not include sales tax_ The City ia elloeated an anieui 1 or the eeake tax based on the number of retail stores the City has. least year the City received approximately $75,000 front the marijuana sales, An authorization card gives a patient. relief from tho.ea taxes. Commissioner Anderson asked if that included the sales tax as well, Mr. Lamh said he would have to check into that, Commissioner Kelley shared an article from the Seattle Times, written by Bob Young. from Monday February 115, 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 cilli] share it with the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Kelley said there is no way to kiiov. right Lee which pesticides are safe, and he feels there should be a `slow go' philosophy. He said writ these safety issues can be worked out the City should not rush into allowing mare businesses before the safety issues are known. Commissioner Anderson shared a spreadsheet he created aficr 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 ifa 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 1 as 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_ 1-1e 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 arid 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 tart 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 field trip which toured a marijuana producer/processor and retail sle p. The majority of the Commissioners agreed they found some benefit in the tour, the'~ learned ill irigs they had wondered about, i.e.: size of plants, how they are processed, and how it i 1} ati:l.aged r.rlrl scald and :.wined a better understanding of the use as a business. Igowever, Commissioner Kelley indicated he was disappointed in the experience. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was reel iie for the t'nod of the order. ADJOURNMENT: There being no c.1Iiur i�ai iu ;ss illi' 1114:L1ui a x .ai .ii0,:kitr1]ccl it 7:02 p.nl, 03-14-15 Planning Commission Minute Pugs 3 of 3 Chair Graham Deanna Horton, Secretary 1)1 /iLlif)-01 Date signed CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: April 14, 2016 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business public hearing ❑ information [1 admin. report FILE NUMBER: CTA -2016-0001 new business 17 pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: lul>Iie Iiorr.prchwn;ikti DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated code text amendment to the Spoltii!riL: ' intL•' Municipal Code' Jrapter• ]9.85. SVMC 19.120.050, and Appendix A to add defki;itifu�<• �• ridiri. narijr.r_�rs: r:scs, prohibit all rlcVr' marijuana uses, including production, processing, retail, cot' I)Cfativ ers, and clubs from ant: 7anc within the City, arid to provide additional regulations for araducliur ;Inc p occssing of hon e-grov.rn marijuana by qualified patients and designated providers for personal use ire residential zones. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A. I M. R(. -W 69.5i1 (codifying Initiative 502); RCW 69.51A; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 1('.K _:-;VMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: City Cciuncil has adopted reeul !Bons as set forth in SVMC 19.120.050 and SVMC 19.85 for the zoning and buffering of rc:er otic}nal marijuana. On December 9, 2014, City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed mw:riju<ana uses ( medical marijuana). On October 6, 2015, City Council adopted a moratorium ori marijuana uses licensed by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board ("WSLCB"). Planning Commission conducted study sessions on October 22, 2015, November 12, 2015, December 10, 2015, and February' 25, 2016. Planning Commission visited a productioniproc:essing facility and retail facility on March 3, 2016. Planning Commission conducted a subsequent study session on March 10, 2016. BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of developing comprehensive local marijuana regulations, as required pursuant to moratoriums as described in the Staff Report. The Planning Commission conducted background study sessions on October 22., 20'x5, November 12, 2015, and December 10, 2015. At those study sessions, Planning Commission received information from staff regarding recent changes to State law, ongoing rulemaking by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCH) and Washington Department of Health, testimony from the public, information from Spokane Valley Police and Spokane Valley Fire, and a range of various types of available options. Planning Commission also visited a marijuana. production/processing operation and retail store on March 3, 2016. Planning Commission considered various options and ultimately gave a consensus for starf to draft proposed amendment language that would ban all new marijuana uses, allow home grow{inng. require notice by renters to landlords for horw tti- rw.rr<'., and ban home extraction, l'ollowing the recommendation from Planning Comniisi-,iiin. ,r:rir has drafted proposed amendments. ',Aid] s• cre discussed briefly at the me,eing oii FeL ru:rry 25, 2016 and again during; a study session on March 10, 2016. Planning Cowin sic n ..il vi:;'v b4: •.orrtiidcring draft amendments that would amend chapter 19.85 SVMC, 9. ; 20.0511, a:lci .App::r;cli : A by (I) adding definitions for medical marijuana endorsed retail stores, marijuana cooperatives, and marijuana clubs, prohibiting;an;, licensed marijuana. production, processing, or retail stores from all zones, (3) prohibiting marijuaal:{t coy per:1iiVrs4 from ;i11 zones, (4) prohibiting marijuana clubs or lounges from all zoites, and (5) requiring :ua.., L.. rate gI 4+S`. iris I�; qualified patients as allowed by state law to be conducted only in single i:e:nily r,";iderllkr/ it permanent structures that are opaque and not visible by neighbors or from tl pul,li :i,ltit 1 wiry. 11.1 clarify that renters may be requires'-, tis ra]a1 he authorized by federal.. 5rraLL, ,anal local ],.,tis, to give notice to landlords of their intention to grow mariivana plants in a rental dwelling. Please note that the staff' report from February 25, 2016, has hccn updardd to (1) conform to the cla<u-Ip,o the amendment project number (to C[ A 2016-0001). (1) ipdaLr, d t14 l' pilltl _crtfion of the public lieariar'= and SEPA, and (3) update the discussion of proposed rtik :: the WrltiIIirlnon Liquor and L <kl,n:lhi Board. Planning Commission is conducting a public hearing On the proposed antendrncnt, after which it w-11 deliberate and ultimately vote on a rccomm :ndatian to fork•.:ard 10 CiIy (.ouncil. Note that all information taken and received since the hegiiuii:-' t of this process is ii tr :.rporatcci into :he !Tanning Commission's consideration of these amendments .tnr1 is part of record and Pl:tnniii C k..)ini iissiora's recommendation. For informational purposes, all inforniatiiar, I)rovidcd rte part c:1- the prior ri:L'etiri!; ]la3- N.: 1, included with this RCPA. NOTICE: Notice for the public hearing on the proposed Kw:1 Mine:its has been ploy idcd 10 the Spokane Valley News Herald in accordance with the requirements of Title :7 SVMC. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Suction 17.80.15f1t"1•) provides approval criteria for text amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amenclrr1cnt(s) must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the CoirprcherKve Plan and }ear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection ol'the env ironntent. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: The Planning Division makes no statement of recommendation regarding the proposed tirar4ir,.liirrr,r ;,Hier [hurl rhnt tltc prop0w:ri c,,i iiiplics .k'i11e r:ii'; taxi amendment requirements pursuant to S%.• NAL 1 _&0.150(1'). STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — Planner Jenny Nickerson _. Senior Plans Examiner Erik Lamb — Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report., including copies of Ordinance Nos. 14-021 and 15-017 B. Proposed amendments to chapter 19.85 SVMC, SVMC 19,120.050, and Appendix A C. Copy of RPCA from October 22, 2015 D. Copy of RPCA from November 12, 2015 meeting E. Copy of RPCA from December 10, 2015 nesting F. Copy of RPCA from February 25, 2016 meeting G. Copy of RPCA from March 1D, 2016 meeting H, Copy of minutes from October 22, 2015, November 12, 2015, December 10, 2.015, February 25, 2016, and March 10, 2016 meetings. ]l. Police crime track a _ ir71: r rtr,rl irri itquosted at December 10, 2015 meeting J. Document mai:A: illy --medical" marijuana rules from Commissioner Anderson from March 10, 2016 meeting ( lin r t,rr3itnrrr crrll�i! tat! were present Kevin Anderson f:.rra; John.;on f irr� KLllc:v iif.: 11 ]1c St:trilo Joe Stay APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, April 14, 2016 Ilia meeting to order at 6.00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood far the \dirntii: trative Assistant Detain Murton took roll and tiro following rneinbers and Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Planner aiii 1 iaaaa:-.,7n. Sc°nior Plans Examiner Elisha Heath, Office Assistant Deanna Horton, Secretary cif the Commission Commi.isioncr . `k'..• moved rr; crccepr the:' April 14, 201(i eig ida as presented The vote on the motion was .seven in favor, zero idgfihPif Cmcl the frr(Jtrvrr jrcrrsrci Conimissioner Jo kn.. »t moved Po approve the March 10, 2016 minutes as they were presented. The vote r, i the motion was ser crn _ r:rl rrr' ;t i-cx ir` crirrat, and the motion passed COM \-1ISSION REPORTS: l he Commissioners had no reports. ADM IN1ST1tATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported there is a joint study session sL:lieduie for May 3, 2016 between the City Council and the Planning Commission to discuss draft goals and polices which could be included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: CTA -2015-0006 proposed amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Cod (SVMC) 19.55 Marijuana Uses, 19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A, Definitions After reading the rules for a public hearing Chair Graham opened theprrhlrt. iie>arin. id 6.0X p.rrr. lur CTA-2015-0046proposed amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Cade i, ti'.; 1 19 S M;:ori i i ni: Uses, 19.1 2+0,050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A, Definitions. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb gave the Commission and audiencL: a pre cntation outiiriirl t 1. process of amending the current marijuana regulations and the current rliordtCH lawns which are ill fel icy:. Recreational marijuana is legal in the state of Washington and uses are licensed tliL Wa;hiri2rAn State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB), Marijuana use is governed by numerous laws and cods: Federal, State and City. The passage of 1-502 did not address how the State would regulate the medical marijuana side of industry. ■ In 2015 the State Legislature passed bills to reconcile medical and recreational marijuana markets o Maintains tine same licensing system through the \VSI,CB o Adds `medical marijuana endorser:e.nt' for licensed retail stores o Eliminates collective gardensaffective July 1, 2016 o Establishes cooperatives for up to :s;i r patients o Cities may reduce the state harlft:rs to 100 feet, except around schools and playgrounds o Establishes a transportation license o Establishes a research license o Allows qualified patients to grow up to 15 plants per housing unit o WSLCB must increase the number of allocated retail locations to accommodate medical marijuana needs • Emergency Rules in Oct. of 2015 04-14-16 Planning Commission Minutes Pie 2 of B • Proposed final rules should be complete by mid -20l 6 • Sets the number of retails stores statewide at 556. Still three for SpokaneValley, but if the MOratrl were lifted, would likely go to six. - • NE.) lin it on number of producers and processors • rules for cooperatives, which must register with the WSLCB Mr. Lamb -xI- I lined the Dept. of Health has been taxed with developing rules for 'medical' marijuana. ut:wijuniia is still acontrolled substance it cannot be tested for medicinal qualities. • I-iiiergenc} rules in 2015 • Proposed final rules should be oornplete in mid -2016 • Designates `compliant' marijuana, related to testing Levels of CBC!THC • Tax exempt for qualified patients • Anyone over 21, and certain minor patients, may purchase compliant marijuana. • Only qualified patients may purchase; o High THC compliant marijuana o Higher volumes of marijuana o Receive a tax exemption 1.ir. I .:1n1~' covered the current status of the marijuana moratoriums k the City: • A tvloratotium on new medical marijuana uses, unlicensed marijuana uses, was established December 9, 2014 ■ A moratorium on new marijuana uses licensed by the licensed by the WSLCB was established October 6, 2015 • Both moratoriums require the City to develop appropriate local regulations giving effect to 2015 State legislative amendments. • Prior to the moratoriums: • The City had established zoning and buIThr restrictions on r .crcalion:t1 marijuana which were adopted in July of 2014 • The adopted regulations applied to licroscd r4iailers, producers, . nc} • Marijuana production is permitted it) the I1,2;9z Industrial and Industrial zones outright and is permitted in a 111711tcil n1: 1in:`1' in Om kcgioil.:i 1. oILLuiercla•l and Community Commercial zones • 1Vlarijuana processing is permitted in Ilk! ] lea- v Industrial and the LLL1-i 1 ii:1 l trial zones outright and is perrnitted in a iiluitcd manner in the Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones • The local buffers for both production and processing are these facilities cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, any vacant City property (other than stormwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property and vacant school property • Marijuana retails sales are permitted in the Mixed Use Center, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial and Community Commercial zones_ • The local buffers for retails sales are these facilities cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Hall, CenterPlace, any vacant City property (other than siorrnwater and public rights-of-way), vacant library property and vacant school property, the Appleway Trail and the Centennial Trail Mr. Lamb explained the Planning Commission had been through an extensive process to develop the proposed draft changes to the SVMC regarding the marijuana regulations. There had been meetings on (noted by staff after meeting September 24), October 22, November 12, December 10, 2015, February 25 and March 10, 2016. The Planning Commission took a field trip in which they: 04-14-16 Planning Ce.mraissian Minutes Page 3 of $ • Did a `\w i rid 1, i4 l n Fir' (gip Farm located at 2611 N Woodruff, where it was noted thio is rin: itnlinnt nrcvdtie ifacility in dollar value in Washington but very nondescript lr{m: the :..teru.r • prnductionlprocessing facility located at 18101 E. Euclid Avenue. :-l.r ),n...c:r Starr long and property owner Paul Bielec discussed the operations located at this Facility • Visited Locals Canna House retail facility located at 9616 E Sprague Avenue where staff and comrrris,ioners spoke to shop owner Doug Pederson about his operations Mr_ Lamb commented the Planning Commission has also received information from staff, from the public, from the police and fire departments. Based on previous discussions with the Planning Commission staff drafted proposed amendments to the marijuana regulations which in short • Do not allow for any new marijuana pr,,ire-s:orrs * Do not allow for any new marijuana prod•.,cc•rs • Do riot allow for any new marijuana retui] stores • Do not allow for any cooperatives Appendix A, the definitions have been amended to be upcl.r1L.rl with the correct language. A new definition for a marijuana club or lounge has been added and ., line in the Permitted Use Matrix has been added showing it is not allowed in any of the City's zones. The Permitted Use Matrix has been amended to show the line items on the matrix have been changed from an `S' which refers to Supplemental regulations, to being struck out meaning that use is not allowed in any zone. Home grows are allowed in all low density residential zones, but the residence must comply with all local building codes, the grow must be indoors in a permanent structure, no smell, no ability to see it from outside. Language has been added regarding rental property and disclosure is required if the owner asks for it. Processing is allowed at home, but no chemical processing is allowed in a residence, The SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance for this amendment will be issued April 15, 2016, Mr. Lamb wanted to address the questions from the last meeting. The first question was reeardiin2 how the tax exemption applies to qualified patients, Marijuana sales are charged a state excise lax of 3 7? -4], along with applicable state sales and use tax. All of these taxes would be exempt to a qualified patient. Mr. Lamb clarified that "qualified patients" are only patients who had been to a (Won net an authorization card and register with the state system. The next question was if there were regulations regarding prohibiting the selling of marijuana to impaired purchasers. 'Fhere is currently Ea) law which. prohibits selling marijuana to a marijuana impaired purchaser. Commissioner Anderson clarified only 15 plants are allowed per housing unit, but they are not allowed in a multi -family zone. Commissioner Graham didn't remember eliminating cooperatives from the regulations. Mr. Lamb confirmed it being part of the proposed deleted language based on Commission discussion and was in the draft regulations sent in the most recent packet. Commissioner Anderson asked how the nonconform irig regulations would work if the lease of one of the retail shops should not continue to work well for the owner. Mr. Lamb said based on the current nonconforming regulations, a retail store would not be able to move from their current location. The provision for abandonment is 12 -months, but at -that location, so it doesn't allow for the business to change locations. Only billboards are allowed to be able to change Dations. Commissioner Anderson commented however we don't restrict the number of other businesses. Commissioner Stathos asked if another business of the same type could move into the same location. Mr. Lamb responded if it was done within a 12 -month period. Commissioner Johnson asked if the license was in a joint name and the partnership dissolved, could one of the partners then move the business. Mr. Lamb said the nonconforming regulations go with the use and are not tied to an owner. Commissioner Stathos asked how a smell would be enforced. Mr. Lamb said it currently is difficult to enforce, and explained the process_ Under the new provisions, enforcement would be easier. Current nuisance ordinance states a smell to a reasonable person. The proposed changeswould make any smell a code enforcement issue. Commissioner Phillips asked how the nonconforming rules could be changed io allow the retail shops to move. Mr. Lamb said the 04-14-16 Planning Commission minutes Planning Commission could make that request, but ;rc 4413S11{I Ilwc,l 10 treater .'.:iter :hall la Liel rrninc it` the change was substantial enclugh to require an add1.o l:lll,lt� Chair Graham confirmed the Cort1111issioncrs had no .Atha- 1`c 4r N.114.:1rid tell R:.'il Lig > I i piil'l is testimony, Paul Bielec, 911 S Valley View, Post Falls: Mr l.t;cicr ; 7111.° 1_�r� wicl t7r of Bielec Propci ties Inc. which erwriS the northwest corner of Euclid and Eden, the pleee li:ehi di Conimissione lief TCC. :ilial getting a blessing from the City for 1-502 production t- e-4trr2: ;n 201=1, Mr. Bi4'.I�'r: .s d Ile ti .r4 able to lease a good amount of his property to a few Li, ensces with the idea they would add in trash uwtrrr: in the future to obtain more tenants. Since then he and his tenants have added hundreds of thous tads of dollars for tenant improvements. Mr. Bielec said the Commissioners saw what was inside the building but there is more that is not seen. !Due to the moratoriums, he is no longer able to obtain any new tenants for his vacant space. He said this may seem trivial to the Commission, however to him it is devastating. He said they are now restricted from leasing any additional space to aro processors/growers, and more important we are not able to replace any of the tenants. If a tenant goes out of business, if they change business plans he cannot replace these tenants. In recent months he has turned away several potential tenants who wanted to lease from hire, which could have resulted in 20- 100 jobs for the City. He asks the Commission to please consider separating the growinelprocessors from the retail. He said he realized this had not been brought up before and he feels they are two different animals. He said he has attended many of the planning meetings and most of the discussion has been about retailers. Growers in the Spokane Valley sell their product either to existing retailers in the City or to any other retailer across the state. The product will be grown regardless of the Location through any licensed I-502 grower any place in the state. Prohibiting additional growers in the City does not accomplish anything other than moving jobs out of the Spokane Valley to another taxing jurisdiction. Mr. !Melee offered that licensed growers have a huge amount invested in their businesses. The product is tracked from seed to sale. The product is tested for quality, mold, fungus, bugs and hopefully soon pesticides. If mold, fungus or pesticides are found it will not pass testing and cannot be sold as is. It built out facilities such as his site, it is a controlled environment which helps to eliminate the mold, bugs and fungus. Many growers are even starting to utilize organic methods of controlling the bugs. He believes this will continue into the future because of the pesticides. He offered the Black Market does not care if they sell to minors, if they use pesticides, fungicides, they do not pay L&i„ or payroll taxes for employees. They de not track their product from seed to sale, they do riot test their product for mold, fungus or quality. They do not pay sales or excise tax to educate the public. He said this goes for the horrie grows as well, saying there are some home grows that don't know what they are doing. He reiterated his request to separate the grower/processor from the retailers when making the recommendation to the City Council. They are completely different with different concerns. He said he could understand the concerns with additional retailers in the City. However growers ship product outside the area as well as selling it in the area. He asked what harm is there to support employees who work hard to support their families in a legitimate business in the City of Spokane Valley in a first class secure environment. Cam,rnissiouer Stoy asked if there were limits on producers and processors. Mr. Lamb said there was a total canopy limit statewide. There is a limit on how big each production facility can be in terms of how much canopy they are allowed. There are three different levels with a max of 30,000 square feet of canopy. The state max is 8,000,000 square feet of canopy space, he thought. There could come a time when they start to limit the production but the state is nowhere near that at this time, Cornrnissioner Anderson asked if Mr. Bielec's current tenants could expand under the moratorium, if their license allowed more canopy space. There was discussion with Mr. Bielec regarding his unrented space, how he can only expand the tenants he already has if they have a license which allows for more canopy space, how the moratorium is for the growverslprocessars as well, he is a property owner not a license holder. Hawing no one else who wished to text ry Choir Graham ;-Ta%erI the pubilt hearing ,a 6:51 p.m. Commissioner Graham confirmed the taxes are of It. al the p..1` 1 . 1 It ill . lin reminded the Commission because the producing and prokah ar.Ire Id, . 1 )41-,11C!,!.-12S.i. n t , .�°s are .tined from the producers/processors. Commissioner (t III Irrt Lontirmed then! rI(:. Illc coIICLrcd :,11 04-14-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 ;?1" the property used by the gn eeneprcic4ecors but secondary incc•mc ,vould be from the employees working in the facilities. Commissioner Johnson di cussed sc,nec inrormation t:crmm!ssion. i lc said page of his handout states that in 2(11.19 the American Medical Associutim i .'. iena l egen red that cannabis be removed from the Schedule I L e>n 'elied ,ubsi nicer, in order ne- it el qiel int ere eerly. Without this requested being honored, which it hasn't, there will. be no wtucli:Inn clie dere ne support. So every time someone says there is no A 'VIA siteport, it is because they ii_ irlunt it being removed from the list of Schedule 1 dregs, the AMA won't study it, Fle said wltlk. AMA as a body doesn't support medical cannabis as a valid treatment, numerous independent surveys are indicating medical professionals around the globe are coming out in support. Even the Food and Drug Administration is wanting to 'get going' ori the approval of cannabis. Commissioner Johnson said that another misconception of cannabis is that it is a gateway drug. He quoted from the oldest report he could find in his research, which was from 1999, but other reports he found were similar. He said that the report said that while most people who use harder drugs usually used cannabis first, there is nothing which links cannabis to moving on to stronger drugs. It is more of a middle step, in a progression which commonly starts with tobacco, then alcohol, then cannabis and then whatever the harder drugs are that someone would experiment with. Cannabis when ttOt 2rvailable, is more often replaced with prescription drugs found in art adolescent's home. Commissioner Johnson said so cannabis being labeled a gateway drug is often inaccurate. He said another argument everyone has heard is that legalizing cannabis sends the wrong message to youth. He said page 3 of his handout shows an excerpt from a study which says that legalizing cannabis does not increase use in adolescents. He said his impression was that the age group we are talking about does not listen to adults. They listen to their peers, They don't care what message the City Council might be sending, or any government body for that matter. He said anyone who has parented ateenager understands that commonly a parent's message is considered an anti -message by the teenager. There was a study that showed in states which legalized cannabis use by adolescents, that it was higher before and after passage. There are other factors at play and these factors need to he discovered and addressed and blaming cannabis is actually a red herring. Mr. Johnson discussed the tax revenues which would be gained by the City from the sale of cannabis. He offered the $75,000, which had been mentioned in a previous meeting, did riot seem like a lot, however there are news reports about the growth of the industry. Mr. Johnson said he felt that last year's $75,000 would be $150,000 next year, and $300,000 the next He said you can look at the graph which was on the WSLCB's website and see it has increased 70% in 10 months, most likely to double in a year. By the time the state fiscal year ends it will have doubled. Also on the WSLCB website there was research on how the legal sales are impending on the illegal sales. He last referenced an article from Time magazine, from April 2015, which states there has been a 25% drop of cannabis confiscated by US Border Patrols and a 32% drop by Mexioan authorities, relating this to the legalization in some US states. Commissioner Johnson said he did not think the Commissioners would drop the moratorium on retail, but he hoped the other Commissioners would consider dropping it for the producers and processors. He said the City is looking at the loss of jobs, wages, and millions of dollars a year. He said there is one property owner who is here, and another property owner, which the Commission drove by that business, which had 200 full time jobs, which is a lot of wages. He said he hoped the Commission would take a serious look at the proposed amendment as it was written. Commissioner Anderson stated he never considered the moratorium on the producers/processors since most of the conversations had centered on the retail. He said the best outcome would probably be produce it here and sell it someplace else and he would consider that over selling to locals. Commissioner Anderson said the producing/processing was not a problem in his mind over the three retail outlets. He said he did not remember having a conversation about how many acres should be allowed, he thought it was State controlled. He would allow the production/processing. Commissioner Kelley said the discussion is about how fast the City moves forward. Commissioner Kelley said there are a lot of businesses in the State of Washington which have trouble with regulations. He said there are a lot of associations which spend a lot of time fighting on capital hill to get rid of regulations, welcome to the small business world in the State of Washington. He continued saying there are associations like the 1-lome Builders Association, the Association of General Contractors, the Associated Builders and Contractors Association that are getting regulated every day. Every one of p4-14-] 6 Planning Commission Minutes Page b of them has invested a great deal of money, maybe not the millions you have, but a great deal et mare . to them. They are getting regulated, out of business and they are moving out of state all the tilde. '1 hi, is a challenge, this is something that needs to be addressed, but he did not see where the marijuana industry should get special privilege just because they are a drug operation. Join the other aissoc.ie li0:i that are fighting the regulations. Find people who are on your side, that have common ranee!, amid lea involved in them and stop asking for the king to anoint your industry_ Commissioner Phillips said he felt that the nonconfornrting regulations should be changed to allow the retailers to move. He said he did not like placing anyone at the mercy of a landlord, He said the landlord should not have the right to hold over the leasee the fact they can't move and they would be able to raise the rent_ He feels we should craft the regulations to allow for the movement of the three retail shops. Commissioner Phillips said he was not opposed to allowing more production/processors. Commissioner Graham said she felt that some of the information was from a time when marijuana still held a stigma and that the gateway argument was because it wasn't as readily available as it currently is. Commissioner Graham said she thought about the producers/processors, where they are located and what little impact they bad on the surrounding areas. Her thoughts are more in line with lifting the moratorium on the producers/processors. She thinks it could bring as many jobs as Commissioner Johnson hopes, which is always good. She has some concerns about the Department of Health and how they are going to enforce pesticides. She also agrees with allowing the current licensed retailers to move under nonconforming rules. Commissioners Stoy agreed that the retailers should be allowed to move. He also agreed with allowing the moratorium producers and processors to be lifted. Commissioner Stathos said in all the discussions she did not realize the moratorium was affecting the producer/processors. She commented ori the visit, said the site was secure, there was no smell on the outside, it was clean and jobs are being created. She spoke to Commissioner Kelley's statements about fighting to create less regulations and she said we are creating another layer of it because of our moratorium. She said his options now are so narrow there is no room for growth, even for w : nL': II : who has already created a facility. She said she felt that the regulations needed to be reviceL tl Commissioner Kelley said he agreed a retailer should be allowed to move and not be bound to a location if they could not work out a good lease with a property owner. He also feat the City should not allow for more than the three which had already been established. Commissioner Kelley said regarding the production facilities, he said he felt the City should moue cautiously. There was no data on what would happen to the employees working in the facilities now, there is no data on what ltiiride of challenges the industry would face, he is more in favor of putting the brakes on a little bit. let(ieg peopii operate as they are, but he is not in favor of opening the flood gates. Chair Graham stated she felt the Commission had a consensus on the following il.ems: • Lifting the moratorium on the producers/processors • Draft regulations which would allow the three currently conforming retail shops to change locations Commissioner Kelley requested an informal vote nn the rwc items. Commissioner Stoy asked if there was consensus to limit the number of producer/ pri o' _!;e` rs in order tU allow tfentra itisiener kei lea aa I) more comfortable, Mr. Lamb responded the Stan entea., hew those licenwa ; are diorama ad are not given out based on a number of outa l . hilt on amount of canopy [7 lee Comm a it' n r Anderson discussed bow faa State is controlling Ilw a:r oey space and it is a state' idc rraeliee .iii:i 11: I4 could be a floodgate in apotone \Tall• y, hnti.eV er _itis i; occurring all over rhe state. Ile is 1 restrictions and ehallenees ion marline this tv]x :,I I' ItiiII+ as weld(' not allow for just anyone to 1.,e .il'lti to do it. Commissioner IC,;:IIE',, ,''ini; lent+ [l se e\-uuvcne else in the State is deiiiu I1 iti ridiculous. In response to Conlmis:.ionar clement about the requirements for licensing a producer/processor, Mr. LalriI: cap'<i1i: i In:: a,raEC requires they ]Hive a property in mind, however lie was unsure to the extent they must .J. I11[ I1.;ir:ila have a Ic;ise; then the applicant must have an operating plan for that location, telr ch :11u.:1 i:i. Inie all the nec ;!;siiry security features, the quarantine 44.1+7:-16 Naming Commission Minutes Page 7 es area, cameras, how many employees. Until the applicant has a site pinned down, which includes zoning at the local level, any tenant improvements which might be necessary, they must conform to all building code requirements. All of this must occur before they. are allowed to have a WSLCB license- Sr- Plans Examiner Jenny Nickerson discussed she had been working with some applicants for possibly a year and a half or more as they work through identifying a location, securing a lease, identifying what type of modifications would be necessary, applying for the permits, complying with the permits, following the inspection process. applying for a business license and moving forward with WSLCB. She said some applicants have no problems with the process wlien they find property which is zoned properly, the building doesn't need many modifications to meet fire/safety requirements. The City wi!I lira approve a business license without them having applied fora building permit corn plc] SL C13 would look to make sure that the building and fire codes have been Tact hhclor4 peeeeetng license. She noted she has had applicants who have done work, it11'44Tc is ionc} c7nLv Lo leen ghee will not be approved. The Commissioners had a consensus vote to modify the proposed Lira it I.7tlguac tr, * Marijuana Production — Permitted in heavy and light indusrrial zones outright (indoor and cutdear); permitted in limited manner (indoor growing only) in Regional Commercial and Community C'orrilitercial zr'nC5. Marijuana Proccsl-in — Pk:mittcd in hea%-:, And 1i!,l-.t illclrl .ria! zones outright (l+ack i _,int and extraction): ia� nliitl !LI ill 1'n;1itt<] :sy i i1 i rr":tCl.:t in• rlld late in.�� of uscai,blc marijuana only) iii l r,i1;IZ 11 d. ernrreerciai erre t.i'iiir111i1tite C'0e-1n-tercet] zones. • I .o.::11 1S11rIci-: I(si both mai :. ti i 1?1A11.1L ritla and proeceeing eetu 1Ur br IteetlCll WI1lile bili}e teet r.i [_ ile Nall CenterPlace, vacant City property (other Li 11 wt(1} 111W Ater a ria pL.hii ri hts-alt-way), vacant library property, and vacant school property. Con ':nliy,,i:jrlel f 1Ic s [. :ri once this was done, there would be no limit an the number of production lectleice which euLrld ellen in the City. Vote on ihi$ proposal, wut C1 ±71 livor, one against, Ir; Flrt.i'.ilaJi�cr k.eiic'L•l?tict?rfr7� 1 :7l' _ 11171"lllti io cr:y t7:l.s :1 40[15cfl t! vot4 til 111os] ry the propos.cd i1 fl Iancereee tee • Al Lee ode, the thee retail Mal stores, but to Sreeir[e the neiteer11i1r111i1i fill e_' Lha Three stores to c:iange locations as long as they maintain all. :174 p1:•' ioti 1.4:1111n �ri1 :t1t - • Permitted in the •/fixed Use Center, Corridor IbliNed Use, Reeional Cotrinrcrc Lii. rrllfi Community Commercial Perles. • Local buffers for retail sales: Cannot be located within 1,000 feet of City Halt, Centci-Pl ee, vacant City property (other than storrnwater and pili ]ic 1-i elite el -wily), vacant library property, vacant school property, the Ap?leeeiy ]`r.li1.:31:c1 tl;e c ntennialTrail. Commissioner Kelley asked if the language could be crafted to only allow the stores to move. if :hey were experiencing lease negotiation issues. There was dis.1.1ti5.irn ,about how the City would Het be able to accomplish this. Commissioner Johnson it iieree hi e tete 1117 11115 Wbulii fC''1'i°::t 1-4,74 Cli:s:r;' to not restrict the retail stores to only three in tilt,: 1'i'.. 1!h, 4., rlrii "r°i."v. irii r1°r.r.s .,ry ;,, r rl:!r, 0r10 against, with Commissioner Johnson dissenting. Mr. Lamb noted staff verra:d tit aft up a new proposal and notice a new public hearing. This would not be happening at the next meeting based on statutory requirements. 01-14-16 Planning Commission Minutes Pnscliof8 GOOD OF THE ORDER: Ms. Barlow explained how the new goals and polices for the newlupdated Comprehensive Plan had been developed and there was a possibility that there would not be a direct cocttparison to the old Comprehensive Plan. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Xi Chair Heather Graham Secre ry Deanna Horton CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: May 12. 2016 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent 0 old business public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report 0 new business ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA -2016-0041 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Pni-.,1 Ika:ills: `rH17::r21)°n,i\c Marijuana Regulations DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated code text amendment to 11it ` i c.k.ant' ': u.inicip:11 (.70 Lc: ( VMC)SVMC 19,120.050, and Appendix A to ;ii.hl I.Ic IilLrtic�ht; 11-11.L16i1111rl 11 iirl. rra u t 5, l�rc !iiI- t. i11 1lL'° marijuana retail LDCs, cooperatives, and e.11117s iorn c: 111 lt'.ti kk'!lIhlll 111E 111, ir' allow t lltir :li° I'LI:111. to locate within e istin.g zone and subject to existirl,J. ll cliThl•i i . r c LI tiiivnie11ts. :ilia 1.t) 1-,rc,•,.ici4 .Ii &Ii1.IC?I1.1 regulations for production and processing of home-grown r1u::11 ij.L:1::ta h}. cltial ir dpat;e,rt; :,r; ei� i rl lruLi providers for pertianal use in residential zones. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.l06; RCW 69.50 (codifying Initiative 502); RCW 69.5[A; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; SVMC 19.85, SVMC 19.120.050 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: City Council has adopted regtLl,>.iir'ns as set forth in SVMC 19.120.450 and SVMC 19.85 for the zoning and buffering of recreation 171.riillma. On December 9, 2014, City Council adopted a moratorium on unlicensed marijuana uses (I,1 medical nulrllrl1r1a)- On October 6, 2015, City Council adopted a moratorium on lnarpana osis lig rI::c ! }1y the Washiii ttOri Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB"). On April 14, 2016, Planning Cc7lrtrniti it rI ItLld a public hearing and approved a modified proposal for consideration. BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of developing comprehensive local marijuana regulations, as required pursuant to moratoriums as described in the Staff Report. The Planning Commission conducted background study sessions on October 22, 2015, November 12, 2015, and December 10, 2015. At those study sessions, Planning Commission received lnfounation from staff regarding recent changes to State Law, ongoing rulemaking by the Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) and Washington Department of Health, testimony from the public, information from Spokane Valley Police and Spokane Valley Fire, and a range of various types a. available options. Planning Commission also visited a marijuana productionfprocessing operation and retail store on March 3, 2016. Planning Commission considered various options and ultimately gave a consensus for staff to draft proposed amendment language that would ban all new marijuana uses, allow home growing, require notice by renters to landlords for home growing, and ban home extraction. Following the recommendation from. Planning Commission, staff drafted proposed amendments, which 'Nolo discussed briefly at the meeting on February 25, 2016 and again during a study session on March 10, 2C On April 14, 2016, Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendrl:-nts, which generally would prohibit any new marijuana uses. One interested party spoke during the I.rLlll!ic Itc�IriL: As part of deliberations following the public hearing, Planning Commission approved :L substantially modified proposal as described below. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E), the Planning Cc. I'If1=i tii:'Il required to conduct a public hearing en the xn(!clilicti pr.rl:.t:sal if the modification is substantial. Accordingly, the Planning Commission is holding :] E7ul lir I7ca rins, an the modified proposal on May 12, 2016. The modified draft amendment proposal ws'1i ant„rrci L.hapler SV 4iC 10.12O.C50, and Appendix A by (I) adding definitions for nied endorsed re iiE ti :)rai, marijuana cooperatives, and marijuana clubs, (2) prohibiting ani marijuana retail srd,r�s from all z4: (3) allowing existing licensed marijuana retail stores to Ii. ate the exkLing designated zone; in compliance with existing buffering requirements, {4} pro:iibiting marijuana cooperatives from all r., recti (5) prohibiting marijuana clubs or lounges from all zones, (6) requiring any home -growing by tl.rali1! patients as allowed by state law to be conducted only in single family residential zones in pa r ri<toe,n structures that are opaque and not visible by neighbors or from the public rights-of-way, and i„ that renters may be required, as may he authorized by federal, state, and local laws, to give nonce ktndlcrds of their intention to grow marijuana plants in a rental dwelling. The major chin r.., to 'Ire i'ri,'.irial proposal were to (1) allow licensed marijuana production and processing in c_t;. timL in onipIiirnce with existing buffering requirements, and (2) allow existing licensed marijuana rii !;Sc.rte within existing allowable zones in compliance with existing buffering requirements. note that the staff report has been updated to conform to the modified proposal. Planning Commission is conducting a public hearing on the proposed modified amendments, after which it will deliberate and ultimately vote on a recommendation to forward to City, Council. Note that all information taken and received since the beginning, of this pros uss i incorporated into the Planning C'ommission's consideration of these amendments unci is part (-1- ILL' record and basis for Planning nimission's recommendation- E;rr- in farrnational purposes. all information pmyiclod as parr of the prior roti .ti i *s has been inc.ludcdwith this RCPA. NOTICE: Notice for the public hearing oii the propr:.ed has l-,cen provided to the Spokane Valley News Herald in accordance with the requirements of Title 17 SVM('. APPROVAL CRITERIA: SVMC Section 17.80.150(F) providesleda fc)r text amendments to the SVMC. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amencl rials, r niusr consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and btar a .i 1,.,7;>i +i.i1 rel ri: n t4, die public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: The Plrn, irii�•_1<es no statement of recommendation regarding the proposed amendments oit!,an Eh,7i t11c proposal L:.orrtplies with City text amendment requirements pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F) and comp „itli V"4',r itington State law. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen _ Planner Jenny Nickerson — Senior Plans Examiner Erik Lamb — Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. [Updated Staff Report on modified prop(: ii, incl.rci ri c:iia Et' .rf [.r.!in:ii,c-t ?' Li:,. 14-0-11 ur;..l 15- 011 B, Proposed modified amendments to chapter 19.85 SV .M(. SV 1-E+.” 1''.1.2iL11 f}, ;,trcl :*,1rpendix A C. Copy of RPCA from October 22, 2015 D. Copy of RPCA from November 12, 2015 meeting E. Copy of RPCA from December 10, 2015 meeting F. Copy of RPCA from February 25, 2016 meeting G. Copy of RPCA from March 10, 2016 meting H. Copy afR.PCA from Aprs! H. 2+116 )11cwl.iix;, L Copy of minutes from Uctc„i}ri. .0 1 , Novcr,rh .r 12. 2015. December 10, 2015, February 25, 2016, 'March. 10.2016. mectirtApril 11. 7016 public heari,tr', ririd I-necting. J. Police crime tracking infori <riicari 1cciLesiL,-1 :t December 10, 2i}15 inceii,ti;x K. Document rcgardinu ' inedi� ul iu �rijrr;u [i r i:l . :r•:Fnt r'c in rri ?ic r,w r Anderson from March 10, 2016 meeting 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, May 12, 2016 the meeting to order at 6:02 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 Christina Janssen, ?Levier Chaz Bates, E ona.'•il:I:. 1k el eeel 4e:cia]is. Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Conrnaissaoner• St()), nir_Ivrci to accept the May 12, 2016 agenda as presented; Thev .:tt' wcrs scren Zero ar,: rho,/ en id T1re motion passed 4„i)rr miNsifnic:i 51tJ}' inov&or (s r t t..t)rove are f prr12B, 2016 minutes aspreserved The vote zero ogarir,1'! aw);! ' inotli)l' 147.S:Yer1 Commissioner Sdov' moved to approve the May 3, 2016 minutes as they were presented Comm issinner Graham She wanted to clarify something which was said at the May 3, 2016 joint meeting. She read a prepared statement saying she took exception to statement made by the Community and Economic Development Director John Hohman at the May 31 Joint Council/Commission meeting. She said during the opening of the meeting Mr. Hohman made a comment that the Planning Commission had somehow diverted its attention away from the Comprehensive Plan to focus on the marijuana issue, She said she would like to remind City staff the Commissioners work at the behest of the staff, as they set the Commission's agenda, Interruption in the Comprehensive Plan was not because the Commission was so focused an the marijuana issues nor was it because they wanted to ignore the Comprehensive Plan, as matter of fact we spent many meetings addressing several of the items an the Comprehensive Plan, until it fell off the Commission agenda in June (2015). She said there were several meetings cancelled in the summer and the fall. When the Commission resumed in 2016, is when the marijuana issues came forward and the Commission heard nothing more about the Comprehensive Plan until the joint meeting. She : tatcd she Cannot speak for all the Commissioners however es the chairman of this Commission, she felt as if the integrity of their work had been questioned. She said she felt it nice; most important to bring this forward and ask for an apology from City staff. Cornrissirr,,C, C,cllc said he did not get that feel from the statement. He said he felt it was more as if Mr. Helene,. ne, nen,. simply explaining the Co mmissioe I,n; had other work as well, such as this marijuana :aleje :r, has taken considerable time. The other Commissioners said they stood by Commissioner Grahmarm's ,tatemcnt. The yore on the motion WM .i(YL..? in favor, zero against, and the 'notion passed COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments, COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Public Hearing — CI'A-2016-O001 proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Cede (SVM C)19,35 Marijuana Uses,19r.12O.O5O Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A Definitions Commissioner Grailarn opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.rn_ Depute t_.il!, :'Attorney Erik Larnrb gave an overview of the propOscd ttr„t:,r;l,r].::,:ts to t'lc SN s ic' n.;:_!...Ecling the marijuana regulations. Previously a public li ;r.'irr4 Here] l7 tin conducted &7:m Aril i 1. 21116. At that hearing the Commission was contempinling a ,,neliinere 1>,i„ :•r11aro,' nVV reed marijuana stores, any new marijuana producers or processors. After the public hearing the 46-12-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 4f 5 Commissioners made an lief:wiled decision to modify the proposal for consideration. Staff determined the modificrr]ion rc st!bstantial enough to warrant another public hearing. The proposed modil L i .ntler ments are: • A definition for a rnarluana club or 1our.g'. added • A definition for a inns I;;:N )d(ICd • The name of the L 1:Sh :}griF1i SIO—L. ].i1.lru,;• ::gat 1:.. i;>>r.1bi. B14111.1 ll L c: EJ iipdated in the definitions • A definition for marijuana sales with a medical endorsement has been added • The definition for marijuana sales has been updated to reflect the medical endorsement • Marijuana production has been returned to permitted with supplemental conditions status in the Permitted Use Matrix • Marijuana processing has been returned to permitted with supplemental conditions status in the Permitted Use Matrix • The regulations far 19.85.010, Marijuana production has be added back, with updates to the language regarding City Hall • The regulations for 19.85.020, Marijuana processing has be added back, with updates to the language regarding City Hall • The regulations for 19.85.030 Marijuana rctuil sales has bcti:!a modified to gate no new marijuana retail sales and allow OIL I2tu!. It. City urs Icr!Las thev can still conform with the previous sIc !;elft"+_js wit icL. ir-r lal{rcc • 19.85.040 are the regulations for rn:,rijr!:rn:t ta.;t:, %',iait.lr 1C. irr-c.1111siterf ieeluding clubs, lounges and cooperatives, but does nt t ap 31y to honk n ws • 19.85.f140 are the regulations for nine iju:it, s process ilig artd production in a residential zone, which is home grow for qualified patients, Commissioner Graham asked about the City having a restriction for a marijuana business being near a day care. Mr. Lamb replied the State IeeI he 0.,eek eurecre. City k+t!1-I.rs were in addition ee the States. When an address is identified. tate City review ILAr >lol. talc Cit 's liut also the State's buffers as well. Commissioner Graham closed the public ire.w-irig at 6.23 p.m, Commissioner Slay moved to approve CTA -2016-0001 as presented. Commissioner Johrson said he feels continuing with the moratorium on any new retail business is not going to have the impact the Commission is hoping for. He feels more retail establishments will open immediately outside the City's borders with that revenue going to another jurisdiction_ In the end will be just as much cannabis inside the City as if we allowed the market factors to control the business. He did appreciate and support the Commission's evolution on production and process and said he supports Commissioner Phillips amendment from the last meeting to allow the current retail outlets to move should they need to, but he would be voting against the amendment feeling it needed to allow more than the three current retail stores. Commissioner Kelley said he also would be voting against the amendment, saying not enough is known about how this would work. He feels the current amount apt -reducers, processors sand retailers are sufficient. He would rather have the City wait five year and see how things have turned out before allowing any more marijuana businesses. He would riot be supporting the amendment for this reasons. The other Commissioners had no comments. Chair Graham called for the question. The vote 0n •r• !i:r r: dirt tit'r[.v ?il'c' in favor, two against, with COnmli.tr'ir:;,v % .Ir,i7?:.'(p and KCelley dissenting. sseniting R. Study S'iessintl: Mat — Economic Development txeiai1 Report Economic 1) :v I;. plt,en.. Sp,,-cja1k.. .11a7 Bates gave a presentation t;n :: recently completed economic development study, this nee r ..irding retail improvement, which will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Tawe ait0rra:I: I inn in the study is from 2015. 11-.i:; °xill lac lase,{ to track retail growth in the City, this will also I1rt;e i le strategic actions for the City io :ilkle to use in the future. Staff conducted an inventory with the consultants of the current retail in the City and the consultants 05-12.16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 were surprised at how many big box stores the f_`ii al:t:,lrly tee!. H `,i helpeLi ricin to idc:ui`_4. il,c: 1:Le_ retail anchors, define the retail trade areas, demoe ip lira end lite r.:t;ti] ckni ii:d. 1 his rLpoit 5,t ii1 I,k used at a tool to assist in attracting businesses that 1,,r lit;lt_ eree.t 11 in the load fuulpri lt. l lei report assisted in identifying the primary' trade, area. is a five Ir,iruu_ clrikc 1rc'ii a major retail location. This primary trade area is generally the {-ily'!= ioundiaries. scNondiry I,>,tlr: A!.4_,:-.1 is generally a 10 minute drive from a major retail local:of i. which rc;ILlicc3 :Jut bee.'ers. The demographics of the trade area for the Cit' Had a %vide, ranee of inconi e; h1r_ Bette: serve: that relatively speaking the City has a more households earning between $30,000 arrrl $75.006 Ili.;rn the City of Spokane. There were, higher pockets of iii iiie north Ind sotylli of the City but these people were driving through the City to shop. The City has alneest 36'�i of our households spending itioe. than 3O' of their income on Musing costs, which reduce, the amount cif income for discretionar- purchases. Commissioner Johnson asked about the demograp:iii.:s oft es(' .-;tatistio, Mr. Bates said he Ll:'( hot have that information with him this evening, however tlti5 informat ir n was coming from the 201: Anier:een Community Survey data. The greatest number of retail establishments are food services and drinking at 19%, small to mid-size retailers at 13% and motor vehicle/part dealers at 12%. Big box stores only account for 214 of the market, but have a large influence on the retail sr;Ies_ krllile the food services account for 19% of the market, they are limited service, not sit down restentrint . The largest spending category V.as motor vehicle sales and parts, which is fol lovvcd by general sales which is the big box stares. This is 66% of all the retail sales in the City. The City captures more than 104% ofthe spending power in most retails categories in the primary trade area. The categeries where the Cit). captures Tess than 100% are accommodations, food and beets iee ores. ptlibrating itrts and spectator sports. The key themes which came from illi • Regional draw for shoppeie rlu; a l7i>r,t the region • Few neighborhood retailers • Retail is anchored by big box • Big box stores represent significant portion of sales • • • Spokane Valley Mall is a major retail Wee; Few full-service restaurants 1I ghee incomes outside City to the north e;,,1,,,�th eu - t rr1 re,°I,til are underperforming or lill,il.r1ILi reed Six retail improvement goals came from the report, along with pos ihlc :.tI1i]x':live actions: • Leverage regional and local assets to drive local commerce o tele nti %• potential projects that could spur tourism and prioritize city investments o Consider implementation ofs `night out' program o Consider implementation of a `Taste of Spokane Valley' or `restaurant week' event • Support and ex and existing retail centers o Offer financial incentives for voluntary physical improvements Match businesses to available space Iiltcllsity recruitment efforts • Provide flexibility for allowed uses and development types • Sripl]crt catalytic, transformative, or innovative retail projects O Eneaurage high quality retail and supportive uses at v1irabeau Point o Participate in subarea planning process for the City Hall area o ''vlarket analysis for a farmer's market • Craft policy to support good retail in the right places ✓ Rezone commercial corridors o Expand and/or create neighborhood commercial overlay zone o Permit 'local production' uses • Plan and build infrastructure to support retail development Identify capital improvements to existing retail centers Invest in appearance of key gateways in Spokane Valley 1 7 0542-16 Planning Commission Minutes Mage 4 n f S o Use Appleway Trail to spur retail devt^Iej mirth d+rr 1 cirl"n (L't.til tievelolanient on nearby parcels • Strengthen Sp aerValley's V alley's i mag LT:• il, Mile fill'itilri a 1}!{}[T106J' r4`r:1:i 744�rr1eii1.� c 1 !'di[i'Yctt l",,ll:.IITc 'alley's priorities .anti Iltal"hobo , ]lr r'zgioIl:il:nattering ::il'orts c PubI •:Lt yet n1 :]"ti ;!Ilii •,: rlt5 Mr. BLLI. ;iw.=ti the next st_I 5 .:re its ilnegratc this ik-ination into the Ccnil}rehensive Plan and amend the deeel::pinenl tee alLake's to sopl.H rl 1Iic5c. ,u .1,f-.t:€P,7s. Explore retail connections to the Appleway Trail. Develop marketing rnatcri.ii : : upp:ori our retail trade, coordinate with our regional partners, develop a list of retail vacancies., and c: c,: d inate e.ith developers to fulfill ecolo.Finic priorities_ Commissioner Anderson asked for clarifictit: els oe s pit et- the report which styid `critical mass ;if business verses limited mix,' which is in Exhibit .1. Mr. Bates said there i4 usually a tipping point when it comes to retail. Commissioner Anderson asked al there was a list of the things the C°ity wu,s miasi11L in its retail, naming specific stores. Mr. leetes stetcd this was not this consultant's expertise, information that specific would cane from a retaii recruiter. Commissioner Anderson said one of the spurting events missing from the list was a volleyball tournament every year, which usually is 12,000 rooms per year. Commissioner Stoy commented on a large soccer tournament which also happens ew'el�. year I Plante -s Perry Park_ Commissioner Johnson wondered hove the Plante* Cu winri would be able to impact these goals, Mr. Bates and Ms. Janssen explained the information would assist in creating policy in the Comprehensive Plan which would guide the staff in the work they do. Commissioner Johnson also said he felt there should be mere social merlin interface in order to reach out to the younger people in the community. The subject of a mixed use development in the City of Spokane had been mentioned and Commissioner Anderson has shared he did not feel the City should be `hanging its hat' on this however Commissioner Johnson said he felt a development of this type would be something which should he worked into the plan. Commissioner Stathos said the joint meeting had conflicting points in it. For example there was question of water couservation but in also then beautification of the City with trees and grass which require watering. She said the exercise was eye opening in the fact it seemed to want certain things, in certain areas but not the same in all areas. Mr. Bates stated Mr. Basinger would be returning to the Commission to share the results of the workshop which was held May 3, 2016. He said this report did not deal with conservation. She said she would like to see some of these things addressed, hiring a specialist, but she was waiting to find out where the money would come from other than raising taxes. Commissioner Anderson said from a Planning Commission position and the Comprehensive Plan the only thing the Planning Commission could do to assist retail sales tax improvement would be to let zoning restrictions or zoning changes where more businesses could locate. He said a City can't make retail sales happen. Ile said the City could facilitate it by not restricting business. He said return on investment (RCT was mentioned in the report several times, but what did we spent to get it, the City did not invest a penny to get it. He did not know what else the City could do other than change the zoning structure, or out hack on our restrictions to allow more businesses. Mr. Bates said the return on investment was referring to hiring a marketing firm to help us develop a marketing program and making sure if we are going to invest in capital improvement it would generate a return on that investment. Commissioner Anderson commented the report discussed investment in infrastructure. Commissioner Johnson asked how much of an impact the Planning Commission would have on the development of infrastructure. Ms. Janssen said the Comprehensive Plan is a road map to staff's work, it guides the programs which are implemented. If implementing infrastructure was a goal & policy in the Comprehensive Plan then staff would work to towards programs or decisions which supported those goals and policies. Commissioner Kelley said he felt it was more like a big picture, brnad brush so when changes carne forward the Commission would know why things would be a certain way. 05-12-16 Planning Commission Minutts Page 5 of 5 cool) oF THE oRaER: [kt)t I Jing for the good of the order. 1 URNMENT: Comniiir n.oii moved to, adjourn the meeting at 7:05 p.m. The vote on the [IR .1n:iI:]I Lil T11011101) paSSed. Chi" i r Heather Graham Date sigmd Secretary Deanna Horton FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE E VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CTA -2016-000I May 26, 2016 The following Endings are consistent with the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval- Background: 1. Spokane Valley development regulations were adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 23, 2007. 2. CTA -2016-0001 is a city initiated text amendment proposing the amend chapter 19.85 Spokane Valley Municipal Cade (VMC), 19A 20.050, and Appendix A by (1) adding definitions for medical marijuana endorsed retail stores, marijuana cooperatives, and marijuana clubs, (2) prohibiting any new licensed marijuana retail stores from all zones, (3) allowing existing licensed marijuana retail stores to locate within the existing designated. zones in compliance with existing buffering requirements, (4) prohibiting marijuana cooperatives from all zones, (5) prohibiting marijuana clubs or lounges from all zones, (6) requiring any home -growing by qualified patients as allowed by state law to be conducted only in single family residential zones in permanent structures that are opaque and not visible by neighbors or from the public rights-of-way, and to clarify that renters may be required, as may be authorized by federal, state, and local laws, to give notice to landlords of their intention to grow marijuana plants in a rental dwelling. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on May 12, 2016. The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval to City Council., Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SV11C 17.80.150E Approval Criteria a, The proposed city initiated code text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Find ing(s): LUP-1.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. LUP-1.2: Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses and/or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Land Use Goal LUP-10.2: Encourage a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley., Economic Goal EDG47: Maintain a regulatory environmcrntthat offers flexibility, consistency, predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy FDS' -7.1; Evaluate, monitor and improve develop- gent.tans m m1 to promote compatibility between adjacent 1dnd uses.; r:'ILI update perirliifing rcwCC S;t tt, it.t]al':e that they are equitable, cost-eff::ciexpediEnus_ Economic Policy EDP -7.2.: Review development regulations iaci-iudieally t; eri,iiue clarity, consistency and predictability. Planning Commission Findings and Recommerda'tions CTP, -X016.0001 '-T,• 3, )f 2 Neighborhood Pclicy NP -2.1 : Maintain and protect i1:. L:Ir:;r: s:L r n= CNisting and future resiidential ncighbarhoods through the dewe]opnicnt :, ci r;itf'ictment of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. b. The proposed City -initiated amendment bears a substantial relation topublichcalth, safcC�; . welfare, and protection of the environment. Findings): The proposed amendment will irllov., compliance with state law and allow existing state, - licensed recr r 1, -,-mal iii:d incdicai marijuana busitic .,cs to continue to operate within the Spokane %Aliso, while 1>=3atit,a ta4:ir uses from ici;:i;titicd sensitive uses and the C'it4's existing and future residential uses. Vintner the aiir:itdmeat will limit additional advcrr•.c, imp icIs from new marijuana use.; c ri c;tlr4r cxi 1:inf, r.cmmercial use. Finally. ti_4 Irrt}lus,;eri arne.rulinunt will 7rotect. =.lie residential Lrhniac:Ic. cif residenti ! neig]ih•arlirrc.c] . 2. CancIusiort(s): a. The prc,.p:].,ed kat ,ii iandrrtent is consistent with the City's adopted Compri:hens v e Platt and tic approval c_-iter:a contained in SVMC 17,80,15O(F). b. The (ir..,wih Management Act stipulates that the comprehensive land use plt..n mc: cicweloprri,:n[ tc i(I shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the C:i_y_ Recommendations: The Spokane Vrtllt.J i'1Arming Commission therefore recommends City Council adopt the proposed city - initialed cod text ninc:ndtneriis to chapter 19.85 SVMC, SVMC 19,120,050, and Appendix A. Approved tl;i 26l1 day c,i i 'f:r,4 2111E w t ]icai]:C'1'(iraii,lru. .:i iriiia:i ATTEST y . r Deanna=lo.tc..n. Planning C:ontmissi©n Secretary ['Nanning {:nnirnission F inrliaps and llcrcor.irnen'tatigns CTA -2016-4001 Page 2 az Chair Graham called pledge of allegiance. staff were present: Kevin Anderson Heather Graham James Johnson Tim Kelley ".like Phillips ti.rranne Stathos .10a Sioy t iinntes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall, May 26 20116 the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and John I1olimau, Community. . iitia:1i . I ),.. ,: lctl;ratti.r:t I3irc: t4,. lamb, Deputy City Attorney �.tbe Ga!linger, Development Str',:i :c; Filet. Rasinger, Economic Dei.:lorni iii Coordinator l leiiry Allen, Development Servii.-. • I''egineer :'Adam Jackson, Development Seri.ic,l's Asst. Engineer "'hav Rates, Economic Development Specialist Deanna Horton, Secretary of tiro ['oinmission. (71Fi"1it,titii'J11i'f'ff7t'.' PUTI'i'ei ft, Cl"i.:Cp (+'C' ;lit"l .76. 2016 agenda as presented The vole was see Jn fdxvor,. �'�'i , CJ !i.P 4t :r. ! the. motion pa.,. -cd. 1 . ioymovedIQ tlfppii41.' Mk., 17 2"Irli PPI -MVS ;S 4' rirY?.v,s.ille d. Thc t'f)ri' was sc, C'o Aryl mitt the motion passed, ( ()Mti-j.JSSIDN REPORT S.: It d no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: .Coin 11 f)cvelq:IncniDirector John I-khmansaki :IL wanted to clarify what he had said the night •.. l i.hc h1.r4 3, 2016 ioint City Council/Planning Commititi, meeting_ Mr. Hnhman handed ori of v,41,Li in: said at drat meeting, "1 twi. t tike: to the City Council, we have at working on the ('t. mj7i'F'hen.sive Plan TI'r,w. ix 'iii. T2'1' we have had' since the beginning of thu:.c°tri. !f.rou remember we kin hid the r ,ztai r,!'dpr"d!verite to sitady we talked about tourism, we talked about water distracts, we hum' hii,nber of - things. The Planning Commission has been a bzi &hind in that rcgurri, (r • )•,-L't:icing f.I1 presentations regarding completed studies) but we do intend to bring all of thirst pre sento!to:Ls. forward (to them). But the Planning Commissiard had some very important legislation that t12� -r• were working on in relation to marijuana uses, so they have been preoccupied for the last several months on that. But once that has moved forward next Tuesday night you will have a presentation on the retail improvement, then the water districts will folly) v, So anything that we have had with council, the Planning Commission will receive as well. It will be just a little bit off set, but think we can catch up pretty quickly here." Mr. Holman said the words in parathions had been added for clarification. He said staff have been working on Comprehensive Plan, taking presentations to city council, but have not had the sarne presentations made to the Planning Commission. Staff will be bringing those forward so that the Commission has the same information as the Council does. Mr. Hohrnan said the staff and Planning Commission are a team, they provide support to each other, he would never disparage the work the Commission was doing. If ever in the future anyone has a question about something he has said, or any other staff member has said, please free to call him at any time and talk to hint. He said this evening's meeting is more of going back to basics to understand the Comprehensive Plan and where it came from, what is in it and where it is going, because when it starts to come before the Commission it will be a new document instead of a redlined version of the oid Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Graham later thanked Mr. Fiohman for addressing the concerns expressed at the previous meeting. She said she did not understand why the Comprehensive Plan had been moving along but then had stopped. She appreciated the information and understanding where the Comprehensive Plan was now. 05-26-]6 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Hohman said again, if any of the Commissioners have a question about anything which is going on, they should not hesitate to contact him and talk to him. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Planning Commission Findings for CTA -2016-0001 - Proposed amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)19.85. Tarijuana Uses,19.120.050 Permitted Use Matrix and Appendix A Definitions Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb explained the background leading up to the recommendation which the Planning Commission is forwarding to the City Council. The Planning Commission worked for several months on this subject to develop the proposal. A public hearing was held April 14, 2016 and the Commission informally agreed to modify the original proposal. On May 12, 2016 a new public hearing was held which produced the current rQcommendatior. Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the Planning Commission findings of fact. The vote on this motion was six in favor, one against with Commissioner Kelley dissenting. Spokane County Sheriffs Office Regional Intelligence Group 9 CAo Selected Incidents Within 1/2 Mile of Canna Hausa 9616 E Sprague} Opened 117/010015 Jul 1, 2014 - Dec 20„ 2014 Jud 1.2015 - Dec 20, 2015 Dec 21, 2014 - Dec 31. 2014 Jan 1, 2015 - Jun 30, 2015 -fatal 911A 99 125 5 85 313 ANI C 30 19 2 15 66 ALMli a 5 0 2 10 ALMR 7 5 0 3 10 ALMU 2 1 a 2 5 ARGUE 40 38 1 25 104 A5 L,T 13 9 1 23 46 8uRGC R 11 1 7 a SUR GG 0 3 0 3 6 6LURGR 14 L3 0 13 40 cc W3 52 2 27 114 CHKEV 10 14 0 2a 44 DISOR0 11 13 3 12 39 DOA 0 1 0 0 1 DOM57 6 4 0 5 15 DRUGS 6 1$ 0 7 28 DUI 20 17 1 21 59 Dv 23 34 1 32 90 DVOPS 8 10 1 16 35 DVOPV 12 9 0 6 27 OVW 2 2 0 1. 5 =IGHT 2 4 0 12 18 =RAUD 1 5 0 1 7 HARSS 1 2 0 2 5 VA! i,i5 6 11 0 8 25 PEDVPO 2 13 0 3 16 PER0OT 11 35 0 24 70 PERF PEPA PROWL RAPE RECIC0R ROB SEXCRI SHOOT 5HOPI� srAB STALL( STPRCP LI ICA USGI3 THE TH4EtT TREiLU TRFSP TS JGIJEST vEHPRO UEH,SEC VEHTFT VJARRNT Total Jul 1, 2014 - Dec 2D, 2014 hal 1, 2015- Dec 20, 2015 Dec 2.1, 2014- - Dec 31, 2014 Jan 1, 2015 - Jun 30, 2015 Total 4 2 0 0 6 2 6 0 4 12 D e 0 1 1 ❑ 6 2 31. 49 2 50 =32 1 0 0 2 3 3 0 t? 1 4 5 D 2 16 23 38 3 4fi 210 CI 2 4 0 2 2 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 2 4 6 9 0 3 18 26 40 2 40 108 73 80 6 87 246 43 81 4 58 186 9 18 0 18 49 3 S i 8 20 4 9 C 8 2.1 20 24 C 18 f,2 525 433 3D 479 1,467 4 6 2 12 5 6 0 9 20 10 1.1. 0 15 35 12 19 0 23 54 3 8 1 12 24 1,'84 1327 1-8 1,264 3,843 Pap- 2of2 Repos Cs a ed: 12/21/2C -1S Spokane County Sheriff's Office Regional Intelligence Group 9 CAE] Selected Incidents Within 1/2 Mlle of Cinder 11421 N Mullen) Opened 10/01/2014 Oct1,2013- Sep 30, 2011 Oct 1,2014- Sep 1A, 2015 Oct1,21115- pec 20, 2015 Total 911A 103 127 25 255 ABDUC 1 0 0 1 ALMC 31 13 3 57 ALMH 3 4 1 8 ALMR 12 1 4 17 ALMU 1 0 0 1 ARGUE 48 61 11 120 A5LT 23 33 8 64 BURGC 6 6 0 12 auRSG 3 0 0 3 BURGH 17 18 7 42 78 71 14 163 CHK EV 16 18 9 43 MORD 25 34 3 67 DOA 3 1 3 7 DOMST 5 5 3 13 ❑RUGS 24 26 2 54 OLJI 9$ B6 23 207 OV 52 43 14 109 OV13P5 7 14 0 21 VVCIPV 10 6 1 17 LVVi7 1 1 1 3 FIGHT 8 7 0 15 FORGER U 1 0 1 FRAU[] 2 3 1 6 HARASS 1 0 0 1 M ALMS 1.4 7 0 21 Page 2 I2 Report Crergd: 12/21/21315 Oa 1, 2[1::.3 - Sep 30, 2014 X -f 1, 2014 • Sep s0, 1315 Oct 1, zo:.E - :oral L ec 20, 2415 PEDVIO 2 8 2 11. PERMIT 11 19 8 38 PERF 1 0 1 2 PERW 8 7 0 15 PROST 2 4 0 2 PROWL 4 7 1 12 RAPE 3 2 ............. 1 6 RECK01t 303 350 75 72.5 ROB 6 4 0 10 ROBC 3 1 0 4 SEXCRI 2 2 1 5 SHOOT 2 6 0 8 SHOPL 7.8 19 4 41 STAB 1 0 0 1 STALK 0 1 0 1 STPROP 3 7 2 12 SUICA 16 1.7 2 35 SL15CI R 58 58 6 122 SUSPER 83 121 19 222 SUSVEH 69 1S5 20 264 THEFT E5 47 6 118 THREAT 11 9 1 21 TIt6LU 6 14 3 19 TRESP 13 27 8 4B TS 575 631 139 1,345 uGUEST 9 5 4 16 tiEHPRD 11 7 0 18 VEHREC 17 7 5 29 VEHTPT 35 15 0 58 WARRNT 14 14 3 31 Intal 1,9E3 2,158 449 4,570 Page 2 I2 Report Crergd: 12/21/21315 Spokane County Sheriffs Office Regional Intelligence Group 9 CAD Selected Incidents Within 1/2 Mile of Treehouse {14421 E Trent] Opened 12/01/2014 Cec 1, 2013 - htrnr3OE 2014 Dec 1, 2014 • Nov30,2013 oec 1, 2015 • Dec 2D, 2015 Tata! 9114 53 75 3 141 ALMC 6 3 0 1 NAV 1 3 0 4 ALMR 1 6 0 7 ARCUZ 26 11 1 3a ASLT 9 LO 3 21 BURGC 4 6 1 11 BURGG 1 0 0 1 BURGR 10 6 0 16 CC 33 24 1 58 CHU€V 1 2 0 3 MORD 5 8 0 13 DOA 1 2 0 DOM ST 7 R 0 15 RUGS 11 5 0 17 au! 16 5 0 25 DV 41; 33 1 .SC WJPS 5 0 14 DVOPV 7 6 0 13 DVW 3 2 0 5 FIGHT 3 a 0 3 FRAI,IO 1 1 0 2. HARASS 2 2 0 4 MAIMS S 1 0 10 PEDVIO 1 3 1 3 PERBOT 7 5 t 13 PERF 0 1 0 1 Page 2 of 2 Report Created: 12/112015 c1 2013- Nov 20, 2014 oez1,2014- Nov 34, 2015 Dee 3,2015- Total Dee 20, 2013 RERW 5 3 D 8 PROWL 2 0 0 2 RAPE 0 1 0 1. KUM 27 36 5 E8 ROBC 0 1 1 2 SEY(CRI 3 0 0 3 SHOOT S 1 0 6 SHOPL 3 4 0 7 STAB 0 1 0 1 STALK 0 1 0 1 STPRDP 2 2 0 4 SUICA 10 3 0 13 Si)ECIR 31 23 3 57 SLaSPE R 41 33 1 75 SUSVEH 24 40 2 6c THEFT 32 22 7 5E THREAT 7 3 0 10 TRRU) 3 4 2 Ft TRESP 14 2 0 16 TS 165 212 4 351 UGLIEST 4 2 0 6 VEHPRa 3 2 0 5 VEHREC 4 4 0 8 VEHTFT 5 7 0 12 WARRNT 10 7 1 18 Total 679 656 33 1,368 Page 2 of 2 Report Created: 12/112015 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 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: Law Enforcement Contract Review GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 39.34 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Authorized Contract 10-109, Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Law Enforcement Services in the City of Spokane Valley, on August 10, 2010. BACKGROUND: The Spokane County Sheriff's Office has provided law enforcement service to the City of Spokane Valley since incorporation. The current contract was executed in 2010. Council has expressed interest in reviewing the current contract and identifying possible changes to the terms. This presentation covers the major points of the contract, evaluates the costs and cost methodology of the contract, and presents options for possible enhancements to the contract. The goal of the presentation is to work with Council to establish goals for the law enforcement contract. OPTIONS: Identify desired goals and changes to Law Enforcement Contract RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation, Interlocal Agreement, Public Safety Business Plan, Spokane Valley Police Department Monthly Report, Quarterly Report on Spokane Valley Usage j�ueY Sera., rune 7, 201E a Purpose of Presentation Review all Major Aspects of the current Law Enforcement Contract. Dialogue about any questions or concerns regarding the contract. Council identifies goals regarding service delivery, contract performance, customer service/satisfaction. Overview Law Enforcement services have always been provided by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, the same provider as before incorporation. A distinct Spokane Valley Police Department was formed with vehicles that have a distinctive color and Spokane Valley decals, uniforms with a Spokane Valley patch, and districts that are wholly contained within the geographic boundaries of Spokane Valley. Dedicated Spokane Valley personnel were approved. The number of dedicated personnel can only be changed by Council authorization. Since incorporation, Council has authorized the addition of an Administrative Lieutenant, a School Resource Officer, and two Patrol Deputies, as well as the elimination of Patrol Corporals, the formation of a Power Shift, the addition of property crime detectives, and the formation of a dedicated Spokane Valley property and drug crime unit. Dedicated personnel operate out of the Spokane Valley Precinct Building, while shared and support personnel operate mostly out of the Downtown Spokane Public Safety Building. ContraTern Four year term Current term expires December 31, 2017 18 months termination notice City is not locked into another four-year term until that term begins. City could give termination notice as late as December 31, 2017 and be out of the contract in 18 months. Contract will automatically renew unless City provides notice of termination. The four year term was adopted as part of the 2010 negotiations; the Sheriff's Office requested that a longer term be utilized to be able to better plan for equipment replacement, personnel needs, facilities, and training. Much of the equipment is capitalized and amortized over a useful life that closely matches this term length. The City also desired a longer term to be able to evaluate performance over a longer term. Full evaluations would be difficult on a shorter term. Termination and Transition Plan There is an 18 month termination notice intended to provide both parties sufficient time to transition. Upon notice of termination, the Sheriff and the City would jointly prepare a transition plan that identifies: Personnel Issues Workload Ongoing Case Assignments The City would have to begin civil service, establish policies and procedures, acquire vehicles and equipment, conduct testing and hiring, send new recruits to the academy, ensure case information is transmitted to the Court and Prosecutor's Office, transfer open cases, contract for records and dispatch, and verify that dispatch is communicating with the officers. Precinct Building The Spokane Valley Precinct Building is located in the former Pep Boys Auto Parts Store building. Spokane County purchased the building and renovated it prior to incorporation of the City. Total cost of the building and renovation was $2.4 M. The building originally was partially used as a temporary jail holding facility. That use was terminated prior to incorporation. When the City incorporated the County began charging the City for lease of the building, but the charges were applied against a credit ($975,046) given to acknowledge SV taxpayer contributions toward the purchase of the building. The City purchased the building in 2006 . Precinct Building (cont.) The building is approximately 21,779 square feet. The District Court operates a courtroom out of the building, using 2,503 square feet. The County is charged for lease of that space and maintenance charges that benefit the Court. The building contains office space, a kitchen, a locker room, a maintenance garage, a gym, a bathroom, a court ticket counter, a police counter, a conference room, and roll call room. There is also a separate shop/garage out building. Dedicated SV personnel and some support staff are housed at the Precinct Building. Most of the investigative personnel and support staff are housed at the Public Safety Building in Spokane. The old jail holding area is now used for breathalyzer tests, probation meetings, recorded interviews, and additional office space. Neither the Precinct Building nor the New City Hall are designed to accommodate all commissioner officers and support personnel needed for an internal police force if it were the Council's collective desire to consider an internal police department in the future. Community Identity Section No. 12 of the Law Enforcement Contract provides for a community identity for the Spokane Valley Police Department. This requirement was carried over from the original contract, as it was deemed important to create a distinction from the Sheriff's Office, both for tracking vehicles and personnel, and creating a distinct department that serves the unique needs of Spokane Valley, which may be quite different from the unincorporated County. The community identity requirements entail utilizing vehicles with a distinctive color and Spokane Valley decals. Officer uniforms have Spokane Valley patches. As Community Identity costs are borne by the City, an effort to keep costs down was utilized by using factory paint colors and existing uniforms. I4aw Enforcement Costs LE Costs by Year Law Enforcement Contract Population Actual % Change 2010 $ 16,409,822 $ 27,453,4211 2011 $ 16,687,516 1.7% 2012 $ 17,053,167 2.1% 2013 $ 17,420,905 2.1% 2014 $ 17,181,226 -1.4% $ 271 Avg % change 1.15% $ 24,514,462' Estimate % Change 2015 $ 18,670,772 8.7% 2016 $ 18,361,360 -1.7% Comparative Law Enforcement Costs 2014 Costs Population Law Enforcement $ Per Capita Cost Everett 104,900 $ 27,453,4211 $ 262 Renton 97,130 $ 25,487,895' $ 262 Yakima 93,080 $ 24,139,047' $ 259 Federal Way 90,150 $ 24,403,8101 $ 271 Bellingham 82,810 $ 24,514,462' $ 296 Kirkland 82,590 $ 20,311,0631 $ 246 Kennewick 77,700 $ 16,577,004' $ 213 Auburn 74,630 $ 20,526,761' $ 275 Avg. Cost P $ 260.56 Spokane Valley 92,050 $ 17,506,840 $ 190 Includes Precinct, False Alarm, Grant, and Emergency Management Costs Actual Law Enforcement Costs VS. Per Cap'ta Avg. Service SV Per Capita $ Per Capita Avg. SV Actual $ SV $ with Per Capita Avg. Police $ 190 $ 261 $ 17,506,840 $ 23,984,913 $10,000, 000 $9, 000,000 $8, 000,000 $7, 000,000 $6, 000,000 $5, 000,000 $4, 000,000 $3, 000,000 $ 2, 000,000 $1, 000,000 $- 00 00 0101 -00 00 00 tn- 0 Spokane Valley Police Cost by Function rn 00 O NJ 1.11 rn NJ N 0 UO rn 01 N tip tn- 01 UJ 00 W W 01 UJ 00 U.7 W 61 I� NJ 61 I� NJ Qac �`� •<a Q� �� „ t� as �'iC .kJ °o \ ' • ok Oe' C� ��a� • 4 Ooh\0 sLe a�a0� ah°.. 5` ca\ Pa,�o c)�� •o Qc°Q fro �`�4Z '< o ?) 4. 45 ceP UJ 00 LIDUJ W 00 I)1 O tn- N NJ 01 Ul -I N N �I N 0 V O I� 01 W 00 N I� 01 W 00 N I� 01 W 00 N I� 01 W 00 N •P I-, N I-, N I-, N NJ V 01 NJ i/- 00 W UJ ooh c*\°5 r�GF ,`G�5 �`¢ �� • off QF. ocoo ``,�4o • 6 '`- eat ,ote \ CJ a�t `o��o��o �e ��a �L ��C Qocr \o `,Q Lt s c tri mea e, c0 � oJ sem �ae� a� e�`e +o ° 6\ \4 Cost Methodology Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Plan (LECAP) determines cost for each jurisdiction. Commissioned Officer Rate (COR) is determined by taking the sum of officer -related costs and dividing by the number of commissioned officers. The estimated COR (fully loaded officer) for 2016 is $153,824. The COR is applied to the number of commissioned officers that provide service to Spokane Valley. Other Cost Centers are allocated out on a variety of bases. The Cost Centers include forensics, dispatch, crime check, property room, and records. Cost Methodology (Continued) Settle and Adjust Reconciliation Estimated costs are provided to the City in advance of the contract year. These costs are based upon actual costs from two years prior. The estimated annual costs are split into twelve equal payments. Approximately nine months after the contract year is completed, actual costs are determined and reconciled to the estimated costs. The difference is applied to the estimated costs for the following year and spread out over all twelve payments. The Settle and Adjust feature is utilized for the following reasons: There is no profit margin or buffer, this is actual cost. The County is required to provide services at cost. Some costs are unknown at the time of the estimate, such as health care costs and cost of living adjustments. Estimated costs are based upon full staffing. In recent years there have been many vacancies resulting in significantly lower costs ($753K Credit in 2014). Cost, Staff, and Demand Comparison All Washington Cities within 20% Population of Spokane Valley 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 City Population Commisioned Officers Comm. Officers per 1,000 Pop. Patrol Officers (Does not include Supervisors) Patrol Officers per 1,000 Pop. Comparable Police Costs Police Costs Per Capita Calls for Service Calls for Service Per Patrol Officer Crime Rate Group A Offenses Everett 105,800 201 1.90 104 0.98 $ 33,922,861 $ 321 175,424 1,687 80.4 Renton 98,470 120 1.22 70 0.71 $ 27,720,705 $ 282 61,537 879 88.4 Yakima 93,220 151 1.62 123 1.32 $ 30,589,258 $ 328 81,000 659 99.3 Federal Way 90,760 131 1.44 76 0.84 $ 24,592,324 $ 271 59,731 786 105 Bellingham 83,580 110 1.32 69 0.83 $ 26,881,872 $ 322 54,498 790 105.8 Kirkland 83,460 98 1.17 58 0.69 $ 21,072,474 $ 252 48,000 828 49 Kennewick 78,290 101 1.29 47 0.60 $ 18,309,559 $ 234 101,622 2,162 74.7 Auburn 75,545 110 1.46 64 0.85 $ 23,975,619 $ 317 71,825 1,122 121.1 Average 1.43 0.85 $ 291 1,114 90.46 Spokane Valley 93,340 108 1.15 47 0.50 $ 19,744,630 $ 212 56,712 1,207 73.9 - Kennewick voters approved 2.5% utility tax in 1995 to fund 21 police and 11 fire positions. (Rates have since been raised by Council . - Federal Way has a voter approved 1.75% utility tax that helps fund 24.5 police FTEs. - Group A Offenses are crimes of a more serious nature. The rate is crimes per 1,000 population Other Cities City Population Commisioned Officers Comm. Officers per 1,000 Pop. Patrol Officers (Does not include Supervisors) Patrol Officers per 1,000 Pop. Comparable Police Costs Police Costs Per Capita Calls for Service Calls for Service Per Patrol Officer Crime Rate Group A Offenses Spokane 213,100 309 1.45 197.00 0.92 $ 60,028,545 $ 282 147,451 748 116.1 Lakewood 58,400 100 1.71 51 0.87 $ 21,114,213 $ 362 55,000 1,078 112.5 Average 1.58 0.90 $ 322 913 114.30 Spokane Valley 93,340 108 1.15 47 0.50 $ 19,744,630 $ 212 56,712 1,207 73.9 Overtime Overtime costs for commissioned officers are included with payroll costs and flow into the Commissioner Officer Rate. Overtime is then absorbed by all jurisdictions, regardless of where the overtime occurred. Total Sheriff's Office Overtime(SV is about 50%) Year Total Overtime Patrol Only 2011 $ 1,338,170 $ 634,549 2012 $ 1,582,271 $ 753,266 2013 $ 1,827,115 $ 879,480 2014 $ 2,016,657 $ 963,022 2015 $ 2,293,515 $1,202,806 Avg. Change 13.5% 16.0% Year Total Overtime Patrol Only SV Dedicated County Shared 2009 $ 1,119,576 $ 571,495 $ 388,918 $ 502,318 $ 228,340 Overtime (Continued) Typical Reasons for Overtime Officers in the middle of call or report at end of shift High-profile investigation Court appearance Inadequate staffing — Insufficient staff to meet minimum staffing requirements (1 officer per district at all times) Questions Is Spokane Valley subsidizing County overtime? Should we request an overtime reduction plan from the County and Sheriff's Office? Is the Sheriff's Office able to identify the leading contributors causing the overtime? Are supervisors managing overtime use effectively? Personnel The City has dedicated personnel (Category 1)in units such as Patrol, Traffic, and School Resource Officers. The number of officers in these units remains fixed and can only be adjusted by authorization of Council. Investigative Services (Category 2) are shared services and contain units such as Major Crimes, Sex Crimes, and Gang Enforcement. The number of officers assigned to Spokane Valley fluctuates based upon the number of cases occurring in Spokane Valley. Category 3 Officers serve in support roles and associated costs are included in the Commissioned Officer Rate. This includes units such as Training and Professional Standards. Category 4 Officers are officers that may still serve Spokane Valley but are either County responsibility or funded through other funding sources, and are not therefore charged to the City. While the number of officers assigned to the City fluctuates, at the current time it is about 107.5 full-time officers. Spokane Valley Police Department (Commissioned Officers) Spokane County Sheriff Shared Resources Split County/City Undersheriff Training/Professional Standards 7 FTE Marine Patrol/Search & Rescue 1.75 Deputies Intelligence Led Policing 1 Detective K-9 5 Deputies Investigations Investigative Captain —1 FTE Investigative Lt. — 2 FTE Major Crimes- 7 FTE Sex Crimes — 7 FTE Joint Terrorism Task Force —1 Det. Safe Streets (Drug & Gang) — 6 FTE Dedicated Resources 1.00% Spokane Valley Police Chie 1 Precinct Commander Lt. Administrative Sergeant 1 Precinct Front Desk Deputy Dayshift Patrol) Spokane Valley City Manager Dayshift Commander - Traffic 1 Sergeant 1 Detective 5 Deputies Property and Drug Crime Investigations 1 Sergeant 10 Detectives 1 Deputy (Dedicated but also supervised by Inv. Lt.) 1 c4Patrol Sergeants Deputies School Resource 4 Deputie Nightshift Commander Patrol Sergeants 7 Deputies Comm.n.17 Dome tic Violence 2 Deputies 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 58 12 7 2016 Spokane Valley Police: 107.5 FTE Commissioned Officers by Function 4.5 4 3.5 3.5 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 �a�` �`�e �`�� `�e �a�a a�\o �� .� ,`o \�� 0�`5 ego �� o� \\o� re• g • �C. OeQ }C. �� \�� y�0 ��c J\o enc `y,�t Qo etYo a 50 •\o P e, \,o �� ae� ��` c, J oo\ fie Qtocey <<° cow 4° ma• c` O��eC` ,�5`¢0 ,c, 'C.\ 5� • �� • '�" ego Se+ \' \� ie c.)a Commissioned Officer Worksheet Category 1 Dedicated FTEs Note: "Unincorporated" here includes small cith Valley Admin Chief/Inspector 1 Lieutenant 1 Sergeant 1 Deputies Patrol Captain Lieutenant 2 Sergeant 9 Deputies 47 Officer Candidates - Sub -total Patrol 58 Traffic/CVEO Sergeant 1 Detective/Corp. 1 Deputies 5 Property & Drug Crimes Sergeant 1 Detective/Corp. 10 Deputy 1 Community Services Deputy 1 Domestic Violence Detective/Corp. 1 SRO Deputies 4 Total Dedicated FTEs 86 Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs 82 S. Category 2 Shared Services Investigative/ Community Services/K-9 Persons Major Crimes Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Detectives 1 1 1 6 Sex Crimes Sergeant 1 Detectives 4.82 Deputies 1.00 Investigative Task Force Lieutenant 1.00 CIU & JTTF Detectives Drug Task Force Detectives Deputies Gang Enforcement Sergeant Detective/Corp 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Total Investigative 24.82 Property & Drug Crimes Sergeant Detective/Corp. Intelligence Led Policing Detective 1.00 4.33 1 Marine/Search Rescue Deputies 1.75 K-9 Deputies 5 Total Investigative/Support Sery 37.90 SHARED Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Undersheriffs PIO Sergeant 1 Training/OPS Lieutenant 2 Sergeant 2 Detectives 1 Deputies 2 Total Administrative 8 Category 4 County Responsibility/ Other Cost Recovery Method Civil Lieutenant Deputies Marine Patrol Deputy 0.25 Sex Offender Registration Detective/Corp 0.18 Sex Off. Res. Verif. SA03 Detective/Corp 1.00 ISU Federal Seizures Detective/Corp 0.67 Admin/Not Allocated Sheriff 1_ Total County/Other 6.10 Possible Options for Enhanced Control Over Contract Maintain current 4 year terms with City negotiating an "out" clause that allows for termination upon breech of contract, failure to meet specified performance terms, excessive use of force, failure to correct deficiencies, or failure to adhere to policies and procedures. Add defined deficiency correction procedure and timeline. Currently there is a Sheriff's Citizen's Advisory/Review Board (CAB) but there is no mention of the Board in the contract. We do contract for the Office of Professional Standards, which investigates complaints against officers. Include Citizen Advisory Board as service provided through the contract Guaranteed City of Spokane Valley Citizen Representation on the CAB (XX%) Defined protocol for CAB review of Spokane Valley cases CAB Reports forwarded to City for staff review If existing policies and procedures were violated Sheriff will forward outcome along with preventative measures implemented. If no policies or procedures were violated but the action did not align with the service outcome goals of the City, City will notify Sheriff and provide Sheriff with an opportunity to develop a plan to prevent future deficiencies. Define complaint process, including internal City process. Performance, Workload, & Usage - Current Reports The Business Plan — Law Enforcement complete a section in the business plan, just like internal departments, including an organizational chart, a description of staffing and units, identification of goals and strategies, annual totals of workload indicators and performance measures, and budget changes and impacts of budget reductions. Monthly Reports to Council — Includes CAD incidents, reports taken, traffic stops, and traffic reports compared to the same month from the previous year, a summary of police chief activities, SCOPE activities, a highlight report of incidents and arrests, a crime report with reported crimes compared to the same month in the previous year, year-to-date crimes compared to year-to-date crimes from the previous year, and crime totals from the previous six years. Quarterly Usage Reports — The County provides to the City each quarter a report that provides City usage in allocation bases such as the number of items submitted to the property room, the number of K-9 incidents and the number of cases submitted to Forensics. The numbers are used by staff to update projections for estimated contract costs. Performance Measure Option Quarterly Average Patrol Officers per Shift - The closer to the maximum number per shift achieved the more officers there are to respond to calls and the more time there is to allow proactive policing. Quarterly Number of Calls Not Responded To by Priority Level — This allows the City to determine if the police are sufficiently meeting the needs of the community or if a deficiency exists. Quarterly Response Times by Priority Level — This measure allows the City to determine if community needs are addressed promptly or if a deficiency exists. Quarterly updates on property crimes, such as % assigned/worked, contact with victim, as well as indicators such as # of arrests, conviction %, value of items recovered, value of items returned to victims, value of restitution ordered by court. Overtime as a percentage of total salary. Options for Service Level Outcomes As the City Attorney has mentioned, it is not a good idea for the City to tell the Sheriff how to provide services and direct personnel, as that would breach the independent contractor relationship and increase the liability risk to the City. However, it is a good idea to define the level of service desired and identify the expected outcomes delivered by the contractor. Examples of service level outcomes are: Respond to All Priority 1 and Priority 2 Calls within 5 minutes Follow-up contact with all property crime victims Officer available to attend neighborhood meetings Current Communication Quarterly meetings between the Sheriff and the City Manager are required by Contract. Quarterly meetings between financial representatives for the County and the City are required by Contract. The contract requires that the Police Chief report to the City Manager (as well as the Sheriff Command Structure) and work with the City Manager to establish goals, objectives, and performance measures which reflect specific needs within the City; attends meetings and provides reports as requested by the City Manager; reports to the City Manager any serious recommendations for performance improvement with deputies; notifying the City Manager of any change in Sheriff procedures or policies; maintaining communication between the City Manager and the Sheriff to ensure changes to Sheriff policies are agreeable to the City; notifying the City Manager of any significant criminal occurrence or civil emergency in the City or Region. Contract requires County to notify City of any changes in allocating departments or allocation basis. Enhancement Options No changes, elimination, addition, consolidation, or reorganizations of units providing service to the City without prior notification and discussion with City by Sheriff. Updates provided to Council. Dedicated City investigative staff (category 2), establishing fixed numbers and dedicated full-time personnel, not 50/50 split with County unless small or single person units. All dedicated personnel would be under the direction of the Spokane Valley Police Chief, with ultimate control retained by the Sheriff. Staff would work with Police Chief to determine proper personnel mix and focus to meet the needs of Spokane Valley. Council would authorize final staff. Utilize cost methodology that segregates costs for dedicated Spokane Valley personnel and other specific Spokane Valley costs as much as possible. Cost methodology that is based on current year budget and utilizes rolling averages for indirect costs, smoothing out fluctuations and minimizing reconciliation settlements. Evaluation of contract and update to Council prior to automatic renewal. Goal Identification What concerns or dissatisfaction does Council have with the Law Enforcement Contract? What goals does Council want for the Law Enforcement Contract? Next Steps Formalize Goals Set Up Negotiation Structure and Timeline for Contract if needed. Set up Joint Meeting between City Council, Board of County Commissioners, Sheriff, and Spokane Valley Police Chief to brainstorm about filling open commissioned officer spots, retaining existing officers, developing plan for addressing upcoming retirements. Contract Administration and Negotiation Spokane Valley has a Council Manager form of government as approved at incorporation by the voters. The Council -Manager form of government is defined under Washington State RCW 35A.13 and the duties, powers, and responsibilities are further defined by Spokane Valley Municipal Code 2.15. The development of the Council -Manager form of government was for the purpose of having a non-partisan professional manager direct day- to-day administration of the City, uninfluenced by politics and adhering to defined ethical standards. A professionally trained staff is responsible for delivering services effectively and efficiently and meeting the goals of the community as defined by Council. Experienced staff are currently employed with a wealth of contract and negotiating experience as well as historical information and knowledge specific to the City, County, and the existing interlocal agreements. Significant cost savings were achieved by eliminating charges that were not applicable to the City during the previous law enforcement negotiations. All goals were achieved through negotiation of the current contract. Interlocal Agreements RCW 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, grants local public agencies the ability to contract with other to provide services. RCW 39.34.080 provides the power to enter into and amend Interlocal Agreements solely to the governing body, in the case of the City of Spokane Valley, that is the City Council. The City Council provides policy direction and goals associated with the service being provided. City staff, acting under the direction of the City Manager, makes recommendations and negotiates terms of the agreement subject to final approval of the Council. The Council will review the draft agreement or amended agreement and vote whether to approve the agreement. If approved, Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement. Interlocal Agreements ( Continued) If the Council does not approve the draft agreement, Staff will attempt to negotiate changes to meet with Council's satisfaction. The City Manager and staff will provide updates to Council if negotiations are taking a significant amount of time. City Manager and staff will also update Council if an impasse exists. Council may direct whether to consider other service options. Rcturu tat Drinic1a Erickson Gierk 4f the foo rel 1115 W, aro:i+lmy Spakiue, WA 9,260 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COSTS INCIDENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY /C -C7/7 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into among Spokane County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred tc as "COUNTY," the Spokane County Sheriff, a separate elected official of Spokane County, having offices for the transaction of business at 1100 West i lallon Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as 'SHERIFF" and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the state of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," jointly hereinafter referred to as the "Parties" and individually referred to as "Party". COUNTY, SHERIFF and CITY agree as follows. SECTION NO. 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS 1.1 Under RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, acting on behalf of Spokane County, has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business. L2 Under chapter 39.34 RCW ("Interlocal Cooperation Act"), public agencies may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform, 1.3 Under chapter 36.28 RCW, the Spokane County Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and Conservator of the Peace of Spokane County, 1.4 The City of Spokane Valley desires to utilize the services of the Spokane County Sheriffs Office to provide law enforcemn mt services. Page 1 of IS Return to: Daniela Erickson Clerk of tate Board 1115 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 1.5 The direct and indirect costs for law enforcement services will be set forth in the Law Enforcement Cost Allocation plan ("LECAP"), attached hereto as Exhibit "3„ and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION NO. 2: DEFINITIONS 2,1 Agreement: "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement among Sheriff, City and County regarding lav enforcement services. 2.2 City: "CITY" means the City of Spokane Valley. 2.3 County: "COUNTY" means Spokane County, 2,4 Services: "Services" means those services identified in Exhibit 1. 2,5 Sheriff: "SHERIFF" means the duly elected sheriff of Spokane County possessing those general dirties set forth in chapter 36.28 RCN. 2.6 Uncontrollable Circumstances "Uncontrollable Circumstances" Ineans the following events: riots, wags, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires and floods, volcanic eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near where the Services are performed andfor that directly affect providing of such services. ,SECTION NO. 3: PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the Parties' understanding as to the terns and conditions under wKich SHERIFF F will provide Services to CITY. The services will be consistent with the City's council/manager fours of management. RCW 3 5 A13 SECTION NO. 4: DURATION AND TERMINATION 4.1 Initial term and Renewal. The initial term of this Agreement shall commence as of 12:01 A•1M. on January 1, 2010, and nm through Midnight, Decetnber 31, 2013. 'Thereafter, this Agreement small automatically renew for four-year time frames, unless the termination process outlined herein is invoked. 4.2 Process for Termination, This Agreement may be terminated by any parr by providing written notice on or after June 30, 2012 to all other Parties. COUNTY shall consult with SHERIFF prior to providing written notice of termination under this subsection, SHERIFF shall consult with COUNTY prior to providing written notice of termination under this subsection- This termination will be effective (18) eighteen months Paget of IS after written notice is provided as long as such written notice is provided prior to Midnight December 31, 2013. The same time intervals for terminations shall apply to future terms if the termination process is not invoked during the initial contract period. 4.3 Implementation of Termination. When notice of termination is given, SHERIFF and CITY agree to jointly prepare a Transition Plan. 4.3.1 Transition Plan. The Transition Plan shall identify and address, among other iters (i) personnel issues; (ii) workload; and (iii) ongoing case assignments. If the SI{LI IFF and CITY cannot mutually agree to the terms of the Transition Plan, either Party can request arbitration as provided in Section No. 18. SHERIFF and CITY shall equally share the cost of said arbitration 4.3.2 Implementation of Transition Plan. Parties agree to use all best efforts to create and effectuate a rnutt[e' implementation of the Transition Plan. 4.4 Termination of the Agreement -Vehicles and Equipment. At the termination of this Agreement, CITY shall have the option to purchase, subject to agreement of SHERIFF and COUNTY, COUNTY -owned vehicles and/or equipment used to provide Services. 4.5 Waiver of Statutory Terms. To the extent that it is applicable to law enforcement services, the Parties hereby waive the statutoty termination rights of RCW 39.34,180(3) and elect instead to follow these contractual termination procedures as the sole method of terminating this Agreement, the terms of which are detailed in this subsection. 4.6 Termination of the Agreement and Settle and Adjust. The Parties recognize that Cost for Services under the Agreement is calculated utilizing the LECAP. The LECAP is based on actual costs from two years pricy to the current contract year. As such, in the event this Agreement is terminated as provided for in Sub -section 4.2 hereinabove, the Agreement will be subject to a settle and adjust for the last two years of the term of the Agreement based upon the LECAP for the two (2) subsequent years after termination. In the event of termination, the Parties shall follow the process set forth in Section No, 6 to determine the settle and adjust for each of the last two (2) years of the Agreement as well as the process to object to the final adjustment determined for each of the last two (2) years to include dispute resolution as set forth in Subsection 6.7 set forth hereinafter, SECTION NO. 5: SERVICES 5.1 Services Provided and Service Levels. The Sheriff shall provide those Services set forth in Exhibit "I" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY inay unilaterally, on an annual basis, adjust the service level FTE's set forth in Category One of Exhibit "1." Written notice of such an adjustment to Category One shall be prcvided by CITY to COUNTY and SHERIFF no later than November 3O'" with the adjustments Page 3 of 18 to be effective an January Is( of the following year. If COUNTY fails to provide the third quarterly report or changes to the LECAP allocation as set forth in Section 5.2 below, said notice is required to occur 30 days after this information is provided. Any other adjustments in Category One services may occur by mutual ngreemertt as sot forth in Section 6.6. CITY and SHERIFF, by mutual agreement may also adjust the level of service FTE's set forth in Category Two of Exhibit "1.°' Such agreement shall be executed no later than November 30th preceding the contract year. Any adjustments in services under this section shall only be operative after relevant notice and impact b rgainirrg negotiations for reductions in force are satisfied with the relevant Collective Bargaining Units but in no event shall the delay in implementation exceed 60 days, Notwithstanding the above, SHERIFF'S ability to fulfill his statutory obligation to provide law enforcement services to COUNTY and CITY shall not be limited. 5,2 Periodic Reporting Requirements. SHERIFF shall provide to CITY quarterly reports, within 30 days from the end of each quarters that identif=y statistics used to calculate CITY'S cost in the LECAP referenced in Section No. 6 below, Those statistics which are only available to COUNTY on an annual basis shall be provided annually within 30 clays of the end of each calendar year. However, records and property room statistics Miall be provided within 15 days after they are provided by CITY. These reports will allow CITY to monitor service consumption and cost accrual throughout the year. COUNTY will provide to CITY any changes in the allocation of law enforcement services set forth in the adopted LECAP as defined in Section 6.3 SECTION NO. 6: COST OF SERVICES 6.1 Basis. Cost for services shall be based upon the Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Plae (LECAP) as previously identified and incorporated herein. 6.2 Methodology. Costs for Services will be calculated utilizing the Cost Calculation Model (CCM) as shown in Exhibit "2" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 6.3 COCAP and LECAP. Once the Countywide Cost Allocation Plan ("COCAP) and LECAP are finalized, no changes will be made to any department cost or allocation basis until the following year other than as indicated in the MID -YEAR FULL TIME EQUIVALENT FTE ADJUSTMENTS defined in sub -section 6.6. Each year, Page 4 of 18 departments within the Sheriff's Office will be reviewed to determine if the costs are being appropriately allocated. Each allocation basis will be reviewed to determine if it is the best basis for allocating the costs, Any changes in allocating department costs or changes in allocation basis will be provided to CITY with explanations for any deviation float the initial plan no later than the end of the third quarter. Both the COCAP and the LECAF will be prepared in accordance with U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, The LECAP referenced herein shall not contain COUNTY costs as set fordo in Category Four of Exhibit "1" and further the COCAP shall not contain COUNTY costs for treasurer tax collections. The COCAP and the LECAP will be completed by September 30th of each year far determining the actual costs for the prior year. For example, the actual cost for the calendar year 2009 would be completed by September 30, 2010. 6.4 CCM. Costs for Services shall be calculated utilizing the LECAP. The LECAP will be based on actual costs. The model based on the LECAF costs from two years prior will estimate costs for the current agreement year. The Per Commissioned Officer Rate as well as the dollar amount for Other Allocations for the contract year will be multiplied by (1) any cost of living or wage change(s) granted commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement for the calendar year immediately following the LECAP year, and by (2) a 1.25% multiplier for the calendar year immediately following the LECAP year; and by (3) any cost of living or wage change(s) granted commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement for the calendar year two years subsequent to the LECAP year; and by (4) a I.25% multiplier for the calendar year two years subsequent to the LECAP year After generating the Per Commissioned Officer rate for the interlocal agreement year using the Commissioned Officer Worksheet (Exhibit "1"), the number of Category One and Category Two officers will be updated to reflect current year staffing levels. The total contract costs then will be automatically calculated. This model can also be used for any MID -YEAR FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) ADJUSTMENTS. The CCM shall be provided by COUNTY to CITY by September 306 for the following year. 6.5 Retro -Active Salary Adjustinerrts. Should any applicable bargaining agreement not be settled in time to include any salaiy adjustments granted commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement in the contract calculation model for a given year, and that collective bargaining agreement is settled during that year, and the settlement contains a retroactive salary adjustment, COU1'NNTY will bill CITY for the full amount of CITY'S portion of the retroactive payment, CITY will be responsible for paying COUNTY within thirty (30) days of the billing date. Additionally, CO[JNTY will recalculate the estimated Interlocal Agreement amount employing the cost of living or wage inerease(s) grunted Page 5 of 18 commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement and adjust the remaining rnontltly payments. 6.6 Mid -Year Full Tinie Equivalent (FTE) Adjustments. In the event the Parties negotiate a change in full time positions, mid -year, such change, for purposes of calculating costs under the LECAP, can occur only ortee daring any interlocal agreement year and in any event no later than August 30th of such year. Additionally, COUNTY will recalculate the estimated interleeal agreement amount and adjust the remaining monthly payments, Any reduction would become operative only after the relevant notice and impact bargaining obligations for reductions in force are satisfied with the effected Collective Bargaining unit but in no event shall the delay in implementation exceed 60 days, 6.7 Settle and Adjust. The LECA? will be used to reconcile the actual Agreement cost for the year for which it is calculated to the amount the CITY paid the County during that same year as set forth in Section 6.9. After completing the Cost Calculation Model for the current Agreement year, any overage or underage front the settle and adjust will be applied to the total amount. This combined figure will follow the billing procedure. COUNTY shall provide CITY with its final adjustment in writing no later than September 30th of any calendar year The adjustment will include a copy of the full LECAP, CITY will have thirty (30) calendar days from its receipt of the written adjustinent to provide COUNTY with any written objections to the amounts set forth therein. COUNTY agrees to consider nil written objections received from CITY and reply to CITY no later than fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of CITY'S objections in the event that the Parties cannot mutually resolve any written objections(s) submitted by CITY within an additional fifteen (15) calendar day time frame, or such other time frame as the Parties may Mutually agree to, the objections shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in Sections No. 18. 6.S Capital Purchases. Capital items deemed necessary for all commissioned officers, excluding vehicles, with a cost greater than COUNTY capital threshold (currently $2,000) and less than $10,000, as well as capital items with a cost equal to or greater than $50,000, will be billed to CITY at the time of purchase contingent upon prior CITY authorization. CITY will be billed according to CITY'S current usage percentage of the items, COUNTY will bill CITY for this cost at the time of the purchase and payment will be due within 30 days of the billing date. After the LECAP is completed for the year of the purchase(s), COUNTY will give CITY credit for the full amount paid in that year. All capital items purchased will become the property of COUNTY. Capital items that have been purchased with grant fiends by either CITY or COUNTY, or ether finding sources, and capital items that are not utilized in providing law enforcement service to CITY, will not be charged to CITY. All capital items that are utilized in providing law Inge 6 of 18 enforcement service to CITY and that wore not purchased with other funding sources will be incorporated as fixed assets in the COCAP and reimbursed through depreciation. The COCAP is a cost within the L.ECAP, 6,9 Billing Procedure. COUNTY will bill CITY for one -twelfth of COUNTY'S calculated contract amount as determined in contract calculation Model during the first week of the Month. Regular monthly payments by CITY will be due by the end of the month in which they are billed. 6.10 Penalty. At the sole option of COUNTY, a penalty may be assessed on any late payment of the ,monthly calculated contract amount owed by CITY in an amount equal to lost interest earnings had the payment been timely paid and invested in the Spokane County Treasurer's Investment Fool, Any resolution of a disputed amount through use of the arbitration process identified in Section No,1$ shall include at the request of any ?arty. a determination of whether interest is appropriate, including the amount. SECTION NO, 7: 1M!IUNICIPAL POLICE AUTHORITY CITY shall retain all police powers and by virtue municipal police authority on the SHERIFF, of this Agreement CITY confers SECTION NO. 8; OFFICER ASSIGNMENT, RETENTION, DISCIPLINE AND HIRING. COUNTY is acting hereunder as an independent contractor as to: 8.1 Hiring. The SHERIFF shall hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees/deputies according to the collective bargaining agreement, civil service rules, and state and federal laws, 8.2 Standards of Performance Governed by the SHERIFF. Control of personnel, standards of performance, discipline and all other aspects of performance shall be governed by the SHERIFF. Provided, however that only quatifiedd, trained personnel meeting all of the requirements of applicable state laws or regulations shall be utilized in the performance of Services 8.3 Assignment of Deputies. SHERIFF shall use, whenever possible, deputies who volunteer for duty within CITY. In those instances where there are an insufficient number of deputies who volunteer for duty within CITY, then SHERIFF shall determine who shall. be assigned for duty, SHERIFF and CITY will work together to encourage deputy retention to provide continuity of' sery Lce. Page 7or18 8.4 Patrol Districts. CITY'S Police Chief wi11 establish patrol districts within CITY in order to assure accurate collection of data related to criminal traffic activity. The patrol districts will coincide within CITY limits asclosely as passible without compromising efficient use of reactive patrol. deputies A patrol district is a geographical area of a size and configuration designed to minimize response tunes to citizen's calls for services. Response is typically measured from the trine a call is received to the time the unit arrives on the scene. 8.5 Dedicated Patrol. Units. SHERIFF recognizes that it is providing sworn police services dedicated to CITY. In so doing, the law enforcement services shall be dedicated to CITY and shall not be used elsewhere i,vitlrin COUNTY. Provided however, in the event of an emergency or a call by a deputy for assistance,, mutual aid may be rendered. SECTION NO. 9: CITY POLICE CHIEF AND PRECINCT COMMANDER SELECTION, REMOVAL AND DEITIES, AS WELL AS CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSIBILITIES THERETO. 9.1 Selection of Police Chief or Precinct Commander. When, for any reason, there occurs a vacancy in the position of Police Chief or Precinct Commander, the SHERIFF shall designate three or more SHERIFF Deputies of the rank of Lieutenant or higher, or as otherwise agreed by the parties, as candidates for each of the positions of CITY Police Chief or Precinct Commander. The positions of Police Chief or Precinct Commander shall be appointed from said lists of qualified candidates by the City Manager, 9.2 Removal of Police Chief or Precinct Commander. 9.2.1 Removal by SHERIFF. The SHERIFF may remove the Police Chief or Precinct Commander at any time after consultation with the City Manager. 9.2.2 Removal By City Malinger. The S IIT1FF shall remove the Police Chief or Precinct Commander at any time after the written request and consultation of the City Manager, 9.2.3 Reduction of Precinct Commander's Rank Due to Economic Conditions. A reduction in Sheriff's Office Civil Service Rank due to economic necessity shall not be the sole basis for the removal of the appointed Precinct Commander by either the City Manager or the SHERIFF. 9.3 Duties of Police Chief. The Police Clrief shall report to the City Manager or his/'her designee and to the existing command structure within SfERIFF's Office. The duties of the Police Chief shall include: Page 8 of 18 9.31 Working with the City Ivtanager or his/her designee to establish goals, objectives and performance measures for CITY police services which reflect specific needs within CITY; 9,3.2 Coordinating police activities within CITY, including hours of operation and CITY specific protocols and procedures, attending tneetings and providing reports as requested by the City Manager and such other duties common to a City Police Chief including enforcement of CITY codes and ordinances; 9.3,3 Reviewing the performance of deputies assigned to CITY. Reporting to CITY Manager or his/her designee and SHERIFF any serious recommendations for performance improvement; 9.3.4 Identify duties of deputies assigned to CITY as specific needs arise or as requested by the City Manager or his/her designee within the context of established policies and procedures. Reporting to SHERIFF any changes in duty of CITY assigned deputies; 9.3.5 Overseeing implementation within CITY of all SHERIFF policies and procedures. Maintaining a copy of SHERIFF procedures on file at City Hall for CITY'S reference: SI-IER.IFF shall be notified of any public disclosure requests to view or obtain a copy of the policies and procedures on file. 9.3,6 Notifying the City Manager or leis/her designee of any change in SHERIFF procedures or policies, or resource as permitted by this agreement; 9.3.7 Identifying areas of supplemental training for deputies assigned to CITY, Making recommendations to SHERIFF for supplemental training. Making recommendations to the City Manager or leis/leer designee for training not provided by SHERIFF; 9.3.8 Providing supervision and direction to the Precinct Commander, Lieutenants and Sergeants assigned to CITY as well as other assigned personnel, and acting as liaison with SHERIFF Command Staff; 93.9 Maintaining communication between the City Manager and SHERIFF coinixiatid structures to ensure that changes in SHERIFF policies are agreeable to CITY and that change in CITY policies are agreeable to SHERIFF. Iii the event a CITY procedure, policy, goal or operation differs from the SHERIFF'S, CITY Manager or his/her designee, SHERIFF ands COUNTY shall meet and mutually determine which policy will prevail; and Prig 9 of 18 9.3.10 Notifying the City Manager or his/her designee or any significant criminal occurrence or civil emergency within. CITY or Region that would impact the public safety or operations of CITY. 9.4 Duties of the Precinct Commander. The Precinct Commander shall act as Chief in his/her absence and under the Chief as CITY Police Department's primary administrative assistant. 9.5 Duties of the City Manager. The City Manager or hi&ther designee shall have the responsibility of providing general direction and supervision to the assigned Police Chief relative to the furnishing of law enforcement services to CITY as set forth in chapter 35A.13 RCW and the terms of this Agreement. 9,6 Quarterly Meetings - Sheriff and City Manager. The SI-IERIFF and the City Manager shall meet on a quarterly basis to ensure regular communication and to seek joint consideration of all matters of concern regarding the law enforcement Agreement. Either party may invite representatives from their respective organizations to attend. It is intended that the Parties iri these meetings review the Interlocal Agreement and discuss matters of mutual interest; monitor cost trends, work ,jointly on potential cost savings, revenue sources and other budgetary matters that may impact service levels; seek long- term sustainability of contract terms; consider changes in labor contracts, allocation of resources or other potential cost changes and changes to the cost allocation plan that may impact either party. The dates of these meetings will be determined by mutual agreement but should coincide with the budget cycles of each party. 9.7 Quarterly meeting — Financial Representatives. Representatives for CITY and COUNTY shall meet quarterly to discuss potential cost changes and changes to the COCAP, the LECAP or the CCM. SECTION NO. 10: OBSERVATION OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS CITY may participate with other cities that contract with COUNTY for law enforcement services to select no more than two (2) representatives from the contracting cities to observe labor negotiations between COUNTY, SHERIFF and the Collective Bargaining units representing the employees of the SHERIFF, provided that such observers adhere to rules established by COUNTY, the SHERIFF and the bargaining units for the negotiations, SECTION NO. 11: PROPERTY, EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING 11.1. Ownership of Property and Equipment. The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in association with either SHERIFF or CITY meeting their responsibilities under the terms of this Agreement, shall remain tivith the original owner at Page 10 of 18 all times to include termination, unless otherwise specifically and mutually agreed upon in writing by the Parties to this Agreement. 11.2 Stationery, Notices and Forms. CITY shall supply at its own cost and expense any special supplies, logos or patches, stationery, notices, forms where such must be issued in the name of CITY. 11.3 Additional Technology. CITY desires to maintain a police force that is trained and equipped with the latest technology. SHERIFF agrees to provide police service personnel providing services under this agreement that are trained and equipped with such technology as is customarily provided to deputies providing law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of Spokane County. Any technology not currently in use or not customarily provided to patrol deputies, may be requested by CITY or SHERIFF. Parties agree to meet and confer over the need For the acquisition, training, or use of new technology with the final decision regarding the acquisition and use of raew technology resting solely with the SHERIFF so long as CITY and COUNTY have the necessary financial resources to acquire such technology and train deputies in its use. Such costs shall be incorporated into the LECAP. 11.4 Training. CITY has indicated that it may desire to have the deputies providing Services to CITY under the terms of this Agreement attend additional or sulpplementa.l. training. The SHERIFF agrees not to unreasonably withhold approval of my written request(s) by CITY for deputies providing Services under the terms of this Agreement tc attend additional or supplemental training. The SHERIFF may also require staff assigned to provide Services to CITY under the terms of this Agreement to participate in necessary state and federal training and conferences that focus on the prevention of crime and the protection of CITY'S citizens. The costs of any additional or supplemental training requested by CITY under this section and approved by the SHERIFF, or determined necessary by the SHERIFF shall be born solely by CITY. 11.5 Police Department Building, Ylaintenartee, and Janitorial. CITY will provide offices, to irrclL1de sufficient parking, for the City of Spokane Valley Police Department located at 12710 E. Sprague Avenue, City of Spokane Valley, 99216 or at such other location mutually agreed to between the CITY and SHERIFF, CITY .shall provide all operation, maintenance and janitorial services for said offices. SECTION NO. 12: COMMUNITY IDENTITY 12.1 Patrol Vehicles. Patrol vehicles that are assigned to CITY tnay display the color, identification and other logo of CITY at CITY's sole expense. Additionally, the vehicles will indicate that they are SHERIFF vehicles. SHERIFF and CITY will determine the form of identification jointly. Page 11 of 18 12.2 Uniform. SHERIFF maintains a uniform directed by state law. It is a uniform that carries a great deal of pride. CITY recognizes that the assigned personnel will retain the uniform of the Spokane County Sheriffs Office; however, SHERIFF agrees that assigned personnel may wear additional identification in the nature of a pin, patch, uniform items, or other like identification indicating affiliation with CITY. The nature and design of any additional identification will be determined jointly by SHERIFF and CITY and provided to SHERIFF by CITY at CITY'S sole expense. SECTION t. O....13: RECORDS All records prepared, owned, used or retain(' by COUNTY or SHERIFF in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed COUNTY property and shall he made available to CITY upon request by the City Manager subject to the records retention schedule set forth by the Washington State Secretary of State, the attorney client and attorney work product privileges set forth in statute, court rule or case law. The Parties agree to cooperate in complying with the provisions of Chapter 42.50 RCW, SECTION NO. 14: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES/IMPOSSIBILITY A delay or interruption in or failure of perform ince of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from uncontrollable circumstances shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting from any change in or new Taw, order, rule or regulation of any nature which renders providing of services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement legally impossible, and any other circumstances beyond the control of the SHERIFF, which render legally impossible the performance by the SI°IERIFF of its obligations under this Agreement, shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. SECTION NO, 15: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES For the purpose of this section, the terminology "COUNTY" shall also include SHERIFF, `[Ire Parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. COUNTY shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of CITY, that CITY is interested only in the results to be achieved and that the right tocontrol the particular mariner, method and means in which the Services are performed is solely within the discretion of the SHERIFF, Any and ail employees who provide services to CITY under this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the SHERIFF. The SHERIFF shall be solely responsible for the =duet and actions of all employees under this Agreement and any liability that inay attach thereto. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant Page 12 of 18 or representative of CITY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the SHERIFF or COUNTY for imy prkrpose. SMTION NO 16t L1iABILITY For the put -pose of this Section, the terminology "COUNTY" shall also include the "PROSECUTING ATTORNEY." (a) COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or ornission of COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of perfcrrning services puuurant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against CITY, COUNTY shall, defend the same at its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against CITY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against CITY and COUNTY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, COUNTY shall satisfy the same. (b) CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of CITY, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against COUNTY, CITY shall defend the stone at its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said sunt be rendered against COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against COUNTY and CITY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, CITY shall satisfy the same. (c) If the comparative negligence of the Parties and their officers and employees is a cause of such damage or injury, the liability, Loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the Parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of indemnity shall apply to such proportion, (d) Where an officer or employee of a Party is acting under the direction and control of the other Party, the Party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity andlor• omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other Party's officer or employee's negligence. (e) Each Party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the Agreement. (f) The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Patty's immunity under Washington's Inidustrial Insrirarice Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the Page 13 of 18 other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the itaderrrnitor's employees. The Parties acknowledge that those provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by diem. (g) COUNTY and CITY agree to either self insure or purchase polices of insurance covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence with $5,000,000 aggregate limits including professional liability and auto. SECTION NO. 17: INITIATIVES AND LOCAL BUDGET REDUCTIONS The Parties recognize that revenue -reducing initiative(s) passed by the voters of Washington and/or local ruveriue reductions (i.eloss of sales tax) andlor local government mandates in.ay substantially reduce local operating revenue for CITY, COUNTY or both Parties, The Parties agree that it is necessity to have flexibility to reduce the contracted amount(s) in this Agreement in response to budget constraints resulting from the passage of State-wide revenue -reducing initiatives) andior local revenue reductions and/or local government mandates. If such an event occurs, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to achieve a mutually agreeable resolution in a timely fashion. SECTION NO. 1S: DISPUTE RESOLUTION Any dispute regarding the interpretation of, failure to perform, or the costs for services assessed under the terms of this agreement between the SHERIFF, COUNTY or CITY which cannot be resolved between the respective parties shall be subject to arbitration. Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing and considered by the COUNTY CEO ("Chief Executive Officer") and the City Manager if it is a monetary dispute. if it is a noon -monetary dispute, it shrill be reduced to writing and considered by the SHERIFF and City Mazaager. If the COUNTY CEO or SI-IERIFF respectively and the City Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. COUNTY or SHERIFF, respectively, and CITY shall have the light to designate one person each to act as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a thini arbitrator, The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the Parties and shall be subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW. The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the respective Parties. SECTION NO. 19: ASSIGNMENT Poge 14 of 18 No party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of the other Parties. Nothing in this section shall prohibit COUNTY or SHERIFF from contracting with third parties for services provided for in this Agreement. SECTION NO. 20: NOTICES All notices called for or provided for in this Agreement shall be in writing and nmst he served on any of the Parties either personally or by certified mail, return -receipt requested, sent to the Pasties at their respective addresses herein above given. Notices seat by certified mail shall be deemed served when deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, SECTION NO. 21: VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each Party that this Agreement shall be governed by the taws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, writ in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION NO. 22: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The Parties shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO. 23: DISCLAIMER Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construe€1 in any manner that would limit either Party's authority or powers under law. SECTION NO. 24: HEADINGS The Section and subsection headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not he deemed to, define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. SECTION NO. 25; ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall he deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties. Parties have read and understand the whole of Page i5 of t8 the above Agrecrncat and now state that no representations, promises or agreements not expresser) in this Agreement have been made to induce either to execute the same, SECTION NO. 26: COUNTERPARTS This Agreement inay be executed in. any rtutnber of multiple signed originals, eacli of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. SECTION NO, 27: AGREEMENT TO BE TILED COUNTY shall file this Agreement with such offices or agencies as required by chapter 39.34 RCW. SECTION NO. 28: TIME OF ESSENCE OF AGREEMENT Time is of the essence of this Agreement and in case any Party fails to perforin the obligations on its part to be performed at the time fixed for the performance of the respective obligation by the terms of this Agreement, the other respective Party may, at its election, hold the other Party Liable for all costs and damages caused by such delay. SECTION NO. 29:: CHAPTER 39.34 RCW REQUf RED CLAUSES A, Purpose. See Section No, 3 above. B. Aereerraertt to be Filed. See Section No. 27 above. C. Duration. See Section No. 4 above. D. Termination. See Section No. 4 above. E. Organization of Separate Entity and Its Powers. No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this Agreement, F Res onsibilities o£tlte Parties. See applicable Sections within Agreement. Property upon Termination. See Section Nos. 4.4 and 11 above. SECTION NO. 30: SEVERABILITY Page 16ora8 The Parties agree that if any parts, tennis or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity ofthe remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations ofthe Parties shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision. SECTION NO, 31: THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES, This Agreement is intended for the benefit of COUNTY, CITY and SHERIFF and not for the benefit of any third parties, SECTION NO. 32. SURVIVAL Without being excursive, Section 16, 20, and 21 of this Agreement shall survive any termination, expiration or determination of invalidity of this Agreement in whole or in part. Any other Sections of this Agreement which, by their sense and context, are intended to survive shall also survive. SECTION NO. 33. MEDIA RELEASES Media releases concerning law enforcement activities covered under this Agreement will be prepared by the SHERIFF'S Public Information Officer, Any such release of infortuation to the media that is cieerned to be sensitive or likely to cause concern or alarm shall be provided to the City Manager before its release. CITY shall not issue any media releases regarding law enforcement activities covered under this Agreement without prior approval ofthe SHERIFF F unless othetvvise agreed by the Parties. SECTION NO. 34: MODIFICATION This Agreement may only be modified in writing by the mutual written agreement of the Parties, (This space intent3onally left blank. Pnge17of18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date and year opposite their respective signatures, DATED: 8// 7A0 - ATTEST: CLERK OF THE B , , . ' •Nr% 47j,r` //1(-1V/ All,_.- 247 i ' DANIELA ERICKSON •••• 1 y‘m• DATED: f DATED: , 7.) CHRISTINE BAINBPJDGE `-k- City Clerk Approved as to form o): BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COT.INTY, WASHINGTON MARK RICEARD hair •1:=D 0'1'r BONNIE MAGER, tce-C11;,1 TO MIELKE, Commissioner SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF: OZZIE kNE2OVICI-1 '-- DKat6tt ** * $* 0 ice o the City Attorney Page 18o'18 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: — — MIKE JACKSON, linterim City Manager Sheriff's Office - 2010 Commissioned QfTieer Worksheet Total Commissioned FTE: 236.00 Total included in Comrnissiueed Officer Choate: 217.67 excludes otiose aHo aced sio-rq with aerrtulisrrarve caws andarose that are coup resp +r - Category 1 Dedicated FTEs Nate: 'UninCINpwrated' here isle ude8 smatO nfrreS tfninearp Valley Modica i Lk Deer Park Total Admin Chief/Inspectoraq 1 Sergeant 1 Lieu Lollard 0.25 4-75 1 Patrol Captain 1 1 Lieutenant 2 24 ___.._ Sergeant 7 6 13 Detectivecnrp. 4 5 1n Deputes s2 .. 5 10.1 TrallicirCVED Sergeant 1 1 Detective/Di: p. 2 1 3 Deputies 7 _ 12 Property Crimes .Si-`rgeartt - 1 DelectiiterCo p. w 8 9 Community Services Deputy 2 Dolneatic Vietenee CclettvolC rp. Deputy i 1 SRO. Deputies 6 Total D 4icatrd FTEs 83.25 80.75 5 J 172 Dedicated FTEs enduding SRO: $0.26 76.75 5 2 154 Category 2 Shored $ervitcs Investigatiuef Community ServiceVK-13 haler Crines Captain Ljeutenant Sergeant Detectives sex crimes Sergeant Detectives Property Crimes TP Sergeant fetor ,vas ladrebM ISuiCI uiC#> Cr rrTPPrM01ti %1DTF % Lieutenant 1.00 Sergeant 1,00 Detectives x_33 Dop ti P4 2.25 Gang Enforcement Sergeant 7.00 DeleetiweiCorp 2.00 Deputies 1.00 Total lnvnxligative 37y2 Irddlelligense Led Policing hepates MsrinetSeareh Rescua Deputies 1.7S fJe�vlies Tgtal investigative Support Sere 45.67 City 2010 Final CCM 063410 (4) Comm Critter Worksheet Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Starr Undrrsheriffs PIO Sergeant TralningrOPS Licnlznarl .Sergeant Deputies Total Administrative Category 4 County Rc"...T.rn i.itiI Ay} Other CoSt Recovery McEhod Marine Ps r t Deputy DEA DelecIrveiCroirp IMF Detective/Go rp Eltputies Sex Orf. Res_ Yeri1. D~ivercoro Sea Oft. Res. Veri#. SA03 Dete#nreJCorn WA McO Grant Deteet veFCorp otniid sax PrBd Gant Deputy Aurin Sheriff 1Jn 0.75 Gf Tato) Gaunty101.her 10, Exhibit 1 Services The COUNTY will provide law enforcement services consisting of the following: Category 1— Dedicated FTE's • Valley Police Administration • Patrol • Traffic Investigation • Property Crimes • Community Services • Domestic Violence 'Unit • School Resource Officer Category 2 — Shared Services Investigative/Community Services/K-9 • Major Crimes o Sex Crimes • Property Crimes Task Force • Investigative Support Unit • Criminal Intelligence Unit • Drug Endangered Children Detective • Joint Terrorism Task Force • Meth Detective • Drug Task Force • Gang Enforcement • Intelligence LED Policing • ]vlarineiSearch and Rescue • K•9 Category 3 — Allocated with Administrative Costs • Administration-Undersheriff and Staff • Public Irrforrnatioi Officer • Office of Professional Standards and Training Category 4 -- County Responsibility or Other Cost Recovery Method • Civil Process • Marine Patrol Grant • DEA Grant • Drug Task Force Grant • Sex Offender Registration + Sex Offender Residency Verification Grant • WA Meth Grant • Child Sex Predator Grant • Sheriff Lav Enforces ientServices Allocated by Vateioits Basis • SCOPE/SIRT • Radio Dispatch • Helicopter • Forensics • Crime Check • Records Management • Property Room • Explosive Disposal • Communications Law Enforcement Services included in the Per Commissioned Officer Rate • LEIS • Crime Analysis Unit • Garage • Firing Range • Fleet • SWATfHostege Negotiation • Extra Duty Employment • Reservist and Explorer Units • Countywide Indirect Costs — OMB A-87 • Annual Changes in Accrued Leave Spokane County Sheriffs Office Law Enforcement Cast Allocation Model summary of Ghent Charges Type of Aliocatian: A-87 1 Based an 2006 Actuals Other Actual APIocabrons Summary - Budget Other Allocations Total 3.25% 1.250% BUDGET 3.25% 1.250% BUDGET Other Charge 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2016 Allocations for 2008 COLA MULTIPLIER CONTRACT COLA MULTIPLIER CONTRACT Spokane 1.562,405 1,562,405 50,778 20,165 1,633.348 53,084 21.080 1,707,512 Spokane Valley 2,159,654 2,189,664 71,164 28,260 2,289.068 74,395 29.544 2,393.027 Deer Park 112,040 112,044 3,6.11 1,446 117,127 3,807 1.512 122.446 Millwood 60,011 60,011 1,950 775 62.736 2.039 810 65,5$5 Spangle 4,036 4.036 131 52 4,219 137 54 4,416 Rockford 10,815 10.615 345 137 11,097 361 143 11,601 Airway Heights 68,715 68,715 2,233 887 71.635 2.335 927 75.097 Fairfield 7,643 7,543 245 97 7,085 256 102 8,243 Liberty Lala 73,889 73,389 2,401 954 77,244 2,510 997 80,751 Medical Latce 43,760 43,760 1,422 565 45,747 1,487 500 47.824 Later' 2,280 2,280 74 29 2,383 77 31 2,491 Waverly 1,648 1,648 54 21 1,723 56 22 1,001 Chaney 15,213 16,213 494 196 15.903 517 205 16,625 Fairchild AFB 3,073 3,073 160 40 3.213 104 41 3,358 Unincorporated County 3,231,984 3,231,954 105,039 41,713 3376.736 '109,600 43.607 3,532.152 Total 7,386,876 7,386.875 240,073 g5,337 7.722,288 250,974 99,666 8,672,925 County ResponsibilitylOther Cast Recovery Total Casts Net of Revenues 4%541,344 41,541.344 1.350.094 536.143 43427.581 1,411.396 560.437 45.399.454 48,928,220 48,928.220 1,590.167 631,480 51,149,857 1,682,371 660.153 53.472.391 CornrniSsiored Officer Hate 125,295 4,072 1,617 130,984 4,257 1,691 136,932 City 2010 Final CCM 06 30 10 (4) 2008 Actuals 10 2011 w MultpIrs Exhibit 2 Sheriff's Office - 2914 Corner stoned Officer W orkshect Total Comrrgssioned IfE: 236.99 Total Included in Gornmissirsned Officer Charge, 217.67 Excdaades!time allocated aloi g uvfh admrdnisfrahve costr d b e lhaf are COENtrY respan-catr++y. City 2010 Final CCM O13-3410 (4) Category 2 Shared SaeviCe1; Envesfigativef Community ServicesIK-9 Major Crimes Cerin Lieutenant Sergeant DM -mimes Ser Crimes Sergeant DeI claves P roperty Crimes TF Sergeant Detectives 3 ISIJJCILLIDECLITTFJMoth °JJDTF% ! inrlermrd 1.04 Sergeant 1_CC D eter ares u.23 CeNliE4 7 �5 gang Fame nment Sergei! 1. Cil Delieei neaJCor a 2. CC Deputies 1.36 Total Investigative 37.6 Intellelligenw L. Pet icing Dopufiha aMwdncl5ea ren+ 1Yr`sCue Deputies ice D eprrli s Total lowestigathre&Support Sery 45.57 COfnrn macer Wnrksneet Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Llndersherilfs P1Ct I-raining/0PS laeutenare Serge:alit Deputies Tntal Arirruniste.ttivr Category 4 County Ro. ppnsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method Civil LUeutenarrt Deputes tes MArint f"BtrC1 licputy DEA. DetcctwdCnrp rim DetectivelCe7rp Deputes . 7.50 0.75 Sex Off. Res. writ- _ Dete#srarCerp 4.16 Sec Cff. Res_ Writ- SAGS DelecfveJCorp 1.C41 WA mem GtaMt DetectiverCoy Child Sere Peed Grant Deputy dmin€ Sheriff 4.67 Total CounlyrOthcr 104.5 Category 1 Dedicated FTEs N V: -Ur seoeporaied' here ulchides snratrtines. Unincorp Valley Undies' Lk Deer Park Total Admin Chiefflrtspeetor 1 1 Sergeant 1 1 Lieutenant ralret 0.25 4.75 1 C-autain 1 1 Lieutenant 2 2 4 Sergeant 7 6 13 OetectiveiCorp_ _ 4. 6 t0 Deputies 52 44 103 TrarficiCVEO Sergeant 1 Dntn- diu Curg. 2 3 Dcput 5 12 Property t 1rInre$ Sergeant 1 1 pCl veJCorp. 7. fi _ $ Community Services Depty i 2 Domestic VSelsnce Deteetve iCo p, 1 Deputy 1 SRO Deputies -• b Tu4 L Dedicated FTE 8325 80.75 B 2 172 De.cated FTC; r)iciuding SR43 SO.25 76.76 6 2 164 City 2010 Final CCM O13-3410 (4) Category 2 Shared SaeviCe1; Envesfigativef Community ServicesIK-9 Major Crimes Cerin Lieutenant Sergeant DM -mimes Ser Crimes Sergeant DeI claves P roperty Crimes TF Sergeant Detectives 3 ISIJJCILLIDECLITTFJMoth °JJDTF% ! inrlermrd 1.04 Sergeant 1_CC D eter ares u.23 CeNliE4 7 �5 gang Fame nment Sergei! 1. Cil Delieei neaJCor a 2. CC Deputies 1.36 Total Investigative 37.6 Intellelligenw L. Pet icing Dopufiha aMwdncl5ea ren+ 1Yr`sCue Deputies ice D eprrli s Total lowestigathre&Support Sery 45.57 COfnrn macer Wnrksneet Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs Command Staff Llndersherilfs P1Ct I-raining/0PS laeutenare Serge:alit Deputies Tntal Arirruniste.ttivr Category 4 County Ro. ppnsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method Civil LUeutenarrt Deputes tes MArint f"BtrC1 licputy DEA. DetcctwdCnrp rim DetectivelCe7rp Deputes . 7.50 0.75 Sex Off. Res. writ- _ Dete#srarCerp 4.16 Sec Cff. Res_ Writ- SAGS DelecfveJCorp 1.C41 WA mem GtaMt DetectiverCoy Child Sere Peed Grant Deputy dmin€ Sheriff 4.67 Total CounlyrOthcr 104.5 Spokane County Sheriff's Office Laser t;nforcernent Cost Allocation Madel Af,+ccatron of Commissioned Officers Eel -wean Unincorporated and Srrnalf CJI ©s Based an 2000 Actuals Type of Allocation: A-87 % of Regular Population Total Officers Un'incorp. Unincorporated - Distract 8 11,086 I 86.9% 5.22 5.22 Millwood 1,655 I 13.1% 078 Total District 8 12,731 I 6.00 Unincorporated - District 14 Unincorporated - District 11 Total Unincorporated -Gist 10 & 11 Spangle Rockford Fairfield Latah Waverly Total Districts 10 and 11 Unincorporated - Districts 8,10,11 Unincorporated - other than Dist. 8,10,11 Total Unincorporated without small cities 14.739 10,824 25,583 918% 275 1.0% 499 1.8% 603 2.2% 194 0.7% 127 0.5% 27,261 '00.0°% 11.25 0.12 0.22 0.27 0.09 0.06 Population numbers used 2008 statistics City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) Small Clties 11.25 ,47 62.25 78,72 -5paxarra Gamy Sheriff's Mae Llw Ertnrimoru Cost AltawS E bl caUlAtsbnal Mar S1R.e.wr Rosetta' 700E Actuals -.. _. Comatalwod O11tears dedicated to Local SurP66WtlamJ Tvov of ittranitwle SPo,1mr V'r.cY Cede:950, ES 01405913 ERO5 15,75 Se3xiaf 51550/050 0451551 400 peer Pork Atwood 200 4.78 1.00 Spa ic Rocl,S4ntl 9.12 022 AkncY 1.3555t7 hWdleai flaps fa+safrl Lotto L a Utah W 027 S 60 6.09 4.06 Faulddd lMriwepor le Caw areanionad IOU( Cheney] AF$ d City Tobi Cam feFxFM r Rao F I 7.71 i r64.04: 340 4,06 Toth OedMIOd FTEs I 80.35 9.40 033 4.12 U` 1comy 2 _. ItafistIc Avg RP4S 3 Caa= iTO L3rru >fteve rJektVi :714 - i $m6. tc 9 iT 4]] 169 Dollars 422 0.27 500 046 111.72 L72.90 49.81 743 0.3S 0.44 4111..7,19-31 107.090.44 J#'3i96 4,79-0.110 4.04420 ODEt - 206 604 D 4.072.95 _ - 101,0234E 7 24012 12$1156 - Ifilt 7tlliglrvnro Led Pelitle0 6e;roolccl FTEs_axdudFq SROs Total Carlrttaly FTEs 2,$70.00 25.04 4CS,241179 4.705&7 6.611.95 116 4,170 _ 244 54.50 1.06 1J1.R9534.12 =OS 915.15 151.43 76.7S 2.00 0.78 0.12.-_.0.22 176,226.36 -7397 1 .8.51_15 271.95 504.95 -1670 161,969 7,3Tf-!.22,56 4.1171.44007 136.948 27,02 200. v66 e r 181.03: 10&.493,92: 594.557.96 17.6.902. 5.0.0 927 609.47 _3.00 11,49,11,5' 4.,114 040 70.y2 r 16&00 .. 19fi.06 - -- 12825 - - leaT s.7jl. I 3.76.561_112 1a4.aq271 78,14_ lty Serginos Cods tor Avo taiS S GYCS an61L•8 1,158 24J66 . 112.74846 45.547.44 4ao¢a.tu+24.I2s,04.I.74,-906.19_ from 20017 Atto4S 773,49022 243627 1,36.30 36206 191.03 2.761.419.80 - 217.67 Egtmolcd Weu 11.aMe Caty 24510 Fme1 t CRUW.4.10-10 E4 2.010 Comm O kr L ..i y 9p4k4ne Q 4 rity 6hetIFfe. Oliic4 Lew Enforcenieft Cast lo iVon 0pr1e1 Cornu iSs.1caed OJfcer Rele end A Bore riven Basad en 2406 Ao111011 2014 Atrocatlon of Commissioned Officer Charge Spokane Spokane Valley Deer Park M Iiwuod Spangly Rockfard Airasy HuIahlls Fe I rfetd Liba ty Laky Mediu! Lase Latah, Wave rl'1 Cheney FaIrA1i'd k59 Unhcar.xraieo Court Tafel Pb Jurisdictions Commissioned Officer R11t4 Ty i p QF,4110{eHon: Dedham eel Investigative $chad SRO Told h?edfcames Commissioned Community Ser. Rescumn SRO Contact Nei $R0 Comnlleslona0 [1fflcera L3lfder ^.hite K-9Cne a Cfflcllrs Oita •e Rsven.e Che ie CRcer Chetr0 7835 10.50 .499 3,156,025 2.00 273.933 112,398 0-28 107.450 45,517 0-12 18,6/6 3,013 0.22 3n.n78 49,020 T24 0.27 30,346 4,045 945 5.00 084,658 113,4:0 0.00 11,634 2,438 0.06 7.655 1,354 362 _ 181 78.72 10,779.992 2,764,154 547.729 67.056 48,0,674 14,1401,995 1.0+3 ia3,932 18,?34 120,1018 646,428 182.897 21,589 75,107 724 41,391 945 706,146 14,134 @,045 382 1e. 3,00 417.795 50.292 364,503 1 x01014 164.00 22.459.791 4,253,757 Total Commissioned Officers Salving Local Jurisdictions 2048 Actinide for Coterrllsaivried Omer Ret* Will MUllipilera 13.00 217,67 136,032 Cil-!, 2010 Fina. CC1.+, 65-30-1c (4} 2J10 Commissioned i)'ncer.slrpc 1,005,4i3 134,117 9e1,9i1 29.071-674 Spokane County Sheriff'sOfflee Law Enforcement Cost AllocationModel Summary of Chant Charges Based on 2008 Actuals J spo:pane Commissioned Officer Spokarle Valley Deer Park iyli1lwaod Spangle Rockford Airway Heights Fairfield Liberty Lake Medical Latta Latah Charge 13,018,019 470,641 143,142 20,113 73,329 Waverly Cheney Fairchild AFB Other Allocations 1,562,405 2,189,664 15,207,683 112,040 582,681 60,011 203,154 4,036 24,149 10,615 83,944 69,377 45,505 63 37,952 828 166 13,050 Actual Total Charge for 2008 1,562,405 8,299 68,715 7,543 73,889 43,760 331 166 2,280 1,648 15,213 3,073 74,717 43,925 15,340 9,947 15,545_ Settle and Adjust PAI[] 2010 2008 CONTRACT City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) 2008 Settle and Adjust Spokane County Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model Summary of Client Charges Based on 2008 Actuals Summary - Charges to Clients Spokane Spokane Valley Deer Park Millwood Spangle Roc kfa rd Airway Heights Fairfield Liberty Lake Medical Lake Latah Waverly Cheney Fairchild AFB Commissioned Officer Charge Ty.c of Allocation. Other Allocations Total Contract Budget far2014 14,146,995 506,429 152,997 21,589 75,107 724 41,391 905 798,148 14,130 9,005 362 181 1,707, 512 2,393, 027 122,446 65,585 4,410 11,601 75,097 8,243 80,751 47 824 2,491 1,801 16,625 3,358 1,707,512 16,540,021 628.875 218,563 25,999 86,708 75,821 49,634 81,656 845,972 16,621 10,807 16,988 3,539 City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) Total Budgetfor2010 2008 Settle & Adjust Carry Forward 2010 Total Contract Budget Includin. Ca Forward 1,707,512 16,540,021 628,875 218,583 25,999 86,708 75,821 49,034 81,656 845,972 16,621 10,807 16,988 3,539 Month ly Billing 2010 1,378,335 ADDENDUM A: Spokane Valley Police Department Contract Services Spokane Valley Police Department (Commissioned Officers) Spokane County Sheriff Shared Resources split Countyf Clty Training/Professional Standards 7 FTE Marine Patralf5eerci3 & Resine L75 Deputies Intelligence Led Policing 1 Detective K-9 5 Deputies 1 nveSti kations investigative Captain —1 FTE Iravesrieative!_t, —7 FTE Major Crimes- 7 FTE Sex Crimes -- 7 FTE Joint Terrorism Task Force —1 Det. Safe Streets (Drug & Gang) - Dedicated Resources 100% Spokane Valley Police Chief Precinct Commander Lt. Administrative Sergeant Precin{t Front Desk Deputy (Daysliift Patrol) Dayshiift Commander Spokane Valley City Manager Traffic 1 Sergeant -1 Detective 5 Deputies Property and Drup Crime Investigations I Serge.ant 1D Detectives• 1 Deputy (Dedicated but also supervised by Inv. Lt.) Patrol 4 Sergeants 19 Deputies Nightshift Commander5.. Patrol 5 Sergeants z7 Deputies School Resource 4 Deputies Comm. 5rvs, Dnmfi5tic Valence 2 Deputies PAGE 107 Spokane Valley Police epartment Contract Services Introduction: The Spokane Valley Police Department (SVPD) is included as an Addendum to tho plan because their services are provided by contract with the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. The Spekare Valley Police Chief, Rick Van Leuven, reports to the City Manager and to the Spokane County Sheriff. The SVPD information in the Business Plan is important for • Provide information as to the police department's structure and how that translates into services to the city's citi- zen s. • Gain an understanding of the costs involved in providing these services. in reviewing the police department Business Plan, it is important to note that the Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement Services specifies the type and timing of budgetary changes that the city can make to law enforcement. The city conducted a study in 2013-2014 to assess the current staffing lovci of the Spokane Valley Police Department to determine if the staffing level was appropriate to meet the law enforcement needs of the community. The goal when embarking on this study was to ensure that every opportunity to maximize efficiency was explcred prior to considering adding personnel. Spokane Valley City staff in conjunction with Spokane Valley Police Command staff identified several opportunities to enhance the service delivered to the citizens. The result was a plan that was adopted by Council in 2014. The plan was a combination of enhancements to existing resources and included utilizing two new Patrol deputies In the most efficient way possible. In or- der to assess the value and return on the city's investment, new performance measures were added to the plan_ in time, this data will provide the information needed to determine whether or not these changes are meeting the service needs of the com- munity. FA( 1OB Spokane Valley Police Department f. Administrative and Patrol Divisions Spokane Valley Police Department Staffing Administrative Staffing Levu! Chief -1 Precinct Commander -1 Administrative Sergeant -1 Patrol Staffing Level. Lieutenants -2 Sergeants -8 Deputies -47} Canine -3 Spokane Valley of 5—Shared Marine deputies-2—Shared *Of the 47 deputies, one of those positions is used to staff the front desk Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Patrol division: Our Patrol Division operates under a broad philosophy that embraces a whole -hearted determination to protect and sup- port individual rights, while at all times providing for the security of persons and property within the community. This division is the backbone of an organization whose very existence is justified solely on the basis of community service, 1n general, Patrol's function is to respond to calls for assistance, act as a deterrent to crime, enforce state and local Taws and re- spond to emergencies 24 hours per day seven days per week. Specifically, this division provides the fallowing services within the lim- its of available resources: • Monitor, report, and investigate suspicious persons and situations, safety hazards, and unusual or illegal activity in the patrol area, to include vigilant observations of suspicious activity that may be tied to domestic or international terrorism; • Use Intelligence -Led Policing (ILP) methods, working in concert with Investigations and the RIG 9 intelligence Group, to implement an operational strategy to reduce crime through the combined use of analysis and criminal intelligence, focusing on active and recidivist offenders. The goal with ILP is to identify crime patterns, groups, and linked crimes to anticipate the crime in an effort to reduce criminal opportunities through directed patrolling; Maintain order, respond to emergencies, and conduct criminal investigations in an effort to identify, pursue, and arrest sus- pects and perpetrators of criminal acts; this also includes the collection of evidence. complete written reports, issue citations or warnings, and testify in court, when applicable: PAGE 109 Spokane Valley Police Department Patrol Divisions, continued ▪ Build relationships between Patrol, SCOPE members, and neighborhDod citizens in an effort to provide a safe living environment for the community and increase citizen awareness and involvement in community -oriented services; and, • inspect public establishments to ensure compliance with state law and jurisdictional ordinances. Impact of Staffing: Patrol deputies are the primary responders with respect to calls for service, and are the backbone of the agency. It is imperative that re- sponse times be as short as possible, as increased response times only cause more risk to both the public as well as officer safety_ Staff- ing levels can have a severe impact on response limes and the ability to answer lower priority calls. Population growth has been slowly but steadily increasing. Citizen -initiated calls for service have been increasing at a more rapid pace and have experienced a significant jump recently. For the first time in SVPD history, DAD Incidents topped 6,000 in July 2015. Best practice for law enforcement identifies Patrol deputies spending one-third of their time on proactive policing, initiating service Incidents, interacting with the public, and providing deterrent patrolling. Spokane Valley Police have always had a higher standard as nearly half of their calls were officer -initiated in the first couple of years of the City's existence, As Spokane Valley deputies have faced a higher cell load, their ability to be proactive has steadily decreased. Additionally, because of the increased call load, the number of lower priority calls without an officer response has increased. The City of Spokane Valley is split into six Patrol districts. There are four Patrol platoons comprised of 10 deputies each, two day platocns and two night platoons, each working 12 -hour shifts. Each night shift platoon works when the other platoon is off and the same is true of day platoons. The deputies in each platoon have staggered start times so ;bat approximately hail start an hour and a half later than the others. This insures that there is not a transition gap whon the day shift is over and the night shift begins. In addition, Power Shift covers the period of peak call Toad and the transition from day to night shift. Power Shift was partially implemented in March 15. Additionally, specialty units such as SWAT and EDU (Bomb Squad) are made up of deputies assigned to Patrol as well as detectives as- signed to the Investigative Unit. Many hours are invested in the training of these individuals in specialty fields. PAGE 110 Spokane Valley Police Department Power Shift Power Shift: In 2015, the Power Shift was created, which overlaps the existing day and night platoons. There are seven Power Shift positions; however, due to manpower shortages, the platoon currently has five deputies assigned. Members of the Power Shift platoon work each day from 3:00 p.m. until 1:CO a.m. during the highest concentration of calls for service. When fully staffed, the greatest number of deputies per shift are on weekends. Power Shift Schedule: PAGE 111 M T W TH F SA SU Assigned 3 3 4 4 4 7 S MInirnum 2 2 3 3 3 5 2 PAGE 111 Spokane Valley Police Department Patrol Division, continued Current Staffing: As with most law enforcement agencies across the country, the Spokane County Sheriff's Office is struggling with retention and recruitment of commissioned personnel. For the period 2003-2013, SCSO averaged eight commissioned losses annually. Losses for 2014 and 2015 were 21 and 24 respectively. These unprecedented losses are primarily due to three tactors. First, the demographic age distribution of the Sheriffs Office has resulted in an increased number of retirements. This trend will continue for the next several years. Second, SCSO is not competitive compared to many other regional law enforcement agencies with regard to pay and benefits This has resulted in the loss of personnel to other agencies and increased difficulty in attracting qualified candidates. Lastly, the attntton rate of newly hired personnel Is currently at 25%. Unfortunately, many of these are deputies successfully complete the training (nearly cne year) only to discover that a career in law enforcement is not for there. As of February 1, 2016. the anticipated 2016 retirements of commissioned personnel within the Sheriffs Office stands at 9 and the number of trainees (at various stages of training) is 13. With trainee attrition and other unexpected losses of commissioned personnel, it appears that 2016 will be a break even" year with regard to commissioned personnel. Therefore, it is expected that SVPD staffing levels will remain at, or near status quo, as SVPD carries a portion of the SCSO vacancies. Current vacancies within SVPD include 1 Traffic Unit sergeant, 1 traffic deputy, 2 detectives, and 1 investigative deputy. This does not include two Patrol deputy positions filled with injured personnel. PAGE 112 Spokane Valley Police Department Community Services Function: The Spokane Valley Crime Prevention program is a proactive effort to educate the public and provide material and training that will reduce opportunities for crime in our city. One deputy is assigned to the Spokane Valley Police Department and provides: • Security surveys on request for commercial, residential and multi -family housing sites; Training to the public on a wide variety of topics including; personal safety, internet safety: drug awareness, fraud and identity theft, terrorism awareness, workplace violence prevention, and crime prevention through environmental design (OPTED), • information to citizens of community services and rccommcnds options to facilitate long -terra problem resolution; • Supports Neighborhood Watch; and, • Resource to City Department Heads • This is provided at no cost to the community. Other Education Programs: • Child -Stranger Danger and Safety • Residential and Commercial Security • Robbery Prevention and Procedures • Crime Free Multi -housing • NuisaneelSefe Streets • Firearms Safety • Disaster PreparednesslEmergency Response • Rural Crime Prevention • Bicycle Safety/Safety on the Centennial Trali • DUI aggressive driving ▪ Active Shooter Survival Training • Personal Safety Training Impact of Staffing; This is one of the most important prc-active, crime -fighting assets provided to the community by the Spokane Valley Police Depart- ment. The performance of these functions requires a level of expertise that could not easily be replaced. Other positions within the Spokane Valley Police Department do not have the time to adequately address these issues. PAEsE 113 Spokane Valley Police Department Traffic Division Function: • Promote safe and efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians through Education, Enforcement, and Engineering • Monitor traffic Flow to ensure public safety and enforce motor vehicle and criminal law through the issuance of citations and/or warnings to those persons not adhering to the law; • Investigate motor vehicle crash scenes as well as provide expertise to other investigators, including but not limited to major crimes scenes for Total Station services; • Direct traffic flow, reroute traffic, and evaluate in case of emergencies; • Assist 3ocal agencies in emergency situations by providing traffic control; and, • Reduce serious injuries and fatalities by using increased traffic enfcrcernent; statistics show that increased citations in high - travel areas throughout the city reduce serious collisions/fatalities. Traffic Staffing Level: 1 Sergeant 1 Corporal/Detective 5 Deputies. Impact of Staffing: A tremendous amount of specialized training is invested in the officers assigned to the Traffic Division. With that training, they are able to effectively investigate a variety of collisions to include fatal, pedestrian, and motorcycle, often taking days and weeks to ana- lyze the collision and complete a thorough investigation. The Toss of a trained collision detective would not easily be replaced by any other deputy or investigator who would have none of the specialized training held by a traffic detective. Washington State Traffic Commission grants pay for extra traffic enforcement in the Spokane Valley for DUI and Pedestrian Safety. Although grant funds pay for these emphasis patrols, a portion of the revenue generated conies back to the City of Spokane Valley. Most importantly, without deputies on the streets writing tickets for collision violations and putting emphasis on safety, our fatalities may increase. Traffic School for drivers cited in the Spokane Valley began in 2012. The primary goal was to reduce collisions through education and is an example of how law enforcement can work with the pubic toward a safer community. Education and interaction with the c[tizens is one of the best ways for this tc happen. What seems to be commonly noted from people who have gone through Traffic School is they don't rriind spending their time and money when they get more out of tho oxperionce than paying a fine_ This type of program not only edu- cates, it builds trust, changes perceptions and provides an invaluable service 10 the community. .PAGE 114 Spokane Valley Police Department School Resource Deputies School Resource Deputies (SRD's) are an invaluable resource to Spokane Valley school districts by providing a uniformed presence within the schools, responding to crimes and other non -criminal related situations within the district, and providing assistance to include, but not limited to, criminal arrests, notice of infractions, informational reports, assisting with trespass order service, student education and awareness, and answering all other crime or non -crime related questions asked by district employees. SRD's often attend district meetings at various schools and buildings to provide expert advice on security and safety, give presen- tations to staff and students covering various subjects related to law enforcement, and act as a tiaison and a source of information for the Patrol Division or any other law enforcement agency and the schools. One of the school administrator's goals in handling situations at each school is to return to a normal atmosphere as soon es passi- ble to minimize the distraction to the educational environment. Because the SRD is at the school, there is no waiting on a response from an deputy, and the issue can be dealt with immediately. S RD Staffing Level: 4 Deputies impact of Staffing: Early intervention benefits younger students who engage in activity that doesn't amount to criminal activity. The SRD's are often called to speak with students at the middle and elementary schools for this purpose, which is key to preventing potential criminal activity. This creates a 'feeling of security' in the school that comes from having a marked patrol car at the venous locations within the district, and a police presence with the contract based school and alternative school in the district. SR D's provide input to the safety and security policies and practices that are discussed and developed at monthly security meetings within the school districts. This helps keep school policies on safety and security in line with law enforcement and helps aid with emergency response to situations affecting the schools. The SRD's are working with the schools to develop a school discipline policy and a set of standards for the students to assist them with handling issues ranging from drug and gang intervention, criminal activity at school, and welfare checks at home. These efforts by the SRD's provide the tools for this unique group of students to become successful adults and not fall prey to criminal activities, The proactive efforts of otrr SRD's to deter such incidents as the 'Columbine shooting" is a critical function for the safety of our children, citizens, and officers_ PAGE 115 Spokane Valley Police Department Training Impact of Staffing — TRAINING PROVIDED BY SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT The Spokane Sheriffs Regional Training Center .moved from it's Spokane Valley lacatlon at LI -City to the former Mountainview Middle School in Newman Lake. Revenue previously realized by local City of Spokane Valley visitors to the Training Center was hast with this relo- cation. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Students Trained 118 1074 251.5 2521 3096 3220 3163 3365 3190• 1119' Total Hotel Rooms Booked* 64 1254 3252 2911 4084 3217 3065 2823= 2872• 961! *Total number of hotel rooms booked (i_e_ students attends a three day Glass, counts as three hotel rooms booked). Numbers were ft -tired ecnservvatively, assum- ing that the student leaves Spokane the day of the last Mass. However, same students may elect to stay another night and travel back the next day. The Regional Training Center has spent the last few years establishing itself as a taw enforcement training establishment, building itself up to the level where students travel from around the world to attend classes here. There were a total of 94 classes held at the Training Center in 2015. Students attending were not only from local law enforcement, but also included students from all over the United States as well as foreign countries. The Training Center has hosted students last year as well as previous years from the countries of Canada, Australia, Israel, Micronesia, Guam, Japan, and most recently China, Often times, if there are enough attendees paying for attendance ata scheduled training class, members of the Sheriff's Office are provided the opportunity to attend at no cost. Investment in the Training Unit results in a win-win situation for the citizens and law enforcement of Spokane County and surrounding areas. In addition, the Sheriff's Office has realized significant savings by providing training focally for its officers instead of sending them out of town. It is extremely likely that our officers would not have been afforded the opportunity to attend the same amount of training, due to the cost of travel, lodging, and food, if the training was not provided locally. PAGE 11.6 Spokane valley Police Department Investigative Division The Investigative Division serving the City of Spokane Valley consists of the dedicated Spokane Valley Investigative Unit that has traditionally been responsible for investigating Spokane Valley property crimes. Organizational changes approved by Spokane Valley City Council in 2014 added additional investigative personnel and the responsibility for investigating Spokane Valley drug crimes. The investigative Division also includes other units that are shared with the Spokane County Sheriffs Office. The primary func- tion of the Investigative Division is to provide investigative sere ces and support that cannot be wholly accomplished by the Patrol Division. The Investigative Division is comprised of the fo1iowir g Units: MajorCrimes Unit -- SHARED • Responsible for investigating crimes against persons to include homicides, robberies, felony assaults, and officer- in- volved fatal or near -fatal incidents. This unit is comprised of: 1 Captain 1 Lieutenant 1 Sergeant 6 Detectives 1 Domestic Violence Detective (Dedicated Spokane Valley) PAGE 117 Spokane Valley Police Department Investigative Division, continued Sexual Assault/Sex Offender Registration Unit - SHARED • Responsible for investigating assaults that are sexual in nature, crimes ago nst young children and the registration of sex offenders as well as insuring the sex offender's compliance with registration requirements. • This unit is comprised of: 7 Sergeant li Detectives 1 Deputy • Three detectives are primarily responsible for investigations, 2 detectives are primarily responsible for registering of sex offenders, and 1 detective and the deputy are primarily responsible for address verification of those registered. The cost and services of the sergeant and 5 detectives are shared between the City of Spokane Valley and the Spokane County Sheriff='s Office. The sex offender address verification duties of the sixth detective are also shared between Spo- kane County and Spokane Halley; however, the position is fully grant -funded. • Partnerships supported in this unit are the Child Sexual Predator Task Force and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, PAGE 11 & Spokane valley Police Department Investigative Division, continued Spokane Valley Investigative Unit (SVIU) - DEDICATED • Responsible for property and drug investigations. SV1U, in collaboration with the Patrol Division and the RIG 0 Intelligence Group, has been operating effectively under the intelligence Led Policing (ILP) philosophy. As the name implies, the ILP concept involves focusing investigative and enforcement efforts on targets that are identified through statistical analysis and intelligence gathering so that subsequent enforcement efforts are more fruitful with regard to a reduction in crime. This allows us to use our investigative resources more effectively and efficiently. • From 2010 forward, SVIU successfully implemented the Intelligence Led Policing principles recognizing a substantial increase in solvability over the years. Detectives have forwarded numerous cases to the Prosecutor's Office where they have been able to connect a suspect to as many as 100 incidents, in some cases more, and often charge them with leading organized crime, traf- ficking in stolen property, etc. The pawn database has also been an invaluable tool to detectives as they track down items of sto- len properly being pawned and connect the suspects to the crime. In addition, SVPD°s use of Facebook has been a benefit as a way of communicating with the community to identify the owners of recovered stolen property. SVIU also enjoys the assistance of two SCOPE volunteers who have assumed many tasks that save our detectives countless hours, enabling them to work more cases and solve more crimes. • Partnered with ATF, Dept. Of Corrections, Secret Service, U.S. Postal inspection Service, Social Security Administration, and U.S. Marshal Service working joint cases. Participate in two State grant funded task forces: Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authori- ty (WATPA) and the Financial Fraud identity Theft (FFIT) task forces. SOISVPD Personnel Funded: 1 Lieutenant (Shared, this Lt also oversees other shared units.) 1 Sergeant 10 Detectives 1 Deputy PAGE 119 Spokane Valley Police Department Investigative Division, continued Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) - SHARED • One detective is assigned to the JTTF, which is a collection of Federal, State and Local officers primarily responsible for matters relating to Domestic and [nternational Terrorism. The funding for this detective is shared between Spokane County Sheriff's O€- fice and the City of Spokane Valley. SO/SVPD Personnel Funded: 1 Detective Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force - SHARED $ Formerly the Spokane Violent Crime/Gang Enforcement Team (SVCET) and Spokane Regional Drug Task Force (SRDTF) • At the beginning of 2015, these two units formally merged into one unit, The new unit will continue their now joint missions in re- gards to middle and upper-level narcotics investigations, gang -related criminal investigations, intelligence collection and dissemi- nation, investigative support and preventlonlinterventian efforts. • Partners with FBI, SPD, VVSP, DOC, and ATF working joint investigations. Those sworn in as Federal Task Force Officers are provided a vehicle, cell phone, fuel and overtime funded by the FBI. SO/SVPIJ Personnel Funded: 1 Sergeant 4 Detectives 1 Deputy 1 Support Staff (10D% funded by grant and seizure funds) PAGE t2D Spokane Valley Police Department Investigative Division, continued Spokane Crime Analysts Team (RIG 9 Intelligence Group) - SHARED • Responsib[e for providing research and analytical support to all of our investigative functions and are a critical component to ILP efforts. ▪ Operates our Regional Intelligence Group where information sharing occurs with other law enforcement agencies and with the Washington State Fusion Center. • Produces most of the statistical data for the Sheriffs Office and the Spokane Valley Police Department. SO!SVPD Personnel Funded: 1 Detective (Shared 1LP Detective) In addition, this unit includes Capt. Ellis as supervisor/Analyst and 2 Civilian Analysts. • Partnerships supported by this unit intimately are the Financial Fraud/Identity Theft Task Force and the Washington Auto Theft Prevention Authority. The impact of insufficient staffing on this team deprives Patrol and Investigative Units dependent on that intelligence in identify- ing suspects and solving crimes. PACT 121 Public Safety— Goals and Strategies Goals Strategies I 0-1 T❑ provide a professional and trustworthy police department G-2 'To respond to citizen calls for service as promptly as call volume and staffing levels permit 2015-2021 + Maintain professionalism in Spokane Valley Police Department's interac- tions with our citizens • Truk dela lo determine the effectiveness in meeting this goal 2015-2i]21 Collect and examine data to determine the effectiveness of Spokane Valley Police Department's response times 1G-3 G-3 To control crime rates within the City of Spokane Valley IG -4 IT° investigate and work traffic related issues and respond to citizen traffic re- quests as call Toad and staffing levels permit to minimize traffic collisions within :our City 2015-2021 • Promptly recognize anomalous increases in crime Identify and eliminate causes within Spokane Valley Police Departments control Track data to determine the effectiveness in meet ng this goal 2015-2021 • Work to reduce traffic collisions by identifying areas within our control through the use of statistical analysis, enforcement, education, and collabo- ration with City of Spokane Valley traffic engineers • Track data to determine the progress in meeting this goal PAGE 122 Public Safety— Workload Indicators Goal Workload Indicator 2008 2009 2012 2013 2014 2015 G-2 Tota incidents per deputy per shift . 1027 Total citizen initiated CFS 938 9.43 9.00 8.53 8.70 f 9.18 9_01 30238 29168 31676 31396 ; 34023 35897 37226 F 40151 Total citizen initiated CFS with deputy resp nse • 21924 20044 21054 20609 22288 23065 ; 23975 25511 Total deputy initiated incidents 29693 30465 1 2612 i 23794 ; 22716 20815 22333 22624 Total deputy involved incidents Average patrol staffing per shift Total incidents requiring written documentation 51617 • 50509 ' 47666 . 44403 : 45004 43880 I 46308 17187811-1 I 1 6.39 7.08 6.93 6.76 ' 7.14 6.91 ! 6.91 : 7_33 ! - - . 17614 16382 15171 ; 15727 15122 G-3 Total property crimes 3 Total crimes against persons -74 -- Total incidents resulting in custcdiai arrest 6 _ 7883 8304 8336 8068 1170 1140 1374 riarn 1782 1833 1970 2213 2354 Total traffic infractions/citations is.sueri . - : 11359 . 12462 ! 10950 11279 11310 ; . 1 Traffic infractionslcitations from citizen complaints j - 184 24 r 32 98 1 , . Total reported collisions : 2440 ; 2104 2183 2014 .! 2203 2141 2210 1 2560 , 1 Mathematically adjusted to include power shift. 2 Mathematically adjusted to include power shift. 3 Includes: burglary, forgery. theft vehicle theft vehicle prowling, malicious mischief. 4 includes: homicide, assault kidnap, robbery, rape, child abuse, stalking. 5 This figure includes the number of incidents resolved by custodial arrest; it does not include the total number ofcharge PAGF, 123 Public Safety- Performance Results Performance Results Citizen complaints per 1,000 deputy incidents 2008 2009 2010 2011 Mill=1111111111M1 .706244 --15 .-518 .415 0 utcnm e of complaint investigations: % Sustained - % Not Sustained - % Exonerated - % Unfounded - % InvestigatIon Pending - % Compfaint forms not returned - 11.1% 11.1% - 55.6% 0.0% 11.1% 11.1% 1.755 ! Use of force per 1,000 deputy incidents 1 - } - i____________. _________. ____•_________4__________.. , . . i Outcome of use of force incidents! i i1 : % Justffied ' - - _ % Excessive ; - i - 11.1% 0.0% 55.6% 0-0% 33.3% 79.2% 12.5% 0.0% . 3% 6.7% 6,7% 20.0% 3.3% 3.3% 60.0% 3.259 7 3.153 3.549 100% 100% 9932% 9a42% 0.0% 0.0% 0.68% 0.58% G-2 1 Average response time to priority 1 CFS 8 I - I -- , 3-6 min 1 3-6 mIn NIA i '. 1 ; i Percentage of CFS with deputy response : 72_50% : 88 72% 66_88% i 654% 8E50% 425% '., 64.40% 63.33% . . Percentage of incidents that were deputy initiated 57.53% 60.32% . 55.83% 53.59% 50.48% 47.44% ' 48.23% 46.95% • Percentage of citizens who rate L.E. positively G-3 Percentage of solvable property crimes cases as- signed Percentage of assigned cases solved - - 67.29% 66.21% 43.88% 88.48% 64.55% Percentage of assigned cases solved by arrest Total unassigned cases 91.60% 97.92% 95.09% 79_69% 86,44% 84.00% 81.86% 74.42% 74.24% 75.43% - - 243 245 495 , 211 190 • i i Casos inactivated duo to lack of evidence or leads ! -I ----- - 142 58 65 . 34 55 . 1 G-4 1 Collisions per capita ---1 - - 1 0.022 0.024 0.023 1 0.024 • 0.027 [ i,' Percentage of traffic complaints worked ! - ! - ; - 1 , 100% • 100% i100% i 100% Changing. methodology in obtaining complaint data has resulted in what appears to be a. large increase in complaints_ 'Changing methodology in acquiring UOP data for 20.]3 has resulted in what appears to be s. large increase in 1.TOP_ The current CAD system does not facilitate extracting an accurate number. PAGE 124 Public Safety 2016 Budget and Staffing Impact Summary* Theoretical Budget Reduction Exercise—Submitted by Chief Rick VanLeuven Spokane Valley Police Department/Spokane County Sheriff's Office Impact of Potential Budget Decrease "The ultimate priority for the Spokane Valley Police Department is Public Safety" At the request of the Spokane Malley, SVPf) has again been asked to evaluate the impact of a 3%, 6% & 9% budget cuts for F.Y. 2015. Prior to assessing the impact of these cuts, it is appropriate to review the status of the current budget and the level of service provided in exchange for those funds. Assessing the impact of a 3% budget reduction intuitively leads one to assume that it would result in a 3% reduction in police services. This, however, is not the reality, Effective law enforcement is synergistic in nature. In other words, the loss of any part reduces the overall effectiveness of the whole by an amount greater then the loss. A 3% cut equates to the Toss of approximately four to five full time employees. These employees could he removed from any one of a number of functional units, each with its own negative outcome. The following is a summary of the expected impact of the loss of the contributions of these employees based, on the proposed budget reductions. Impact of 3% Budget Cut: • Minimum staffing levels would be much more difficult to meet As a result, overtime expenditures can be expected to rise. • Overall staffing levels would be consistently [ower, resulting in: • Elimination of Power Shift; move deputies to daylnightt shifts to meet minimum staffing • Longer response times • Reduction in services provided • Police service becomes more reactive rather than proactive resulting in increased crime ▪ Insufficient personnel to safely and effectively handle more than one ma;or incident at a time, which increases the possibility of serious injuries or fatalities • Decreased citizen satisfaction with police services • Officers are reduced to documenting crime rather than solving crime and arresting the perpetrators • Call load per officer per year would be expected to increase • Reduction of community oriented policing *Department Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved, final budget PAGE 125 Public Safety 2016 Budget and Staffing Impact Summary* Impact of 3% Cut, contfnued.. • The Loss of a single traffic deputy results in • Significant reduction (8.25%) in traffic enforcement and subsequent revenue • Increase in the number of collisions. with a decrease in the ability to investigate them • Increased insurance premiums in the region • Loss of specific traffic investigation expertise that is expensive to replace • Decreased DUI emphasis resulting in additional DUI -related collisions • There currently are insufficient traffic personnel to handle the volume of traffic complaints; any reduction would exacerbate this problem. • We will lose valuable intelligence that will inhibit the success of the ILP program and other proactive projects; • Specialty units such as SWAT and EDU (Bomb Squad) are made up of officers assigned to patrol as well as detectives assigned to the In- vestigative Unit. Many hours are invested in the training of these individuals in specialty fields. Any reduction in personnel would Impact the sustainability of specialty units; • Currently, about 35% of the property crimes cases with potential solvability are not investigated due to a lack of investigators. This problem be- comes significantly worse with the reduction of just one detective; • Should the Crime Prevention officer position be eliminated. the majority, if not all, of the crime prevention programs would be lost, reducing the overall safety of our community and resulting in increased crime • Any reduction of School Resource Deputies (SRD's) would_ • Further increase the call load for patrol • Decrease the level of safety in Spokane Valley schools • Increase the crime in Spokane Valley schools • Reduce valuable intelligence that is currently gathered by the SRD's • The SRD's proactive efforts to deter such incidents as the "Columbine shooting" is a critical function that, if reduced, would jeopardize the safety of our children, citizens, and officers • In working with the contract school, the last-ditch efforts made by the SRD to provide tools for this urtlque group of students to become successful adults and not fall prey to criminal activities would be lost 'Department Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are dratted in coordination with original projections to develop the annual budget. These summaries may or may not be implemented in the approved, ficial budget. PAGE 126 Public Safety 2016 Budget and Staffing Impact Summary* Impact of 6% Budget Cut:, • A 6% cut would result in the Toss of 8 to 10 personnel • It would no longer be possible to consistently meet current minimum staffing levels. Overtime will dramatically increase to make up for the loss of person- nel. Officer and public safety wi Ei be critically reduced ■ A. reduction of 4 Patrol deputies would result in a 10% call load increase for the remaining Patrol personnel • The elimination of entire units such as Traffic, Crime Prevention, or SRD's will be necessary to maintain basic pence functions • Expectation levels would be diminished to such an extent that certain investigations and types of calls for service will not be pursued • Would not have sufficient personnel to respond to low -priority crimes • Response times would increase significantly Impact of 9% Budnet Cut • A reduction of roughly 15% of the personnel would create a catastrophic impairment in the ability of SVPD to provide basic law enforcement ser- vices. The resulting increase in crime will jeopardize public and officer safety and decrease the quality of life for ail Spokane Valley residents • Under these conditions it becomes extremely difficult to attract quality applicants to the police department. This results in a reduction in the qual- ity and professionalism of the personnel and creates a police department with a mercenary attitude lacking dedication to the community. In addi- tion, high turnover rates will result as officers leave to work for other departments + Anticipate significant officer -safety complaints from the Deputy Sheriffs Association and other labor unions + This would inhibit the ability to work WA Traffic Safety Commission Emphasis Grants that will result in more serious and fatal collisions • The economic impact on our city will suffer due to the overall impact of reduced services "Department Budget Staffing and Impact Summaries are drafted n coordination with original protections to develop the annual budget These summaries may or may rot he implemented in the approved, final budget. PAGE 127 Rick V L twat L'flief o/ Po/ic'c Spokane Valley Police Department Accredited Since 4011 Services provided in partnership with the Spokane Camay Acres Office and the Coinnninii Dedicated is YmUr Sir eiy1_ Ozzie Aiiczorieh ,/moll" TO: Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: May 16, 2016 RE: Monthly Report April 2016 April 2016: April 2015: CAD incidents: 4.864 CAD incidents: 4.972 Reports taken: 1,860 Report;; taken: 1.671 Traffic stops: 763 Traffic stops: 1,245 Traffic reports: 251 Traffic reports: 277 CAD incidents indicate dills for service as ...yell as self -initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing April residciltial burglaries, 1rallI( Ct)1I156d1115. v,'rli,Clc prowii,igs, and stolen vehicles. Also attached are treitid-Linc: graphs for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016: C.:itatixr—i, S,"cI ;tne Valley Dispatched Calls, Self.Init awii (_'alts. Celli ions, Persons Crimes, Property a:I,1 :sex Crimes. Also included is the April Crimes by Cities stats report. This report reflects incidents that occurred in a ;1Awci! is city to which a deputy from Spokane County took the courtesy report. For example, an td1L1l may have had his car stolen in Airway Heights, and he waited until he returned home in the Newman Lake area to make a report.. in 2.011, we switched from UCR to NIBRS classification. As a result, certain crimes were broken down to their violation parts for NIBRS and each part is now counted. Consequently, comparing certain crimes before 201 1 to crimes during or after 2011 is not recommended using the graphs. The crimes that are impacted by the NIBRS classification changes that should not be compared to prior graphs include: Adult Rape, Assault, Forgery and Theft. ,ADMINISTRATIVE: \' ll h' ,.:'i it cn.i ri t[nc Join_ 1:eaider>lup Forum monthly meeting in early April. He also ,.rticipatcd in quarto:r[ 11'.._ k:mice at the Sheriffs Training Center. in miLi, April. Cbief Va,ii:cuven attended a Citi .ens Advisory Board (CAIS) Peer Review Meeting �vitl, tI Lf c,; ;.;;.,II.al,a Lti)In:I9 1.iI 1h:2 COI0I1. In her final report, Ms. Olson said, The CAB Vinci Ac:ri 'ic.l, .I7c0.:1d he commended for taking the proactive step of evaluating the CAB's role for the Spokane County She;ilf's Office." Ms. Olson also Page 1 commented that as recommendations are made and considered, "it k i I! be important to continue to elicit stakeholder input about contemplated changes and provide .::.,Lizick an the deliberation process. This is all tovvards helping the CAB meet its stated purpose of `enhancing police/curiniiiiiity relations, communications, transparency, and cr,nir,,1iiity confidence."' Later in the everiintr, Chief' VanLeuven attended the monthly Citizens Advi,..)ry Board meeting held at the Spokane l :eicual Health. District, Chief VanLeuven and Sheriff Knezovich attended the Rational Association of Professional Mortgage Women's Luncheon in mid-April. I -le provided an overview of the current status of incidents in the Spokane Valley to include crimes/drugs/burglaries/ear prowls, etc. The floor was then opened to questions, which members very much appreciated. Chief VanLeuven was present for the Spokane Regional Law & Justice Council's media event, announcing that Spokane County is the recipient of the MacArthur Foundation's grant. Later that. evening, Chief VanLeuven attended the Salvation Army's annual dinner/Futndraiser, The monthly meeting of the Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force Board was held in inid-April, which Chief VanLeuven attended. The Annual Service Awards Presentation for Spokane County was field in late April, which Chief 4';-nl.cilvon attended. There was a significant group of Spokane Valley" Police Department employees recognized for their years of employment with the ceunor.. The end of April brought the monthly meeting of the Inland Northwest Law Enforcement Leadership Group, iv°hich Chief r`r.ir7l.ettv.2.11 attended. 1IFRIFF'S C()MIw1LINFi'Y ORTFNTEi) P(II.I(:ll {: ti t"'l+`OR L (S( ()rl+.l: 11 tIic month ufApril. S.C'.(.1}"l - participated in: • `; lli()F Rt- ouI'CC I' ll" .ii Ce11ic-1117=4: • Illi':'Cle ;'l • Rcti . d Educator's r-- loci i uo:1 Ct i:1 `:t'ncc • (]41I.L1i.iuic[ • BKisikTraining— 16 new l �l:','.' ]il.:� (".?':II IiLI]iC•' ( ,:.' - }Il Plt[_'. volunteers • Coll.,: • Safe Kids Coalition Meeting • J,SwA( wail':oe • Shriners Circus- Traffic Control • OpLriuiior. • Bicycle Safety Training at Broadway Elementary School April 2016 Volunteers Hours per Station -include.; estimated volunteerservice hours that are provided in the City of Spokane Valley. These two locations cover beth Spokane Valley and the unincorporated portion of the county. Location # Volunteers Admin Hours Central Valley 11 l .ist 1. cl'I,S'L11,1 20 �'ic,tlt �'[•a_lti 7 Y 11r?Lt ,Ili' a 141.5 L.E. Hours 86.5 Total Hours 228.0 4476.0 242.0 668.0 346.0 63.0 409.0 ll i .5 98.1 259.5 43ti-0 ;4.5 West v .illev 27 (6L9. 510.5 4.5 674.0 114 2,210.5 568.5 2,779.0 Page 2 Vuluntecr Value i$22,14 per hour) $61,527.06 :for April 2016 Spokane Valley Graffiti Report TRAINING HOURS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Jan. 0 2 3 5 5 Feb. 0 7 16 8 1 March 2 13 11 7 7 April 14 9 30 14 3 May 16 4 4 10 0 June If. _ 9 13 3 July 41 7 12 4 Aug. 57 2? 6 10 Sept, 72h 1 12 6 Oct. 7 f 1 7 b 6 Nov. I ,i 7 ' 4 Dec. , , 1 10 Total 257 92 {l, 89 16 S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (MT) volunteers contributed 23 on -scene hours (including travel time) in April, responding to crime scenes, motor vehicle accidents and providing traffic control; 6 hours was for incidents specifically in Spokane Valley. There was 1 Special Event in Spokane Valley in April, the Morass Prairie 5K Race, where three volunteers collectively spent 12 hours. Total April volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events is 494; total for 2016 is 2,028. Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in Spokane Valley in March totaled 20 and in April totaled 27 with 9 vehicles in March and 6 in April, respectively, eventually cited and towed. Fifteen hulks were processed in March and 14 bulbs processed in April. During the month of April, a total of 103 vehicles were processed; total for 20115 is 355 SCOPE LATENT PRINT STATS SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT TRAINING HOURS SCSO SVPD TOTAL January 0 29 36 65 February 4.5 21 39 60 March 0 23 20 43 April 0 18 48 66 YTD - TOTAL 4.5 91 143 234 SCOPE DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT City of Spokane Valley # of Vol. # of Hrs. # of Disabled Infractions issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non- Disabled infractions Issued .larilIMEMIIMIll2 0 0 February 2=OEM= 0 0 March 2 53 4 0 0 April 60 S 0 b YTD Total 9OM16 0 0 Page 3 Spokane County # of Vol. # of firs. 4 of Disabled Infractions Issued V ,:,i- 1 'ar•)!,,r; Issr,L& ,'� ,+t Non l :is,,N , d inl: rc'1ior C: -:.i. i Janua ' 2 26.5 2 11 tl February 2 18 0 u March 1 16 1 1(i 0 April 2 115 0 1; 0 YTD Total 7 175.5 3 10 OPERATIONS; Male Stabbed During Fight - Spokane Valley Sherifrs Deputies arrested a 24 -year-old male in early April, after he stabbed the victim during a fight. The victim confronted the suspect after Learning his wife had been texting the male suspect and had a previous intimate relationship with him. The incident began just after 10:00 p.m., in the parking lot ()Climber Creek Buffet located at 9211 E. Montgomery in Spokane Valley. The victim, who had learned about the text messages and previous relationship several days ago, became upset during the day and decided he wanted to confront the suspect. He drove to the parking gat of the restaurant to wait for the suspect as his wife tried to calm him down. After more than an hour, the male suspect exited the restaurant and the victim confronted him. According to witnesses, the male suspect began hitting the victim and continued to punch and Dick him while he was on the ground. The suspect fled the scenic [caving the victim lying on the ground with injuries to his head and face, as well as a severe stab wound to his abdomen. Responding deputies located the suspect in the parking lot as he tried to Flee. Deputies observed blood on his steering wheel and on his hands. A knife was observed inside his vehicle. The male suspect was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Assault ls` Degree. The victim was transported to a local hospital for his injuries and was listed in serious condition. Drugs, Vehicles and Firearm. Seized, Dealer Arrested - The Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force (SRSSTF) concluded a several months -long Delivery of a Controlled Substance investigation in early April with the assistance of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office SWAT Team. In early April, members of the SRSSTF and SWAT Team served a search warrant at a residence located in the 8100 block of East Applcway Avenue in Spokane Valley. The primary suspect, a 33 -year-old male, a self -admitted gang member and convicted felon (convictions to include robbery, drug charges and unlawful possession of a firearm) turned himself in to the Spokane County Jail the previous evening for an unrelated assault charge. His 27 -year-old male roommate and an additional associate were at the residence at the time of the warrant service. A quantity of methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and heroin was seized from the residence as well as a firearm and other indications that sales of controlled substances were taking place_ The roommate admitted to being an active heroin dealer and also being in possession of the firearm, heroin, and methamphetamine; his criminal history precludes hire from legally possessing a firearm. The roommate was transported and booked into the Spokane County Jail for Possession of a Controlled Suhstance with Intent to Deliver and Unlawful Possession ofa Firearm 2nd Degree. Additional c h:u4` s l'or the 33-k.t nr-old male suspect, to include Delivery of a Controlled Substance, are expected in the ncx" i.it.r SRS: -:,1F seized a 2005 Infiniti, a 2000 Lexus, a 2007 Jeep Cherocce, and $2,110 in ':7oI.:.!n, kL4irnal Safe Streets Task Force Investigators continue to work this case with arlriiri,sr..ri titruracs artdior- ar c.sts possible. The Spokane Regional Safe Str• cts Task 1:«rc-e is comprised of Irnir: the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, Spokane`n1 L'y !Vice t:e C)cpartmera, Silykaik I':Iire Dcpartrtncnt, Washington State Patrol, Washington State Dcn.irtnmLnt cal'C'CrrCcticIi:; SRSSTF is Page 4 a FBI sponsored task force working to alleviate the criminal activities of gangs, violent criminals and upper level drug traffickers. SVIU & SWAT Address Nuisance Homos - c.pekeei; Valley i': riff s Investigative Unit i'S\'1U) Detectives assisted by the Spei:a.r+e (`o'.nit Sher ill :; (Alice SWAT Team served a search warrant in mid-April at a residencelocated in the ,.I;(ici Nock ;rl I.. „a Avenue in Spokane Valley. The seerch warrant resulted in four arrewrs aad ever 20 people located and detained inside the residence. This residence has been connected i0 3.3 av enforcement calls for service related to drugs, stolen vehicle recoveries, suspicious vehiciesipers€.ns, theft and prostitution since January of this year, To date, seven suspects have been arrested [ r various crimes at or leaving this residence. These arrests include possession of a controlled substance, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, providing false statements and several warrant arrests including escape from community custody. Investigators, assisted by information provided by patrol deputies, developed probable cause to arrest the 52 -year- old homeowner for Unlawful Use of Building for (Drug Purposes and his 54 -year-old roommate for Possession of a Controlled Substance-Heroin/Methamphetamine and Possession of a Dangerous Weapon as a result of the months long investigation. The homeowner has one previous felony conviction for drugs and his roommate is a 15 -time convicted felon with charges including drugs, possession of stolen property, attempted assault 2°d and reckless endangerment Both male suspects were booked into the Spokane County Jail for the listed charges. Arrests also included a 39 -year-old female for a confirmed Washington State Department of Corrections felony warrant for Escape Community Custody; a 50 -year-old male for a misdemeanor warrant; and a 24 -year-old male for a misdemeanor warrant. Investigators located heroin, methamphetarnine, and $1,886 in cash, a small caliber handgun and a large amount of used hypodermic needles inside the residence. This investigation continues as detectives conduct interviews and process evidence. Spokane Valley Patrol Deputies will continue additional patrols in the area to address the constant criminal acts associated with this residence as they work to provide peace and safety to the citizens living in the area. De-escalation & Restraint Prevent "Suicide by Cop" - Spokane Valley Sheriff's Deputies responded to a suicidal person armed with a knife who cut bath his wrists, stabbed himself in the chest and demanded deputies shoot him. Even though the adult man charged toward deputies with the knife, they successfully used tactics and OC spray to disarm and restrain him allowing medics to treat his wounds. In mid-April at approximately 5:00 p.m., Spokane Valley Sheriffs Corporal Jeff Thurman arrived at a residence located in the 18400 block of East Appleway and made contact with a man who was suicidal and armed with a knife. The man was standing inside a tent with the screen zipped closed holding a 4" fixed blade knife yelling, "I want to die. Kill mel': Corporal Thurman told the man to drop the knife and that he was there to help. The man did not follow Corporal Thurrnan's instructions and escalated the situation by raising the knife. A few minutes later, Deputy Sciortino arrived to assist with the call. Corporal Thurman, with his weapon drawn but pointed low, approached the screen to try and open it. The male charged toward Corporal Thurman with the knife causing Corporal Thurman to jurrtp back to avoid being stabbed. The male, covered in blood, began pressing the knife back and forth on his chest and said, "The only way I'm coming out is if you kill roe .. The deputies, fearing for their safety as well as the safety of the male, continued ie veld, t+.ugcther to try and end this life-threatening situation peacefully and get the male the medical leap lie desperately needed. The male continued ro refuse ro follow instructions and began to pre 'oto his chest with more force. Fearing the reale was about to stab himself' el lhL: ehesst in tin Jac.uI}t u, take his own life, Deputy Sciortirlo moved forward and cut the screen 10 alI:.:. :ctix,ro r, iJe, The male charged toward Deputy Sciortino with the knife causing Corporal TI7tiriiiaii rc' r.r:s& Iiia. •exeeon and prepare to fire if needed to stop the male from stabbing Deputy Sei:: rtinu. I.0l-.,,i..., seieeleo Was able to jump out of the way in time allowing Corporal Thurman to lower- big l'he Page $ male suddenly yelled, "Oh yeah!" and threw the knife down on the bed inside the tent. He grabbed a razor blade and began cutting his wrists causing him to bleed profusely from the wounds. Deputy Sciortino sprayed OC into the tent in an attempt to quickly end this very tense situation and get the male medical attention but the man continued to cut himself as he yelled, "Shoot mel Just (expletive) shoot me!" A few seconds later, the OC took effect and the male threw the razor blade down and agreed to exit the tent. The man was restrained and Spokane Valley Fire personnel began to provide medical treatment. The than escalated again as he tried to get up and began swinging at the medic yelling "Kill me!" The deputies maintained control of the man while he was treated. He was safely transported to a local hospital for further treatment and a medical evaluation. Corporal Thurman and Deputy Sciortino used great restraint during this very volatile, life-threatening situation. The man clearly wanted the deputies to shoot him and end his He, but the deputies, knowing the man needed their help, placed their own lives in jeopardy to save Lis. Thankfully, due to their efforts, the male's life was saved allowing him to receive the medical attention he desperately needed. Deputies Will NEVER Ask You to Pay Fines Over the Phone - The Spokane Crucify L i ilrs Office has once again received reports of a male claiming to work for the Sheriff's Oifee a 1, x is demanding citizens pay fines immediately over the phone and threatens arrest if the vielitiai does not follow his demands. Do NOT he fooled. This is a scam and neither the Sheriffs (}Lae Lor any other law enforcement agency will demand you go to a store to obtain a prepaid credit card or voucher to pay fines. In this case, a male claiming to be "Deputy Walker" called from (509)237- 5534. The scarltmcr had a southern accent and stated the victim had a warrant for failing to appear for jury duty and a second warrant for contempt of court. He demanded the victim go to Fred Meyer and get a money voucher in the amount of S989 to pay for the fines and avoid arrest. The scammer was so brazen, he told the victim once a card was purchased, she needed to go to the creditldebit kiosk located inside the Public Safety Building (11 DO W. Mallon). The scamrner demanded a call back once she was at the kiosk and again threatened arrest if she didn't follow his 'instructions. Thankfully, in this case, the stammer dict not claim arrotller victim. The Spokane County Sheriff's Office would like to remind everyone lavw enforcement will NOT call and demand payment or personal information over the phone. These stammers continue to change their story but they all have the same theme: they want your hard earned money or your identity by obtaining your personal information. Don't be fooled, don't be their next victim. ******************** Page 6 SV Crime Report Date Range: 4/1/2016 to 4/30/2016 YaarTo Date Totals: Full Year T4aa4: Ii,ginr it Intelrgenre Group 9 Apr9142016 Apr11.2915 2016-VT0 2015-17D 2015 2014 2013 1012 2411 2010 BURGLARY 90 55 315 296 SJ39 1,157 1,079 1,030 997 918 FORGERY 50 41 232 198 633 558 593 627 515 341 MAL MISCHIEF 152 130 562 551 1,673 1,545 1,624 1,768 1,548 1477 NON-CRIMIN4L 18 7 62 50 134 151 106 108 160 913 PROP OTHER 129 124 90? 501 1,595 1,449 1,463 1,355 1,114 955 RCRVO VEH 51 24 207 117 409 464 531 438 407 293 S?4 VZH 59 35 215 139 516 573 596 570 515 473 THEFT 247 247 915 1,009 3,089 3.095 3.105 2,753 1,4D7 2,358 VFH OTHER 17 12 64 71 201 279 268 287 294 3 \EH PROWL 135 64 386 413 1,183 1,196 1,205 1,160 1,488 1,395 TOTAL PROPERTY' CRIMES 953. 753 3,524 3,350 10,437 10,673 10,670 10,031 9,345 8,731 ASSAULT 84 81 353 354 1,072 1.087 902 891 955 888 DOA/SUICIDE 27 24 100 93 273 22.2 218 250 2.08 1A8 Dv 60 46 252 189 695 485 386 402 498 1,141 HOMICIDE 0 0 5 0 2 3 2 1 3 1 KIDNAP 2 2 12 9 23 41 24 16 14 16 MENTAL 17 34 113 131 381 307 268 270 252 252 MP 16 12 55 49 193 133 154 154 124 128 PERSOTHER 289 279 1.167 1,135 3,494 1203 2,976 2,901 2,372 1,603 ROBBERY 4 7 20 34 90 94 88 74 59 57 TEL-11AR455 9 12 42 A6 111 132 148 212 152 153 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 503 497 2,124 2,441 6,338 5,711 5,166 5,172 4,647 4,464 ADULT RAPE CHILD ABUSE CUST INTFER IND uBERTr MO LES/CHILD RAPE/CHILD RUNAWAY SEX OTHER SEX REGIS F STALKING SUSP PERSON TOTAL SEX CRIMES PR GIG LSU OTHER 70741 ITF 5 8 28 27 80 70 64 75 62 44 3 2 12 12 30 43 26 27 56 115 13 11 46 58 197 237 235 190 164 206 1 0 5 3 25 29 20 77 17 B 0 0 0 0 I) 0 0 0 18 47 3 1 4 5 14 13 13 13 23 25 41 37 129 140 409 406 397 530 610 490 5 S 23 19 66 69 45 37 56 215 0 0 0 0 2 ❑ 4 8 2 1 4 1 9 6 16 24 71 24 16 13 49 51 235 203 542 €04 440 423 540 215 124 119 471 483 1,441 1,494 1,265 1,354 1,237 1,187 26 25 106 1.15 379 336 314 424 511 534 0 0 0 0 a C 0 4 2 2 26 25 105 136 379 336 114 424 51.3 596 TRAFFIC 251 277 1,175 1,120 3,476 3,215 3$25 3,957 3,559 3,081 TOTA1 TRAFFIC REPORTS 151 277 1,179 1,124 3.476 3,215 3,525 3,957 3,569 3,481 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1,850 1,671 7,396 7,110 2.2,471 21,436 20,543 20,993 19,362 18,194 Prc:Ied 5/12/2U15 5:,17:2t Prw1 E pt011 pag3 L ul 1 FINIS Crimes by Cities (Only incidents handled by Spokane County Sheriff's office) Date Range: 4/1/2016 to 4/30/201 l; Regiorlal IIuelligence Group 9 AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL ML 15 W RF SCO SPA SPK 5V WA! TOTALS BURGLARY 0 0 2 0 2 1. 0 2 1 6 85 0 2 90 0 166 FORGERY 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 53 0 2 50 0 116 MALMISCHIEF 0 0 2 4 0 2 0 4 6 0 119 1 2 152 0 287 NON -CRIMINAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 18 0 29 PROP OTHER 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 2 4 0 90 0 11 129 0 263 RCRVD VEH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 1 51 0 87 STLVEH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 59 0 97 THEFT 4 0 7 0 2 1 0 2 4 2 139 1 4 247 0 409 ✓ EH OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 17 0 27 VEH PROWL 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 90 0 1 138 0 239 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 0 0 23 2 6 4 0 10 19 5 671 1 43 951 0 1,740 A55AULT 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 63 1 1 84 0 159 DOA/SUICIDE 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 1 27 0 60 D V 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 26 9 3 50 0 95 KIDNAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 MENTAL 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 23 0 1 17 0 46 MP 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 16 0 28 PERS OTHER 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 14 6 0 216 2 37 269 0 577 R096ERY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 7 TEL -HARASS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 9 0 17 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 0 (i 23 0 0 0 0 29 7 0 378 9 44 5013 0 992 ADULT RAPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 5 0 S CHILD ABUSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 CUST INTFER 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 0 0 13 1 36 NC} LIBERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 1 0 4 RAPE/C1-11.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 4 RUNAWAY 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 04 0 1 41 0 81 ,SEI( OTHER 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 5 0 14 SEI( REGIS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 STALKING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 5USP PERSON 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 41 0 3 49 0 95 TOTAL SEK CRIMES 0 11 5 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 109 0 9 114 1 255 QR1.1(i 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 25 0 7 26 0 60 TOTAL ITF 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 U 25 0 7 26 0 6o TRAFFIC 0 1 7 0 0 0 U 4 0 0 208 1 64 251 0 535 TOTALTRAFFIC 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 206 1 64 2S1 0 535 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 0 0 60 2 5 4 0 50 29 6 1,391. 6 157 1,050 1 3,582 Printed 5111 /2015 7, 55:57 hitirll RptOD.3 CAD incidents by Cities (Only incidents handfed by Spokane County Sheriff's Office) Date Range: 4/1/2016 to 4/30/2D16 CAD Incidents Self Iriit€ated Incidents Drug Self Int (Patrol) Traffic Stops Traffic Stops [AO ST/CIT/I N ) T5 (Warrants) Calls for Service Alarms Acc,dent5 Accidents (ARREST/01T) Drug Calls dV DUI DUI (Arrest) Pursuits Suspicious Activity Vehicle Recovered 911 Abandon Line Shoplifting All Arrests [ARRESTfCIT/IN ) Crime Check Reports Regional Intelligence 6rnup AH CH DP FC FF LAH LL AAL MW RF SCG SPA SPH SV WAV TOTALS 39 190 254 17 10 2 26 227 84 16 3,744 7 724 4,864 1 10,207 32 79 152 4 3 0 15 156 15 5 1,299 2 634 1,501 0 3,897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 6 0 11 11 47 66 0 0 0 1 56 3 4 528 0 245 763 0 1,724 2 16 20 0 0 0 1 25 1 1 177 0 82 332 0 661 1 0 1 0 a 0 0 1 1 0 16 0 10 6 0 36 7 111 102 13 7 2 11 71 69 13 2,445 5 90 3,363 1 6,310 O 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 111 0 0 90 0 211 O 10 3 3 0 0 1 1 3 0 150 0 13 201 0 390 O 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 7 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 12 0 0 51 0 66 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 2 1 2 81 1 3 53 0 153 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 15 0 19 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 15 26 2 1 1 0 20 9 0 523 0 46 547 0 1,296 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 a 3 d 23 a 3 28 0 62 0 27 10 5 1 0 1 3 5 0 168 3 5 244 0 475 O 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 58 0 M 7 17 28 2 0 0 7 36 3 1 296 1 111 542 0 1,045 O 0 20 0 4 2 0 17 15 4 464 1 8 591 1 1,127 Printed 501/2015 7 11:24 AM iu,r:u), r'a.Re 1 cd 1 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stall/Charts - Spokane Valley 4000 3000 2000 - 1000 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Dispatched Calls January February March April May Jure July August Seplereber October November i}ecemb ar 2413 2014 — 2015 ..d 20 t6 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2e13 2746 2383 2892 2928 3166 3185 3491 3529 3127 3015 2753 2773 2014 2702 251510 2992 2935 3359 3291 3847 3593 3279 3069 2715 2084 2016 2995 2658 3209 2971 3473 3639 3819 3817 3652 3552 2997 3110 2016 2966 2871 3230 3353 Printed 5o'111201(ii 8.112:06 AM 8101007 Page ol 71:3 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokare Valley 350 300 250 200 - 150- 100 50 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Person Crimes January February March April May June July SepMrrleer October November Ctecambcr --2013 2014 tri 2015 2015' Jartuary February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 223 180 213 256 245 255 278 278 249 243 251 243 2014 210 225 265 273 280 274 335 331 323 285 290 279 20-15 301 24S 285 261 315 330 348 313 272 272 253 318 2016 346 209 342 275 Printed 511-1/2015 8' 22:08 AM f<p1047 Pirie W of 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley 1000 goo 600 400 200 Regional intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Property Crimes .remedy February March AQrI May Jure July AuguS1 Seplernb r Oc1abei November pa -cam bar 2013 2014 imam 2015 mem 2016 January February March April May June July Augu$t September October November December 2013 717 599 729 671 634 634 697 710 695 817 710 689 2014 632 578 756 665 111 706 727 665 755 683 671 778 2015 706 r75 844 588 633 636 066 709 703 733 603 787 2016 707 595 651 736 Primed 5(1112016 8:02:R8 AM Rp1007 Page 37 of 2a Selected Data for Comparisons RMS Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley Spokane Valley Self Initiated Incidents ftegiorial Intelligence Group 9 February January March April May June July Augo51 SepCer bei °etcher NOVernber December __ 2013 2014 2015 .�, 2016 January February March AprIl May June July August September October November December 2013 1838 1881 2015 1696 1639 1745 2U84 1682 1477 1766 1+364 1512 2014 2125 1707 11131 1763 1899 1905 2096 1863 98295 1802 1794 1723 2015 1923 1795 2038 2001 1606 1831 1995 2003 1058 1065 1682 1899 2016 2106 1898 1858 1501 Printed 51111201E 5:02:0B AM Rpi007 Page 20 of 25 Selected Data for Comparisons RIMS Stats/Charts -Spokane Valley 50 40- 30 20 1© Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Crime Sex Crimes February ,January March April May Juno July August September C7clober rovernber December 2013 — 2014 VI,,,a 2015 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 24 23 26 21 44 41 36 37 32 29 33 38 2014 2Ci 313 41 43 4Z 25 25 33 34 36 39 33 2015 36 36 26 23 42 27 45 32 22 25 21 29 2010 2C 22 27 29 Printed 5111!2016 8:02:08 AM Pape 22 (Jr 28 Selected Data for Comparisons RMS 5tats/Charts -Spokane Valley 200 150 130 - 50 Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane Valley Traffic Collisions February January March Agan) May June July nuSI Debtor September MVer41be? pacamber 2013 2014 +sem& 2015 +tea 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November Decernber 2013 120 69 82 79 90 107 87 98 97 76 114 126 2014 100 105 83 66 103 82 33 90 105 112 118 95 2015 105 76 110 102 106 12! 100 103 124 90 129 158 2016 132 76 110 111 Printed 5/1112016 8'02'08 AM Page 27 of 26 Selected Data for Comparisons RIvls Stats/Charts - Spokane Valley Charge Count from Tickets: Spokane Valley Regional Intelligente Group 9 February J anuary March April May June July Augu81 Ocube r Septe+r+t>er November De-carnber 2013 2014 2015 �•� 2016 January February March April May June July August ;scpternher October November december 2043 941 1086 1136 995 978 1228 1290 970 757 1078 948 027 2014 1216 1000 917 959 1130 1110 1242 999 1054 843 868 881 2015 985 895 1006 1054 762 843 985 1019 1124 954 825 866 2016 1547 1006 846 672 Printed 511112016 B:02:08 AM Rpl007 Page 28 of 28 harpe rim I.5 Phos CV. l i �` Map Produced: 12 Iwlay 2016 2016 April Commercial Burglary Hotspots ',ware • iy- Regional lrttelligerrte Group 9 Spokane County Sheriff 1st c rs.75 1 r, -•:r,, I , i Map Produced:. 12 May 2iI6 2016 April Residentia Burglary Hotspots Residential Burg ary 11111 Low Medium _High 0 1 2 fl 3 4+ Preparad By Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane County Sheriff Frarias fer 4,411 i iCssie}k5 ,,441.4111 . --AWEIET foupofaiiiiimmi armgswo AMMIIMMI ripe" 7 %Tr too I4rt5on I0 Stolen Vehicles ME Low — Me+JiuTn _ High 2 C) 3 0 4+ Map Produced: 12 May 2016 2016 March & April Stolen Vehicle Hotspots epare y: Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane County Sheriff 1: 1' _e l tiva,7bi eti Welleslc cod ick Lake i-iissi nn 1r- ylFr a� 1�flstian '� i wora 1 OM; ■ i nismii == 1 'biiIr 7 10 Mission fii 4 1) VA rN14 r Vista S ue .1a li Sfrrl'ry laky: Vehicle Prow Low _ Medium High 1 Q 3 0 4+ ing 1 f? s 1 u! Ics 'Map Produced: 12 May 2016. 2016 April Vehicle Prowling Hotspots Prepared -By! Regional Intelligence Group 9 Spokane County Sherif We".lasl f1 10 l�f raffle Collisions Low ®Medium Low Medium High U 0.75 1 S mih, I 1 I Map. Produced; 12 May 2016 20 I6 April Traffic Collision Hotspots C. 1 LJ 2 0 3 0 4+ Prepared I3y; Regional 1rtcplligrncrGrnu fr 9 Spokane County Sheriff Report on Usage COST ALLOCATION! DATA 01/01/14 - 12/311/4 2014 Totals ITEM DP FF LAH ML • MW _ RF SCO SPA SV WAV TOTAL COMBINED SCO SPK AH LL FORENSICS 117 4 1 76 18 72 8 2,513 9 2,853 1 5,654 2,801 8,748 25 12 K-9 25 1 0 76 7 1,204 2 3,910 0 5,243 1,333 167 56 55 CRIME CHECK 243 30 2 195 218 20 6,511 14 8,648 3 15,884 7,236 10 27 ;PROPERTY ROOM 52 3 0 30 39 1 908 4 1,589 0 2,626 233 1,037 218 6 1 SIRT 7 0 0 4 3 0 145 0 74 0 159 0 0 0 RADIO DISPATCH 2,899 75 18 1$34 1,100 146 48,464 90 59,559 17 114,302 54.743 7,024 4,338 GAD 2,899 75 18 1,934 1,100 146 48,464 90 59,559 17 114.302 54.743 RMS 576 37 4 448 370 45 12,586 33 16,673 4 30.776 14.903 CASE 52 7 1 59 411 2 1,498 2. 1,927 0 3.589 1,662 1129[2015 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of June 2, 2016; 11:00 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings June 14, 2016, Special Mtg, Budget Workshop, 8:30 a.m.- 3:30 p.m. (no evening mtg) [due Tue, June 7] Council Chambers June 2L 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. Please note that this meeting will only consist of councilmember candidate interviews 1. Interim Councilmember Interviews (positions 2 & 5) — Mayor Higgins [*estimated meeting: 3 hours] June 28, 2016, Special Meeting 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers Executive Session: Evaluate Qualifications of Candidates for Appointments to Elective Office (2 & 5) June 28, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, June 21] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Marijuana Regulations — Erik Lamb (20 minutes) 3. Proposed Resolution Amending 2016 TIP — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2017-2022 Six -Year TIP — Steve Worley (15 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, McDonald Road Project — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 6. Motion Consideration: Approval of 2016 JAG Grant Application — Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 7. Last Action Item: Council Appointments of Interim Councilmembers (2 & 5)— Mayor Higgins (appointments immediately followed by administering of Oath of Office) (20 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 9. Info Only: (a) Dept Reports; (b) FY 2018 TIB Call for Projects [*estimated meeting: 95 minutes] July 5, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Review LTAC Council Goals and Priorities — Mark Calhoun 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue, June 28] (25 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] July 12, 2016, Special Meeting 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers Executive Session: Evaluate Qualifications of Candidates for Appointment to Elective Office (position 7) July 12, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Marijuana Regulations — Erik Lamb [due Tue, July 5] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: To Determine Interviews for Vacant Council Position 7 — Chris Bainbridge (20 min) 4. Motion Consideration: Seth Woodard Sidewalk Project #0234 Bid Award — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: SE 27 and Mirabeau Parkway Intersection — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 6. FY 2018 TIB Call for Projects — Steve Worley (15 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Annexation Discussion — Lori Barlow/Matt Dowgen (legal intern) (25 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 9. Info Only: 2017 Stormwater Mgmt Program [*estimated meeting: 110 minutes] July 19, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [length of meeting dependent upon number of interviews] Please note that this meeting will only consist of councilmember candidate interviews 1. Interim Councilmember Interviews (position 7) — Mayor Higgins July 26, 2016, Special Meeting 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers Executive Session: Evaluate Qualifications of Candidates for Appointment to Elective Office (position 7) Draft Advance Agenda 6/2/2016 11:27:52 AM Page 1 of 2 July 26, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Approval of Stormwater Management Program — Eric Guth 3. Motion Consideration: BY 2018 TIB Call for Projects — Steve Worley [due Tue, July 19] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) 4. Last Action Item: Council Appointment of Interim Councilmember (#7)— Mayor Higgins (appointment immediately followed by administering of Oath of Office) 5. Admin Report: Consensus on LTAC Council Goals and Priorities — Mark Calhoun 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 7. Info Only: Department Reports August 2, 2016 — No Meeting (National Night out) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 60 minutes] August 9, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: 2017 Budget Estimates Revenues & Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 4. Info Only: Stormwater Management Program August 16, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Admin Report: Stormwater Management Program — Eric Guth 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue, Aug 2] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] August 23, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Stormwater Management Program Plan — Eric Guth 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 4. Info Only: (a) Department Reports; (b) Pines & Grace Intersection August 30, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Sept 6, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue, Aug 9] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue, Aug 16] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] [due Tue, Aug 23] (5 minutes) [due Tue, Aug 30] (5 minutes) Sept 13, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Se tt66] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2017 Budget Revenues including Prop Tax — Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes; resolution setting budget hearing) (5 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Pines Road & Grace Intersection — Steve Worley (15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Sept 20, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Sept 13] 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING Carnahan and 8th Intersection Drug Enforcement Update — Rick VanLeuven Emergency Preparedness Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy Hearing Examiner Report Legislative Agenda Library District Discussion Draft Advance Agenda 6/2/2016 11:27:52 AM ISSUES/MEETINGS: Ord 16-003 Mining Ext. (expires 8/21/16) Sidewalk/snow removal SRTMC Agreement (July 2016) Sullivan/Euclid PCC #0141 (11/8 info; 11/29 motion) SVMC 2.45 Review/Discussion Term Limits Undergrounding Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 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: Seth Woodard Sidewalk Project #0234 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which included this project, June 23, 2015, Resolution No. 15-005; Motion to approve Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Grant Application for this project, 10-14-2014 Approved Resolution 16-005 adopting the 2016 Amended TIP which also included this project.. BACKGROUND: The Seth Woodard Sidewalk Project will construct sidewalks on the south side of Mission Avenue west of Park Road and on Park Road north of Mission Avenue, all near the Seth Woodard Elementary School. Storm water improvements and the paving of the existing gravel shoulder from edge of pavement to the new curb line will also be included. This project is funded with 92% CDBG funds and 8% City matching funds. Public Works staff designed the project. Bids are scheduled to be advertised on Friday, June 10, 2016 and are scheduled to be opened on Friday, June 24th. Council consideration for the award of this bid is currently scheduled for July 5th. OPTIONS: Information Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information Only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total project budget is $389,987. The CDBG grant will pay for 92% ($358,790) and the City will pay 8% matching funds ($31,197) from fund 303. There are sufficient funds in Funds 303 to cover the cost for this project. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE —Capital Improvement Program Manager Eric Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity Map Ig Av.]:Ay; IIIIII E -M issa o nsAve:...... Imagery Date: 4!7.2016 47=40'18.46" N 117°18'22.77" l':' elev 1959 It eye alt 3247'ft. SETH WOODARD SIDEWALK PROJECT #0234 LOCATION MAP CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 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: Pines Road (SR 27) Mirabeau Parkway Intersection Project #0238 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program which included this project, June 23, 2015, Resolution No. 15-005; Motion to approve TIB grant application for this project, July 14, 2015; Approved Resolution 16-005 adopting the 2016 Amended TIP which also included this project. BACKGROUND: The City received a Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grant on November 20, 2015 for the construction of a traffic signal at the Pines Road and Mirabeau Parkway intersection. The work will also include upgrading the curb ramps to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, pedestrian push buttons, pedestrian heads, crosswalk pavement markings and installation of a catchbasin with a spill control separator at the NW corner of the intersection. This project is funded with 80% TIB funds and 20% City matching funds. Public Works staff designed the project. Bids are scheduled to be advertised Friday, June 10, 2016 and are scheduled to be opened on Friday, June 24th. Council consideration for the award of this bid is currently scheduled for July 5th. OPTIONS: Information Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information Only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total project budget is $402,751. The TIB grant will pay 80% ($322,200) and the City will pay the 20% matching funds ($80,551). There are sufficient revenues in Fund 303 to cover the cost for this project. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE —Capital Improvement Program Manager Eric Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Vicinity Map Project Area E•Fred eriek-Avg ---- E-Fairview-Av 791G oo31n C;oiir�it: leartf Imagery Date: 4/20/2015 47°41'09.77" N 117°14'21.78" W elev 1994 if eye alt 5078 ft C PINES RD (SR27) / MIRABEAU PARKWAY INTERSECTION PROJECT LOCATION MAP CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 2016 Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® information ❑ admin. report Department Director Approval: El ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: McDonald Road Diet, Mission Avenue to 16th Avenue - CIP# 0221 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Information RCA on HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program) call for projects on June 10, 2014; Admin. Report on HSIP projects on June 24, 2014; Information RCA on City Safety Program Call for projects on January 20, 2015; HSIP portion of project was added to adopted 2015 TIP on March 24, 2015; Information RCA on upcoming TIB projects on June 30, 2015; Admin. Report on TIB call for projects on July 7, 2015; Motion approval to allow the city manager to apply for TIB grants on July 14, 2015; Council approved adding the TIB portion of this project to the Amended 2016 TIP on February 9, 2016, Resolution No.16-005. BACKGROUND: The McDonald Road Diet project will place a two-inch asphalt overlay on McDonald Road between Mission Avenue and 8th Avenue. The pedestrian ramps will also be updated and storm water facilities will be improved. McDonald will be restriped from Mission Avenue to 16th Avenue and traffic signal modifications will be completed. The project is funded by a HSIP grant, TIB grant and city funds. Public works staff designed the project and received permission from the funding agencies to advertise for bids. Bids were advertised on May 27 and are scheduled to be opened on June 17, 2016. OPTIONS: Information Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information Only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The McDonald Road Diet Project budget is $1,853,630. It is funded with a $608,900 federal HSIP grant, a $1,237,630 TIB grant, a local match of $7,100 (Fund 301 REET), $292,380 in Street Preservation funds (Fund 311) and $378,094 in Stormwater funds (Fund 402). STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE — Senior Capital Projects Engineer Eric Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: McDonald Road Exhibit MIN OEM 1111u. in Elmum Irmo liliuil 1 MUM u rlail NIMIN rali 1p ami MN OM INI 'II 7 u ii il gum is mum sum El ... El II II III memo em immiow iiiii ar'llEA sgli I IIIum IN alIli In BOLINMillII MI111 MISSION BROADWAY McDONALD ROAD MISSION TO 16TH HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) PROJECT LOCATION SW BL LANE SW TWLTL CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY LANE BL SW LANE SPRAGUE 16TH AVE LANE LANE LANE "t" EA SECTION NTS SW BL LANE SW LANE LANE BL SW LANE SW IB SECTION NTS NOT TO SCALE SW NEW -{ EXISTING NEW EXISTING Spokane .Valley HSIP McDONALD ROAD FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP DRAWN BY: RPB CHECKED BY: RJW DATE: 7/15/2014 DATE: 7/15/2014