The URL can be used to link to this page

2016, 07-05 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, July 5, 2016 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) 6:00 p.m. DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ACTION ITEMS: 1. Eric Guth Sullivan Road Bridge, Max J. Kuney Centennial Trail Change Order [public comment] 2. Steve Worley Seth Woodard Sidewalk Project #0234 Bid Award [public comment] 3. Mayor Higgins Mayoral Appointment: Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials [public comment] Motion Consideration Motion Consideration Motion Consideration NON -ACTION ITEMS: 4. Chelsie Taylor Review of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Goals And Priorities 5. Steve Worley Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Call for Projects: Innovative Safety Program 6. Morgan Koudelka Public Safety Goals — Law Enforcement 7. Erik Lamb Second Extension of Mining Moratorium 8. Mayor Higgins Advance Agenda 9. Information Only (Will not be reported or discussed): (a) Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center Interlocal (b) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Policy 10. Mayor Higgins Council Comments 11. Mark Calhoun Acting City Manager Comments ADJOURN Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Study Session Agenda July 5, 2016 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 5, 2016 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ['admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project #0155 — Max J. Kuney, Centennial Trail Realignment Change Order GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Admin report on revised De Minimis determination on impact to the Centennial Trail related to Trail realignment work on October 6, 2015; Motion to Approve on October 13, 2015 regarding the revised De Minimis Determination on Impacts to the Centennial Trail; City Manager comments and Council agreement on October 20, 2015 for City Manager to execute Centennial Trail realignment change order based on Finance Committee approval; Info RCA regarding Centennial Trail realignment change order for soldier piles on November 10, 2015; Admin report on Centennial Trail realignment Phase 2 change order (Change Order No. 11) on June 28, 2016. BACKGROUND: On October 6, 2015, staff informed Council that it was discovered that the vertical clearance between the surface of the Centennial Trail and the bottom of the new Sullivan Road Bridge wouldn't meet minimum standards. As a result, the vertical and horizontal alignments of the Centennial Trail needed to be revised. Council was informed on November 10, 2015 that the Centennial Trail realignment effort would involve three change orders. The first change order (No. 7) authorized contractor Max J. Kuney Company (MJK) to purchase the steel piles that would be needed to construct a retaining wall along the north side of the realigned Trail. The second change order (No. 8) authorized construction of the first phase of the Centennial Trail realignment design, including the soldier pile and rock retaining walls, earthwork, temporary and permanent paving, drainage improvements, and other Phase 1 work. The third change order (No. 11) covers the final Phase 2 of the work, which includes a cast -in-place concrete retaining wall with decorative finish, lower stairway, walkway, railings, and related earthwork. This last phase connects the previous stairwell and sidewalk to the relocated/lowered Centennial Trail. Change Order No. 7 increased the Contract amount by $24,783.60. Change Order No. 8 increased the Contract amount by $381,138.07 and added 20 working days to the Contract time. Staff has been negotiating with the Contractor the terms of Change Order No. 11 related to Phase 2 of the Centennial Trail realignment effort. Staff has reached agreement with MJK on the prices for nine of the ten pay items listed in the change order. These nine items are valued at $36,365.59, including applicable sales tax. Staff has not been able to reach agreement on the South Overlook Lower Stairway pay item. This item includes a cast -in-place concrete retaining wall with decorative finish, lower stairway, walkway, and related earthwork. Where agreement on price cannot be reached, the Contract allows for work to proceed and be paid for on a time and materials (force account) basis. Staff recommends this lower stairway work proceed on this basis. The estimated value of the South Overlook Lower Stairway pay item is $67,650.53, including applicable sales tax. Payment to MJK for this item will be based on the actual documented cost of the work, which is anticipated to be lower than the estimated value shown in the executed change order. Based on the agreed upon prices and the estimated price for the South Overlook Lower Stairway item, the total Phase 2 change order value is $104,016.12. (Reference Change Order No. 11 — Draft, attached). The attached Change Order Log provides a summary of the Sullivan bridge project change orders through Change Order No. 11. OPTIONS: (1) Authorize the Acting City Manager or his designee to execute a change order for the Centennial Trail realignment work that includes a force account pay item for the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project, or (2) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the Acting City Manager or his designee to execute Change Order No. 11 to Max J Kuney's construction contract for the Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project in the amount of $104,016.12 for Phase 2 of the Centennial Trail realignment work, and approve the resulting total contract amount of $12,866,566.46. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The project budget includes sufficient funds to cover the Change Order No. 11 cost. This work is eligible for grant reimbursement. The following table provides a summary of the costs associated with the Centennial Trail realignment effort and anticipated cost sharing based on the existing allocation of project funds. Cost Share: FHWA (44%) $ 226,472 TIB (19%) $ 99,081 FMSIB (9%) $ 42,492 City (13%) $ 65,677 CH2M (15%) $ 76,216 Total Cost $ 509,938 Centennial Trail Realignment Costs: Change Order No. 7 — Steel Piles Change Order No. 8 — Trail Phase 1 Change Order No. 11 — Trail Phase 2 Total Estimated Trail Realignment Costs $ 24,784 $ 381,138 $ 104,016 $ 509,938 Following is a current summary of the overall project budget, including the above costs for the Centennial Trail realignment effort: Funding: Expenditures: FHWA $ 8,000,000 PE $ 1,824,835 TIB $ 3,500,000 RW $ 81,503 FMSIB $ 1,588,086 Phase 1 CN $ 181,145 Utilities $ 367,782 Phase 2 CN (Estimate) $13,793,376 City* $ 2,380,834 Total Estimated Expenditures $15,880,859 CH2M $ 76,216 Total Funding $15,912,918 *Includes estimated revenues from Fund 311 for added northbound lane preservation work. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, P.E. — Capital Improvement Program Manager Eric Guth, P.E. — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Change Order No. 11, and 2) Change Order Log Spokane il■OValley DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DRAFT CHANGE ORDER NO: 11 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO: 14-039 PROJECT: Phase 2 - Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project PRIME CONTRACTOR: Max J. Kuney Company CONTRACT DATE: 8/8/2014 CIP NO: 0155 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES This Change Order pertains to: Schedule C - Work on State -Owned Lands The Contractor shall perform Phase 2 of the Centennial Trail realignment work as shown and specified in Attachment A (Drawings), Attachment B (Technical Special Provisions), and Attachment C (Assumptions and clarifications stated in Contractor's November 5, 2015 serial letter 028.), which were issued as part of Change Order No. 8. In general, the Phase 2 work includes revisions to the stairway connection between the South Overlook and the Centennial Trail and the 54 -inch high Type 6 vinyl coated chain link fence along the North Retaining Wall, Payment will be made for the Phase 2 Centennial Trail Realignment work according to the unit price list below and actual field measurements. The South Overlook Lower Stairway (Pay Item CO -11.8(C)) work shall be performed per Section 1-09.6, Force Account, of the Standard Specifications. Item No. Description CO -11.1(C) Cement Conc. Sidewalk CO -11.2(C) Rock for Rock Wall CO -11.3(C) Backfill for Rock Wall CO -11.4(C) Structure Excavation Class B CO -11.5(C) Shoring or Extra Excavation Class B CO -11.6(C) Coated Chain Link Fence Type 6 CO -11.7(C) End, Gate, Corner, and Pull Post for Chain Link Fence CO -11.8(C) South Overlook Lower Stairway CO -11.9(C) Single Rail Railing at Stairway CO -11.10(C) Pedestrian Railing at South Overlook and Stairway Unit Quantity Unit Price Total SY 84 $ 110.00 $ 9,240.00 Ton 13 109.00 1,417.00 Ton 3 138.00 414.00 CY 2 166.00 332.00 SF 30 19.00 570.00 LF 240 31.00 7,440.00 EA 2 286.00 572.00 FA 1 Estimate 62,236.00 LF 10 51.00 510.00 LF 54 240.00 12.960.00 Subtotal $ $ 8.7% Sales Tax (applicable only to Bid Schedules C, D, and E) 95,691.00 8,325.12 Total Amount of this Change Order (incl. Tax): $ 104,016.12 PHYSICAL COMPLETION Original Contract Working Days: 484 Revision By This Change Order: 0 Revisions by Prior Change Orders: 31 Total Revised Contract Working Days: 515 CONTRACT AMOUNT THESE CHANGES RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS OF TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: ORIGINAL TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT TOTAL PRIOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT (through CO #10) TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER NET THIS CHANGE ORDER TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING THIS CHANGE ORDER $ 12,307,560.31 $ 454,990.03 $ 12,762,550.34 $ 104,016.12 $ 12,866,566.46 CONTRACTOR ACCEPTANCE: DATE: The contractor hereby accepts this adjustment under the terms of Section 1-04.4 of the original contract. RECOMMENDED BY: APPROVED BY: DATE: Project Manager DATE: Page 1 of 2 COSV Form 9/5/2014 Spokane il■OValley DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DRAFT CHANGE ORDER NO: 11 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO: 14-039 PROJECT: Phase 2 - Sullivan Road West Bridge Replacement Project PRIME CONTRACTOR: Max J. Kuney Company CONTRACT DATE: 8/8/2014 CIP NO: 0155 APPROVED BY: Public Works Director City Manager DATE: ATTACHMENTS: None Distribution: ORIGINAL TO: City of Spokane Valley Clerk's Office COPIES TO: Contractor, PW Project File, Project Inspector, Finance Department, WSDOT ER Local Programs Page 2 of 2 COSV Form 9/5/2014 BRM 4103(007) Federal Aid No.: Contract No.: City Project No.: CHANGE ORDER LOG Approved By CL CL CL CL CL Council Council' CL CL Council I cii > it _ R4 C4 E - 7 U $ (4,000.00) $ 6,839.00 $ 58,182.36 m N l0 M Li-) m N l0 M Lfl t.0 N 00 O N LID 01 Lfl l0 00 $ 426,004.03 $ 427,346.03 O O Cr) Cr) �-I l0 O O Lf') 0 $ (4,000.00) O O Ol M 00 c -I $ 51,343.36 O O O 00 O O O 00 N M $ 24,783.60 $ 381,138.07 $ 1,342.00 O O drr l0 N N l0 I O O Description Shop Coat Temp. Sidewalk Brackets in Lieu of GaIv. Centennial Trail Traffic Control Spokane County Flora Pit Road Sewer Connection Traffic Control Revisions DBE Subcontractor Substitution Pay Item A-15, A-48, A-49, and A-62 Deletions Centennial Trail Realignment - Phase 1, Furnishing Soldier Pile - W12 x 53 Centennial Trail Realignment - Phase 1 Removal and Disposal of Asbestos Material Street Lighting and Pedestrian Lighting Circuit Revisions Centennial Trail Realignment - Phase 2 PENDING APPROVAL Q 0 -1 Ni M d- Ln LC N 00 Ol O2 r1 CHANGE ORDER APPROVALS: a) U a) = c o as 0 2 U U Public Works Director EA - Change Order Total $ 12,307,560.31 7 O E U O U 0 O a) U O E Q V) U O E a) C - i O 0 • 0) c» L O 0 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 5, 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: Motion Consideration Bid Award - Seth Woodard Sidewalk Project #0234 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority 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. Info RCA provided by Staff on June 7, 2016. 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 were advertised on Friday, June 10, 2016 and opened on Friday, June 24th. Three bids were received and the lowest responsible bidder was Cameron -Reilly, LLC with a bid of $335,026.00. The bid is 0.5% above the Engineer's Estimate of $333,597 and within the overall project budget of $ $429,987. A copy of the bid tabulation is attached. OPTIONS: 1) Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder or 2), take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Seth Woodard Sidewalk Project, CIP # 234 to Cameron Reilly, LLC in the amount of $335,026.00 and authorize the Acting City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total CDBG 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. The total Storm water project budget is $40,000. There are sufficient funds in Funds 303 and 402 to cover the cost for this project. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE —Capital Improvement Program Manager Eric Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabs, Vicinity Map BID TABULATION 00 O N a N 00 O Ol 0 00 t N CU a o 0 a` 00Y m 3 a v M ▪ N ✓ o m` Z oa o U OtO J � NA Degerstrom, Inc ' Total Cost 0 0 0 O O O VI V1 M N VT VT $1,000.001 51,500.00 00'080'I5 00'OOI'E$ 001)SL'E$ 00'000'£$ 00'005'5$ 00'OOL'95 00'000'8$ 00'000'81$ 00'000'SZ$ 00'000'95 0 0 tp 00 l0 N VT VT 55,330.00 $20,700.00 0 0 0 0 O O r.00 V1 M a VT 0 0 0 aiM1 co, an 0 VT O n $3,400.00 530,100.00 0 0 0 0 N 0 M a O h VT VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 O rl eM4 V1 -I VT 00'008'[$ 00'008'1$ 0 0 o N O a 0a a N LT LT 0 0 0 0 O O O O n ey VT VT 0 0 o a O 00 CO t0 N N N 0 0 o 0 O O IDut 1 O vF L! 0 0 O CO VT VT Unit Price yI J _! J CALL LS $60.00 $4.00 $2,850.00 LS 0 0 5 0 en ul ut a0 VT an 0 0 l0 V 0 0 LD ci VT N $25.00 $75.00 51.50 CALL 0 0 0 VI U M U V) 0 0 0 0 o V1 N N CO V1 V) $28.00 $48.00 00'00L'I$ 00•995 0 0 0 0 O o O O N M 0 0 0 O ri 0 N N VT VT 0 0 O O 0 0 VI N LT N 0 0 O O 0 0 CO I\ N UT 0 0 O O 0 0 O O N VI 1n IA 1 Sandry Construction Co. Total Cost $13,500.00 54,400.00 O O 0 0 00 O N O VI IV N 00'00['8$ 00.008`85 00'005'8$ 00'008`6$ 00.008'TT$ 00'000'5$ $1,000.00 57,687.50 54,030.00 $3,915.00 0 0 0 o a ID M r1 N a M IT Vf 0 0 00 o a 0 t -I l0 a r ri N VT VI $55,000.00 $2,500.00 0 0 0 0 vi ./ al an 01 ri 01 0 0 0 0 .M VT 0 N VF 0 0 0 0 0 Ni N l0 LMT INNA • . 0 0 0 0 0 M N in 100.009'9$ 00'0065 O O rn N N N N 5680.001 $1,368.00 O O 00 0 M t0 h IT $1,125.00' L11-1 Price y� J J 0 CALL LS $49.00 $4.25 $1,400.00 LS O a O O O N V1 0 VT .O-1 I/O N an N $42.00 $16.001 N O N 0 .^1 1-1 ri in V1 $25.00 $50.00 ut O U Q U O 0 0 0 U J 5 O 0 0 0 0 00 0 ri COa0 VT 519.00 $40.00 0 0- 0 0-. 0 0 01 O VT ...j - - - - 0 Vl 0... 01 00 ei VT VT . • . 0 0 0 0 00 00 t0 tV/�f V1 0 0 0 0 0 O -I ^ 00 00 an. In Cameron - Reilly LLC ITotal Cost 0 0 .466600 M 0 t0 0 ri V1 -VI IA 0 0 0 0 Vl VI V' v IA $5,000.0 513,500.00 511,000.00 $6,000.00 53,000.00 $3,500.00 $1,000.00 $7,500.00 $4,340.00 $1,620.00 0 0 0 0 V1 ID 01 V1 0 rl INA VT 0 0 0 0 I` a 01 n 00 00 V1 NLT 0 0 0 0 O V1 CO CO N N VT 0 0 V1 N N 4/1 M M VT 0 0 CT VI y{ /�[F 0 0 0 01 a 1\ ry r-1-4 LT VI $6,240.001 521,275.00 - 0 0 0 0 N N VT N oo'osc$ 0o'OOb'I$ $800.00 $2,250.00 '00'005'1$ ' Unit Price 11 LS 1 LS CALC LS $55.00 $3.00 $1,500.00 L5 $1.00 $10.00 $7.00 $12.00 O O a 10 c 00 V0j 0 00 N 14 VT $24.00 $57.00 V1 .-1 V} U I CALC $4.00 0 to O N O a VI $16.00 $37.00 555.00 51,200.00 O O O O O O O O N ti N VT $20.00 $20.00 00'0085 00'0ZT$ 00'05[$ 00'0085 J O O 6 O VT 'Engineers Estimate 'Total Cost 0 $32,000.0[ 0 52,000.08 00.000'1$ 00'0095 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O- VT $1,000.00 $3,750.00 $3,100.00 $2,025.00 0 0 O O IIl1 0 00 LT H $15.00 $12,300.00 $20.00 $46,000.00 $25.00 $55,000.001 $50.00 $2,500.00 0 0 0 0 0 .-1 00 in VT O O ."I VT J Q U 0 0 0 0 a 0 VT 00 0 0 0 In 0>4 Q u 51,000.001 $4,000.00 $15.00 $18,060.00 515.00 $5,850.00 $35.00 520,125.00 $40.00 $8,000.00 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 . Ne•I 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N N ei ..4' IIT VT $20.00 $3,300.001 $15.00 $2,100.00 000095 oo'oi$ 00'00I,85 00'ST$ 5100.001 51,000.00 $80.00 51,920.00 0 0 OOOO 0 0 0 0 D V N 1n In 0 0 0 0 O O N I(1 VT VF 0 0 0 0 0 NN O h eiVT VTO O 0 VI N VT J Unit Price 532,000.0 $2,000.0 $5,000.00 510,000.00 $50.00 $3.00 $2,000.00 19 0 0 0 0 V} cii 0 0 0 0 tr.c-I 6 I// Units Quantity I00l_00 0 0 N O 0 0 0 00 o VI N m 0 00 t0 .-i 0 0 00 0 00 N 0 0 N 0 CO M N 0 0 0 LT N N 0 .-1 0 OI .-1 .i N a a NO .I O M 0 M 0N 0 O 00 O H O O .-I O a .-I IN COM .-1 M VI VC Q V1 K K U J 2 2 } l.L } V7 J VI Y } U tri } } VI a } } Vf Vi Q UL..) Q Q W Q IL 1.I _iJ LL 2 } Q Vj W 2 2 Q Q W W LL Y J N } • ll V. LL li -i Q Q Lo N Q ol MOBILIZATION CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING MINOR CHANGE PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL FLAGGERS PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN RELOCATE RFB CLEARING AND GRUBBING SAWCUT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK / DRIVEWAY APPROACH ROADWAY EXCAV. INCL. HAUL CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE, 2 IN. DEPTH CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 4 IN. DEPTH CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 6IN. DEPTH HMA CL. 1/2" PG 70-28 0.33 FT. DEPTH HMA CL. 1/2" PG 70-28 MISCELLANEOUS AREAS JOINT ADHESIVE JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE ADJUST EXISTING UTILITY VAULT CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK * CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APPROACH * CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL B CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE PERPENDICULAR A CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE SINGLE DIRECTION A CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB SOD INSTALLATION TOPSOIL, TYPE C REMOVE EXISTING FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE TYPE X CHAIN LINK FENCE TYPE Y ADJUST CHAINLINK GATE IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION MAILBOX SUPPORT, TYPE 1 11 V1 >0 0 0 H .M I'` 00 0 0 .i ei 01 0 0 .i A -I .-1 N .-I N 1 r1 001a .-1 .-1 r1 V1 LO e1 . y ei el N 0O .N I r1 r1 00 0 .-I N r1 N N N rl rI M a N N ."I ri N t0 N N ri r1 I\ CO N N r1 N 01 O N m c -I e -I .-I N (01 1Y1 c -I el Ma M M e -I ri V1 t0 M m .-I .-I r 00 m m N .-I 01 0 m a rl rl .-1 a N N a ei BID TABULATION l0 O a 10 01 40 0 CV • a o 0 • :o Y 3 a m ✓ O O Z a o_ O 0 . • N v 2 NA Degerstrom, Inc Total Cost 0 o 00 0 0 $672.00 $420.00 0 0 N V 5354,159.001 ' NA Degerstrom, Inc 'Total Cost $2500.00 $3,000.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m to 0 0 0 6 O N O N .-I VY I00'002'6t$ 00'0585 0 0 c In 0 CA vt 0 o 0 a 0 0 N m N 0 TOTAL (All schedules) $333,597.00 $335,026.00 $364,812.50 $415,529.001 1 Unit Price o 0 O V} o 0 0 0 O VI-LTV, 0 0 O Unit Price 0 0 O o an ... N 00'ST$ 00'005$ 0 O 0 0 00N O In N v V} N- 5850.00 $3,200.00 $950.00 545.00 o 0 v1 Sandry Construction Co. 'Total Cost $435.00 $567.001 $357.00 $984.00 O I-: V N Sandry Construction Co. 'Total Cost O O O 0 a 0 .^n $625.00 $660.00 $7,200.00 $2,025.00 0 0 V1 O t0D n v*n 0m .n 0 0 O 4 0 10 .fin 0 l0 n n 0 10 01 Enm 0 1 Unit Price $7.251 0 0 En O ." I .'-1 07 VI 0 N V} Unit Price 0 0 440 01 N N V} 0 0 0 0 N tin 0 .n 0 0 0 0 0 n 001 a 40 N V} 0 0 0 0 V N l0 . L6 ti $550.00 572.00 0 0 01 4/4 Cameron - Reilly LLC (Total Cost O Vl $420.00 $336.00 o o N ,ti V} 0 0 m m T O1 0 Cameron - Reilly LLC Total Cost o o O 0 o 0 0 In O N n1 V1 5850.00 $550.00 O 40 N a I' ° V} $600.00 $18,000.00 $600.00 $3,680.00 N 0 m 10 N m U 1 Unit Price 0 .-i 0 0 0 O l0 .y e -I .n VT 0 O O N N IUnit Price 0 n . 0 ti .n 5850.00 525.00 00'05t$ 0 0 0 (00 0 • 0f V) 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 VNi Engineers Estimate 'Total Cost 0 0 OO ID 00 V} $420.00 $315.00 0 O a 40 0. 0 O 00 a 00 Engineers Estimate 'Total Cost 0 0 0 0 o O 0 In 0 N 00'0995 00.005$ 0 0 0 0 O O 0 In 0. N 0 00'000'8T$ 00'005$ 0 0 0 0 6666 Ln 0 VT IO N 0 0 0 00 V} 0 0 .-I .-I m 0! u a 7 0 0 04 0 0 00 u+ O .-I .n .n 0 0 04 M IUnit Price 0 0 0 N r VT J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m En an 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h N 4 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 „.; 100'055 00'05$ 0 0 6 0 V. Total Sched B - Units Quantity 1 0 10 N a N 0 NN Total Sched A - >. V 0 44 - m ,.I N m m .-I 10 .04 N 01 00 u_ v1 LL u_ V) J 0 U w O • w J Q 0 0 w w 0 0 w w 0 w J VI BASE BID SCHEDULE A Item # IREMOVE PAVEMENT MARKING PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE PLASTIC STOP LINE (PLASTIC WIDE LANE LINE * BASE BID SCHEDULE B Item # TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM ABANDON EXISTING DRYWELL REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN REMOVE STORM DRAIN PIPE CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 SPILL CONTROL SEPARATOR CONNECTION TO EXISTING DRYWELL PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELL TYPE A WITH SOLID COVER TYPE 4 FRAME AND SOLID COVER SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 10 IN. DIA. POROUS SHOULDER DRAIN m a .--I a 10 a a ."1 .0 VD a 1-1 ci N 0 0 N N m a 0 0 N N In lD 0 0 N N IN CO 0 0 N N 01 O 0 T. N N - N X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X mow r —• Image-ry.,DateP44/,(201Cr4""4:7740'18..4b:LN 13/ 1332/ ele,.; '1959 ft N'tx5,5115-K g 1\1 .3E74,uocM .5f-tE N21,4.-pao- ciis 0 ast4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 5, 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: Motion Consideration: Confirmation of Mayoral Appointment GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Various ordinances, resolutions, and state statutes. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Annually, the Mayor makes appointment recommendations to place councilmembers on various regional boards and committees. The resignation of former Councilmember Dean Grafos leaves a vacancy on the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials. Per Interlocal Agreement, committee membership includes two elected officials from the City of Spokane Valley. Councilmember Wood was appointed January 12, 2016. Mayor Higgins intends to appoint himself to that committee for the remainder of 2016. The Interlocal Agreement also stipulates that "jurisdictions may also appoint alternates, who must be an elected official. Alternates may vote during the absence of the regular representative." OPTIONS: Move to confirm the Mayoral appointment of Mayor Higgins to the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials for the remainder of 2016; and appoint all other Councilmembers as alternates; or take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to confirm the Mayoral appointment of Mayor Higgins to the Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials for the remainder of 2016; and to appoint all other current Councilmembers as voting alternates for the remainder of 2016. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: COUNCIL CONTACT: Mayor Higgins ATTACHMENTS: n/a CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 5, 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: Council Goals and Priorities for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC). GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Imposition of tax, set-up of LTAC and determination of qualified expenditures is governed by RCW 67.28, as amended by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1253 in 2013; and SVMC 3.20. See also Spokane Valley Municipal Code 3.20. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No action on the 2016 process leading to 2017 awards has been taken thus far. Council goals and priorities for using lodging tax revenues to benefit tourism in Spokane Valley were last reviewed by Council on August 11, 2015. BACKGROUND: The Tax Rate: In 2003, the City imposed an initial 2% lodging tax on all charges for furnishing lodging at hotels and motels pursuant to RCW 67.28.180. This tax is taken as a credit against the 6.5% state sales tax, so that the total tax a patron pays in retail sales tax and the hotel/motel tax combined is equal to the retail sales tax in the jurisdiction — which for Spokane Valley is 8.7%. The estimated revenues for the initial 2% lodging tax in the 2016 Budget are currently $550,000; however, we are now estimating revenues for 2016 and 2017 will be approximately $580,000 based upon collections during 2015 and year-to-date collections for 2016. On April 14, 2015, the City imposed an additional 1.3% lodging tax pursuant to RCW 67.28.181. This tax is in addition to the existing 8.7% sales tax imposed in Spokane Valley, and when combined with a 2.0% lodging tax imposed by the Spokane Public Facilities District causes the total lodging tax rate in Spokane Valley to equal 12.0%. This additional lodging tax went into effect July 1, 2015. We currently estimate the 1.3% lodging tax will generate approximately $377,000 in 2016 and 2017. 1 The combined sales and lodging tax rates are shown in the table below: Sales tax State of Washington City of Spokane Valley Spokane County Criminal Justice Spokane PFD Public Safety Juvenile Jail Mental Health Law Enforcement Communications Spokane Transit Authority Total sales tax Tax Components Retail 1 Hotel 6.50% 4.50% 0.85% 0.85% 0.15% 0.15% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.60% 0.60% 8.70% 6.70% Lodging tax City of Spokane Valley (initial 2.0% tax) 0.00% 2.00% City of Spokane Valley (additional 1.3% tax) 0.00% 1.30% Spokane PFD 0.00% 2.00% Total lodging tax 0.00% 5.30% Total tax 8.70% 12.00% Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) The organizations to which the tax proceeds are distributed are ultimately determined by the City Council which receives a recommendation from the LTAC. The LTAC is comprised of five members who are appointed by the City Council, and by State law the Committee membership must include: • At least two representatives of businesses that are required to collect the tax, • At least two people who are involved in activities that are authorized to be funded by the tax, and • One elected city official who serves as chairperson of the LTAC. The LTAC makes its recommendations based upon a combination of written application materials and a presentation that is made to them by each applicant. State Rules Governing Use of the Initial 2% Lodging Tax In 2013 the Washington State Legislature approved Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1253 which amended the lodging tax revenue, application process, selection process, and reporting requirements. ESHB 1253 specifically retained the City's authority to use lodging tax revenues to fund: • Tourism marketing. • The marketing and operations of special events and festivals. • The operations and capital expenditures of tourism -related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or public facility district. • The operations (but not capital expenditures) of tourism -related facilities owned or operated by non-profit organizations. 2 ESHB also established new application and reporting procedures for cities with a population greater than 5,000 that applicants must now submit their applications to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. The application is required to estimate how the grant award requested will result in increases in the number of people traveling to the City for business or pleasure in the following categories: • Away from their place of residence or business and staying overnight in paid accommodations; • To a place 50 miles or more one way from their place of residence or business for the day or staying overnight; or • From another country or state outside their place of residence or their business. Through 2012, the City Council could, at its option, supersede the recommendation of the LTAC and award lodging tax funds to applicants in the amount the Council collectively determined was appropriate based upon their own goals and priorities for promoting conventions, festivals, special events, and tourist travel. However, ESHB 1253 altered this authority and now Council's power has been limited to either accepting the recommendations of the LTAC and make the awards as recommended, or reject the recommendations of the LTAC and decline to award specific proposals. Council may opt to accept some but not all of the recommendations for those proposals it feels are appropriate. However, Council cannot change the amount of any recommended award. In the event Council agrees with some but not all of the LTAC recommendations, some money may be "unallocated" and in that event Council would have to decide whether they would hold an additional application round or retain this money until the following year's award process. Council Goals and Priorities for Use of the Initial 2% Lodging Tax In August 2013 Council for the first time adopted goals and priorities that it encouraged the LTAC to consider when making award recommendations, which Council updated in August 2014 and again in August 2015 to the following: 1. Council will focus on using lodging taxes to create distinct and identifiable increases in Spokane Valley tourism. As part of this goal, Council will use lodging taxes for the purposes allowed in State law, which include: a. Tourism marketing b. The marketing and operations of special events and festivals c. The operation and capital expenditures of tourism related facilities owned or operated by a municipality or public facility district d. The operation (but not capital expenditures) of tourism related facilities owned or operated by non-profit organizations. 2. Council recognizes that lodging nights are an important measure of a successful event or marketing program but will also take into consideration the economic impact of all major components of our tourism -based economy including shopping, dining and overnight visits. 3. Council will consider the utilization of funds for capital expenditures to develop tourism destination facilities or venues within the City of Spokane Valley (recognizing that this option is limited to facilities owned by a municipality or public facility district). 4. Programs, projects or events should have the goal of becoming operationally self-sustaining in the future. 5. Council desires that 20% of total grant monies awarded be directed towards funding new and innovative projects, activities or events that will distinguish Spokane Valley as a tourism destination. 3 6. Council will take into consideration revenues derived from lodging sources within Spokane Valley received by applicants from other municipal entities and agencies such as the Spokane County Tourism Promotion Authority and Spokane Public Facilities District. 2016 Timeline Leading to 2017 Awards of the Initial 2.0% Lodging Tax The calendar we plan to follow in 2016 for 2017 lodging tax awards is as follows: Wed 8/31/2016 City runs notice in newspaper, places on web site, and sends letters to 2016. award recipients and others agencies that may have expressed interest. Wed 9/7/2016 4pm LTAC meeting at City Hall -review application -review Council Goals & Priorities for use of lodging tax Fri 10/7/2016 Grant proposals are due to City by 4pm (no late submittals will be accepted). Fri 10/14/2016 Applications sent to Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for review. Thurs 10/20/2016 8:30 am Applicant presentations to Committee. Tues 11/8/2016 Formal Council Meeting Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to City Council Tues 12/13/2016 * Formal Council Meeting City Council Motion Consideration: Award Lodging Tax for 2016 RCW 67.28.1817 requires that the City wait for a period of at least 45 days after the LTAC meeting before action can be taken by the City Council. 12/13/2016 Council Action 10/20/2016 LTAC meeting 54 days Additional 1.3% Lodging Tax The 1.3% additional lodging tax imposed by the City via Ordinance #15-008 went into effect July 1, 2015, and we received our first remittance from the State in September 2015. The total collected during 2015 for this tax was $182,236, and the estimated revenues in the 2016 Budget are currently $357,500; however, we are now estimating revenues for 2016 and 2017 will be approximately $377,000 based upon collections during 2015 and year-to-date collections for 2016. Proceeds of this tax are to be used solely for capital expenditures for acquiring, constructing, making improvements to or other related capital expenditures for large sporting venues, or venues for tourism -related facilities that generate overnight guests at lodging facilities. The ultimate commitment of these funds will follow an application and award process similar to that employed with the initial 2.0% lodging tax where the LTAC will consider an application and make a recommendation to the City Council which will have the final say on whether an award is made. It will be quite some time before we accumulate enough money to begin such a project but we currently anticipate any project(s) considered will be jointly developed by the City and our local hoteliers and will take into account not just the cost of constructing a facility but also the cost of 4 future operations. It is noteworthy that the proceeds of the additional 1.3% lodging tax may only be used for the construction of a facility and may not be used for operations. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: This is a discussion item only but staff is: 1. Seeking consensus from the Council on the goals and priorities the LTAC should consider when evaluating applications, and 2. Communicating to Council that the 2017 Budget is again being developed to set aside $30,000 of lodging tax revenues to enhance CenterPlace advertising expenses resulting in an increase in that marketing budget from $30,000 to $60,000. The Council is able to make this decision independent of any input from the LTAC because this represents a historical use by the City that preceded the Legislature's adoption of ESHB 1253. If the City desired the use of any additional lodging tax proceeds, it would be required to utilize the same application process noted above that is required of all other agencies seeking funding. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: In 2017 the 2% portion of the lodging tax is currently anticipated to generate approximately $580,000 and the 1.3% portion an additional $377,000. STAFF CONTACT: Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: • Lodging Tax Award History — 2003 through 2016 5 H:\Budget\2017\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-16.xlsx I 2007 3 Q r- 0 2 Q co O- Q Q r- o 2 Q co 10 0 Q 0 O T Q Q Q 0 O 000000000 0000 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0000000 O co co 0 O - O r O N co (0 co r- O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 CO 0 0 00 0 LO O LO LO 0 00 O r O N r r N (O co- V LO ,- r- 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 o 0 0 (n 0 0 0 0 0C 0C V LO ON ,- 0 O- N r- 00000000 0 00 000000000 0 00 000 000000000 00000000 00 00000000 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0000 O O 00 0 V 0 0 O O O L6 O r- O N N N CO 0 CN CO r- 447,450 432,500 313,535 170,800 I 2006 a Q 0 O U Q Q Q 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o LO .1 )n c n c CO (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 CO U) CCO 0 � 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0) N M 0 0) V (O O N O V N O - N 446,855 325,000 I 2005 a Q 0 ° U Q Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 co u) oLo(0 (0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L6 O N IL O c N 0 CN N O - N 397,740 260,000 I 2004 a Q 0 0 U_ Q Q Q O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 o 000 0 0 0 0 0 O (0 CV -O 0 N O (O CV V N O LO - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 000 V 0 0 (O V 0 0 0 lO 000 CO 0 0 N CO I- 0 0 N CO N N I- N ON M I- V (O )- N 694,165 360,000 2003 10 Q O 0 (B U Q Q Q 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000 00 (0 N O o0 00 r- O O ,_ N V N CO- COCO n N 00 I-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lOO N 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 N I- CO 00 0 0 M 0 0 00 C00.1- N 000 CO• CO V LOO 0 0 CO3-0 0 0 N O (O I- 000 M 00 M N O O LO (O O O O O co- co- (O 01 O 01 O (O N ,- N CO ,- CO N N V 00) ,- 0U) N - - N 1,090,264 218,000 AGENCIES 0 0) 0 O Q O .n 0) CZ = • m c O EO'OW EUz Y Y 0m 2 c co o a f o E • oU o m E o N w O . O Q . L O X O O O > H N ` C UE'2 0 75 75 pL m co (lN � (4 Q. 0) 0) i i ,U E o 0 L YQ NO O H N.'U N ,r6 N •0 t t > .2 2UU w>.E'oE=0Ua m.) ' m m m U O >> E Q O O E N> 'o CN U .N _ E $ ma.) >, ( w a Q m m>>> E OOY CO5.. ct< E OEIL85=0 020°<r a= O 7 -O . F E E 0 0 0 . .0 C(/) .wm N mZ'U IL -c ONtY._ 0 1) " o .Q drW „,0c, CL N N N O- 8,;,— E scoO -0U o U Y N d Y Y Y O Q .a U r CU V% Y Y (m 0 x U 0 a W >.> >>Q d 3 YO (p (4 Q Q Q�0X O O �> J L m 0 0 0 0 0 0 n0 0 0 0�/% �fVVo Yn�2 a a co co co 2 W! y O- Z0 N 0 0 C C C C C C C C C C'E � �� O- m U 00000 E 2Q6 5,12m CC= 85 5_, Y 333333333rWNNNo2UUm E0Tww00.-.-Nmm2000000000000 Muj---m N N :- . . L m •N>- >- H Q m 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W = E E J J d (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n D > > > 5 5 H:\Budget\2017\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-16.xlsx O 2 'a (0 G N W a t a.J O O > R r w U M YQN Q c R R H N LL 0) O c } 0) - O J 8 N O N a 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Q 0 0 0 N. O N N co u) -0 N = IX 0_O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O 00 00 O O O O O 00 00 O O O O 00 O O 00 O O O 0' O 00 00 O O ui d N u) 0M N u) L6 L6 d r '0 N C Ce 'O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O QO (00 O 00) _ d N u) M co V o0 a H IX 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,- 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' O 0 0 O Q OO O u) O u) N. O u) '0 N = IX 375,131 261,500 440,000 308,720 O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O 00 O O O O O 00 O O 00 O O O 510,000 496,000 O N a O O O O O co cri MU) Q N = O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U_ Q - N 0_ Q 2010 O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O 00 O O O O O 00 O O 00 O O O a co O O O O 0 ui 0 ui co M 0) Q = O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (00 O O 4 U u) — u) N. Q ,- N 0_ Q 486,600 387,500 2009 O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 O O 00 O O O 10 O N O N O u) O �p Oco U) M r- (O 0) N M Q ,- N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 N0 0 O d R co 001 0M 0) d M .2 Q ,- co 0_ Q 645,260 505,000 2008 O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O 00 O O 00 00 O O 00 O O O 10 O O O co O O O cri N- oM CO 0 Q M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0M O O R 0) u) 0M r M U V N Q ,- - co 0_ Q 823,300 624,300 AGENCIES 0 a) = C , R = Q O 0) 0 �n '- •Q N O E= Y a W O O E O R = R ° 2 O) = 0 Z .2 _ w `0 U2 E w O C 2 g .5 E d. C C fl- Q 0 =_0 O x o O. a) 0 0 O >, - O O O U O N Q.° cz > 0 H 0 (` C U E_a i% 00 W En N o O ,N 0-.R CO (` 0_ F F i i O O H.2g;1= 'U N 0 a) p 0) 5 0 0 0 Y o t '� N o> .- 2(7;(7) fon >. .E 'm aoi >, 8 w C" s •' a Q R R >> OY C.0. N a) a) RYQ m . 0 02cna ra.- O(„) 'O E .0 .0• C N OO_ g R R O lL L N •.• N �i cz E E E R R R U g ° Q > Q' CI IL N g E O N 0_ N N a) 0_ U y -0 T `� �O O = cn -o a) oOOOo00oc a"rO Y ani rOOo >.mmQu)2 RUm Y 0 05 Ct 0_ 0_ 0_ g Q C o o n d R a) a) O Q U a cn >> ' Y N d d cn cn cn a)_E2 2 0_ J c a). 0 N N N N N N N N N N- ,O 2 0 fn fn O �C ° In w , Z _ w a O O O O O O O O O O O O :a O w w O_ R _ Y C C 0 c Q') 2 C m C ."60,13, m (0 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r a)LE N N.- n Q Q R a) a) z,'" z,‘-' z,‘ -' L a) .- .- a) R RR X- O O O O O O O O O O O O Uj -- -N_ >d H Q m U U U U U U W lL 2 .L = . 2 J d (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n D > > > > >- H:\Budget\2017\Lodging Tax\Lodging Tax Award History 03-16.xlsx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l f) O O O O l f) 0 0 0 0 0 O O O l f) O O O O O I- O O ],2 to 0 (0 0 0 0 M r- 0 0 r -co c‘i 0 U) l0 co 0 M cO 0 0 O co 0 0 O N N co 0) r- 0) O COCO N M r CO U) cO O N N co 0) to (Y) LO O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O l 0 O V O V 0 0 1- O O O 0 L()0000 I n 0 0 0 I- O 0 O O I- O O O O O M O O M O O O O N O M 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 '= co In 0 0 0 r 00 l0 M 0 0 0 0 U) O O N- 0 0- 0 000 0 0 0 U) 0 M 0 V U)0000 U l0 r- O O O (O N r V O l0 N O O LO- l0 O O l0 V l0 O O,- O l0 (O CO 0)f9 O CO- d) V CO M CO CO CO 0) N V (O N N CO N-(0 L() CO LO V 0) N CO O CON- - r CO 0) 0_ x— x— N N x- N x- N N N N x- x- () r 0_ O f0 f0 co co 0) 0) 2016 10 O O R 2 Q 0_ a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) 0 0 O CD 0 0 O O O O co co co V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- O 0M co0coc ,_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) 0 (0 N 0) 0 co In - r- co- M co V CN N(0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N- 0 0 0 O 0 o00 0 0 r O O M (00 .- co - - N N 976,327 590,000 N O N a a — O O R UM Q 0_ a 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 oo0 0 0 00 0 (o 0 o� O o c 0� co 0 co co V V M M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CN 0 co 0 0 0 O -a: O.- c ' c co N V V 0 N (0 N ,_ N M 885,639 600,000 -a- cs O N 10 �p 5 a — O O R UM Q 0_ a 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 O M O cO op O O O r- (O 0) M C O I- M co co 00 N V N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N (00 O O O O O O O O r (O 0 L() O O O O O V U) O N l0 00 N N 689,100 577,000 co O N �p O U_ Q 0_ 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 N V N op O U) .- N- O (O L() V co U) N N M 00 ,- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0M O .- i. L() L() N co 692,000 510,500 AGENCIES N 0 0 0 g_0 O CZ = R �n N '- QO EY O a w O O R 0 R Un `Z.N0 " Ts 00 2 N E 0 E 0 0 ilii . N 00O O OU O x 0 Q .0 . 0'O pL> H 0 -` C Ea lN0 U ,4 0 -. CO ` 0_ i i Y ' ' NOH N 'U qfN p U E o ',a' d'5 T QO >O C •'o ,, 2> .0 TU o, .E'E'20Uw a o_- E U•m a>(wTs < R R>>> E 0OY C.O$ aa) RYQ E E = 0=00<0 OwmlN -O . 0=N > OO+8 R R O L NN0 0, 0'5FEE 0) .Ea .• 'wd-0w ON0- 0 0- UY a T` N N UO. .0O_ O - 0 d R O E 000 R R U N U >-, 8'aN 0 O o Cu)n '002 o m Oo0o`O�-a2r2`1)1O O 3 aU2 ,m»ma2 R ' ,...CZ " 0 EL-2 OO RJ w 0000000000- E 0 n ffO -Y co _ wd d fn fn fn Nw0w0_ Z U w a CC C C C C C C C C C D.°Oww O_ R "cN O O O "E' 0 mUYYYYYYYYYYr_.--0UU L_m==00N O O N QQ�HEY U 'al ww,LU.-.-NDRN -0Rx— Uj --- .N>- >- > a m O OO O O O w lL lL lL = J J d (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n co D > > > 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 5, 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: WSDOT 2016 Call for Projects - Innovative Safety Program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Info RCA June 28, 2016 BACKGROUND: The WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) has issued a call for projects for the 2016 Innovative Safety Program. The purpose of the program is to reduce fatal and serious injury collisions on public roads using innovative safety improvements. The WSDOT call for projects is specific to four project improvement categories. This grant program focuses on high friction surface treatments at sharp curves, intersection conflict warning systems, projects to increase traffic signal operations or visibility, and compact roundabouts. WSDOT considers these four improvements/countermeasures to be low cost, able to be delivered quickly, and have a high potential to reduce fatal and serious injury collisions. In 2014 the City was awarded Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funds to install retroreflective borders on traffic signal backplates at 10 signalized intersections that had the highest crash rates. Staff has reviewed the grant criteria for this call and has determined that the City can continue its effort to install reflective traffic signal back plates at several more intersections. Staff would recommend pursuing these funds to improve the safety at the signalized intersections. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the use of backplates with retroreflective borders may result in a 15% reduction in all crashes at urban, signalized intersections. City staff has not had an opportunity to review the crash rates at the City's remaining 80 plus signalized intersections to determine the best candidates for this grant opportunity. City staff will evaluate the crash data and present a list of intersections to pursue at the City Council's July 5111, 2016, study session. Preliminary engineering/design, right-of-way, and construction phases of projects are eligible for funding. Project phases that start by August 31, 2017 are each eligible for 100% federal funding (no local match required). Staff would intend to begin all phases of this project prior to the August 31, 2017 deadline to receive the 100% federal funds. Applications are due on July 31, 2016. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No financial match is required for this project if the project is under construction before August 31, 2017. STAFF CONTACT: Sean Messner, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer Eric Guth, P.E., Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Slide from 2014 Council Presentation showing Reflective Backplate Map showing list of Intersections to Pursue V 66P sia c/1 CU 0 v oC CU C6 0 (13V Ca CU CUV CU CC 0 CU • 0 co U co U co (./) ra hA (./.) f6 -o au E DI— E 2 O " CU CU0- • O t cn ^L cn U a) �O ^L c U (7,, E N C6 O N ^L a) a) 4- (1) U CN E O 4- 7 -04-0 2 7 m 0 2 a VI 0 N 0 0 0 0 m 0 a CITY WIDE - REFLECTIVE BACK PLATES INNOVATIVE SAFETY 0 SS3a N33 Odd a3>IHVe 1 V?3033 d3V3 NOO,W 0 Vd0-I3 NVAI3,aS,) C 7 NVOni(1S VICINITY MAP CHECKED BY S WV aV N33 iJ0dLIA3 3 0030 al V NOG�W oma, MONTGOME S3NId A1ISd3A Nn Q MSG NVinf1W o®S .w. NNOOHV tr a till I 11 I IIIIIII Vd '' It gri 4 NVW6� 111111d3 w 1—O Q r w Q CK z Q VNVAVH QJ NV dNOVO J 0 CITY OF SPOKAN NOT TO SCALE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 5, 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: Public Safety Goals — Law Enforcement 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. At the Council Workshop on March 15, 2016, City staff and the Police Chief presented information specific to the Law Enforcement Contract. A follow-up presentation was made to Council on June 7. As a result of Council comments and staff research, staff has developed a list of proposed Public Safety goals specific to Law Enforcement, for the consideration of Council. Each proposed goal in the attached list is immediately followed by a bullet -point list of specific components or features of that goal. That is followed by another bulleted list of the related benefits to that particular goal. While there were many options proposed by Council for each goal, this is staffs best attempt to encapsulate the suggestions to one option for each goal that best addresses Council's concerns while continuing to meet the City's service delivery needs. Staff is seeking Council consensus on each goal either as drafted, or as modified by Council. Some of the goals may require a change to the Municipal Code or to the Contract for Law Enforcement Services, and if so, those changes would be brought to Council separately at a future date. OPTIONS: Identify through Consensus, the City's Law Enforcement Goals. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Public Safety Law Enforcement Goals, Law Enforcement Interlocal Agreement. Proposed Public Safety Law Enforcement Goals Goal #1: Contract Length ➢ Rolling termination of 18-24 months. ➢ Evaluation presented to Council periodically or prior to term expiration. ➢ Auto -renewal Benefits: ➢ Addresses concern of being locked into a long-term contract. ➢ Protects the City by providing enough time to transition into another option should service provider abruptly cancel contract. ➢ Auto -renewal ensures continuity of service while the Council evaluation component allows Council an opportunity to review the contractor performance prior to renewal, and the rolling termination prevents the City from renewing into a lengthy term without a reasonable option for withdrawing . Goal #2: Vehicle Color ➢ Spokane Valley Police marked vehicles will be light blue metallic in color while making no change to the color of existing vehicles. Benefits: ➢ Saves money by utilizing a stock color. ➢ All vehicles are blue, which is distinctive from other local law enforcement agencies. ➢ Eventually all cars will be the same shade of blue. ➢ County sign does decals at low cost, with very large Spokane Valley Police graphic. Goal #3: Marked Cars ➢ Patrol, School Resource Officer, and Community Service Vehicles are clearly marked. ➢ Detective, Traffic, and Supervisor cars are left unmarked. ➢ Current County Sign Shop decals are utilized. Benefits: ➢ Officers responding to calls for service are clearly identified as Spokane Valley police. ➢ Detectives are able to conduct the full range of undercover work. ➢ Traffic officers are able to observe natural driving behavior and identify dangerous driving activity. ➢ Supervisors are able to perform necessary surveillance without being mistaken for patrol officers. ➢ Marked vehicles have large Spokane Valley Police graphics that are very distinctive. Page 1 of 4 Proposed Public Safety Law Enforcement Goals Goal #4: Officer Uniforms ➢ Create an ad-hoc uniform committee comprised of Spokane Valley police officers to identify the best options for a unique uniform to help create a separate Spokane Valley police identity. ➢ These options will be presented to Council for consideration and decision. Benefits: ➢ Increases officer morale by having those who know what works best and will be wearing the uniform, develop suitable options. ➢ Creates the opportunity for a positive outcome for both the Council and the Police Department by jointly developing an option acceptable to both. Goal #5: Dedicated Officers ➢ Through the contract with the Sheriffs Office, identify, when feasible, a fixed number of dedicated Spokane Valley police officers, including Investigative Services. Benefits: ➢ All Spokane Valley dedicated officers will be under the supervision of the Spokane Valley Police Chief. ➢ Where Spokane Valley customer service standards and core values exceed those of the Sheriffs Department, City standards and values will be practiced consistently throughout the department. ➢ Spokane Valley costs will be segregated and specific to City service provided. ➢ Fixed number of officers with better budget predictability and cost stability. ➢ City controls changes to number of officers and types of service units serving the City. Goal #6: Citizen Oversight ➢ Incorporate a Citizen Oversight Board (CAB) into the Law Enforcement Contract in some fashion. ➢ Outside of the contract options: o Work with the Board of County Commissioners to have a CAB operate completely independent, but with the full cooperation of the Sheriff's Office. o Consider legislative change at the state level to grant additional power to police oversight boards if deemed necessary. Benefits: ➢ Contractual required citizen oversight with guaranteed Spokane Valley representation. ➢ Independent, objective citizen review process. Page 2 of 4 Proposed Public Safety Law Enforcement Goals Goal #7: Cost Methodology ➢ Develop a simple cost methodology. ➢ Contract cost estimate based on current year budget. ➢ Segregated Spokane Valley cost units. ➢ Rolling average for indirect costs. ➢ Settle and adjust reconciliation. Benefits: ➢ Costs are specific to Spokane Valley service, including overtime. ➢ More accurate estimated cost projections. ➢ Smaller reconciliation amounts. ➢ Indirect cost fluctuations smoothed out. ➢ Pay for actual costs, not overpaying for unused services or unfilled positions. Goal #8: Public Safety Department ➢ This goal will be discussed at a future council meeting as part of the Agenda Item on Spokane Valley Municipal Code 2.45. Goal #9: City Control of Police Chief ➢ Retain current scenario where City Manager appoints the Police Chief from a choice of candidates provided by the Sheriff, and the Chief reports to the City Manager and to the Sheriff. Benefits: ➢ Chief is Sheriffs Office employee familiar with the structure, culture, policies and procedures, and personnel. ➢ Sheriff provides quality candidates to choose from. ➢ Chief works with the City Manager to establish goals, objectives, and performance measures. ➢ Chief required to report to the City Manager, any changes to services and any significant events occurring at the Sheriff's Office. ➢ City Manager chooses the Police Chief and has the ability to remove the Chief. ➢ Allows the Police Chief to have control over the Officers of the Police Department as they work in the same agency. Page 3 of 4 Proposed Public Safety Law Enforcement Goals Goal #10: Public Information ➢ For emergency and emerging incidents in Spokane Valley, the Spokane Valley Police Chief will act as the spokesperson for the City and will coordinate with the Sheriffs Office Public Information Officer when releasing public information. The City Manager will be notified of such events. For general public information of a non -emergency nature specific to Spokane Valley, the Sheriffs Office will coordinate with the City Manager, City P1O, and City Police Chief prior to release. Benefits: ➢ Utilizes existing Sheriffs Office expertise in dealing with sensitive information specific to ongoing investigations involving victims, and subject to legal restrictions. ➢ Enhances identity of the Spokane Valley Police Department. ➢ Information accurately reflects facts specific to Spokane Valley. ➢ Communication and information is consistent and compatible with all other Spokane Valley public information. ➢ Utilizes existing resources and controls costs. Goal #11: Contract Performance ➢ Establish service level outcomes and specifications to align financial expenditures with performance received. Benefits: ➢ Provides specifications for performance expectations without instructing the Sheriff how to provide service. ➢ Allows the City to tailor police services to the specific needs of the community. Goal #12: S.C.O.P.E. Services ➢ Enhance S.C.O.P.E. services by further utilizing the substantial resource of volunteers motivated to serve the community. Benefits: ➢ Maximizes volunteer resources to gain enhanced services without additional cost. ➢ More effectively utilizes valuable volunteers who are trained by law enforcement and who have a limited law enforcement commission. Goal #13: Regular Police Department Updates to Council ➢ Provide verbal quarterly updates to the Council regarding Police Department activities. Page 4 of 4 Return to: Daniela Erickson Clerk of the Board 1115 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99260 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COSTS INCIDENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AO - 07/ 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 to as "COUNTY," the Spokane County Sheriff, a separate elected official of Spokane County, having offices for the transaction of business at 1100 West Mallon 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. 1.2 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 Sheriff s Office to provide law enforcement services. Page 1 of 18 Return to: Daniela Erickson Clerk of the 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 law 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 duties set forth in chapter 36.28 RCW. 2.6 Uncontrollable Circumstances: "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means the following events: riots, wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires and floods, volcanic eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near where the Services are performed and/or 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 terms and conditions under which SHERIFF will provide Services to CITY. The services will be consistent with the City's counciUmanager form of management. RCW 35.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.M. on January 1, 2010, and run through Midnight, December 31, 2013. Thereafter, this Agreement shall 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 party 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 Page 2 of 18 after written notice is provided as long as such written notice is provided prior to Midnight December 31, 2013. The same time intervals for terrninations 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 items (i) personnel issues; (ii) workload; and (iii) ongoing case assignments. If the SHERIFF 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 mutual 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 statutory 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 prior 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 "1" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY may 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 provided by CITY to COUNTY and SHERIFF no later than November 30tr, with the adjustments Page 3 of 18 to be effective on January 1St 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 agreement as set 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 bargaining 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 quarter, that identify 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 days of the end of each calendar year. However, records and property room statistics shall 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 Plan (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 4of18 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 from the initial plan no later than the end of the third quarter. Both the COCAP and the LECAP 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 forth 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 for 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 LECAP 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 1.25% 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 30th for the following year. 6.5 Retro -Active Salary Adjustments. Should any applicable bargaining agreement not be settled in time to include any salary 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, COUNTY 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, COUNTY will recalculate the estimated Interlocal Agreement amount employing the cost of living or wage increase(s) granted Page 5 of 18 commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement and adjust the remaining monthly payments. 6.6 Mid -Year Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Adjustments. In the event the Parties negotiate a change in full time positions, midyear, such change, for purposes of calculating costs under the LECAP, can occur only once during any interlocal agreement year and in any event no later than August 30th of such year. Additionally, COUNTY will recalculate the estimated interlocal 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 LECAP 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 from 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 adjustment to provide COUNTY with any written objections to the amounts set forth therein. COUNTY agrees to consider all 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 Section No. 18. 6.8 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 funds by either CITY or COUNTY, or other funding 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 Page 6 of 18 enforcement service to CITY and that were 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 LECAP. 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 Pool, Any resolution of a disputed amount through use of the arbitration process identified in Section No. l 8 shall include at the request of any Party, a determination of whether interest is appropriate, including the amount, SECTION NO, 7: MUNICIPAL POLICE AUTHORITY CITY shall retain all police powers and by virtue of this Agreement CITY confers municipal police authority on the SHERIFF. 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 qualified, 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 service. Page 7of18 8.4 Patrol Districts. CITY's Police Chief will 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 as closely as possible without compromising efficient use of reactive patrol deputies. A patrol district is a geographical arca of a size and configuration designed to minimize response times to citizen's calls for services. Response is typically measured from the time 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 within 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 DUTIES, 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 Manager. The SHERIFF 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 Chief shall report to the City Manager or his/her designee and to the existing command structure within SHERIFF's Office. The duties of the Police Chief shall include: Page 8 of 18 9.3.1 Working with the City Manager 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 meetings 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. SHERIFF 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 his/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 his/her 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; 9.3.9 Maintaining communication between the City Manager and SHERIFF command structures to ensure that changes in SHERIFF policies are agreeable to CITY and that change in CITY policies are agreeable to SHERIFF. In the event a CITY procedure, policy, goal or operation differs from the SHERIFF'S, CITY Manager or his/her designee, SHERIFF and COUNTY shall meet and mutually determine which policy will prevail; and Page 9 of 18 9.3.10 Notifying the City Manager or his/her designee of 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 his/her 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 SHERIFF 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 in 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 with 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 new 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 supplemental training. The SHERIFF agrees not to unreasonably withhold approval of any written request(s) by CITY for deputies providing Services under the terms of this Agreement to 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. 113 Police Department Building, Maintenance, and Janitorial. CITY will provide offices, to include 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 may 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 uniforrn that carries a great deal of pride. CITY recognizes that the assigned personnel will retain the uniform of the Spokane County Sheriff's 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 NO. 13: RECORDS All records prepared, owned, used or retained by COUNTY or SHERIFF in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed. COUNTY property and shall be 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 42.56 RCW. SECTION NO. 14: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES/IMPOSSIBILITY A delay or interruption in or failure of performance 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 law, 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 SHERIFF 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. The 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 to control the particular manner, method and means in which the Services are performed is solely within the discretion of the SHERIFF. Any and all 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 conduct and actions of all employees under this Agreement and any liability that may 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 any purpose. SECTION NO. 16: LIABILITY For the purpose 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 omission of COUNTY, 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 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 same at its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said suit 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 and/or 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 Party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance 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 indemnitor's employees. The Parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. (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 revenue reductions (i.e. loss of sales tax) and/or local government mandates may substantially reduce local operating revenue for CITY, COUNTY or both Parties. The Parties agree that it is necessary 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 initiative(s) and/or 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. 18: 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 non -monetary dispute, it shall be reduced to writing and considered by the SHERIFF and City Manager. If the COUNTY CEO or SHERIFF respectively and the City Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. COUNTY or SHERIFF, respectively, and CITY shall have the right to designate one person each to act as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third 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 Page 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 must be served on any of the Parties either personally or by certified mail, return -receipt requested, sent to the Parties at their respective addresses herein above given. Notices sent 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 laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit 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 construed in any manner that would limit either Parry'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 be 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 terns and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties. Parties have read and understand the whole of Page 15 of 18 the above Agreement and now state that no representations, promises or agreements not expressed in this Agreement have been made to induce either to execute the same. SECTION NO. 26: COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in any number of multiple signed originals, each 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 FILED 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 perform 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 REQUIRED CLAUSES A. Purpose. See Section No. 3 above. B. Agreement 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. Responsibilities of the Parties. See applicable Sections within Agreement. G. Property upon Termination. See Section Nos. 4.4 and 11 above. SECTION NO. 30: SEVERABILITY Page 16 of 18 The Parties agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the 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 exclusive, 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 information to the media that is deemed 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 of the SHERIFF unless otherwise 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 intentionally Left blank.) Page 17 of 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: 8// 340 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS `' -�•• `ti• OF SPOKANE CO Y, HINGTON ATTEST: CLERK OF THE B MARK RICHARD -hair BONNIE MAGER, ice -Ch DANIELA ECKSON DATED: DATED: /0 —67/7 , TO II MIELKE, Commissioner rs2-t 1c &9e SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF: * ******** VICH Y' //, L,7»/} CITY OF SP ! • .=. A VALLEY: _��'------ KE JACKS 0 'nterim City Manager CHRISTINE BAINBRIDGE City Clerk Approved as to form only: Office of the City Attorney Page 18 of 18 Category 4 County Responsibility! Other Cost Recovery Method C _�_ k\} lN 0 § |z Eo e 3 { co /�40 e § 2d coo § k C. E a Xd )) §) dt ]3 ko f /\ &q 5o y 7 G e $ t4° k/ E X12® {§2v (�-E Q.!0 )e ■/ , , / \ 1- Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs ) .0 o Ea o cn '2 0, �s k£m - §[) woo mf E X12® {§2v (�-E Q.!0 k c E� « )o: t- ca )o 0 0 \ Shared Services Investigative/ Community Services/K-9 k\!2 0=2,9 k\§&$ EG=)± k£m - §[) woo mf E X12® {§2v (�-E Q.!0 —-0\§\ 2® / @ \ !:-1 Lu �\«!, 0 1) k2g.„ n;[!E @=r 00 �, E i,/� E[\} E Q00 '1'; = ] ` } ] /e e _± /2 al N re \e ,8 . !k 20 ` , e cnz ! Ul 0 \ \ Cr) = 12 Comm Officer Worksheet City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) Exhibit 1 Services The COUNTY will provide law enforcement services consisting of the following: Category 1— Dedicated FTE's o Valley Police Administration o Patrol o Traffic Investigation • Property Crimes a Community Services o Domestic Violence Unit o School Resource Officer Category 2 — Shared Services Investigative/Community Services/K-9 • Major Crimes • 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 • Marine/Search and Rescue • K-9 Category 3 — Allocated with Administrative Costs • Administration-Undersheriff and Staff • Public Information 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 Law Enforcement Services Allocated by Various 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 a SWATIHostage Negotiation • Extra Duty Employment • Reservist and Explorer Units • Countywide Indirect Costs — OMB A-87 • Annual Changes in Accrued Leave e O ca0 0 0 0. a h 0) D 0 6) C) CO E O N O Q any .0 o'er a U �+ v,U'"a cID co 7 E 0 00 U 8 o N C c 4- Yw E w (U Q- „,: CO N J CO m a O 04 0 0 CiN U 1- 0 Q C7orr = N Z CO 0 0 14) N O 0 CO N Summary - Budget Other Allocations Nn CO LO nM v (C)coN L0 0 V V'LO'7 ((00 0 N N 000 t CO0CCOO CO O 00)) r COCO-14 co- COO - N r (D C7 M 1� (0 ,- 0 O V N_ 0 t co N- N n 0 N 14) N- CO O (C) szr N O (00)040t0CO 0 LO 10 CO O 6) V) N CO WCO N 0 r V (00) N- CO N- CO 0) (O() 0 0) ((1) 0 0 O CO 00 O r CO CO 0 LO (n r CO Mu) n CO- N N ('1 r O ♦-- CO CO r� O 6) n (f) (C) V n 0) 0) CO CO CO V CO N CO r (O 00 V V 00 N O r CO CO 0 .- n N 0 0 CO CO N n 0) n 6) N n ei oi CO CO 1-(0 r r1 n h.- N r T M Ono QD N r 0) r N (O (00 CO 0 N n V (00)r (O0 CO (0 CO V n U) CO 00 6) LC) CO N 04 O) V- 04 V n r 00 0) 10 r n O CO r CO V r 0 r (O CO in r 0 V '4 V O O) CO ti CO CSO 60) CO CO co N V V D CA n V x- 0 C7 N- CO- r N N Y U) (C) F'+ 0 r LC) V 0 r CO (n L() CO 6) 0 0 0) CO CO 0 CO V e- CO r ,.-- V CO CO CO r N. 00 cp co co 0 O CO r- Lo co n N to. N O 6) CVO N O V O CO n co co N r 10 Ci r COCO r CO r CO n V N r 04 r CO LO V O - CO (n (f) CO 6) 0 0 CID CO CO 0 (0 V r CO r r V CO (D CO V r n CO •Zt CO 0 0 0 (0 n LO 06 n N CO 0 O 0) OOV O o5 19: r N r{ M (0 CO '- CD CO - C) 10 rN r N r C) O 0 0 N (CD 0) CO 0) V CO 6) co - 0 M 4 M CD (f) M V LC) CO CO LO CO 6) O O 6) 0 (0 ti 00) n LoO 0) (h N (0 r (NO N CO co V n N 0 0 CO O N CO l() CO N 0) CO co. N N CO -O '<1' N N CO (t) 6) r. :Jr 1)34 CO CS OD0 (0 V N CO LO 0) n CO V( 0) - �C) To 0.)m o ` a) co J < 0 N Cl.) fU'O O -0Z -OJ �.,3 -O �- J Y a 0 C) Y O •0 -t= ID 0 C'Cj U 0 0 C() 3 CO 0 (y D (0 > 0) . C t0 (1 C1 0) = C1 O . (0 -0 N Crp fg t (p C O CO 0 CO D' ¢ L_ .3 J U LL D F- Commissioned Officer Rate 2008 Actuals to 2011 w Multplrs City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) Category 4 1 County Responsibility/ Other Cost Recovery Method •j co a Sm O N ti, I^i 2 Aa � O �� U " om o LL ','S❑❑ 0 U " a N. 0 a >> x- (.m 0 U ❑ 0 O i M ic(O Ufs ° U x Q q C C C9 < Q 1. ; �O: 0 i C) 0 ❑ Irl C co 0.'c ..-1 a U0 ad Q co M 0 d L a E. 1- Category 3 Allocated with Administrative Costs t v)E NI •c c c sq 0 v U 7 0 4 0 W 0 , N a.• O . N • c c �c .0- t�'- .- N c 0 m ca .v N 0. y 0 E 0 x v) 0• G 2 a Q F O 01 m U Shared Services Investigative! Community Services/K-9 d E 0C.> O 2 r aY 0 r z 'Zi r o't 2' O) an N 0 E 0 x v) ,- m}}� 0.0 P. 0) U) 02 v, 4, 0 u. 'C yo L d a 4 .- o m° 0) a V t Q (,) 2 t a Q • o 0 : r o F t LL 0 p 7 c (1 0 N 'J o 0 r g? G) rn y c•I 00 t0 N U m 0 .n N1 Ni I N a 0 s a d o w 1E01 c 0 o ; o I r g G1 v 0) o 0 0 o NI *' 0 e? ar V •5 :: 0 0 00 N c, 7. c ,1 4 0 - +- F u a 2co o at Oa 5 0 0 a s 0 w C 2 in r- +- ,m J a 0 0 c. ccy a SL 0O Z m CO O a a VS tr., N O e +'4 F City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) Spokane County Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model Allocation of Commissioned Officers Between Unincorporated and Small Cities Based on 2008 Actuals Type of Allocation: cyo of Regular Population Total Officers Unincorp, Unincorporated - District 8 I 11,066 86.9% 5.22 5.22 Millwood 1,665 1 13.1% 0.78 Total District 8 12,731 1 6.00 Unincorporated - District 10 14,739 Unincorporated - District 11 10,824 Total Unincorporated -Dist 10 & 11 25,563 93.8% 11.25 11.25 Spangle 275 1.0% 0.12 Rockford 499 1.8% 0.22 Fairfield 603 2.2% 0.27 Latah 194 , 0.7% 0.09 Waverly 1271 0.5% 0.06 Total Districts 10 and 11 27,261 100.0% 12.00 Unincorporated - Districts 8,10,11 Unincorporated - other than Dist. 8,10,11 Total Unincorporated without small cities Population numbers used 2008 statistics City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) Small Cities 16.47 62.25 78.72 City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) ) k�( \ 101.989 5,192,445,87 136,932 3,782.00 -.-. 684,657.95 136:932 . 1a | °° • • of Allocation_ 11.111-1-321 R ` N-. «g 1,139.00 206,193.92 R§ ©\ § ¥ i i » Fairchild Urtircorporate AFB d County 78_72 3.00 ..�_. . .' 8 CO3 \. § , m ;§ '' \4 \j 0 \ , \ f . /\ �� \\ \ . 13 12 ^a 0 , \( f; - . \« .4 .,- \ \ ----_: - '6 ' !: t' !3 , y.tri vi , \ ti 1z f ! , 0.87 - 44,344.20 - 1 00 4 00 181.03 724.12 \ . \ ] )\ v")E � \ \ . . !e t° § 40 0.78 0.12 0.75 0.09 38,132.96 4,734.80 \ 26.00. 31.00 4,706.80 5,611.95 .4. . . ,r !° s \\§2 s 76.75 2.00 \ \ Category 2 ¥r§§ ;7 \ , § iA tfa! kk� I]k8 - \ a21 ! 0'! ! § ,e kka k8) 2§k Ux lntellelllgenoe Led Polloing Dedicated FTEs excluding SROs Total Investigative/K-9/Community Services Costs Statistics for Avg RMS & Cases and K-9 1 1IIII City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) 136,932 1 Spokane County Sheriffs Office Law Enforcement Cost Allocation Model Commissioned Offer Rate and Allocation Based on 20D8 Actuals 2010 Allocation of Commissioned Officer Charge Type of Allocation: A-87 Dedicated Investigative School SRO Total Dedicated Commissioned Community Sery Resource SRO Contract Net SRO Commissioned Officers Officer Charge K-9 Charge Officers Charge Revenue Charge Officer Charge Spokane Spokane Valley 76.75 10,509,499 3,156,825 4.00 547,726 67,055 480,670 14,146,995 Deer Park 2.00 273,863 112,398 1.00 136,932 16,764 120,168 506,429 Millwood 0.78 107,450 45,547 - - 152,997 Spangle 0.12 16,576 5,013 21,589 Rockford 0,22 30,078 45,030 75,107 A'rway Heights - - 724 724 Fairfield 0,27 36,346 5,045 41,391 Liberty Lake - - 905 905 Medical Lake 5.00 684,658 113,490 798,148 Latah 0.09 11,694 2,436 - 14,130 Waverly 0.06 7,655 1,350 9,005 Cheney - 362 362 Fairchild AFB - 181 - - 181 Unincorporated County 78.72 10,778,962 2,764,450 3.00 410,795 50,292 360,503 13,903,914 Total AlI Jurisdictions 164.00 22,456,781 6,253,757 8.00 1,095,453 134,112_ 961,341 29,671,878 Commissioned Officer Rate Total Commissioned Officers Serving Local Jurisdictions 2008 Actuals for Commissioned Officer Rate with Multipliers 217.67 City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) 2010 Commissioned Officer Alloc 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 Actual Settle and Commissioned Total Adjust Officer Other Charge PAID 2010 Charge Allocations for 2008 2008 - CONTRACT Spokane- 1,562,405 1,562,405 Spokane Valley 13,018,019 2,189,664 15,207,683 - Deer Park 470,641 112,040 582,681 Millwood 143,142 60,011 203,154 Spangle 20,113 4,036 24,149 Rockford 73,329 10,615 83,944 Airway Heights 663 68,715 69,377 Fairfield 37,962 7,543 45,505 Liberty Lake 828 73,889 74,717 Medical Lake 166 43,760 43,925 Latah 13,060 2,280 15,340 Waverly 8,299 1,648 9,947 Cheney 331 15,213 15,545 Fairchild AFB 166 3,073 3,238 City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) 2008 Settle and Adjust E e m N 0) O 2 c O U V) O N 0 N U . c c m E U 2 cu C O ea c W CL (1) Summary of Client Charges Based on 2008 Actuals Commissioned Summary - Charges to Clients CL)o s (U O O Q N r t() c.") 0) CO r CQ N r ti 00 0) N i`- CO CI) O N CO (C7 Nom- N O CO CO to O CO (() O h CO (D (S c3i (0 00 Cn LO (() (0 O co- ( Tr T T T CO {�� O 0D 00 (C) CO (f) O d' N T N CO N- d' CO N� 111) (O N (m N ,- LAD (0 0) co r Nt. q0 N T N- OD 0) T N N- CO 0) 0 N M 1n h N 0 00 CO LO O CO 10 0) N,- CO (D (0 0) (0 CO 0) (f) I< Oa 00 OO 'C) (O 'Y) O? T 10 (D O CO co - co V NTN CO N'- d CO d T T 1- N N 00 T (. N N- (0 l() O r r- Cr) T 'cr T T to co T N 00 T O C)) 'ch U) N 0) 0 N (S7 N O (C) (O 0 N N- CO cr CO CO CO N'- M N L T I) 00 co" N-. N r (.6 (o O C3) N (O r ti c0 'cN' E~ C T N ( N0))CO OON0) rCO' (0 CO ' 0) C)) 1!) r N� M Cr) r r 0 CO r COIn N ti -a- T- >, v N N N Q) a) J m 0 Y a) co J Q C C (0 "0 a) I .0 --N WI 7, 'e) O 0 a) (0 0 ,`C (1) "O ck3 (�0 a) t co co a2 u) Y¢� �N2_,5Uu_. Total Budgeffor 2010 City 2010 Final CCM 06-30-10 (4) CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 5, 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 Extension and Renewal of Moratorium on Mining GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.390; RCW 36.70A; SVMC 19.120.050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted a moratorium on mining and mineral product manufacturing on February 24, 2015 and adopted findings of fact on April 28, 2015. Council repealed and replaced the original moratorium on mining pursuant to Ordinance No. 15- 013 on June 30, 2015, and adopted findings of fact for the replacement moratorium on August 25, 2015. Council adopted a six-month renewal and extension of the moratorium pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 16-002 (adopting Findings) and 16-003. BACKGROUND: The City adopted a moratorium on mining and mining site operations on February 24, 2015 pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-005, and subsequently adopted findings of fact justifying the moratorium on April 28, 2015, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-009. In order to ensure full notice and opportunity for public involvement regarding the moratorium, on June 30, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-013 to repeal Ordinance Nos. 15-005 and 15-009 and to re-establish the moratorium and provide for another public hearing on the moratorium on mining and mining site operations. The City subsequently adopted findings of fact justifying the reestablishment of the moratorium on August 25, 2015, pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-015. Pursuant to state law, the City established a work plan in both Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-013 to undertake its Comprehensive Plan update to determine if mining is an appropriate use of the City's industrial land given the unique permanence of mining. The moratorium established pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 15-013 was originally set to expire on February 23, 2016, unless otherwise extended. However, the Comprehensive Plan update was not completed by February 23, 2016, due in part to the City not having received a future population forecast and allocation estimate. Accordingly, the City Council adopted a renewal and extension of the moratorium on February 9, 2016 pursuant to Ordinance No. 16-003 with one primary modification to allow processing of permits related to mining site operations that had received a Washington State Department of Natural Resource County or Municipality Approval for Surface Mining Form (referred to as an "SM -6 Form") prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013. Ordinance No. 16-003 extended the moratorium for six -months "until 11:59 p.m. on August 21, 2016, unless repealed, extended, or modified by City Council after subsequent public hearing(s) and entry of appropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390." Finally, Ordinance No. 16-003 further continued the work plan established in Ordinance No. 15-013. RCW 36.70A.390 authorizes the City to adopt a six-month renewal and extension of an existing moratorium, provided the City first conducts a public hearing and adopts findings of fact justifying the renewal and extension of the moratorium prior to such renewal. Further, Ordinance No. 16-003 expressly recognizes the City's authority to renew and extend or modify the moratorium on mining. The City has made extensive progress on the development of its Comprehensive Plan since the initial extension in February 2016. The City has obtained a future population forecast and allocation estimate to allow it to move forward with planning and development of the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has heard reports on numerous topics as part of the development of the Comprehensive Plan, including an existing conditions report, retail study, tiny homes presentation, water district and water availability report, and the Council conducted a joint City Council -Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan workshop. However, though the City has worked diligently and continues to work on its Comprehensive Plan update, staff does not believe the City will be able to complete the Comprehensive Plan update by August 21, 2016. Accordingly, staff believes it is appropriate for City Council to consider a second renewal and extension of the moratorium on mining while the City finalizes its Comprehensive Plan update. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the second renewal and extension of the moratorium on mining, and subsequently determine whether renewal, extension, and/or modification or clarification of the moratorium is appropriate. If so, the City Council must consider and adopt findings of fact related to the renewal of the moratorium. At that time, the City Council may consider renewing the moratorium as -is for up to six months or renewing it with clarifications or modifications that Council may deem to be appropriate given input from the public hearing. Independent of the action taken by City Council on the mining moratorium extension, staff continue to work through the Comprehensive Plan update process, which includes giving due consideration to the appropriateness of mining and mining site operations within the City. OPTIONS: Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A. STAFF CONTACT: Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Cary Driskell, City Attorney; John Hohman, Community and Economic Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 15-013; Ordinance No. 15-015; Ordinance No. 16-002; Ordinance No. 16-003. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-013 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SI'0I.,ANl: 1"ra1:1,,9'Y, NPOKArs COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A . i4 R: -it)Rlt;lbl ON IIINiNt:;. MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING, REPEALI tit: ORDINANCE F Nt)S. 155-0115 AND 15-009, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TI i F R I:TO.. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is In the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Articic 11, Section 11 of the Washin'iou Constitution; the City is authorized to "make and enforce i iihiJr IIS IinrrrS it :::itch local police, sanitary and Olhcl regulations as are not in conflict with general :, ]option of regulations governing land uses within the City; and Wt'1ER.IAS. R{1w Al or city go -':crib::]_', huc1,' ih,rt :fti ''I`i a [nor:1torirltT1,iI I I1n r1nill.; rriap, inI-:rinT ,.�',sill�� ,r-li[I JI Cc, or IntH[n affici:11 wilt,: '.Eithout holr.,i lL2 a public hearing on the proposed rr1Oi iior't'.rr17. lrlt.I'lli] zoning [imp, ]!ltd ]'n?': !i`[11ri{_ 1'.]'diriilnce, or interim Alii ill control, shall hold a public :tearing on the adapted ni rai.oriuru, inter:,:[ '.ui: ng rnap, interim '.,ming ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty ctn_vs of its adaptioi , ;vv'Tether or not the ,,,verning hody received a recommendation on the matter from the planning coiiinii!,i,iu'n or department. 11 ]lie governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action b: [cl ihk I,varing, then the !loverning body shall do so immediately after this public heating. A n1ti+r'i[itril in, intcrint zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under 111=, '.t li II Irl ]gid lie. Uffective for not l:.•ri er than six months, but may be effective for up to one tear if E. work plil T i developed for related trTiies providing such a longer period. A maratrlritim, interim li1TI1!11' Ir.0 i, iii rim zoning ordinance Dr inJ.liin official control may be renewed for one or more six-month it a subsequent public hearing is 11, 1,1 and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;" and WHERPAS, a moratorium enacted under RCW 35A.63.220 andlor RCW 36,7OA390 is a method by which local <<0,,crii petits may preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be thwarted or rriidoi c1 n COI. by intervening development; and i"•.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both authorize the enactment of a Irloratoriiim, Ina] . i:T 4'111-:1 zoning ordinance, or interim official control prior to holding a public 11•c_ii !Ir • conducts a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the date of adoption pt`the Inoratoriuln; and WHEREAS, pursuant ter WAC 197-1! -8SC, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the rc gili:-ements ofa threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW- -y!} 70.\.170 RCW, the City iw required to designate "where a lri'rc!priate,-.[J:iliiicr l resource land,- r.1:!1 r:li Ilb.a; :T]r 'JIT." characterized by urban !;I' 14'•'(11 ;r;'It1 That have lorw-term Si[ 1]i l icanc' for the extrirci 011 ;t; It11111."to-] ; anti, l l9?i l if . ptii sti in to Rt_''.1 r •';'[r .;1ta(i. tlt City is required to adopt deveIopme:tt +. 5'.i:la t.ietts to ]",,lout` cCnservall+''0 +:71 71•I]74'I';11 "w: -nFIr' 4 :.I11LL {7:`i.gnatcd under RCW 36,70A.170; and WHERI:A` , ih. C.'it 1,:,', l_` it,IlITJ_:I i1ny ]Einer;rl rti,;4u]]ce lands within its boundaries nor has it d1e,;41ol ed To III -a L.1 15-1) 1..1 Page 1 of 5 V 1 i[:REAS, pi!L';.11i.l i ii.I [1+]l.:L;;l 1 . I tiw Municipal (`.M,t'r114 ') :1).1'2.0.1)30, IIIiII,11:_ rS currently a pert ..illcc[ Ilcrlvy inu.Ius11rial proce-i iln.', ii- ',, tlliii floc llE:LI4'1' :1 (tlti".r' it t1-21 and Wi-1F.REAS, the City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies ft;r i11..L11[lr011:"ialc` ?I kc:.lr;1rr14aat of industrial lands, including the following: Goal I.l?a;-10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial areas and ensure Life 1011.2 is r11 holcling of appropriate land in parcel sizes adequate to allow for future development ttti indli,r1°1c11 lrsi . I,111', 11.2: Convert it n or- ,_lt,i r aced industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited I:1 L.I,tire an adequat., land ,111111} and W11l-I I..:\ . irk?. t;'i's 1iii.ti r s.11tl minim!,operations within its industrial zone taking up 'I rel; 12,,L:1; in lil! E c .'l7Cr1 pits l'n::.: lobi mining use is completed. Once a mine Is 1pc l AL1. 111 impact~ on 11i Lionel 111:-1.1 irr � er-ilk' k �.v a5 with appropriate reclamation planning. These impact-: :t l: permil"1c:111 a1Ld can iii11 t'Iltur2 IIIJLISIrl;l1 or other productive use of the site, even after the l!IIIIL' cIr}tie-: ;1rid "%A/I i:1 I:AS, the City Inn.i finite arnouitt of available LIIL ic'rc'doflea inc1.l tial 1: ip:'I: and \''/lIFREAS, pursii:lrlt to chapter 36.70A RCW, as piirt of the Col`I115r:.11c:u ive Plan 1;pi:late Protc_N`;. City will analyze and complete an inventory of .1':;L:[ LI?l ini]u;t1"i Ll raids a1 d lel tlYaa l}i;11It11 :LI!iI r.. i 1 1iiii of 11iiierul resource lands in order to n iti."l1 .] :L.1Y,PriL(l policy decision i11 the iLltcl�tii ..1!" pi,llli� he.`l1#El, wafety and welfare that .or:,idcr;ltioil c.o t+.[Icrc. if :Lr11+ k5Lr 1I i �11.11IL I1 (,)l mineral resotIrl;: lands I11i.Y k't tpI L'o'1rLaIt ;1'lllli?1 711 E'rrrllntjtil"'_':, O1. the ('.il4', and (it.i tl ltl'l } 'I' r11i11111` Arid miring Site aperiltloll. 11!tl=1t]L1: excavation, 111111 L`1;11 pri?dins Manufacturing, mineral 11rr,cc ino t ac:kpilil�g, a hd mineral b tc.iiin,4..Ia'c :.rnlilrnihle'. Iij1 11 icltr tl.it::11 tori industrial lands and.. r e f-cvcni_lc within tilt City; and WHER7 S, additional time is necessary 'is ('its' tt' _i.ntlntle the development and , ..lillplerion of [:.s Comprehensive Plain Update,illcluLlin +. tIi cl:'ts rll!i:' i1 it 111 c':1` �.t'hdtt 1h.` ('il\''.w long-term arL: with regard to mining and mining site O[]01itiimI t ii1i11: its jurisclietiona: limits: and \kII IEREAS, acv: proposals for mining <L;LtI nir]ill,', site iT..n.::[ion that 1!11V be wulli'nitt_1 l pe ltlil5 Ili ,_t,Lnpl•ti''.1on of the Co!npr-Alensive Plan. Update .son Id pose an immilL•ri1 11:rc:Il lr` 1 tL'+l i.` :it'<ii:Il because ill y," : rn pennanently alter il1L built unvt:"':Lrlmneril :hid limit t11•- C Ij : ;; ,:liolr:l.' 111 die exercise of its land ti-.: I iiiI;)rILY', thereby t1114';.Irt,11'g t_ cinl1>r211:21'.tii\`e Plan Update 1ll'iicesy and impairing the City's ability t+,'• It'i1tila a rc:lsoned Ilillicy tippph:11L'[t `L.'IaI2C] 10 industrial 1alnd capaacll',. Clctel'nlillin . where, i1 i kb''1ien , CI s Lia.ion of niineral 1111b1:: ;.Would be aipp1'C 7rlate, amd d 'teriiiiti i11( ‘v'Ilai the Cit) -'s 10n[-1,,vl'r]: goals and }?+til..LMS are Wi1l11 1'i: „accl to mining and mining site operation; and WHEREAS, a moratorium on raining and mineral product rn inuf,i. .bring will maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of City permits and licenses for new ]Hitting operations beyond those pr'csi ntly vested while the City undertakes development and completion of its Comprehensive Plan Update, including„ giving. due consideration to the determination of whet.;, if anywhere. designation of mineral resource lands may be appropriate and determining, what tole City's long -terra goals are with regard to ininingg and mining site operations within its ju, isdictional limits; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, imrposing and establishing a moratorium on submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any Ordinance 154113 Page 2 of 5 rr1iip-dlications or 1icci or for mining and;:lr rclaiL-...1 min ininiIorod.,:cr,1T1Ir ifc1iirii. mineral processing, stoekpillin: iiid iiiiiiti I harrhing; and WHERLA.S. pursuant to Section 4 ofOrdinance No. 15-1M15, the City Council set March 24, 2015 at (Am .in, at City tall as the date, time and location for a public licatin wi LLI morator'.urn; and IERFAS, or, N1arch 6, 20:5, a summary or Ord irorr,:c Nn. 15-005 was pohlisEm-1 in the Valley N:cm-s. 1 .[:i.(i. the City',!; new•spaper of gcricril ciriilinion, hc1 oninziry The. statement March 24,2.015 as the date for a public hearinit-: an.1 there werc artele3 regarding the [tic:watt-akin] Lr,LI IttirAlin!! iiiior 1.thv public nearing that v,'eue. puh1ished in local newspapers Thai itic1iidc(1 erco,,:rec0 th pbIhearn:::: or, the. moratorium; and IF.REAS, the ['gouda 'trim- hc iticedng on March 24. 20;5, which included reference to the public lit; ii on the moralorium, w:as posted on 'Ow v...2.1wir.. and provided to uLeinbers. of the City"s agcni:1,1 if:AVi] entail in advatEe of M.,..,r-L.1.111, 20 5, mid '1%1,_rs_J-, .10 HI_ --r2Cii Council conducted a public hearing on ih mormorinm iinpCscd ;Ind csutbIlski.1 pur-....Jant o Orclircincc No, 15-0(6 and received written testimony 'Awn two interested parties and six. interested partie,s spoke. at the public hearing; and WHER.1:.A.S, on April 28, 2015, filter giving due consideration to the public testimony received, the City C0111"K::1 1311014L'cl Old.T.ZIlli:L.! No. 15-009 adopting findings of fact justifying; the n-,oratorinm on t11inin2 establizThAl. puit-niam Lu 15-005; and WHEREAS, though public information and notice was provided of the public hearing, there was no formai publicirton notice or the public hearing in the City's official newspaper as [s the City's practice: and r11 or 0.rdirrariec No. 15-00.5 and (:)rcltiance N. 15.-009 and re-esta.blishment of nitiraioHan mining antlfor mining site oneraiions itli ir,!..0; public hearing na.t.,v mon: bruadiy illis'6eittillat,A public ttut ic. 1 ru L 1L iisurt. lull notice and opptaitiaity for -ritt_a,-.:,sicclpartlits to provide Q0Mtreills 011 the )11oral.oriunr, Lind he City council 1ul 11l thc ntoratorliau impo11 ,1110 c.stAHIH.r.,...d. Fv tl-is rIrdinanoe i net..rry or the immediate pi.1sen,,Ltr.n.1 piihfc ;ITO public peace, NOW, THEREFORE, the thc City oi.'"..:po.hot. Onlaills as i'cl.ow-s: Section 1_ Preliminary Findings, The City ‘:%)inta 1'.1v :Icinpts the above recitals as of fact in support 4:11 this Ordinance. Section 2. Moratorium Established. A. The City Council 1 Aewby {h!ctau., -And irrpoc..-', a riorrit,Thrimti upc.n the submission, acceptance, proct1L;:zilw_. modniition or ipprov,iloi applwations or liccW;C; by or for mining and/or related rninin ITC1":011.)!V, ilLII2!; jun. rLIlI13l product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral bal.chin. Ordinance. 15-01:i Page 3 of B. Nothing. herein shall affect the processing or consideration of any existing ;rnc; rilccrdd ' submitted complete land -use + r buildin2 permit applications that may be subjccl tt:' vested ri '1ris as: provided under Washington law. C. This moratorium wl!;i!1 lint affect any mining or mining site operations. including ,,xcuv'atic'nd mineral prodi!ci. Fn_.iit ia�t!.!rir;s!,. nUneral processing, stockpiling, and mineral, batching, that were in cxislt"ric:e and in Cow ;.[nd E,[WIIIE nI}t'ratian as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Section , V.'L!rl. E'Ia111_ E !)� '.vol work plan is adopted to address the issues involving the City's consideration and regulation df mitring: A_ The City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission ("Planning . wrmmission ) is hereby :filth;.,: i fed and directed to hold public hearings and public meetings to and uc'i itk r -;t lwmcnts, testimony, positions, and ether documentation or evidence related the !y C.) i tc:at:t11, (zt1•C1\'.. :Ind welfare aspects of mining uses. Specifically, the Panning Commission shall cure-Awr run-Iry i:l its .•onsideration and deliberations for the City's 20L5 Comprehensive Plan t. I I;[1_ rholl cI•.",clgp proposals for mining and mining site operations within the City`s 2(115 Phu lo be for,varded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration. City's 21)15 Comprehensive Plan Update process is included in the City's Public Pi ticipation I1ra9gr:u i, Adopted by the City Council on January 6, 2015, which identifies phases of the Comp! cl,cnsivc Erl,tn E i-tia9tG and anticipated meeting dates relevant to each of the phases. B. Upon adoption oI 201 Plan Upda•irc, ing Commission shall work with City staff and the citizens of the Ci.' ;Is well as all public input rect=iv,A, to develop proposals for regulations pertaining to minim;_} - nd mining site operations to be forwarded and recommended to the City Council for its consideration, Section 4, Public, l-iCariftL!. l''.i«I.F;[rlt to RCA! 35r1 -/...3....2i.) ;And ;6-7ti':'1.390, the City Council !a11] .; eoucltl;_l ..l cF ptiit It�;1r I F� I1lL, i?l7 11.1.ly S, Citi::? i31 OW I}-ITI.; r,l :l* ti(?[?il tli�_,' .i[ilt�r as the [natter may be tho. t.iiv Valley City Ball. Ch.,. Council 1170'; 1 ;r.wt Sprague, Spokane 09i.06, l '+ Ilrayi -*HIE] iC, tllll('I1'.' (.:n 1E!t,ti k'• I l:irle! io speak at such public itloratnrJtln7 set forth in IEIIs Orth:i :Ii_ . actiiiit .. Duration. The 11a;ri iorintri set forth in this t )reli,n:incl: ti!ir[li tic in ufroct a5 of the :.i tlt3 ;:1 Illi t ii-4lin<31102 .Friel shall continu'_!' :n effect until 11:59 p,m. can 1 .1,1 u,r 73.:'I"1 ; ri. unless repealed, air nii'LI is:cl h\ {: ou icEk rifrcr subsequent pi::'Iir livalrin:l .,j {[rlcl entry of appropriate iilitli"1!' tS' It . pursuant .c) RCM 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.7QA.390. 4'c'9iitn (a. 1ti;ilt!Ikt7tCQR. Any act consistent with the authority :toil [)Fij: to 111L: i k'l ilei' (Lac .`` i!::S I.J![111r1=1r1i_c !s Itir::t5vv' tali cd and affirmed. Section 7. 13. pe,nl. Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordiniil cc No. If:, .009 .i.rc hereby repealed in i}t,ir x:331 ir•::i. ;end shall be without any force oi- effect as of the effective date of this Ordinance as set forth tri Sectio: -n. 9 b'.lovr. St:ctiun 8. Severability. [f 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 teeny other section, sentence, clause„ or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 9. Declaration of Ernertencty 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_ Ordinance15-013 Page 4 of 5 Passed by the City Council this 30th day of June, 2015. Dean Grafos, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbrid Approve as Form: r Date of PubIicatien. Office of the ity Attorney Effective Date: June 30, 2015 Ordnance 15-013 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 15-015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING: FINDINGS 01? FACT JUSTIFYING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-013 ANI) 'tiIE RE',PEA OF ORDINANCE NOS. 15 ANL) 15-009 AND ESTABLISI-1MF.hr'1' OF A MORATORIUM ON MINING, MINERAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURING, ` G, AND OTHER Int:-I'•I't:.l;`S RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (`City") is in the process of developing its 2015 Comprehensive Pian Update; and W1-11'Rl":,.\5, pursuant to Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution_ the City of Spokane Walley is ,ltirlt~lrized rr>' "make iind enforce '<.•ithin its limits all suc;i local police, sanitary and other regulations as arc not in with general laws," which ineludcs the tdoptinn of regulations governing land uses within the City; and W111 REAS, RCW 36.7OA.390 proviiln, that "A count;- r i city governing body that adopts a rrinran. ritinn interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a. H!lJIk fi ori: g on the proposed moraforinnl, interim zoning map, interim minim,.ordinance, or interim ;1iL illi v:int:,s 1, shall hold a public h. ring on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim ..011i11"i Ord inti•.. or in".o iui u'`Iiclal control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the n':iVL:blit;' horiy received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. I; Ctn.body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the 'onL:tti11_' lnidy shall do o .!itcr this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning rnap, fltcrinl f.".1r11iit' t r:liri:ince., or interim ofiicri1 control adopted under this section may be effective for not t>']aner !ham tii:k :iio lits, bkll niav he effA_c:.i4°e for up to one year if a work pian is developed for related kt attic rcit-i�1If ' tiuc1T a lonLL�r.pe; it:rl. ;\ iiiui atoriuin, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or inttrinl r}fiiti::l (-introl may be rencwcd I�..r one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing halal ,.nLI fitiLlings of filt'.i ;n'L rrlrltic larinr to each renewal," and V.:1 1 [' REAS. a ri!s,rc:tt i]on] :nacted under RCW 35A.63.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method 11t thick, irr%.11 ;c�i.irll7il'iii. in;t: .•c ilio status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rc•°1ilc:r4'cl ii iint by inter -vim t,p]:iLn!::anid •11 RFA5, A.t,.;,;;.11 :n11? T C:A ;6. 0A.390 both authorize the enactment of :� moratorium, int.rinl LLU1II1" n;i3l,r irii::i ini Joni lig ordinr_ncc, or interim official control prior to holding, a public hearing, provided tit C:ty .•int..ducts a public hearing an the moratorium within 60 days of the date Df adoption of 11e rnoraiorit.iii: and WHEREAS, pur3uitrt fo RCW 35A,63.22O ;6. 11;\.39O, on June 30, 2015, the City aclnpted Ordiriri:ici_'. 110 1 t11 ; c'. t:ll,li.;hiiu ii 11tOratoiI:tin upon :IF: :tihnlr•; irin, acceptance, processing, modification or apk:rovaI c)t•!1n permit appl]Lili ions car 1i, risc.w by . r for minim!.:rod/or related ruining. site Oper ii(nIs, I1t1t :nirkrd 11 prtli'IIICI I'i:irhll :ri`Illr!li:-- rriric ; I tiir).kp.lin i, ti:id mil -fond batch:lo , and repcLlihlf',O.}rdinance Nos. 15-00:7, :3::f'• lt'1I1.1t1., , pursuant to RCW 35A.63.22rl 1.('W 3(.7'0A °90.:i rid ()1.di]1:!Ilcc No, 15-013, on rrllt :i, -2(115_ tIK City Council conducted a public !I4: II ill' on ill :I,.1{i1i'.ii n 'E (nilinance No, 15-013 and th 4'Stah1Lti11Ii14'Ill 1 ill r11oraroril.ilil an in Minn. iiicllor r,2I;Ite1 ]I1irlldi:?' :tilt_' oIJi,r<It'f.,i1s_ such its excavation, III:i �1.. 17!'''iltl4't in allllCacturilil'.. iI i1iL":I I l ro cssing, stockpiling, unci li!3r7 r.11 hat( lllri I,.irdirtanic -; _ i'1 f1l) ,toil I il(i'ii .1n11 Ordinance 15-015 — Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page l of 5 WllLREAS. two written ci n emits were submitted prior to the public 1 ua it:,fl_ .SLt I.I'.` D thlic: hearing, City Court -_;i1 vcr11a1 t_5'ilr:.ony from five interested parties. Fur'°IfLr. ;II the piihl1e hearing, f 'tle persons wh., to,ifiud ,;tlbnitted written comments and one person subl•rlili.d a i] i i[ t,lri\- .•.ili::hr e I:,:t,l'Onic 4i {1C LIIl7'.:1114 :Ind 1a've video recordings of portions of City Council rited.:1.:rs I[c.1Li on February 245 20-15, l'vl.areli 24, 2013, April 14, 2015, April. 28, 2015, and June 30} 2015; and wE 1I pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCM 36.70A.390, the City Council is required to I<JCElt fir, J nl=t; or fact aftercanducting the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley ordains as follows: Section I. Fint,li lIr '.'ll Fact, Pursuant to RCW 35,'\.63.220 t;[,Ll R('W 36.70A.391), L711 July 28, 2015, the City Council cQ;lLiticie,, ,I public hearing on Orrliii iiice No. 1 i. , :{ a lrtl clic os tab] kit m tit c,f a moratorium on mining and..rer rel:LICLJ ]liinillg site operations, such ;, <)v,tti(111 mineral pre d!]a:.t manufacturing, mineral processing, stock filing, and mineral batching and the. repeal i11 Ordltlanc['- Nos. 15-0U asci I -009. 'The City Call:lcil perch ;Ici:llaiw the I{w]Iowing as fi11:,lin!rs of tract in support or Orditi IneNo. 5..0]3 and related minill. site op:..' ,hors.. suet as eNcnti;ltlori, mineral ?r(}Clll r I.ia1111t'4;.Illrine. mineral processing, stL3c piling. ilnd mint -Ed hatching and the r., 4)e.]` of C rclin::Lc'cLr'•. i 5-0ici :lnci ::. 0119: 1. On February, 24, 2015, the (:1t}' 1ke.1. 1 "'-tltl_ - tlT7kllti•rl[ll! t!1lil establishing a nLcratoriurI t)]1 SLIbi1114SIon, r77L),I 1]L:a1ii5rl or ;ili r,1l':f1 '.)I any 11er1:111 applications or licenses by or for mining and:1hr rs•1.iri'L1 mineral product 1u7Llnu[itc:tl]ii[lr„rlllll'r;71 prCie s' i11 „till { kl)Iln1_', �il']d 1llira::r[�I k <il4' 'in . 2. Piirwti.l'll to Section -1 of Ordinance No. 15-015. the { ii , ('front':=i; ,i ialll ': '4. 'tt1 = al (5.00 p.m. at City Hall as} cl it .tills r l7 l I...ti.Kitrri fora public hearing on the nloratoriliin. 3. On Mardi 6, summary of Ordinance No. 15-&05 was published in the Valley News Hr.Iltl, ti:L City's circulation, which summary included the statement "Section 4 set., N.I:,rt 11 : I, 2015 as the date for a public hearing." 4. There were articles regarding the moratorium and pending public hearing prior to the public nearing that vtiere published in local newspapers that included reference to the public hearing on the moratorium. 1 Ile agenda for the tneetill!, on A.1rll-oI1 24_ ?0i 15, whicll included refer...nec to the public hearing on the moratorium, l,losicd on the L.ity's 1.rovideli io eien11hL-rs Lel the {:fly's agenda packet distribution list via email in ad'an.ce of March 24, 2015. 6. On March 24, 201:5. tyy, i;il : r: '•)Illlti.il condnc!,ed a public hearing on the moratorium imposed and established pursuant to Oitiiinine 1 .. , 5-00:3 nitd rcticiv'ed written testimony from two interested parties. Six interested parties sp171,:: at tt:: i�l.]hl is ]:c,lrill 7. On April 7015, .]ller giving due cor]wltie':ltion 1:a 11i public lE",1iIlI(111y received., the City Council adopted l)I'{l:ri'in No. 1 -i1{1S1 E }: tlllc Inklings l)4 fact justif,i-i i the inuralii)]'[Cl'.l7 Eil'I 1!'I?i11i1� established purs.IL 11 Oidil'.rlilec No_ 1= 8. Though public inlb7ni itioll :irid nntiev was provided attic public hearing, there was no formal publication of notice of the public hearing in the City's official newspaper as is the City's practice, 9. Repeal of Ordinance No. 15-005 and Ordinance No. 15-009 and re-establishment of an emergency moratorium on mining and/or related minting site operations with a new public hearing Ordii i mce 15-015 Findings of Fact cn Mining Moratorium Page 2 of 5 preceded by new and more broadly disseminated public notice is appronriatc ensure opportunity for interested parties to provide comments on the moratorium. 10. Pursuant to RCW :36.71..170 RCW_ the Citti is required to designate "where appropriate...[m]ineral resource lanck 111 :1 ;.rt riot already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction .71 in Metals." H. Pursuant to RC -LW 1( i:1,-1,(I6ft rhe City is required to adopt development regulations to ensure conservation of mineral r.iorircu is:nil designatcd under RCW 36.70A.I10. 12. The City has not designated :levy Mineral resource land's within its boundaries nor has it developed regulation's spc wil it: to tnir:ei iI 13. Pursuant 10 Spul.:;tiic ('`SVNIC'") 1 .12n.o50- mtrun I curfew1`r a permitted heavy industrial -ii 1I- '.k ililin :k:: 11 .I: k irtcltt.St! i:1! + I .. 1 Laine. 1=:. E lu tiiv4 crirrtr,r.IYY• adopted l'rlrtl•r-LIr ,,,lvL Plan crtll :iins several goals and policies for the ...appropriate clew inpiiiern . I Itullr:•1 till lands. including tit,: Following; Goal E )Ci .1]: l'rcxv:d I{}r �i7s, ci r, lc+I�Iu r:t (1' eva11-rilann d indu trial areas and ensure the Kong -tenni E1nl.l1.:a1 p: p11;ItL hind in p;sr, t:1 .tiir4:, ::dcquate to allow for future development as iatdustri:rl LUP-I1.2: Conver.s,oi1 I •:lesirri::stcd industrial hinds to oilier- uses stti.-211y limited to ensure an adcclyit`.; kind supply. 15_ The City has existing vr: vd mining operations within its industrial ones taking up i [1ii�tait acreage, which result lit Loge :open pits once tha; Inuring use is completed. Or.ce a Kline is opened, the impacts on the land are usually irreversible even appropriate reclamation planning. These impacts are permanent and can limit fin industrial or other productive use of the site, even after il7w° mine closes. 16. The City has a finite amount of gvarlab1e undeveloped industrial land. 17. I'rnNit:;trit to chapter 36.70A RCW, the City is it the process of tiff, 1,.1 ir7L i1 20: LL iipl• pensive Plein [':tid.rtc_ 1 ti: hir,w utt la chapter 36.70.A R1YW, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the City will :t:tull•r.c and cuniplek! st 1 inventory of available industrial lant1� :1.7d review dcsigttatio.1 and rar ,ultrlia�rr 1 I ;oilier:rl resource lands is in order to teach a reasoned polie.y ciccnion in clic irllerest of public lk:lith, safeiti :i:7cl °.w liars tlut ;:rr'.a:resses (a) consideration of where, if alLV•WE,I2re_ <lesiL..•iation of mineral r,:!-;0ii -1 a lands nta+ lie a]71r•:7ririatc within the boundaries of the City, and (h) whether nlil ilt :71:fi nritting site operatic,, ineludin4 excavatit ri, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, ,Srockpiling, and minerz:l I::trchirrg. are compatible and appropriate when undertaken on industrial lands andlor elsewhere within the City. 19. The current work p1'or.ratrt fbr Lite 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update anticipates that a draft Cs}IUpt !tO lsiYC. Plan will be completed by the end or2015. 20. proposals 1'br mining and minirl 2_, site operations. that may be submitted pending the completion of the Comprehensive. ]'lair l pd,t1 _ process cess art irtilnincnt threat to public health and satet:„.., h 7catr.,c they can permanw:ntly ;. it r list built and natural_ and limit the City's choices in the ewcr.:ise or its land use authority, thereby thwarting the Comprehensive Plan 'Update process and impairing die City's ability to reach a reasoned policy approach rtl,ttcd to industrial land Ordinance 15-015 -Findings alt` Fact On Mining, Moraroritiin Page 3 of 5 capacity, determining where, if anywhere, designation of mineral resource lands would be appropriate, and determining what the City's long-terrrt goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operation. 2U Pursuant to Article 11. Section I 1 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized Lo i1w li]1lii- all. such Iu:;i police, ll;irar\ nu(' 0111.1 - regulations as are not in conflict vri.th geateri1 la;,.s, the adoptioI; vcriii[lg land uses within the City. 22. RCW 36.70A390 provides that" A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium. interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interior official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning snap, 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 hatter 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 atter this public hearing, A moratorium, interim zoning map, interna zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal," 23. A moratorium enacted. under RCW 35A.63.220 andior RCW 36.70A.390 is a method by which local govcrllillcnts m;i., 1 -reserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered meal by irllerti1,1n 1T AT11 ni. 24. RCW 35A_63 220 36.71A.390 both authorize the enactment of a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zo11in;' .t r.:iii .Ince, or interim official control prior to holding a public~ hearing, provided a public hearing is held idays of the adoption ofth.e moratorium. 25. A nioratoriurii nn ntitlirw and mineral product manufacturing will maintain the status quo by prof] bi(inr, operations beyond I.ho5ic presently. V'll]le Ili { lt' l[rii,!CI I;iltir' . kv. lOplliCiit aiiip [el ion of its Comprehensive Plan Upilele, including giving duo: cuilkid ri.lti:in in 7.17e detersliilr.ti. n of where. if anywhere., designation of mineral resource lands may be apprul;riate, .. ':Ll �ietc]°nl inil]:r what the City's Icing. -reran goals and policies are with to mining and ruining site ope:aiiorlw within its jurisdictional limits. 2.6. Pursuant to Ordinance No, 15-0 1- City Council adopted a work plan to address the development of the City's Cornprchensivo Plan Update. 2.7. Staff has completed SFPA rcxr'iew et the moratorir]]n anti has determined itl4 moratorium on rtiirlilic� andlor related mining wit° operations under Ordittarlcc: No. 15-013 is categorically ixernpt from determination rmination and EES rcquiL lllerlts pursuant to WashLlli t{111 AdminisirS[live Code 197-11.- 800( 1i.) 2 On .1,:1y 2S, 2015, City Council conducted a public hearina on the adoption of Ordinance 15« 013 illl[l 11,a ,z-ilabli-1tl7;ant of a moratorium on rrai11]iig incl/or rc mining irte operations, such as excavatic•n.:iiil:er,;i Ila+ dull rilal}llfac#wring, mineral processing, 3tcclkpiliri , and mineral bzrleh1iig and the repeal ol-()ialiriance Nos. 15-005 and 15-D09. 29. Two written conunents ubrnitted prior to the public twining. At the puhlic hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony fwia five interested parliea, F1,rihcr_ al the public Ilewitia. IR ur persons who testified submitted Written L:uilliiivri1 and o11c person 5L1b1111tIed al flash drive with three Ordinance 15-015 -- Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 4 of 5 electronic documents and five video recordings of portions of City Council meetings held on February 24, 2015, March 24, 2015, April 14, 2015, April 28, 2015, and June 30, 2015. The City Council has given due consideration to all pub]ie testimony received. 30. The adoption of Ordinance No. 15-013 and the establishment of a moratorium on mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling. and mineral batching is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update. 31, The City Council finds that the moratorium imposed and established by Ordinance No. 15- 013 is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, public safety, public: property and public peace. Section 2. 1)rlr;lti•:n. The incr.:IL,lriirn➢ set forth in () ditt4➢rtc:e No, I ~ I.}1 /tall he .3:1c! remain in effect as of tire "'t'et2tivc .i.ii•L c+C07rdin:L:t➢ . 'No. 15-013 mid shill] coli liuuc in eIl:ct I.ietil I > I .Ill. mi February 23, 2016. iinik'.`; r..I}t'<.Iltd. Ir l tl cl_ Lir modified h :114 C'iit' ISI11 a:il :alts :,1L1➢!.4.,~{ILrkn: pu1'•lic hearing(s) and:/ tiI➢ li or. LIpprrltrin[L: findings of lila pursuant to R(; k: 35A.63,21» aril l�C'�,'~ 7(i. tL l.3'J ►. The duration of the rnonitorirnn set forti in O)rdinarice No_ 15-013 i expressly" irliL•ridc ! is prti or',•c. in continuous aul _ lr➢CI effect the moratorium established in Ordinance No_ 15 -OC. L:�;r,•�i ILtiL;rr{;errs :Eta repeal of said OI iiir1.LILc Nii. 15-005. Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with, the authority set forth herein and prior to the effective date ol'this Ordinance is Itcr: ' 5y ratified and affirmed. Sec'iion -t, Severability, ]f any . ticn, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance shalt be :-Ald to Is, invalid or unc1,1-:'Thi,lr.c;lir;l 15A a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or �I;ii i iLrtit Lralit� shall nes[ Arltc:L:i r1i vrdidiry or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, c: phnisi.! o [171; r xriii➢rule .. `cciro11 (1idin:-Lncc. Shall E?k' 117 hill r )rc ;Leal Irl.- 41FE'r 1'l r pUbhGt1(i uI •+L. II):- t.,tliIlrinr..l_L ry thereof in th4 official I:::l';4I.;L ItiI'01Clic (Tit). <>f. i1{'�i.fl➢};' �,',:II�.'',' as prow itk:rl by, l:rk,v. Passed by the City Council this 251 day of August, 2015. City Clerk, Christine ainbridge Appel atpFo Office �e City 1rney Date of Publication Effective Date: Dean Grafos, Mayo Ordinance 15-015 —Findings of Fact on Mining Moratorium Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTDNE ORDINANCE NO. 16-002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE. COUNTY, WASHINGTON, =.I)(}P I lNC: F1ND]Nt:S OF FACT JUSTIFYING 1'IIF ADOPTION OF A SIX MONTH. RL,NEW'A1, O1' '1'111; MORATORIUM ON tl[NlN[; AND IMircii •til, PRODUCT MANUFACTI:RIN(; t71trGINALI.Y ESTABLISHED I't_IRSI.Ai''I 1't) ORDINANCE NO. 15-013 ‘vi i El I MODIFIC:ATT(lNS, AND (n 11ER MATTERS RELATING TTHERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley ("City") is in the process o['drveloping its C't mprcliensiE e Plan Update; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ROW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390, L711 .Itlnc 1t1. 2015; rhe City adapted Ordinance No_ 15-013 a moratorium upon the submission, acceptance, processing. modification or approval of an permit applications or licenses by or for nhiIii: _. id/c_A- related Itliuiri , site (operations, such as excavation, Irliner.,l. product I: i1I1uLicturing, mine ;1 IL,cu tii;1- stockpiling. 1111 1 mineral batching and repealing (,)rc.inance l ig, . 15_i :i5 and 15-009; and WI -1F 9:A S, pursuant to Ordinance N:. 1 5-01 a, the moratorium shall t\piIc at 11:59 p.m. k_m Fehr:tat). 23, 201(, unless .::d,ier'Nisc IcpcalLd. extended, o:- iliodified by the City Council pi`ior to such expiration; and WHEREAS, the City- does not anticipate it will complete its Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23, 2016; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11_ Scclion 1 'itlA'4• is ' 11'1;15:.- !:11141 Lll:i'1','l:c �k'It11 11 1r not III L.0111.141 v:Illi i_4'ri. iaE lil'Lk'7, ILLIIJ :I .`fa} �`.'Itlltn thl.' t II'r: ;.Hod 1 of the l,b'ltsliinrrtan Cclnstitution, the City of Spokane its linlil illi :such la'•tt:l 17C111C;.c, sanitnr' and '�i1Y]L;11 I[ 1_ILLtill:•ti Lh._i .LLlopiIJJI w`l li",�1�1:1iI[ll1w. LL?'1'�l II:;ig WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.39O provides that "A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without Etolding a p[1E1]:c hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim Jill ficial control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning .]I-Liirlatice, or interim official control within at lust sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the governing I,, Lly received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the errtjrng body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing ti. Jy 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 (nap, interim zoning ordinance or interim official control may be renewed for one or more ii ix -month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each rent .'al " and I IiTtI;AS. a !rte.i-u. humrt ti v.;•tl LI,:ict_c1 Lander RCW 35A.63.220 artdlor RCW 36.70A.390 is a tti�[I r,ri1 I;_, ;wI1i .lt IcPL.1i `,l�.Lr,l=1r 1it, m.t i:,,ltiiri.tly to preserve the status quo established through the il1:,1 Ir.Luft, rium so tl ,u n •t plan,: and r;;`au']i.ions will not be rendered rnoot by intervening. dL ;`ti,1sti1,111L:'Ir, (mail 1,1;iiwince 16-02 Page 1 af7 ;aid 14.V.' -,(1,7(1A ..:;(;0 boil" authorize the enactment of a moratorium rcr.P.vill or inure publie hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to cud] renewal-, WHEREAS. nursuzin io 16.70A:-;,..)0 and Ordinance No. 15-013, on January 5, 20116, the Council ecildnei1 p7operly ii ic.J public hearing on the renewal of the moratorium an mining and/or related mining .ite opw..ations fora Ix -month period; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, City Conn ei vurbal testimony front two inierc stcd narlics, and each party submitted additional written comments_ Further, the City received written comments oit Jan naty Ft, 2016, which have been considered by City Council as part of the record for such renewal; arid V/ I i A . C:ity Council has determined upon puLIic iestimorty received tli .1.t a modification to tLie. n1,...vril1orilim regarding impacts to existing mule, zind 'SM -6 117: part or their reclattiati(i:i pc:1-mitiing process from the Wasliinaton Dparinen i1 N.ri ;i1 ir.or in ilie establishincnt of 111:2 irr.-watoritn is appropriate to :jet. elIc-17,1 to City coutk-ir moratorium not impact existing and ongoing mining business operations; timid WHEREAS. 1iI.HII1l to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCN,' 7,'t.:..70Aic)1".), the City Council !NMI .2-d to adopt findings of fad erotic conducting the public hearint.! prior to sudi NOW, THEREFORE, the Cily Council of the City of Spolune ordains as follows Section I. Fi-.1dinns of E act. Pi ir:ar. RC_. RCW 36.70A.390, on Januar)! 5, -21116, the CIL:v tioarina on a six-moat:3 r-eric1 thc moratorium 011 minin.9._. a &Poi related mir site bperal ]1I h as ,....;.eavation, AlAllufacturing, mineml stockpilinv. and rnincr:i! h.:iicltin.„4. originally eslal)lished [baislaint lu 01111111:liicti! Nt':•_ 1 1Ii'01-Mei] hcri;i) iIiI- iIC li-11,),A int; findings of fact in iippiioi` renewal 110..1-0.1iit.r) (111 sift operations, such a excavation, in mineral butching, 1,11!:4L'itSV 10 N4, 1 -"‘- 013 1. On February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-005, imposing and establishing a moratorium on the submission, acceptance, processing, modification or approval of any permit 11)1)1U:tit ions or licenses by or for mining and/or related mining site operations, such as excavation, mineral product irianuf;acturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and mineral batching_ 2. On March 24. 2o15, the Ciiy CilatiCii conducted a public hearing on the moratorium imposed und established pu:shant tci Ordinal:cc Ni. 15-005 and received written testimony from two interested parties, Six interested parties spoke t. the public hearing. 3_ On April 28, 2015, after due consideration to the public testimony received, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-001) itiopting findings of fact justifying the moratorium on mining established pursuant to Ordinance No, l 4. On Rine 30, 2C15, the Ciry Council ()rdinance N. 15-013, repel I ;ill,. 15-1)05 :Ind :5-009, and re inoraloiluni subillistfloo_ .2ccunianc(-_ modification or approval pe.ntit ar.flications or I iccia“::; or for mining undioi• rcl.,Led as pro(itict moniThiciuring, mineral proce.nig, stockp.lin, and mineral OEdiiianile 16-002 Page 2 of 7 t }f1 1,11y 723, 2017_ City Cd'.r1 iai'o'ra I I%iitilIL'L\l public hearing on. tIic_ id ptioit of Ordinance 15-01 and the c;':11'':,1;I13cllt 4): a inora1 ritit,i sill 'ttii iu ;And/or related minim yi:e 01.14:1a1101, SAIti illi c7il i s l r.,ii. 111 leiI}ltiiiI1 ; II1:[r1111:I11i.r 1:15.',. ii iiC1I°.� 1.11l��t'ti4111. mineral batching. ant: [Ilk; terea1 ;, (1!ctio.talLL. 15-(':) ,ilitl 15-t}114,1. .0li 'written comments were submitieii Fn i. 1 to I l,e liuhlic hearing. At the public heal X11:.. {' its' CL•urL•i1 heard verbal te tiltiony frrtitn five intcrestt`:1 p,_11'11Ls. Further, ttt the public hearing, loth ptl :vis wIio testified submitted written comments and eine person ialhinittcd a flash drive with three electro:; .: documents and five video recordings of portions 44. City C'or.:lci] meetings held on February 24, 201.-, March 24, 2015, Apri I I ,015, April 28, 2015, and June 30, 2015. 7, On August 25, 2015, after giving due consideration to the public tegintony re ei,, d. 4'it Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-015, adopting findings of fact justifying the adoption ofOrdinancc \tl. 15-013 and the re-establishment of the moratorium on alining andior related mining s to sLc!1 as excavation, mineral product manufacturing, mineral processing, stockpiling, and I11inLril >atchill,.lrll the repeal of Ordinance Nos- 15-005 and 15-009- ,. Pursuant to Section 5 of Ordinance No. 15-{}l3; the moratorium will last "anti,] 11:59 p.m. on 1'ebrwir4' 22., 21)16. tin less repealed. extended, 01 ineelilied by City Council after subsequent public heariii .) and entry oFappropriate findings of fact, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390." 9. Purtivaitl to Rr '" ,(1_111A,170 RCW, illy City is required to designate "where appropriaic__.f nijincral resource hind., 11',:it are not all Lt:t!~ :.11 ii ieil:rized by urban growth and that have long-!eriu ir.i iPicance for the extracii(1t1 ,, Irtiiiti.r:I 10. Purs-Liant to RCW 36.70 '-,.0611. 1h . t. `i 1.+: ;; rcciiircd to adopt development regulations to ensure conservation of ,irneral resource lands l ursi;:int to KCW 36,70A.170. 11 On 11''larch 27, 2003, the City C}ri�i:l:r ik' ;ltl,�IYtL'cl die Spokane County Comprehensive Plan as its interim C;on prwhenil,, L`;Int. . I is Ci w IrIr,L "r;l t }1I,I3I''_'11t;t i`.'C Nati included certain mineral resource designatri;•li, liar IUCiilrt3;t, til I1 i IIt '. iL 12. On April 25, 2006, the City adopted its Carnpreht'n!:ve Plan The City's Comprehensive Plan did nqt designate any mineral resource lands within its boundaries, and the City has not further designated mineral resout:ce lands sine 2006. 13. The City's currently adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several goals and policies for the appropriate development of industrial lands., including the following: Goal LUG -10: Provide for the development of well-planned industrial :Areas rind en;:Ire the long-t'enn holding of appropriate kind in pilrt:ol sins adequate to allow. for Future development as industrial uses. LUP-11.2: Conversion of designated industrial lands to other uses should be strictly limited to ensure an adequate land supply. 14. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code ("SVMC") 19.120.050, mining is currently a permitted heavy industrial processing use within the heavy industrial (I-2) zone. IS. The City has existing gravel mining operations within its industrial zones taking up significant acreage, which result in large open pits once tlic ruining use is completed. Once a mine is opened, the Ordinance 16-0O2 Page 3 of 7 impacts ort the land are usually irreversible even with appropriate reclall nii. rl plannin`yflli:sc inlpacts can be permanent and can limit future industrial or other productive use of the site, even after ilia mine closes. 16. The City has a finite amount of available undeveloped industrial land. 17. New proposals for mining and reining site operations that may be sttL>iiii'tcd rlrndinc tin„, L'Lrll[>1_ii�:rr bt'dIc [u.i;it.. 1.1 .,t.•cy. add p.i.c:.in imminent threat to pnbli;: health and si!1Ltl .iat Ci [7t::"C l`l;llld,3ltlj' .ltlkl' lira E.Itttlt envirowndra alai limit the 1..'Ity's choices iii the c,t'tlis land use 4ttr511oritf-'. 11a.ratk?y La.~;the Compi Plan t'It.lalte pinai•a ono itnp.lirilia the (:'il `' ri1 i!it• i,1 Egret. a reasoned pokey approuc.I) relined t.1 iialtuarial land ...tritc:1[a deleinliniIlg where, if ali;;lvhcrc. Llc*:IaJ1,'llion of mineral resource Iznik :. hd t:r 1L -I :llinlrl what the City's long-term �� 1a11s aid policies arc vat.] rc tlCd to 11111'I Eli?,;ilial 'i7111J17 1:tL operation. 18. With the plannir:{!. i s.11c's :i1kI 1potentiatl for new r11ini11,, irn[1 alts in mind. 1.1 CM...t'•-du!IL•il cic Ic-rinincd the rnoreltorltLrn :il7E,:`.f],1`i'JIC tri fader to ma in[r1111 t]1L sl,'itf ;lilt R-1--' [lr0hibit11 Iti::t InL:L' +°I [aer•nlitw sind licenses for I aav Il'1 r i ;< clpc!.I'icttlrt i1Lv0nd Those pi seat[\• ,,..ted to+lli!u ilia' : ilv hale inlay-; d:•\.i 1opn elll and Cilnip1e!i1I1 {}t_ Itr: L'omprela.tp,ive Plan I.1pdaI. inu[r.ldinh s_'i. ii1: clue idusillr=rairou `d` Elia (lc -termination of ka:liare., if,:111'."•.tilicii.._ L]L.siariat]D11 ii Inn -1,a _-esoiJ1:...e may Ho ::r [1 ;i �i1rlslll'. ;i11i1 LIai ririiiililg what the City's Ii'n ati.Tni t'imls ;iii 1 ;H}Iicies are. v^=1t1`. 14-g;ir.i I+. Plllrll!I!� And iilini 1` wilt' ;.:11t.t-trlions Within its jurisdictional 1i7:11t�. 19. Pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 15-013, the City Council established a work plan in order to adequate . const: Lir (a) -kahcre. it auv1k ere, des(L; 1,1tJ.:11 of mineral resource lands niav Me rtppir priate witllill 'Err lio:_Indi.li itis d+l-th.e. City. anti (I)) whiner nand ruining site oper,ll it'.1.;. ir:clnding cxca%;Iti0n, mini r.Ii rr+'cluCt 1n#IIInI•i-ldlr-inct, mineral l r:1. c :,II i r.1,rc:kpiling, and IT1;n Ir..I kik-lama :ire <sr1llJ:a",il lr: '111.'1 '.111 I '[ii`iate when uniIi raiLerl Dn induslri;tl l,:r.L1y anci?or elsewhere dti:itlli!: lhic f.•ity. I h e war}, }, pain dlirLaa ; the City as follows: A. The City of Spokane \f;llley Planrlillr!- Conlrlliti,.-inn ("Pinny.ilii c.',�It:rlliw:,•.,r') i., hereby authorized and directed to hold public IIL.Irirl�° pnblie J11 :€'Iina;a: to Julia r1.cL:iaL and consider statements, test i I J;(1I y, positions, and other d ocannelilal !dined to the public health, safety, and a:elf= aspect; of Mining uses. Specitieall'.. Ills: I}l;,riuint Commission shall consider ti iii i:.i in its consi.,!..ratid:.l1 and clt'IibL:rntion.c for the Comprehensive Plan Clpdate and shall dIcaeld,I1 proposals. tor 1T1in:n1, anal minima :cac' operations within the t.it}"'s 2015 ComprL]1L:1si 'c` 1'I:11} . iI'dale; t4'i ::` orwarLL.:s.: u1:c1 recommended to the City Council for its L dirt Ii Llrtt,a. rr "I Eli schedule rot the Cilli' ti a") a Comprehensive Plata Update process is incl; Jed in tI1{• t'rl, ".ti I'uhlic Participation 1'ruar.IIu. adopted by the City Council 1:n .liulu.u_; C}. 2015.. ..Iii li h .ltril-les [hates et the Comprehensive Plan Update process and anticipated meting dates relevant to each of the phases. Upon adoption of the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update,. the Planning Commission shall work with City staff and II1L citizens .1 Ole City, as well as all public: input received, to develrp proposals for rcg.l::ttioLi pertti :li;li_ i;Y n11,;iiir and mining site operations to be Fctrwardcd and recgmrrient.I c'[i It+ rl IL' t II'Y' t'iIIS1u tl Itlr It`s L;ansideratior1. ?17. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, the Cil, : - irr tilt Iwl,t:'s;. of ci4''•'d•I +E7in4 iis Comprehensive 1'1:111 1 Ipd:ite, 21. Pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW and the work plan ci iahIished pursuant to Ordinance No. 15- 013, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update proce: , through 201= rind Lort(illtlilT into 2016, the City Crdiriance 16402 Page 4 of 7 has been analyzing and completing an inventory of available industrial lands, and reviewing designation and regulation of mineral resource lands in order to reach a reasoned policy decision in the interest of public Ii4:,1111t, . lily and welfare drat addresses (a) consideration of .'Iiere, :1' anywhere, designation of mineral 114V kinds may be appropriate within the boundaries of tlic City. and (b) whether mining and mining aliens, including excavation, mineral product irl:illllta::tl!r iilg., mineral processing, stockpiling, and ltlillei- butl,:lring, are compatible and appropriate when illrcemik4-n tin industrial lands and/or elsewhere within the t il\ As part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, ih City has undertaken a broad ptihi is proL-es.; e accept citizen -initiated Citizen Amendment Recl[1csts ('`C.'ARs"). CARs were revicviccl tIii- . t TIi a public pn: czss by both the Planning Commission and the City Council and several were apl,rily vd.. tz • the City Council for further analysis and consideration through the Comprehensive Plan Update. +. ?]±.' CAR ilia( was approved Cor further review was a request to include a new chapter- creating Mil]i:I,tl Re cilirce Lands cc}.I Is. poi inks, l.nd designation criteria and a corresponding map amendment to designate brut sites is tl Mineral. RLslnircc Overlay on the City's Comprehensive !'Ian Map. Further, City staff' Iran. hec•Ii resw:archilrg, reviewing and analyzing geologic, economic, and GIS data, as welt as information rain 11n: Washina.tnn 1)cparime.nts of Commerce and NatLUC Res:otltccs., to review and analyze the appropriaiclwss of inuii i it rt.soi rcc land designation within the Cilv', boundaries. 23, Thi C' t; 5w i, ilclaycdi lora pnrli,,n c17.01 5 in +, 'irrl,ir:gthrough its Cornprenensivti 1'1:1x: t:1+clate while '.v:iifin<' Icor the future I::}illtlrlti-in f,+recast and allocation from the Sneering Conimille.. of ilve ed 1)lit :till t C'i•.{.7") and Spokane {.'4 t:[ Board {,f i'nd.i'ilV Cv1rlrllis-sic1ne:s l'1 ii 'C" }. 1lt4 til•i-:C voted ti.11l. NJ:Ar -allst'r'i, 21:11. `, 0l3 roc:-.'11=15ic-ad ': the l3i'1:..{. 11L pl']71.ihtiL)ri ] recast beef /allocation recon i1'I2licle(l by 1l:L: i'I,l'lll'.r'. !. T cI16it n.l .1{1 "t i,,t =. w, (:'K:I"l,tlit`.:c 15.1:i4:h I,i'zed the Orrice of Financial Management medium %c Icti I:'scrl:.it for 203? and whicn a'•.I=1:'r•..I aL lii .tl;i.lr• '_nrL'Wlh rate from 2003 1lrrirli 4Ii 2015 fni. forecasting I'I.I,-1 �l7ti�`ti. I IIS lac'<,t, has not Acted anon the i`i'I>LIInt1011 forecast and allocation Is critical to the City's de' . k'pi:tent ]is Corttpr4�l li•.I i. isL.' ]'I❑,l Li date as it 1 :r planning for future growth and Is c-!„irrg atlpi Jpl iati land use tptarnitids to inuiL1 ill,' Inc '_'r:lw-,t11 25. Due to the delay in recollll:,enLlai on and adoption of the population allocation, the City has not completed its Comprehensive PE:iii UpJa1n :Irid the City does not anticipate it will complete the Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23, 20 1 t}. ?tri. Purwrlant to Artit.Ie 1 1 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to -make and cnfonn.: wit limits all $116 local police, ;y iiiitary and other regulations are no[ [Ir conIlia tviLlr 'erli)•al laws," i;li'l[Idesthe adoption ofregL[lat]I'I'.k 111111 5 tiwithin the. (try 27. 1(CW 36.7 0, ,,3L}i) i'ar€ ides flub "A. county or city governing body that ,Iclopls '. m:'I !1le'ritll't1, interim ' o[i io map, interim /tin l 13' it i:lll:lline, or interim official. control 4I1;1L'L1i Ikolid erg a on tIic proposed uicrrtator;Lnll. y.liain!n. n-.ap, interim zoning ordinance, or interim otTiicint] copilot, sl[atll /told a public hearing o.i the adopien nyorritorium, interim Laing map, inter:itt :zoning Ordin an4c_ or IntCllntnlll4r.111011f[0Itiw:i1!:i ,[t least its adoption., whether ornot the gown ling body ret•t:ted a rceonl_ziLr:k'ii'!1 cin [Er;: nt,r.:l: r Ire I[I [he ISI. Untag conr]''rission ordepnriill'•nn. hotly does not -adopt fin(li'L,'4 ill I:LL. Ii IItj'ICl!_' 1L li't1 It l}wIUrL' Il1C:ti IiLniiilg. [lienIll _':."•' Il1111 L'f1 iiiIldo so immediately ,tl i1' 1.1711: A moratorium, interim ;rt}1"•iIIf' r1rIi•, interim zoning ordinance, or Illtt III1 Ls I IL.I:I I ''- 1,lrt,i !.“1:) 71L•i{ Lacier this SL.Ction may be Cffecti' L. t.11' nod. `7C,1i May fin i'tr'i:1 lt',_`. I'1' up 11 Lin '7'ti'dCi" 11 5'Irl"tti ill:?iJ r 4l1'L'6'I{ I1 t for r"{,'I IIC'i1 1 [idle,1 [ L:4.14:11'S 114 r a longer pct Idol, 11,6'r.il;`I'I°,II1'., 11l :!"Iti'I P,'illll.: 1112?t1. 11111.1 -::111 Of l;iLtiriin L7tICC /til 1(11111"ilI )11a4 l%v renewed OrL]in.rnce 16-0{72 Pace 5 of 7 for one or more six-month periodtiiel`servieent piihhe hearing islielii ;/nil l ii d i nee of I i :t are mode prior to each renewal_" 28. .rA moratorium. renewal eiiui ived :older Ie.C1�; 35.,A.67‘,220 and/or RCW 36.70,x.390 is t method 1-11 k<hi1_il li ::;e1 :,.overn.ttei I:s may continue to preserve the stet s quo established througi[ the ()Haired ?:loi. aicn irint -.,, (hat iaew Hans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. . 1 111 (;\.6,.220 and RCW 36.70..398 lli,lll :u1'Ii•.)ri.xe the enactment of a menet-prime relieved Ccs.' ene six-month periods if n lre.;I.1 hL2:n ilig is ll;.°1+.3 !F:il findirns of fact arc made pricer Ii :' :S•I1 rL'i .'4va1. 30. A six-month renewal of the moratorium on tninirig and mineral product manuractt ring eontinuc to maintain the status quo by prohibiting issuance of City permits and licenses for iiew inlnir-g S1pereiions lee),111ci those presently vested while the City continues to work on and complete its r•.1,1Trelie sive Man Update, including giving due consideration to the determination of where, if a i ; wl is i.. designation of mineral resource lands maybe appropriate, and determining what the City's long- term goals and policies are with regard to mining and mining site operations within its jurisdictional limits. 31. -i-iFi !1 c, :icimined that a six-niilnlit rcncwal of the moratorium.. on mining and/or related mini c.stehlished nueurint to Ordinance No. 15-013 with modifications is c ,i•w [.rically exen-pi prom threshold dctcr!Timll,itien and EIS requirements pursuant to Washington ;A.clininistrallive Code 197-11-N 0{19). 31 Notice ()filo 1,,1i7Ii, 11t:i ins 0::[ .1,►1ni,et 5, 2016. °.e a,.published in tete City's legal public-ation, o:i December 1 I, . aa. and 25, 2I}1.e, Hi1.].Ianuary 1, 2016. lannnry 7016, City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing an a six-month gene+x;11 .11 the ill<!I<:I, `I i,ln1 on mining and/or related raining site operations. midi as excavation, mineral procl.ict rnz„11!Inc e.11iii i''I i.i I processing, stockpiling, and mineral. hatching, originally estehlished eree,3e11 34. At the public 11.;1r-1 r.; - City Council heard verbal testimony from two interested parties. Both parties else sul"'ilititci wriit:11 1e t;mony. Further, on January S, 2016, the City received written testimony from a third party. A H parties reLlucsted a modification to the moratorium to allow processing of permits for the ongoing, operation end maimentmee of mines that are currently operational as well as those that received a Wu;1.;1 !.2 rrI e:e Le Department 1_1L Natural Resource County or Municipality Approval fcr Surface Tvlinin = Torn: ; i1i.1mon le referred Lo as a "S Form") prior to the establishment of the moratorium. The parties requ4to prevent impacts from the moratorium to their existing and ongoing business (}pe.r ilio w,. "!Th... i• C'it roar cil Iwis given due consideration to all public testimony received, including the written testimony received utr January 8, 2016. 35. A modification to the moratorium regarding mining operations where the operator received a Sm -6 Form prior to the establishment of the moratorium is appropriate to give effect to City Council's ori ina1 desire that the moratorium not impact existing and ongoing mining business operations. 36. The adoption of a six-month renewal of the moratorium en miming and/or related mining site or rations, such as excavation, mineral product rnktnuiitcttu-iirg, mineral processing. stockpiling, and li' i legate batching, originally established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-01 3 with modifications, is consistent e.ill; the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the development of the City's e;. e mprehensive Plan} Update. Ordinance. I6-002 Page 6 of 7 37. The City Council finds that a six-month renewal of the moratorium originally imposed and established by Ordinance No. 15-013 with modifications Is necessary for the preservation of the public health, public safety, public property and public peace. Section 2. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority set forth herein and prior to Ike effective date of this Ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 3. Severability. lifany section, sentence, clause, or phras :a'11,i r7;rli11;.ii..v :ball be lii: ld to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent juri :dk:1i.7,1. :.11k'11 111ti:1itd is r)r 11,1COr1stirutionalityShall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any 01IILl' wt2v_1ii. rL, 4-)1 1]hrals.: c+l this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect t v.° c!,,. Li Her !):11)1 4.arlkru of this Ordinance or summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Sp dI i n \-%11 \ IS piovided by law. Passed by the City Council this i daay of February, 2016. .kTTES Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Date of Publication; February 12. 2016. Effective Date: 1''ebrua�,yr 17. 20116 Ordinance 16-002 Page 7 of 7 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 16-003 AN ORDINANCE OF TILE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A SIX MONTH RENEWAL OF THE MORATOR111m ON MINING AND MINERAL PRODUCT YvIANUFACTURrNG ORIGIN A 1.1.\ ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 15-01,3 WITH MODIFICATIONS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane 'Valley ("City") is in the process of developing its Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHFREAS„ pursuii lo RCM 15A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390. on June 30, 2015. the City aciciptcd Ordinance. N. 1 .1 cstal:kir..-ilthrig 3 moratorium the subrniNion_ modification or approvul punt li 1 ipplications or licenst.... L. IA Col rciat..-d mining site operations, such as excav;iti,G,L. mineral pmduct manufacturing, mincral and mineral Witching and repo•ii I inr. f'..)rilininee Nos.. 15-005 and 15-009; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance N. 15-013, the moratorium shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on February 23, 2016, unless otherwi extended, or modified by the City Council prior to such expiration; and WHEREAS, tIi Ct L1:1111 v,i1 I complete its Comprehensive Plan Update by February 23, 2016; and WiLLRLAS pm -swim iick 11, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution, the City is autbctrized io eritoicc within LLS local pollee} sanitary arid other regulations as are not in confikt which includes the ;idopticn of regulations governing land uses within thu City, and WHEREAS, RCW 36.10A,390 provides that "A moratorium, interim zoning map, .11y,erirri Z0111T1g A!, ice oi interim official control may he reiwwctd for one or more six-mon11l periods if a silsequent hearing is lick] u]d findings of fact are made prior to each roue with' and WHEREAS. a inoratodura rencv.,a1 enacted tinder RC'W 35.A.61.220 and/or RCW 36.70A.390 is a method hv which local :2,.),....,.,:rill1ents may continue to preserve the status quo estahlished through the ort4inal moratorium so that new plans and regulations will not he rendered moot h iniervening di)[3111[2111; WHEREAS, Rt:NN- 3,":=.. A .1`..i'3.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 both and-m[17e the enactment L a morntorn:in-1 renewal for oi more :-.ix-ritionth periods if a public nearing,i.s held and findings of fact are made prior to each renew' h, IER.EAS. pity:741[m1 L -1(( .'0.4."0,Ai..300 and \Jo !--013, on January 5, 2016, the City Conneil conducted InrLii noticed public noarik2 on LI1 rcit..:Av.11 or the moratorium on mining and/or re](( iniin ri :.-;•14., Tc:11.]S far a six-monihp...-r!-, ,iiid 5, at the public hearing, City Council heard verbal testimony from 1w iliti..reccd parties, l.urther, \rt;.1 itten comments on lantigry lid' lin.: been consiL.k.'L.:7l.. pnit olLIi iet-ocl [r L.tich icnewah. and 111.1.-, Page 1 of 3 I?REAS, City Councilha', Iw1L:11 IiL+t L1:rtic[1 ,II"[rrl [:11171 is tc t1ino:1 . r-c:ceived that a modification to the moratorium regrii-Fns Ic: c'xi:-1i11g Irlill "% ;1 id in Ihalt rtiLL l`.'tir:1 a"SM-6 Forte as part of their reclamation permitting nr±.yc°.!s: ]rota] the \ r:Y.-cl:in{.lun ,:iar31 Resources prior to the establishment Of this rn:7r:_ti.yi iilnl i_; appropriate 1•_1 ±tP.-1' LtlLtl [r• OtA.' t'ca1n;;il's original desire that the 1110I.1ltoriltln not irci.- 14'l C"t1 111 <iilcl ong01,1-' mil1[I [+rl`•:Ill'_; i•I1t'ratIO115. [lilik 'l iEi l AS, pursuant to RCW 35.1.63.22C1 and RCW 316.70A.10 , the Girt' Council is required to adopt findings or tact atter claiidm:tl11 y Me. pu:7Ci�. Ilt.al•ingand prior to such renewal; and IEREAS, on February 9. 2[J 16, pursuant to Ordinance No, 16-0 1. City CCII_Illtei' ..t +11 ILLI findin!L of fact justitv'in, a six-rlui.11i renewal of the nicacitorium on min ins: rIi d/t r ('L'atet !inning :site ole :rations, such as excavation, mineral product marl i [ii:wri1L , mineral 1,1 .,c;':,,iiiIr :k ,i1 iig and r,'.it3 ] 1I batch ing, originally established pursuant to Ordinunee No. 15-0113, watt[ , It„il!i<<1 i[:n ;and W1-CEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197-11-88C, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from elle regt]ireinclits ()la tilreshold dc.crmination ander the State r.iivironmental Polii: .ti.ti[_ ;Ind Vv'!!11RF°'\S, the Citi- Council FI d:. ilk adoption of a six-111c;n11i rL"nc\v111 of the moratorium on 11'llllitirr isllt{•I!r`°r r[Iated i1 inii1gsitC {l nl"t;llt'11 .. 11t:11 <a.y xe.:,Haut][], mine: al p1 "4Iu4.l I1liIIlt113C1.tiring, mineral p:•4]e ssrng, stockpiling, and ['liner- l l,;,tc111112,till lt;.inally established per^ 1J:lrll ri} (irdinance No. 15-013 with modifications is it, the public interest and 11c:ct . iar-4" for Lhc picservatiou I'1 tl1i.' ?111'] IC ha::3.th, public safety. pablic. property, and public peace. N1)\V. T1-17Rf l fRF_ ills: City CouTr..:iI Of the City of Spokane Val iib.; .'I, follows; 1-k.etion 1. F?atkYlic heating; findings of fact. Pursuant to RCV, 3:7:A.63220 and RCVV ( 'i'ti• f iFl1[1C11 11;1s iiroperly i1Lll.l Lal I rl lylli Il..i! II1!_, ,1;Yil :1t1,C?pi d I1C!illr: . t,r 1.l t Jtr: tlll'1i1 I I\ 1'IY �7IILIl r4ilx:',,'i:II '11 al!v :ii 1't'll'olnim On I111111[l 1111.1:'+.'I' r."1:ne,min lnlll site opera! l4:itl+.yrt. mineral product ininci.al processing. `lti1C:1-.]:l lll`", and 1111114? -,Il l,;llt lliil , ri.;il].[11 t';ra1 Ii-hccl pursuant to Ordiut,.i.c No. 15-013, with nwdiliti:.ltit.}n:;. Section 2. iM iratorium Renewed. A. The moratorium upon the submission, ..?roccs sill:,._ sll_:-ki tit' 1lii,n : r r311p1-0'.;11 or 1I1'y 1'1:rrnit applications or '.icertses by or for mining at'Iclrs°r related mining slit:. 1"]Lr.Iaialli:, `;IIc!1 .1.- t`.wtl4°,itliln. r17111['1a11 proci.i [ ata illi aCt'tirinl,'_ mineral pr0Cessiili'.. :+tOCI;pii!inc. „inn Illlrltiril1 l'.':11i 11 11'_ :i.' r`'1i finally' esiai!i 11cd pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-413 is hereby Ien ,,c'd and for [r til : x nth (180 day) period as set forth in Section 4 herein. Nuthiml 11e:r'm .;Ir111 affect the processing or consideration of any existing and a]ready- suhmitte€l complete land -use building permit applications that may be subject to vested rights as provided tinder Washington law. C. This renewed n1°:"1'1114'°r I'.ir1 shall not ,fide:', stli'y II11:11[I_, l'[ lilinirl.�1 hitt- 0r?;:ri li[.1i hichidirlg excavation, mincrat product nlcimil;tl:rlll'11Y71, mineral processing, sluckiailltll? and nliiltrr.Y1 ,,It+:llill'. .lit were in existence and in continu;,ars :!r1c! I., ,1 ul operation as of the effective date of Ordinance N. 15-013. This renewed moratorium shall ,II,c> 11 11 .it Iect any proposed mine or mining site operation th;ii i,::rci, nr'Or to the effective date ofOrdinancc No I _.• t+ I , received a Washington State Department ofNatu rat County or Municipality Appm ..a I l +r Il f, :1, Milling Form (commonly referred to as a ''SM -6 1'o1.r1;-) the site of the proposed mine r I rllirrilr file ot,c: ation. This Section 2(C) shall allow the City pi :Int1 process any perm itappllG[lilt?11ti i51 :iti.:li :c:s for stitin mining operatioasarid Sites; provided, hots°[•4•[ 111I11llry in this Section 2(C) shall be e[Jn:•trued as an approval or acceptance by the City of any mirlinL2 ;u mining site operations, legal rights rC'�;1 irlwl..l any such sites or operations, or approval, permission, :111awanre, or Ordinance 16-003 Page 2 of 3 authority to mine without 1'C;w4'I' 1.11;21 applicable :JAL 1ic•fllrlt:4 Or Ij 'CI C rclnlir t['• ny specific amine or mining si1. Section 3. 4' ;r4h. I'I,ln. Ilh,„: work plan established pursuant to Ordinance No. 15-413 shall be continued as part of the renc;l' [ cli-Ill:: I]:i'-,ro-lloriunl as set forth herein. Section 4. Dlrr1ltii?rl. The, moratorium as renewed herein hili in effect as of the (Iatc cif th, shall continue in.0 1c:1 for aperiod ofsix-months (I, tllt,lt ;.l lrI)Iu thet]rio,inal oXpi]-nion Ltd l ' .11 the in ra[oriu[n until 11:59 I) in, on ug,ti&i' 21, 2016. llnle.s x1end :(1, or modified liy the {'i1) Council after subsequent public 11 arirl�{<) and entry al .alrproprj�s1. iirnlil[ ti of fact, pur.-mant to :Inti I �'l%1� 36.70A..1%. Scctiori 5. RAN is i11i?Il. Any ."k.vr consistent +'Ith the" <lr..i;lll! lit' .tit'[ ririll herein rind prior to die effective date of this Ord,::;inoe is here'?` rill ad and affirmed. Section .'".'tr;°;15llil'r. 11' :III'.' tai,"f ii_ 3unk:nee, clam,' i'r plll'::4'L t,1 1I is Ordrnancc shall. be held to he invalid or I.11,:Uii;tltlli;ui .l :?', a court of compcicriI jiiii cIIcAi n, such invalid jt\ (Jr unconstitutionality x11:11 11.7 t.il[e:ii\ .sr c.c,11 1itulion,llity of ii c [I1 r ; i tI >n. sentence, clautic, Cor phrase of this Ordimiir.2. Sectk ii "'It'.:ctive l lll_'. I Ili'} t,)[ilill.lnte tih;II: I..ae in full f I [rid (liLe1 piib11cation'i°, tl-I:; ti 1[{1;;:ilil'':' (]]' s-Illl:1?:1[:' 1111.. :',Jl'in t1:e . Ijlik:Ll few5p,11171t:1- L1 lip,. Elti IJI L Vitlt:ti ;iv I':I,ti�:•;I 1? 1ilL t.`l:', ('cu-i,cil this 9111 clay of February, 2 Approved as to Office o"tC1 • erney Date of Publication: February Effective Date: February 17, 2016 Ordinance 16403 Pare 3 of 3 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of June 30, 2016; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings 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. PUBLIC HEARING- Mining Moratorium, Second Extension — Erik Lamb 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) [due Tue, July 5] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-010 Marijuana Regulations — Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: To Determine Interviews for Vacant Council Position 7 — Chris Bainbridge (20 min) 5. Motion Consideration: SR 27 and Mirabeau Parkway Intersection Bid Award — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 6. Motion Consideration: WSDOT Call for Projects: Innovative Safety Program — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 7. Admin Report: FY 2018 TIB Call for Projects — Steve Worley (15 minutes) 8. Admin Report: SRTMC Interlocal Agreement — Sean Messner/Eric Guth (20 minutes) 9. Admin Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Policy — Steve Worley (20 minutes) 10. Admin Report: Annexation Discussion — Lori Barlow/Matt Dowgin (legal intern) (25 minutes) 11. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 160 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) July 26, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, July 19] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Ordinance Mining Moratorium, Second Extension — Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 3. First Reading Ordinance Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction — Steve Worley (15 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Approval of SRTMC Interlocal Agreement — Sean Messner/Eric Guth (5 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: FY 2018 TIB Call for Projects — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 6. Last Action Item: Council Appointment of Interim Councilmember (#7) — Mayor Higgins (appointment immediately followed by administering Oath of Office) (15 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Consensus on LTAC Council Goals and Priorities — Chelsie Taylor (15 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Comp Plan: Draft Land Use Map Discussion — John Hohman, Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 9. Admin Report: GSI Contract Discussion — John Hohman, Mike Basinger (25 minutes) 10. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 11. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 140 minutes] August 2, 2016 — No Meeting (National Night out) August 9, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tug, Aug 22] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance Mining Moratorium, Second Extension — Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction — Steve Worley (15 minutes) 4. Mayoral Appointments: (Visit Spokane; Emergency 9-1-1; Health Board; STA; Wastewater Policy Advisory Board) Mayor Higgins (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: 2017 Budget Estimates Revenues & Expenditures — Chelsie Taylor (20 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Comp Plan Draft Goals and Policy Discussion — John Hohman, Mike Basinger (30 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 6/30/2016 12:51:35 PM Page 1 of 3 7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 8. Info Only: Stormwater Management Program [*estimated meeting: 100 minutes] August 16, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Aug 9] 1. Stormwater Management Program — Eric Guth (15 minutes) 2. Council Training: Open Public Mtg Act; Public Records Act — Cary Driskell/Erik Lamb (60 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) August 23, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Aug 16] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Stormwater Management Program Plan — Eric Guth (10 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Comp Plan Draft Development Regs Discussion — John Hohman, Gloria Mantz (30 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 5. Info Only: (a) Department Reports; (b) Pines & Grace Intersection [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] August 30, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Library District Request for City's Reacquisition of Balfour Park Prop—C.Driskell 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Sept 6, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Introduction of Draft Comp Plan — John Hohman, Mike Basinger 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Sept 13, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2017 Budget Revenues including Prop Tax — Chelsie Taylor 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes; resolution setting budget hearing) 3. Motion Consideration: Pines Road & Grace Intersection Bid Award — Steve Worley 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue, Aug 23] (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue, Aug 30] (60 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue, Se tt66] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) Sept 20, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Sept 13] 1. Outside Agency Presentations: Social Service & Economic Dev. Agencies — Chelsie Taylor (— 60 mins) 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Sept 27, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. City Manager Presentation of 2017 Preliminary Budget — Mark Calhoun 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 4. Info Only: Department Reports Oct 4 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Budget Amendment, 2016 — Chelsie Taylor 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue, Sept 20] (5 minutes) (30 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue, Sept 27] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) Oct 11, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Oct 4] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2017 Proposed Budget — Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance re Property Tax — Chelsie Taylor (10 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Fund Allocations to Social Service & Economic Dev Agencies — C.Taylor (25 min) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection Project Oct 18, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Oct 11] 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 6/30/2016 12:51:35 PM Page 2 of 3 Oct 25, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2016 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance re Property Tax — Chelsie Taylor 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, 2016 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2017 Budget — Chelsie Taylor 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 7. Info Only: Department Reports Nov 1, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Draft 2017 Fee Resolution — Chelsie Taylor 2. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due [due Nov 8, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, 2016 Budget Amendment — Chelsie Taylor 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2017 Budget — Chelsie Taylor 4. Motion Consideration: Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection Project Bid Award — Steve Worley 5. Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to Council — Chelsie Taylor Nov 15, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Nov 22, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins 3. Info Only: Department Reports Nov 29, 2016 — No Meeting — Thanksgiving Holiday Dec 6, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Dec 13, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Proposed 2017 Fee Resolution — Chelsie Taylor 3. Motion Consideration: Funding Allocation, Lodging Tax — Chelsie Taylor 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Dec 20, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda 2. Info Only: Department Reports (normally due for Dec 27 mtg) Dec 27, 2016 — No Meeting — Christmas Holiday *time for public or Council comments not included Tue, Oct 18] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) Tue, Oct 25] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) Tue, Nov 1] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) [due Tue, Nov 81 (5 minutes) [due Tue, Nov 15] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue, Nov 29] (5 minutes) [due Tue, Dec 6] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (25 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Tue, Dec 131 (5 minutes) OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Carnahan and 8th Intersection Legislative Agenda CenterPlace Kitchen Equipment Sidewalk/snow removal District Court SVMC 2.45 Review/Discussion Emergency Preparedness Term Limits Hearing Examiner Report Undergrounding Draft Advance Agenda 6/30/2016 12:51:35 PM Page 3 of 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 5, 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: Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center Interlocal Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Informational memorandum on SRTMC Interlocal Agreement, March 24, 2015; Administrative report on SRTMC Interlocal Agreement, March 31, 2015; Motion for consideration on SRTMC Interlocal Agreement, April 14, 2015; Administrative Report on SRTMC Interlocal Agreement Amendment No. 2, December 1, 2015; Motion for consideration on SRTMC Interlocal Agreement Amendment No. 2, December 8, 2015. BACKGROUND: Planning for the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center (SRTMC) began in 1998 and led to the development of an interlocal agreement between the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Spokane County, Spokane Transit Authority (STA), City of Spokane, and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC). The intent of the SRTMC is to provide a multi -jurisdictional control facility for the partnering agencies to enhance and support advanced transportation management capabilities. The SRTMC was originally intended to serve as a hub for regional transportation communications and to provide a seamless coordination of intelligent transportation system (ITS) devices, including traffic signals, across agency boundary lines. The center operates 24/7 for 365 days a year, and has done so since 2003. The SRTMC relies on federal grant funding, yearly member contributions, and WSDOT directed funds. The federal grants and member contributions fund the SRTMC Manager, the IT Manager, two operators, software maintenance contracts, operation of the website, and daily hardware maintenance and functions for the center. The City's contribution historically has been $15,000 per year. However, the member agency contributions have been waved in 2015, 2016, and are likely to be waved in 2017 pending the 2017 SRTMC budget. The SRTMC has an Operating Board that consists of technical members from each of the partner agencies. The Operating Board is responsible for reviewing and approving SRTMC activities and has monthly board meetings. These board meetings are generally technical in nature and involve discussion of future ITS planning and implementation projects and strategies as well as reviewing previous monthly activities, invoices, and billings. Currently the City of Spokane Valley has 44 traffic signals, 11 cameras, and one dynamic message sign on the City's ITS network. The City provides limited access of our system to the SRTMC, including access to the 11 cameras. Later this year the City will be collecting traffic count data from our traffic signals via the ITS network, and can provide this data to the SRTMC for regional use. The SRTMC has made great headways this year by utilizing federal funds that have been allocated to the center. The SRTMC manager has undergone a very rigorous request for proposals for a new advance transportation management system (ATMS), which is the heart of the SRTMC. The SRTMC now has a very well defined work plan and budget, and has gained positive momentum in the region to provide ITS connectivity. Another recent accomplishment is the SRTMC's recent website upgrade, which is open to the general public. The website contains information about specific corridors and has real-time video feeds from cameras throughout the Spokane region. The website also identifies travel impacts from construction activities throughout the region. Two previous amendments to the 1998 interlocal occurred in 2015. The first amendment set a trial period with changes of the SRTMC management by WSDOT. City Council agreed to this and approved the first amendment in April of 2015. The second amendment officially added the City of Spokane Valley as an official partner of the SRTMC and identified WSDOT as the lead agency of the SRTMC. City Council agreed to this and approved the second amendment in December of 2015. The second amendment terminates on December 31, 2017. Upon termination, the SRTMC partners are required to enter into an updated interlocal agreement to continue operation. The SRTMC staff is being proactive in beginning preparation of an updated interlocal agreement with intent to have approvals in 2016, well before the termination of the second interlocal amendment. Staff will provide an Administrative Report to City Council on July 12, 2016, with a motion consideration set for the July 26 Council meeting. OPTIONS: Information Only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Informational Only. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No change to 2016 budget. STAFF CONTACT: Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer Eric Guth, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: N/A CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 5, 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: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Policy GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 70.235.070 - Distribution of funds for infrastructure and capital development projects — Prerequisites PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: In 2009 the State of Washington adopted RCW 70.235 related to Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions. RCW 70.235.070 specifically reads: "Beginning in 2010, when distributing capital funds through competitive programs for infrastructure and economic development projects, all state agencies must consider whether the entity receiving the funds has adopted policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Agencies also must consider whether the project is consistent with: (1) The state's limits on the emissions of greenhouse gases established in RCW 70.235.020; (2) Statewide goals to reduce annual per capita vehicle miles traveled by 2050, in accordance with RCW 47.01.440, except that the agency shall consider whether project locations in rural counties, as defined in RCW 43.160.020, will maximize the reduction of vehicle miles traveled; and (3) Applicable federal emissions reduction requirements." While a greenhouse gas emission policy is not technically required when applying for state grant funds, to comply with RCW 70.235.070, grant agencies are awarding project points to jurisdictions that have a greenhouse gas emission policy. Points awarded vary depending on the grant agency, but all agencies award points to jurisdictions that have adopted a greenhouse gas emission policy. For example, the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) awards 1 point out of a possible 100 points. Last year, the average winning score for applications in Eastern Washington was 63, so although 1 point is somewhat insignificant, the extra point gives the City about a 1.5% better chance to receive TIB project funds for all TIB project applications. For the Department of Ecology stormwater grant applications, a greenhouse gas emissions policy accounts for from 33 to 50 points out of a total of 950 points. Winning scores for these grants statewide are scores above 600 points. Having a greenhouse gas emissions policy would increase the City's chances of receiving projects by from 5.5% to 8.33% for all Department of Ecology project applications. Currently, the City of Spokane Valley practices measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that include: • The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan that includes Transportation, Land Use, and Bike and Pedestrian elements that reduce the need for additional vehicle trips for people seeking goods, services, and work in and around their neighborhoods, • New street and traffic lighting includes new LED -type lights, using less electricity, decreasing the City's greenhouse emissions, and the dependence on foreign oil, • The City has adopted a pavement cut policy, reducing preliminary pavement failure and thereby decreasing the likelihood of additional work to fix problems, • Pavement preservation projects for the city undergo an engineering analysis to determine if hot -in-place recycle or warm pavement can be used to reuse as much of the existing pavement as possible. Existing pavements are milled (with a large grinding machine) and then recycled into new pavement. Currently, all new asphalt mixes can include up to 20% of recycled asphalt. • The City currently integrates work with other City departments, agencies, and utility companies to combine all work within a project's boundaries so that multiple projects can be constructed at the same location, i.e. water, sewer, street, power, cable, etc. Greenhouse Gas Emission Policies vary in complexity depending on each jurisdiction's need. For example, King County's Policy is 39 pages with four technical appendices. Other jurisdictions in the State have policies less than two pages. Reviewing other policies adopted by cities in the state, staff will assemble a sample Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy for review. OPTIONS: Information only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Information only. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Minimum financial impacts as policy will focus on suggestions related to what staff is currently performing to meet current business practices. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE - Capital Improvement Program Manager Eric Guth, PE — Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: n/a