Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2016, 08-30 Study Session
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL GOAL 1. Cary Driskell, Hearing Examiner Report Discussion/Information Mike Dempsey 2. Cary Driskell, Library District Request for City's Reacquisition Discussion/Information Nancy Ledeboer of Balfour Park Property 3. Christina Janssen National Endowment for the Arts, Our Town Discussion/Information Grant Opportunity 4. Eric Guth, Erik Lamb Solid Waste Collection Update Discussion/Information Morgan Koudelka 5. Cary Driskell Water District #3 Pump House Lease Discussion/Information 6. Gabe Gallinger Painted Hills Update Discussion/Information 7. Mayor Higgins Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 8. Mayor Higgins Council Check in Discussion/Information 9. Mark Calhoun Acting City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Study Session Agenda, August 30, 2016 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 30, 2016 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ® admin. report AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Hearing Examiner Report Department Director Approval: ['new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.63.170, 36.706.120(3), and Chapter 58.17 RCA; SVMC 18.20 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Since some members of Council have not had the opportunity to meet our Hearing Examiner, it was felt that this would be a good time for Council to be introduced to Mike Dempsey, the City's Hearing Examiner. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 18.20 sets out the authority, appointment process, and powers and duties of a Hearing Examiner. Additionally, we have an agreement with Spokane County for Hearing Examiner Services. Mr. Dempsey will introduce himself and explain a little about the duties of the Hearing Examiner. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell ATTACHMENTS: • Hearing Examiner Annual Report, dated April 21, 2016 • Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 18.20: Hearing Examiner • Spokane Valley Municipal Code Appendix B: Hearing Examiner Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct • Example of a simple Hearing Examiner Decision (rezone) • Example of a more complex Hearing Examiner Decision (shoreline conditional use permit) • 2016 Contract Hourly rate • 2006 Addendum to Agreement for Hearing Examiner Services Between City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County; • 2003 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Between City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County for Hearing Examiner Services To: j A MICHAEL C. D1.t, tt'sE,v Oi;►:jCE car TKE HEMUNG EX,\raVirri CHIEF EXAMINER MEMORANDUM Acting City Manager (Mark Calhoun), City Council members, and Director of City Community Development Department (John Holtman) From: Michael C. Dempsey, City Hearing Examiner ,'1 ( -'} Re: Annual Report for City Hearing Examiner System, 2015 Calendar Year Date: April 21, 2016 The City Hearing Examiner is required to annually report to the City Manager, Council Members, and Community Development. Department Director stating the number and type of hearings conducted and decisions issued during the past year, the outcome of such decisions, recommendations for improving the hearing examiner system, and pertinent observations and recommendations regarding land use policies and regulations. See SVMC 18.20.030.B, 1. A. Interlocal agreement for hearing examiner services The Hearing Examiner hears and decides land use matters and dangerous dog appeals for the City on a pro tem basis, pursuant to an interlocal agreement executed between the City and Spokane County in 2006. The City has been contracting with the County for hearing examiner services since the City was incorporated in 2003. The interlocal agreement renews automatically at the end of each year, for a 1 -year period, unless terminated by either entity \with notice. The Hearing Examiner bills for services at an hourly rate, as determined under the interlocal agreement. The Hearing Examiner has been employed full-time as the Spokane County Hearing Examiner since 1996. B. Matters heard or decided for Spokane Valley in 2014 In 2015, the Hearing Examiner heard and/or decided 6 land use applications and 1 dangerous dog appeal. There were no appeals of the Examiner's decisions. PUBLIC WORKS BLOC', 3RD Ni.00R I a_'I) A1'esr 1IROAoWAY AVENUE o PoKAN WA 992(0-02i5 I�lIONE: (')r191 '177-7.€90 I'AX: ()iI') I ' 1 ° MDEMPSEY(@'SI'OKANECOUNTY.ORG Annual Report on Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner System, 2015 Calendar Year April 21, 2016 Page 2 The following table indicates the disposition of land use matters heard in 2015: 2015 Spokane Valley Land Use Applications Type of Application: Approved Denied Returned Appealed Plat 1 0 0 0 Plat Alteration 1 0 1 0 PUD 0 0 0 0 Rezone 2 0 0 0 Variance 0 0 0 0 Conditional Use Permit 0 0 0 0 Shoreline Permit 1 0 0 0 Totals 5 0 .1 ' 0 Administrative Appeals 0 0 0 0 For comparison purposes, the Hearing Examiner heard 17 land use matters, 11 drug forfeiture claims, and 3 dangerous/potentially dangerous dog appeals for Spokane County in 2015. Several of the drug forfeiture matters processed by the Examiner involved investigations of controlled substances violation by the Spokane Valley Police Department. The shoreline permit approved by the Hearing Examiner, referenced in the above table, involved a private community boat ramp approved along the Spokane River, directly east of the Town of Millwood. The plat alteration application referenced in the above table that was returned to the applicant by the Examiner, following a public hearing, was resubmitted to the Hearing Examiner after the correction of certain legal deficiencies in the application. The Examiner approved the revised application after a public hearing, as referenced in above table. In the dangerous dog appeal heard by the Hearing Examiner for the City, the Examiner upheld the declaration by SCRAPS that the dog was dangerous. C. Observations and recommendations regarding City hearing examiner system, and City land use policies, regulations and procedures The public hearings conducted by the Hearing Examiner for the City are conducted at City Hall, on Thursday mornings, Annual Report on Spokane Valley I-learing Examiner System, 2015 Calendar Year April 21, 2016 Page 3 The Examiner believes that the hearing examiner system for the City of Spokane Valley is working well. The relative lack of appeals over the years is a sign that the analysis and recommendations made by City staff, and the decisions issued by the Hearing Examiner, are sound with regard to land use matters and other City items heard by the Examiner, The Hearing Examiner keeps pace with City Council actions and changes to the SVMC through the review of City Council agendas, the hearing process, updates to the SVMC provided by the City Clerk, contact with City staff, and local media. The Hearing Examiner has consistently been impressed with the overall expertise of City planning staff members who appear before the Examiner, the quality and thoroughness of the staff reports they prepare and submit to the Examiner, and the sophistication and utility of the power point presentations they prepare and submit at the public hearings. City Planning staff are always receptive to requests made by the Hearing Examiner for information that is needed at the hearing to evaluate the consistency of a land use application with the relevant approval criteria; and to ensure that staff reports address all the approval criteria the Examiner is required to consider in issuing a land use decision. From time to time, the Hearing Examiner recommends changes to the land use provisions in the SVMC where there are inconsistencies or ambiguities in the regulations, particularly those that affect the hearing process. D. Other natters The Hearing Examiner is an attorney, and is required to complete 15 hours of continuing legal education each year as an active member of the Washington State Bar Association, The Examiner is a longstanding member of the Washington State Hearing Examiners Association, and attended the association's annual conference in 2015. Prior to being appointed County Hearing Examiner in 1996, the Examiner served as a deputy prosecuting attorney for 16 years; specializing primarily in land use, public works and other civil matters; but also received extensive experience in all areas of criminal prosecution. This included 9 years serving as a Senior Attorney in the Civil Division of the Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. The Hearing Examiner has been a resident of the City of Spokane Valley since 1987, grew up in the Spokane Valley area, and graduated from West Valley High School. The Annual Report on Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner System, 2015 Calendar Year April 21, 2016 Page 4 Examiner is a graduate of the University of Washington, and Gonzaga Law School; and has been an attorney since 1978. The Hearing Examiner is an active member of the community; including being a current board member and a past president of Downtown Kiwanis, and involvement in church and civic activities in Spokane Valley. The Examiner's Office employs a staff assistant, Kristine Chase; who acts as the clerk and recorder during land use hearings conducted for Spokane Valley and Spokane County, handles budget, accounting and clerical functions; and processes, schedules, and provides noticing for drug forfeiture claims and/or forfeiture orders. Kristine is a former staff assistant for the Spokane County Building and Planning Departtnent, and for Spokane County Veterans Services. She is married to Doug Chase, the Director of the County Parks, Recreation and Golf Department. E. Meeting with City Manager, City Council and Director of Community Development Department The I-Iearing Examiner welcomes the opportunity to meet with the City Manager, City Council members and the Director of Community Development regarding this report, upon request. The Examiner attends City Council meetings on occasion to monitor proposed changes to the City Development Code that may affect the Hearing Examiner, and to meet new members elected to the Council. c: Cary Driskell, City Attorney Lori Barlow, Community Development Department Print Preview Page 1 of 3 Chapter 18.20 HEARING EXAMINER Sections: 18.20.010 Authority. 18.20.020 Appointment. 18.20.030 Powers and duties. 18.20,040 Removal. 18.20.050 Ex parte communications. 18.20.060 Conflict of interest. 18.20.010 Authority. The hearing examiner system is established in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A.63.170, 36.70B.120(3) and Chapter 58.17 RCW et seq. (Ord. 09-023 § 1, 2009; Ord. 07- 015 § 4, 2007). 18.20,020 Appointment. A. The hearing examiner is appointed by the city manager with regard only for qualifications for the duties of the office. The city manager alternatively may contract for hearing examiner services or may appoint one or more hearing examiners pro tem. B. The qualifications for the office of hearing examiner include a license to practice law in the state of Washington, expertise in land use law and planning and the training and experience necessary to conduct administrative or quasi-judicial hearings and to issue decisions and recommendations on land use planning and regulatory matters. (Ord. 09-023 § 1, 2009). 18.20.030 Powers and duties. A. The hearing examiner shall be under the administrative supervision of the city manager. B. The hearing examiner shall have the following powers and duties: 1. Annually provide a written report to the city manager, city council and director of the community development department that states the number and type of hearings conducted and decisions issued during the past year, the outcome of such decisions, recommendations for improving the hearing examiner system, and pertinent observations and recommendations regarding land use policies and development regulations. 2. Upon request, meet with the city manager, city council or director of community development department to discuss the written report. 3. Receive and examine available information, make site visits, take official notice of matters, conduct public hearings, prepare a record thereof, and enter findings, decisions or recommendations. http://www, codepublishing.cote/WA/SpokaneVa1ley/cgi/menaiCompile.pl 8/22/2016 Print Preview Page 2 of 3 4. As a part of the conduct of public hearings, the hearing examiner shall have the authority to: a. Conduct pre -hearing conferences; b. Require the submittal of information; c. Schedule and continue hearings; d. Rule on all evidentiary and procedural matters, including motions and objections appropriate to the proceedings; e. Receive evidence and cause preparation of the record; f. Regulate the course of hearings and the conduct of the parties and their agents; g. Maintain order during the hearing process; h. Render decisions and issue written findings and conclusions; i. include in a decision the conditions of approval necessary to ensure that the application complies with the applicable criteria for its approval; and j. Revoke any approval for failure to comply with the conditions imposed by the hearing examiner where specifically authorized by the UDC or state law. 5. The hearing examiner shall hear the following matters: a. Variances; b. Conditional use permits; c. Special use permits; d. Shoreline letter of exemption appeals; e. Preliminary plats; f. Appeals from any administrative decision of the department of community development or the building official in the administration or enforcement of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code or other land use code or regulation; g. Appeals on State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determinations; h. Site-specific zone changes of property, including any environmental determination (under SEPA); http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SpokaneValley/cgihuenuCompile.pl 8/22/2016 Print Preview Page 3 of 3 i. Planned unit developments, including any environmental determination (under SEPA); and j. Any other applications or appeals that the city council may refer by motion or ordinance, specifically declaring that the decision of the hearing examiner can be appealed to the city council. 6. All hearings before the hearing examiner shall be scheduled and conducted in the manner set forth in Appendix B. 7. Appeals of any decision of the hearing examiner shall be as is set forth in Chapter 17.90 SVMC. (Ord. 15-026 § 3, 2015; Ord. 09-023 § 1, 2009; Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007. Formerly 18.20.020). 18.20.040 Removal. The hearing examiner or hearing examiner pro tem may be removed by the city manager without cause; or, if serving under a contract, according to the terms or upon its expiration. (Ord. 09-023 § 1, 2009). 18.20.050 Ex parte communications. A. No person may communicate ex parte, directly or indirectly, with the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may not communicate ex parte with opponents or proponents of any application unless the hearing examiner makes the substance of such communication part of the public record and provides the opportunity for any party to rebut the substance of such communication as provided by law. The hearing examiner may reopen the hearing record prior to a final decision to address such matters. B. This section does not prohibit ex parte communication regarding procedural matters, communication by the hearing examiner with his/her staff or the city attorney's office, communication by the hearing examiner for the sole purpose of conveying information regarding the specifics of an application, or communication by the hearing examiner with city departments for the purpose of obtaining information or clarification, so long as the information or clarification received by the hearing examiner is made part of the record. (Ord. 09-023 § 1, 2009). 18.20.060 Conflict of interest. The hearing examiner may not participate in a public hearing or decision-making process where such participation would constitute a conflict of interest pursuant to Chapter 42.23 RCW. Similarly, the hearing examiner may not participate in a public hearing or decision-making process where such participation would violate the appearance of fairness doctrine, set forth in Chapter 42.36 RCW, unless the parties to such hearing or decision consent to or waive their right to object to such participation. (Ord. 09-023 § 1, 2009). http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SpokaneValley/cgi/menuCompile.pl 8/22/2016 Print Preview Page 1 of 7 APPENDIX B HEARING EXAMINER SCHEDULING RULES AND RULES OF CONDUCT Sections: A. Scheduling of Hearings. B. Notice of Hearing — Effect of Notice. C. Staff Reports on Applications. D. Site Inspections. E. Presentation of Evidence. F. Reopening or Continuing Hearings. G. Dismissal of Application. H. Record of Hearing. I. Decision. J. Reconsideration, Clerical Errors. A. Scheduling of Hearings.. 1. The department, in coordination with the hearing examiner, shall prepare an official agenda indicating the dates and times that matters will be heard. The official agenda shall comply with all time limits set forth in RCW 36.70B.110. 2. When practical, minor applications, such as a variance or matters that take less time, shall be heard at the beginning of the day's agenda. 3. The hearing examiner may consolidate applications involving the same or related properties for hearing. B. Notice of Hearing — Effect of Notice. 1. Each public notice required for the hearing of an application shall conform to applicable statutory and ordinance requirements. The notice should contain a statement that the hearing will be conducted in the manner set forth in Appendix B. 2. Failure of a person entitled to receive notice does not affect the jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to hear the application when scheduled and render a decision, if the notice was properly published, mailed and posted. 3. A person is deemed to have received notice if the person appears at the hearing, or submits written comments on the merits of the application, and the person fails to object to the lack of notice promptly after the person obtains actual knowledge of the hearing date. 4. Disqualification. If required notice is not given and actual notice is not received, the hearing examiner may reschedule the hearing or keep the record open on the matter to receive additional evidence. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SpokaneValley/egi/menuCompile.pl 8/22/2016 Print Preview Page 2 of 7 C. Staff Reports on Applications. 1. The department shall coordinate and assemble the comments and recommendations of other City departments and commenting agencies, and shall make a written staff report to the hearing examiner on all applications. 2. At least seven calendar days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing, the staff report shall be filed with the office of the hearing examiner and mailed by first class mail or provided to the applicant. At such time, the department shall also make the report available for public inspection. Upon request, the department shall provide or mail a copy of the report to any requesting person for the cost of reproduction and mailing. 3. If the staff report is not timely filed or furnished, the hearing examiner may at his/her discretion continue the hearing, considering the prejudice to any party and the circumstances of the case. 4. The hearing examiner may make recommendations to the department on the format and content of staff reports submitted to the hearing examiner. D. Site inspections. 1. The hearing examiner may make site inspections, which may occur at any time after the staff report on an application has been filed with the hearing examiner and before the hearing examiner renders a final decision. The hearing examiner need not give notice of the intention to make an inspection. 2. The inspection and the information obtained from it shall not be construed as new evidence or evidence outside the record. If an inspection reveals new and unanticipated information, the hearing examiner may, upon notice to all parties of record, request written response to such information or reopen the hearing to consider the information. E. Presentation of Evidence. 1. The format of the public hearing shall be organized so that the testimony and written evidence can be presented quickly and efficiently. The format will generally be as follows: a. A brief introduction of the matter by the hearing examiner; b. A report by division staff including introduction of the official file on the application and its procedural history, an explanation of the application, including the use of visual aids, and the recommendation of the division on the application; c. The submittal of testimony and documents by the party with the burden of proof at the hearing, typically the applicant on an initial application or the appellant in the case of an appeal; followed by persons in support of such party's position; d. The submittal of testimony and documents by opposing parties; http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SpokaneValley/cgihnenuCompile.pl 8/22/2016 Print Preview Page 3 of 7 e. Rebuttal; f. Questions and clarifications; g. Closure of the hearing; h. Closure of the record and continuation of the matter for final decision. 2. All reasonably probative evidence is admissible by the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may exclude all evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious. The judicial rules of evidence are not strictly applied, but may be used by the hearing examiner for guidance. The hearing examiner shall accord such weight to the evidence as he/she deems appropriate. 3. Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference, at the hearing examiner's discretion. The hearing examiner may require that the original of a document be produced. A party submitting documentary material at the hearing should make copies available at the hearing for review by the opposing party. 4. The hearing examiner may take official notice of judicially cognizable facts; federal, state and local laws, ordinances or regulations; the city's comprehensive plan and other adopted plans or policies of the city; and general, technical and scientific facts within the hearing examiner's specialized knowledge; so long as any noticed facts are included in the record and referenced or are apparent in the hearing examiner's final decision. 5. The hearing examiner may require that testimony be given under oath or affirmation. All testimony taken by the hearing examiner in an appeal under SVMC 21.20.150 and/or Chapter 17.90 SVMC shall be under oath. 6. The hearing examiner may allow the cross-examination of witnesses. The hearing examiner is authorized to call witnesses and request written evidence in order to obtain the information necessary to make a decision. The hearing examiner may also request written information from or the appearance of a representative from any city department having an interest in or impacting an application. 7. The hearing examiner may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses to be heard and the nature and length of their testimony to avoid repetitious testimony, expedite the hearing or avoid continuation of the hearing. 8. The hearing examiner may cause the removal of any person who is being disruptive to the proceedings, or continue the proceedings if order cannot be maintained. The hearing examiner shall first issue a warning if practicable. 9. No testimony or oral statement regarding the substance or merits of an application is allowable after the close of the public hearing. No documentary material submitted after the http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SpokaneValley/cgi/menuCompilc.pi 8/22/2016 Print Preview Page 4 of 7 close of hearing will be considered by the hearing examiner unless the hearing examiner has left the record open for the submittal of such material and all parties are given an additional time to review and rebut such material, F. Reopening or Continuing Hearings. 1. The hearing examiner may reopen or continue a hearing to take additional testimony or evidence, or other compelling cause, provided a final decision has not been entered. 2. If the hearing examiner announces the time and place of the continued hearing on the record before the hearing is closed, no further notice is required. If the hearing is reopened after the close of the hearing, all parties must be given at least five days' notice of the date, time, place and nature of the reopened hearing. 3. Motions by a party for continuation or to reopen a hearing must state the reasons therefor and be made as soon as reasonably possible. The motion must be submitted in writing unless made at the hearing. The hearing examiner may continue or reopen a hearing on his/her own motion, citing the reasons therefor, 4. If the decision of the hearing examiner rests upon issues of fact or law not raised by any party at time of hearing, the hearing examiner shall continue and/or reopen the hearing to a later date to allow the parties an opportunity to comment and/or present evidence on those issues of fact or law. G. Dismissal of Application. 1. The hearing examiner shall conduct the public hearing based on the completed application. If the hearing examiner deems that the application has been substantially changed since it was deemed complete, the hearing examiner shall dismiss the application without prejudice and direct that a new application be submitted by the applicant and appropriate fees paid therefor. If the hearing examiner determines that the proposal has been changed but not substantially, the hearing examiner may continue the hearing to give reviewing agencies an opportunity to review the changes made and make recommendations deemed to be necessary under applicable rules and regulations. 2. The hearing examiner may dismiss an application pursuant to a request by the applicant to withdraw an application, or for failure by the applicant to attend required hearings or provide requested information. If the applicant notified the division of building and planning in writing of the desire to withdraw an application prior to notice of hearing being mailed to the persons entitled thereto, the dismissal shall be allowed without prejudice, and noted in the application file. If the request for withdrawal of an application is received after such notice being mailed and before a final decision is rendered, the application shall be dismissed with prejudice with the same effect as a denial of the application on the merits, in that the same or similar application littp://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SpokaneValiey/egi/menuCompile.pl 8/22/2016 Print Preview Page 5 of 7 cannot be considered by the hearing examiner for a one-year period commencing with the date the initial application was deemed complete. H. Record of Hearing. 1. The hearing examiner shall establish and maintain a record of all proceedings and hearings conducted by the hearing examiner, including an electronic recording capable of being accurately transcribed and reproduced. Copies of the recording and any written portions of the record shall be made available to the public on request for the cost of reproduction or transcription, as determined by the hearing examiner. 2. The record shall include, but is not limited to: a. The application; b. Department staff reports; c. All evidence received or considered by the hearing examiner; d. The final written decision of the hearing examiner; e. Affidavits of notice for the hearing; f. The environmental determination regarding the application; g. The electronic recordings of the hearings and proceedings by the hearing examiner; and h. The departmental file for the application, if incorporated into the record by the hearing examiner. 3. The hearing examiner may authorize a party to have the proceedings reported by a court reporter and have a stenographic transcription made at the party's expense. The hearing examiner may also cause the proceedings to be reported by a court reporter and transcribed. 4. The hearing examiner shall have custody of the hearing record and shall maintain such record until the period for appeal of the hearing examiner's final decision has expired or the record is transmitted to court or the city council pursuant to an appeal of the hearing examiner's final decision. 1. Decision. 1. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be in writing, include findings and conclusions based on the record to support the decision, set forth the manner in which the decision would carry out the comprehensive plan and the development regulations in the UDC, and include the contents specified in SVMC 17.80,130(C). http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/SpokaneValley/cgi/menuCompile.pl 8/22/2016 Print Preview Page 6 of 7 2. The hearing examiner shall render a final decision within 10 working days following the conclusion of all testimony and hearings, unless a longer time period is mutually agreed to in writing by the applicant and the hearing examiner. 3. Notice of the decision shall be provided pursuant to SVMC 17.80.130(D). J. Reconsideration, Clerical Errors. 1. Any aggrieved party of record may file a written petition for reconsideration with the hearing examiner within 10 calendar days following the date of the hearing examiner's written decision. The petitioner for reconsideration shall mail or otherwise provide a copy of the petition for reconsideration to all parties of record on the date of filing. The timely filing of a petition for reconsideration shall stay the hearing examiner's decision until such time as the petition has been disposed of in writing by the hearing examiner. 2. The grounds for seeking reconsideration shall be limited to the following: a. The hearing examiner exceeded the hearing examiner's jurisdiction; b. The hearing examiner failed to follow the applicable procedure in reaching the hearing examiner's decision; c. The hearing examiner committed an error of law; d. The hearing examiner's findings, conclusions and/or conditions are not supported by the record; e. New evidence which could not reasonably have been produced and which is material to the decision is discovered; or f. The applicant proposed changes to the application in response to deficiencies identified in the decision. 3. The petition for reconsideration must: a. Contain the name, mailing address, and daytime telephone number of the petitioner, or the petitioner's representative, together with the signature of the petitioner or of the petitioner's representative; b. Identify the specific findings, conclusions, actions, and/or conditions for which reconsideration is requested; c. State the specific grounds upon which relief is requested; d. Describe the specific relief requested; and http://www codepublishing.com/WA/SpokaneValley/egi/menuCoinpile.pl 8/22/2016 Print Preview Page 7 of 7 e. Where applicable, identify the specific nature of any newly discovered evidence or changes proposed. 4. The petition for reconsideration shall be decided by the same hearing examiner who rendered the decision, if reasonably available. The hearing examiner shall provide notice of the decision on reconsideration in accordance with SVMC 17.90.050 and 17.90.060. Within 14 days the hearing examiner shall: a. Deny the petition in writing; b. Grant the petition and issue an amended decision in accordance with the provisions of SVMC 17.80.130 following reconsideration; c. Accept the petition and give notice to all parties of record of the opportunity to submit written comment. Parties of record shall have 10 calendar days from the date of such notice in which to submit written comments. The hearing examiner shah either issue a decision in accordance with the provisions of SVMC 17.80.130 or issue an order within 15 days after the close of the comment period setting the matter for further hearing. If further hearing is ordered, the hearing examiner's office shall mail notice not less than 15 days prior to the hearing date to all parties of record; or d. Accept the petition and set the matter for further open record hearing to consider new evidence, proposed changes in the application and/or the arguments of the parties. Notice of such further hearing shall be mailed by the hearing examiner's office not less than 15 days prior to the hearing date to all parties of record. The hearing examiner shall issue a decision following the further hearing in accordance with the provisions of SVMC 17.80.130. 5. A decision which has been subjected to the reconsideration process shall not again be subject to reconsideration; provided, that a decision which has been revised on reconsideration from any form of denial to any form of approval with preconditions and/or conditions shall be subject to reconsideration. 6. The hearing examiner may consolidate for action, in whole or in part, multiple petitions for reconsideration of the same decision where such consolidation would facilitate procedural efficiency. 7. Clerical mistakes and errors arising from oversight or omission in hearing examiner decisions may be corrected by the hearing examiner at any time either on the hearing examiner's initiative or on the motion of a party of record. A copy of each page affected by the correction, with the correction clearly identified, shall be mailed to all parties of record. This shall not extend the appeal period from the decision. (Ord, 09-023 § 2, 2009; Res. 96-0294, 1996). http://www.codepublishing.cont/WA/SpokaneValley/cgi/menuCompile.pl 8/22/2016 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER RE: Rezone from the R-3 Zoning District to the R-4 Zoning District; File No. REZ-2015-0002 Applicant: Joel Elgee FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION L SUMMARY OF DECISION Hearing Matter: Application for a rezone from. R-3 to R-4, on 1.4 acres of land. Summary of Decision: Approve application, If. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural Matters: 1, The application seeks approval of a site-specific zoning map amendment to rezone a site of 1.4 acres from the Single -Family Residential (R-3) district to the Single -Family Residential Urban (R- 4) district, of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). 2. The site is located between, and adjacent to, Main Avenue and Valleyway Avenue; approximately 340 feet east of the intersection of Houk Road and Main Avenue, and approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of Woodlawn Road and Valleyway Avenue; in Spokane Valley, Washington. 3, The site is currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45153.2725. 4, The applicant and site owner is Joel Elgee; at a nailing address of 24327 E. Maxwell Avenue, Liberty Lake, WA 99019. 5. On August 19, 2015, the applicant submitted a complete application for the proposed rezone to the City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department ("Department"). 6. On October 19, 2015, the Department issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the application. The DNS was riot appealed. 7. On November 5, 2015, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The notice requirements for the hearing set forth in SVMC 17.80.120 were met. The Hearing Examiner• conducted a site visit on November 5, 2015, before the hearing. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No, REZ-2015-0002 Page 1 8. The following persons testified under oath at the hearing; Martin Palaniuk City Community Development Department 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Sarah Neelands 12509 E. Main Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Joel Elgee 24327 E. Maxwell Avenue Liberty Lake, WA 99019 9. The following exhibits were attached to the Staff Report and Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner prepared by the Department, and placed in the application file before the hearing: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Vicinity Map Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan Map 2014 Aerial Photo Application materials Determination of Cotnpleteness Notice of Application materials SEPA Determination SEPA Checklist Notice of Public Hearing materials Agency comments 10. Exhibit 12, consisting of a copy of the power point presentation for the Staff Report and Recommendation, was submitted by the Department at the hearing and made part of the record. 11. The Hearing Examiner heard the application pursuant to SVMC Chapters 17.80, 18.20 and 19.30; and Appendix B (Hearing Examiner Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct) of the SVMC. 12. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the SVMC, the City Comprehensive Plan, other applicable development regulations, and prior land use decisions for the site and neighboring land. 13. The record includes the electronic recording of the hearing; Exhibit 12 submitted at the hearing; the documents in the application file at the time of the hearing, including without limitation Exhibits 1-12; and the items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner. Description of Site: 14. The. site is approximately 1.4 acres in size, rectangular in shape, and relatively flat in topography. The northerly one-third (1/3) of the site is improved with a single-family dwelling, garage, shed and associated residential landscaping; and is fenced off from the remainder of the site, which consists of a vacant field and has some perimeter fencing. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No, REZ-2015-0002 Page 2 15. The Department has approved a preliminary short plat to divide the site, from north to south, into two (2) lots for single-family dwellings. See preliminary short plat neap dated 8-25-15, p. 9 of environmental checklist, 2014 aerial photo in Exhibit 12, and testimony of Joel Eigee. Land Use Designations for Site and Neighboring Land, Surrounding Conditions: 16. The site and neighboring land, except the land lying south of Main Avenue and the site in the vicinity, is designated in the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan; zoned R-3; and developed with single-family dwellings on lots and parcels mostly smaller than the site. 17. Some land located along Houk Road to the west, and along Woodlawn and Morrow Road to the east, is zoned R-4, platted into more urban -sized lots, and developed with single-family Domes. 18. The land lying south of the site in the vicinity is designated in the Corridor Mixed Use category of the Comprehensive Plan and zoned Corridor Mixed Use (CM11), or designated in the High Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan and zoned High Density Residential (RF - 2); and is developed with strip retail malls with multiple commercial businesses, or multi -family residential uses, 19. Commercial retail and office uses are generally found along Pines Road (State Route No. 27 to the west. Sprague Avenue to the south is major commercial corridor in the area. 20. The City Arterial Street Plan designates Sprague Avenue as a Principal Arterial, and McDonald Road as a Minor Arterial. Public transit is available along Pines Road to the west, and Sprague Avenue to the north. Public Comments submitted on Rezone Application: 21. The only comments received from the public regarding the application were submitted by Sarah Neelands, who resides four (4) parcels west of the site along the north side of Main Avenue. Neelands noted that sheep, chickens and a horse are located near the site; expressed concern regarding the size of the residential use the applicant would erect on the site, and the loss of open space on the site. Consistency of Application with Rezone Criteria in SVMC and Washington Case Law: 22. RCW 36,70B.030 and RCW 36.70B.040 require that a comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted by local government under the State Growth Management Act (GMA) serve as the foundation for project review; and that where standards for development are specified in local development regulations, or in the absence of applicable development regulations, are addressed in a comprehensive plan, such regulations, or the comprehensive plan, respectively, are determinative of the standards of development for the land use action. 23. Where a comprehensive plan conflicts with zoning regulations, the zoning regulations will generally be construed to prevail. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v, City of Mcnmt Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861 (1997); Hansen v. Chelan County, 81 Wn. App 133, 138 (1996); Weyerhaeuser v. Fierce HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0002 Page 3 County,124 Wn.2d 26, 43 (1994); and Pease Hill v. County of Spokane, 62 Wn, App. 800, 808-809 (1991). 24, The opposition of a community to a land use application may be given substantial weight, but standing alone cannot justify its denial. Competent, objective and substantial evidence directed toward the approval criteria for a land use the application may justify a decision on the application. See Sunderland Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782 (1995); Hansen v. Chelan County, supra; and Maranatha Mining v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795 (1990). 25. The Staff Report sets forth relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the application. This includes PolicyLUP-1.7, which states that zone changes should be allowed within the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan when specific criteria are met. This may include substantial changes within the area, the availability of adequate facilities and public services, and consistency with residential densities in the vicinity of the rezone site. 26. The following additional policies of the Comprehensive Plan are relevant to future development of the site, under the proposed R-4 district: a. Policies LUP-1.5 and LUP-2.3 encourage the development of transportation routes and facilities to serve residential neighborhoods; with special attention given to walking, biking and transit uses. b. Policy LUP-l.6 recommends site characteristics that enhance residential developments (trees, bodies of water, vistas and similar features), using site planning techniques such as clustering, planned unit developments, transfers of development rights and lot size averaging. c. Policy LUP-2.2 encourages variation in facades and rooflines to add character and interest to multi- family developments. d. Policy LUP-2.4 recommends that residential development be designed to provide privacy and common open space, with open space areas being proportionate to the size of the residential development. e. Policy LUP-2.5 recommends consideration of special development techniques in single-family area, provided they result in residential development consistent with the quality and character of existing neighborhoods. 27. SVMC 19.40.040 and SVMC 19A0.050 describe the land contemplated in both the R-3 district and the R-4 district as low density residential development intended to preserve the character of existing development, subject to the dimensional standards of SVMC Chapter 19.40 that are respectively established for such districts, 28. The minimum lot size, width and depth in the R-3 district are 7,500 square feet, 65 feet and 90 feet for a single-family dwelling, respectively; and are 6,000 square feet, 50 feet and 80 feet in the R-4 district, respectively. The maximum lot area for a duplex in the R-3 district is 6,000 square feet, and in the R-4 district is 5,000 square feet. The maximum lot coverage in the R-3 district is 50%, and is 55% in the R-4 district. The minimum setbacks and maximum building height are the satne in both districts. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. RI Z-2015-0002 Page 4 29. The R-3 and. R-4 districts each permit single-family and duplex dwellings. The R-4 district permits multi -family dwellings, townhouse dwellings, and certain institutional -type residential uses that are not permitted in the R-3 district. 30. The Staff Report recommended no conditions of approval for the rezone application, because there was no site development plan submitted with the application for specific review and approval by the Hearing Examiner. Conditions submitted by public agencies and City departments would apply to the site development at the time of building permit. 31. The environmental checklist completed for the rezone application indicates that the applicant plans to divide the site into a .8 -acre lot on the south fronting Main Avenue, and a .6 -acre lot on the north facing Valleyway Avenue; develop four (4) middle to low income dwelling units on the .8 - acre lot, at a maximum height of 25-30 feet; and build a high quality long-lasting project with a long- term investment as the main goal. 32. The applicant at the hearing testified that he has no plans for developing the north lot in the 2 -lot short plat of the site; he grew up, lives, and has done other development in Spokane Valley; he could develop a duplex on the south lot under the current R-3 zoning, with the narrow width of the lot preventing greater density in the R-3 zoning district; the four-plex planned for the south lot would likely be 2 -story; and development of the site would help alleviate a fire hazard concern from the fieldon the south portion of the site catching fire. 33. The proposed R-4 district would be compatible with the more intense zoning and land uses to the south; is a similar residential zone to the R-3 zoning located to the north, east and west; and would help provide affordable housing in the Spokane Valley area. 34. City Engineering found the project to be exempt from transportation concurrency requirements, pursuant to SVMC 22.20.020.C.3. See entail dated 10-26-15 from Chad Riggs to Martin Palaniuk. 35. A rezone application without a specific site plan, such as the current application, does not appear to be subject to water and sewer concurrency requirements under SVMC 22.20.020 and SVMC 22.20.090. 36. The DNS issued by the Community Development Department properly addressed the environmental impacts of the application, The DNS was not appealed. The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls) have been met. 37. The Staff Report and the presentation by City Community Development staff at the public hearing properly analyzed the consistency of the application with the Comprehensive Plan, and the rezone criteria set forth in SVMC 19.30.030. 38. SVMC 19.30.030 erroneously states that site-specific zoning map amendments shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140, which section applies to Comprehensive Plan amendments and area -wide rezones processed through the Planning Commission and City Council. SVMC 18.20.030(A)(5)(h) expressly vests the Hearing Examiner with authority over site-specific rezones HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0002 Page 5 that are not processed at the same time as an implementing Comprehensive Plan amendment for the same site, such as the proposed rezone. 39. The proposed rezone meets the concurrency requirements in SVMC Chapter 22.20; is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare; is appropriate for reasonable development of the property; is adjacent and contiguous to property of a higher zone reclassification; will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the site; and has merit and value for the community as a Whole. 40. Washington case law requires the proponent of a rezone to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety or general welfare; and that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred in the area. However, proof of a substantial change of circumstances is not required if the rezone implements the comprehensive plan of the local government. The applicant has carried such burden of proof. 41, The proposed rezone is supported by a substantial change of circumstances in the area since the site was zoned R-3 in 2007, when the City expanded and re -codified the Uniform Development Code (UDC) provisions contained in the SVMC; including increased residential densities and urbanization in the area. Based on the above findings of fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following: III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Any finding of fact above that is a conclusion of law is hereby deemed a finding of fact. 2. The proposed rezone to the R-4 district complies with the rezone criteria set forth in SVMC 19.30.030. 3. Any conclusion of law above that is a finding of fact is hereby deemed such. IV. DECISION Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the application for a site-specific amendment to the City Zoning Map, to rezone approximately 1.4 acres of land from the R-3 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district under the SVMC, without a specific site development plan, is hereby approved. This decision applies to the real property currently referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45153.2725. The City Zoning Map shall be revised to reflect a R-4 district zoning designation for the property. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No, REZ-2015-0002 Page 6 DATED this 28th day of December, 2015 SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER Michael C. Dempsey, WSBA #8235 NOTICE 01? FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Cocle (SVMC), the decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application for a site-specific amendment to the City of Spokane Valley zoning map (i.e. site specific rezone) is final and conclusive unless within fourteen (14) days from the date the Examiner's decision was mailed, a party with standing appeals the decision to the Spokane Valley City Council pursuant to Section 17.90.070 of the S VMC. On December 28, 2015, a copy of this decision will be emailed by regular• mail to the Applicant; and to all government agencies and persons (parties of record) entitled to notice under Section 17.80.130(4) of the SVMC. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE _WILL BE JANUARY 11, 2016. The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, County Public Works Building, 1026 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245; and may be inspected by contacting staff assistant Kristine Chase at (509) 477-7490. The file may be inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday -Friday of each week, except holidays, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. After the appeal period (unless an appeal is timely filed), the file may be inspected at the City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development -Planning Division, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA, 99206; by contacting Martin Palaniuk at (509) 921- 1000. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by the City of Spokane Valley. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision File No. REZ-2015-0002 Page 7 CITY OF SPOIAANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER RE: Shoreline Conditional Usc Permit, for a private boat ramp on the Spokane River; Applicant: Spencer Harrington File No. SDP -2015-0001 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION I. SUMMARY OF DECISION Hearing Matter: Application for a shoreline conditional use permit, to allow construction of a private boat ramp on the Spokane River. Summary of Decision: Approve application, subject to conditions. II. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural Information: 1. On August 28, 2015, the applicant submitted complete applications for a shoreline conditional use permit ("CUP"), and a shoreline substantial development permit ("SDP"), in the above file to the City Community and Economic Development Department ("Department"), under the edition of the City Shoreline Master Program in effect at the time; to allow a private community boat ramp to be constructed in and along the Spokane River. 2. A State Joint Aquatic Resources Permit ("JARPA") was submitted to various state agencies, and a floodplain development application was submitted to the Department, for the boat ramp project. See Exhibit 2. 3. The landward portion of the site, referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no, 45063.9030, abuts the south side of the Spokane River, north of and adjacent to South Riverway Avenue, and 600 feet east of the intersection of South Riverway and Dick Road; in Spokane Valley, Washington. The water -ward portion of the site extends approximately 25 feet into the river. 4. The applicant is Spencer Harrington; with a mailing address of 1517 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201. The site owner is Albert Voltz; with a nailing address of P.O. Box 350, Chewelah, WA 99109. 5. On October 16, 2015, the Department issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the various applications submitted for the project, pursuant to Chapter 21.20 (State Envirotunental Policy Act) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The DNS was not appealed. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-0001 Page 1 6. In November 2015, the applicant submitted a revised site plan for the boat ramp project. Sec Appendix A of Exhibit 10. 7. On December 11, 2015, the Department administratively approved a SDP for the project; subject to conditions, including the approval of the current application for a shoreline CUP by the Hearing Examiner, See Exhibit 9. 8. On December 17, 2015, the City adopted Ordinance No. 15-024, which repealed the City Shoreline Master Program codified in former SVMC 21.50.010 and former Appendix 21-H of the SVMC, and adopted a new Shoreline Master Program under SVMC Chapter 21,50. The shoreline applications are not subject to the new shoreline master program, since they were submitted as complete before the new program was adopted. See p. 6 of Staff Report. 9, On December 17, 2015, the Hearing Examiner conducted a. public hearing on the shoreline CUP application ("application"). The notice requirements for the public hearing under the SVMC were met. The Examiner conducted a site visit on December 16, 2015. 10. The Hearing Examiner heard the application pursuant to the former City Shoreline Master Program, referenced above; SVMC Chapter 18.20 (Hearing Examiner), and the Hearing Examiner Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct, adopted in Appendix B to the SVMC. 11. The following persons testified at the public hearing: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner City Community Development Department 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 101 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spencer Harrington 1517 W. Broadway Spokane, WA 99201 Melissa Fennell 8109 E, South Riverway Avenue Spokane, WA 99212 Barton Cook 7512 E. Upriver Drive Spokane, WA 99212 Jeremy Sikes Washington State Department of Ecology 4601 N. Monroe Spokane, WA 99205 Adam Jackson, Engineer City Community Development Department 11707 E. Sprague, Suite 101 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Gary Edwards 8218 E. Maringo Drive Spokane, WA 99212 John Layman 8620 E. Maringo Drive Spokane, WA 99212 Jeff Hatcher 8610 E. Maringo Drive Spokane, WA 99212 HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-0001 Page 2 12. The following exhibits were admitted into the record by the Hearing Examiner: Exhibit 1: Vicinity map Exhibit 2: Application submittal Exhibit 3: Determination of Completeness Exhibit4: Notice of Application Exhibit 5: Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) Exhibit 6: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 7: Agency comments Exhibit 8: Public comments Exhibit 9: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Exhibit 10: IIabitat Management Plan, dated November 16, 2015 Exhibit 11: Cultural Resources Report #2015E, dated September 22, 2015 Exhibit 12: "Draft" Bylaws of Riverway Private Boat Ramp Association (RPBRA) Exhibit 13: "Draft" Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservations for RPBRA Exhibit 14: "Draft" Rules and Regulations of RPBRA Exhibit 15: Hard copy of power point presentation of Staff Report and Recommendation Exhibit 16: Trip generation rates for project Exhibit 17: Map showing location of lots that may access boat ramp 13. Exhibits 1-14 were attached to the Staff Report, which was placed in the file before the hearing. Exhibit 15 was submitted by the Department at the hearing. Exhibits 16-17 were submitted by the applicant at the hearing. Items in Record: 14. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the SVMC, Comprehensive Plan, other applicable development regulations, and prior land use decisions in the vicinity. 15. The record includes the documents in the application file at the time of the hearing, the sign -in sheet for the hearing, Exhibits 1-17, the electronic recording by Hearing Examiner staff of the testimony submitted at the hearing, and the items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner. Description of Site: 16. The site includes County Assessor's tax parcel no, 45063,9030 ("parcel"), and the adjoining portion of the Spokane River where the boat ramp would be constructed. 17. The parcel is approximately .4 acres in size, 200 feet long, and 85 feet wide; and extends between South Riverway Avenue and the Spokane River, 18. The south end of the parcel is relatively flat in topography, with the remainder of the parcel sloping down to the river at a moderately steep angle. The overall slope of the parcel from south to north is approximately 30%, with slopes ranging from 35-50% found near the river. Sec sheet C1.0 HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-0001 Page 3 and C1,3 of site plan of record dated 8-15 and submitted on 8-31-15, p. 5 of environmental checklist for project, and p. 2 of Geotechnical Evaluation of Scout' Potential report prepared by Budinger & Associates on 11-16-15. 19. The parcel is undeveloped; and is heavily vegetated with a prix of native and nonnative grasses, shrubs and trees. An overhead electrical utility line passes over the east edge of the site, neighboring land and the river in a north -to -south direction. 20. The water -ward portion of the site is not located on State-owned aquatic lands that would require a lease from the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). See letter dated 10-7-15 from DNR in Exhibit 7. 21. City .and. FEMA FIRM floodplain maps designate a 100 -year floodplain in the north end of the parcel adjacent to the river. See SVMC Chapter 21.30, and p. 5 of Staff Report. 22. The site is designated in the Low Density Residential category of the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned Single -Family Residential (R-2). The Department properly found that the proposed boat ramp is a permitted use in the R-2 zoning district; based on its similarity to a "park", a permitted use in such zone. See p. 4 of Staff Report, SVMC 19.120.050 and SVMC 19.120.030. Critical Areas designated on Site: 23. The City DNR streams and wetlands map designates the Spokane River o:n the site and in the area as a DNR Type S stream.; which water body has a riparian management zone (RPM) of 200 feet on the landward portion of the site measured from the river, pursuant to SVMC 21.40.030.D and WAC Chapter 222-30. 24. The City DNR streams and wetlands trap also designates wetlands in the north end of parcel no. 45063.9030, adjacent to the river. 25. The City Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) reap located on the City's website, which states an effective date of April 26, 2011, illustrates "Urban Natural Open Space" priority wildlife habitat along the river on the site and neighboring land. The Hearing Examiner takes notiee that such map and the designation of such habitat type is not current, because the City's mapping of PHS is required to be based on the PHS program of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and such habitat type is no Ionger recognized by the WDFW PHS program. Further, the interactive PHS map on the WDFW website shows no priority wildlife or species habitat on the landward portion of the site and neighboring land, except for the RPM associated with the Spokane River as a DNR Type S stream. 26. The current WDFW PHS map designates the Spokane River on the site and in the area as priority habitat for Rainbow Trout and Westslope Cutthroat trout. See WDFW PIIS interactive map, and p. 13 of Habitat Management/Shoreline Impact Assessment prepared by J -U -B Engineers, inc. on 11-16-15. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-0001 Page 4 27. City Critical Areas maps designate the site and the land in the area in a critical aquifer recharge area of high susceptibility to groundwater contamination, 28, Significant portions of the site contain slopes of 30% or greater, which slopes are considered a geo-hazard (critical area) under SVMC 21.40.050. 29. The Staff Report, on page 3, erroneously states that the site does not contain any critical areas; although it does recognize the RPM located on the site, on page 6. Surrounding conditions: 30. Neighboring land uses generally consist of single -fancily dwellings on lots and parcels of various sizes, along with some vacant land. 31. The lots along the river in the area contain docks that are used for recreational purposes, including boating. An aerial map survey indicated that there are approximately 76 docks located along the north or south side of the river between Argonne Road, located one-half (1/2) mile east of the site, and Upriver Dam, located one (1) mile southwest of the site. See p. 2 of Staff Report. 32. The owners of lots along the river in the area have historically accessed boat launch facilities along the river to put their boats into the river, dock boats adjacent to their lots and use the boats for recreation on the river. Such access has been limited by the availability of launch facilities over the past few years, and is problematic in the future without construction of the proposed boat ramp on the site. See p. 2 of Staff Report, letters submitted by area residents in Exhibit 8, testimony submitted at public hearing, and application materials. 33. The land lying east of the site is located in the City of Millwood. The land lying north of the centerline of the Spokane River in the area is located in the unincorporated area of Spokane County. 34. South Riverway Avenue in the area is a relatively narrow paved road that lacks curb and sidewalk. 35. Navigation on the river in the area is limited to small motorized and non -motorized pleasure craft; including ski and platform pontoon boats, canoes, kayaks, 1-2 person pontoon boats and tubes. Description of Project: 36. The boat ramp project is well -described and illustrated on the site plan of record submitted in November 2015, the JARPA application, the environmental checklist, the Staff Report, and the SDP issued for the project; and by the Department and applicant at the public hearing. 37. The proposed boat ramp would be constructed of concrete, approximately 230 feet long and 12 feet wide; extend approximately 25 feet into the river at the bottom, have an approach to the street at the top, and have a total elevation drop of approximately 35 feet; have a ramp grade of 8% at the top, 20% in the center, and 17% at the bottom; consist of pre -cast concrete boat ramp panels, placed on a HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-0001 Page 5 prepared substrate surface, where it extends into the river; and be constructed entirely below grade. The project would include construction of a 3 -foot high boulder wall along both sides of the ramp. 38. A chain link fence would be erected around the landward portion of the site, to limit access to those permitted to use the boat ramp. A small shed, housing a hazardous waste response/mitigation material and associated equipment, would be built near the entrance to the boat ramp from the road. 39. The project would require the removal of soils and native and nonnative vegetation, including some trees and other woody debris; require the replacement of native and nonnative vegetation in accordance with the habitat management plan (HMP) prepared for the project, in specific ratios; include the establislunent of a root wad in the river to enhance fish habitat; dispose of soils removed from the river at a hazardous waste site; and implement detailed short-term and tong -term "Best Management Practices (BMP)" to provide for stormwater control, minimize construction impacts and assure the long-term success of mitigation measures. 40. A corporation without stock called the "Riverway Private Boat Ramp Association" has been formed by the applicant for the project; with its members consisting of the owners of lots along the river between the Argonne Bridge and Upriver Dani who desire access to the river for their watercraft, and who are willing to contribute financially to the boat ramp project, now or in the future. 41. The covenants, and the rules and regulations, prepared for the association by the applicant limit access to the boat ramp to the members of the corporation, and long-term tenants or occupants of member lots; do not allow public access to the boat ramp; limit the hours of operation to daylight hours, except for emergencies; do not allow the power loading of boats, or the launching of vessels longer than 30 feet; prohibit the blocking of the public street, except for the limited time required to align the vehicle/trailer for launching a vessel; require one (1) person to remain in control of the tow vehicle, in the driver's seat, at all times during the launch/retrieval of vessel; allow only one (1) member to use the ramp to launch a vessel at a time; require training on spill mitigation for all individuals utilizing the boat ramp; and prohibit nuisance and offensive activities on the site. Access to the launch by emergency responders, and for some official governmental and quasi -governmental activities, would be provided through a separate agreement with the corporation. 42. The applicant estimated that 90-110 families would participate in the project. See Exhibit 9. 43. At the time of the hearing, the Department was in the process of forwarding the SDP approved for the boat ramp project on December 11, 2015 to the State Department of Ecology ("Ecology"). Requirement for Shoreline CUP: 44. The Department in the Staff Report properly found that the proposed boat ramp is not included in the regulated uses identified in Section 5 of the former City Shoreline Master Programs (hereafter referred to as the "SMP"); and that pursuant to WAC 173-27-160(3), the boat ramp may be authorized as a conditional use, provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-0001 Page 6 requirements for conditional uses contained in the SDP and the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA). See p. 7 of Staff Report. 45. Paragraph 18 of Section VI of the SMP contains regulations for "piers and docks". The proposed boat ramp provides recreational opportunities for watercraft, similar to a pier or dock. 46. Paragraph 14 of Section VI of the SMP contains regulations for "recreation", which apply to the proposed boat ramp. 47. The site and neighboring lots located along the river in the City are designated in the Shoreline Residential -Waterfront environment of the new SMP. A boat ramp is a permitted use in such environment, subject to various conditions and restrictions, under the new SMP. The new SMP does not apply to the project. See Table 21.50-1 in SVMC 21.50.190. Consistency of Boat Ramp Project with Requirement for Shoreline CUP Requirements: 48. Paragraph 7.05 of Section VII of the SMP sets forth criteria for the approval of a shoreline CUP. The Staff Report, on pages 7-8, analyzed the consistency of the shoreline CUP application with the requirements set forth in such paragraph, and properly found the application to be consistent with such criteria subject to certain conditions of approval. 49. WAC 173 -27 -160(1)(a -e) sets forth review criteria for shoreline CUPS approved by local governments; which criteria is substantially similar to the criteria set forth in paragraph 7.05 (a -e) of Section VII of the SMP. 50. WAC 173-27-160(2) requires that consideration be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for similar applications for shoreline CUPs in the area; citing as an exatnple "...if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in thearea where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and not produce adverse effects to the shoreline environment." This criteria does not appear in Section VI of the SMP, but must be niet for the proposed shoreline CUP. 51. Comments regarding the project were submitted by Ecology, WDFW, DNR, the Spokane Tribe, and the City of Millwood; the Spokane Riverkeeper, a private/nonprofit organization which expressed some concerns regarding the project; several owners of lots located along the river, all of whore expressed support for the project; and Chuck and Judy Hines, who reside three (3) lots southwest of the site, along the south side of South Riverway Avenue, and expressed opposition to the project in an email dated November 29, 2015. See Exhibits 5-6, and testimony submitted at hearing. 52. The updated HMP submitted by the applicant on November 16, 2015, the Geotechnical Evaluation of Scour Potential Report prepared by Budinger & Associates on November 16, 2015, and the revised site plan dated November 15, 2015 adequately addressed the concerns that public agencies and the Spokane Riverkeeper expressed regarding the impacts of stormwater generated by the project and the removal of vegetation for the project on the river -and the riparian habitat on the HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-0001 Page 7 site. The Budinger report, prepared by professional engineers, found the scour potential of the river on the proposed ramp not to be great. 53. The Department properly accepted the HMP, after consultation with the WDFW. Also see letter dated 11-16-15 submitted by J -U -B Engineers, Inc., regarding update to I -IMP; and testimony of Spencer Harrington. 54. Jeremy Sikes, Shorelines Specialist for Ecology, testified at the hearing and indicated that he did not have any substantial concerns regarding the project, and mainly wanted to ensure that the Hearing Examiner's decision specifically addressed the review criteria for the shoreline CUP set forth in WAC 173-27-160(1-2). DOE has review authority over the Hearing Examiner's decision on the shoreline CUP, and. the state hydraulics permit required for the project. 55. DNR, in its October 7, 2015 letter, expressed concern about the excessive grades for the proposed ramp, and the safety of the driver/operator of a car and boat on the ramp; especially if launched by one person. The draft rules and regulations of the association require two (2) persons to be involved in the launching and retrieval of vessels, including one person remaining in the control of the tow vehicle, in the driver's seat, at all times during such operations. 56. The SDP requires implementation of the short-term and long -terns BMP set forth in the HMP. The long-term BMP require the adoption of a set of rules for the boat ramp that minimize potential impacts to the site while rnaximnizing the life of the structure. Such rules must require a minimum of two (2) adults to launch a boat, one of whom must remain in the launch vehicle at all times; and must prohibit the power -loading of boats at the ramp to minimize scour at the end of the ramp. 57. The long-term BMP require closure of the boat ramp during the winter, between November 1 and March 15, of each year to minimize the potential of accidents due to ice or snow. The draft rules and regulatio.ns conflict with such restriction, and should be revised to be consistent with the BMP. 58. The requirement in the long-term BMP that a minimum of two (2) adults to launch a boat, one of whom must remain in the launch vehicle at all times, is somewhat inconsistent with the draft rules and regulations for the association, which use the term "person" instead of "adult", but address both the launching and retrieval of vessels. 59. The term "licensed driver" and "qualified boat operator" appear to be better terms to use than "adult" or "person", regarding the personnel need to launch or retrieve a boat on the ramp. Further, the requirement for both a boat operator and a driver of the vehicle should apply to both the launching and the retrieval of vessels on the ramp. Washington state law establishes minimum ages and boat education requirements for boat operators, subject to certain exemptions; and establishes licensing requirements for the drivers of motor vehicles. 60. The City of Millwood, and Chuck and Judy Hines, expressed concern regarding increased traffic, traffic congestion and parking issues. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-0001 Page 8 61, Vehicle parking is prohibited by both the SDP and the draft rules and regulations of the association. Enough area exists within the City street right of way to allow a boat to be pulled off the paving on South Riverway Avenue, and to prepare the boat for launch. The fence on the site would be located 20 feet from the asphalt surface of the street. Most association members would use the ramp only to put a boat in at the beginning of the boating season, and take it out at the end of the season. 62, Members of the association would live near the ramp, and can return to their residences if the ramp is in use at a particular time rather than wait in the street. The average traffic generated by the project is similar to the traffic generated by the development of a single-family home on the site, and would appear to be sufficiently random during the beginning and ending of the boating season to prevent traffic congestion along South Riverway near the ramp area. City Engineering expressed no concerns regarding the traffic generated by the project; and determined that the project would provide access during non -peak hours of the traveled roadways, and is exempt from transportation concurrency requirements pursuant to SVMC 22.20.020(C)(3), See testimony of Spencer Herrington, Exhibits 16-17, traffic analysis in SDP, and p. 9 of Staff Report, 63. The City of Millwood recommended, based on traffic concerns, that use of the private boat ramp be limited to the owners of shoreline properties along the river, and use not be allowed by the general public or relatives or friends of such owners; recommended that access be limited to two (2) times (spring/fall) per year; and commented that the portion of the river where the ramp is proposed is narrow and not suitable for power boats, and that waves caused by power boats have already caused damage to the shoreline. 64. The Spokane Riverkeeper expressed concert► that no public access for public non -motorized access is available in this section of the river, recreational boats that are non -motorized are vulnerable to motor boats traveling on this very narrow section of the reservoir behind Upriver Dani, safety concerns may become a problem in the long term as the public use of the reservoir continues to develop, and the wake created by motor boats on the river is not healthy for aquatic systems. 65. The WDFW in its continents advised that if the project was properly designed and constructed, the consolidation of the needs for a boat launch facilities into one location on the site will serve to reduce impacts to the river. The record indicates that the lack of adequate boat launch facilities on the river has led to the launching of boats at unapproved locations along the river, and the associated destruction of riparian habitat. See Exhibit 8, and testimony submitted at hearing. 66. The DNR commented that while the proposed boat ramp would not serve the general public, it would serve more than 100 residents. See Exhibit 8. The proposed launch should be considered "quasi -public" in nature. 67. There is no evidence in the record that the project will significantly increase the use of the river in the arca by power boats, which usage already exists along the river. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision S.DP-2015-0001 Page 9 68. The proposed boat ramp is not appropriate for general public use, considering its location along a relatively narrow public street in a quiet, established area of single-family hones. 69. The project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on the base flood elevation of the river in the area, and issuance of a floodplain permit will satisfy the floodplain development requirements in SYMC Chapter 21.30. 70. The project, as conditioned, adequately mitigates its impacts on critical areas: The cultural resources survey report prepared for the project, by a qualified archaeologist, indicates that the project will not affect any pre -contact archaeological sites or isolates, or any resources eligible for inclusion in the national or state historic registers; because no such resources were found to exist on the site. The report was found acceptable by the Spokane Tribe. See Exhibits 7 and 10. 71. The proposed use is consistent with applicable policies of the SMP and complies with the use regulations of the SMP, as set forth in the Staff Report and in the analysis contained in the SDP. 72. The project is generally consistent with the analogous policies and use regulations of the SDP for "piers and docks" in the Urban Area; including the joint use of facilities, non-interference with navigation, the protection of water quality and aquatic life and habitat, protection of the natural and visual quality of the shoreline area, improving public access to the waterfront area or not impairing it to the extent feasible, limitation of the scope and size of the project to what is actually needed to fulfill its purpose, and compliance with federal and state approvals for navigation and fish habitat. 73. The proposed use is consistent with the statewide policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020; in altering the natural condition of the shoreline for the beneficial purpose of serving single-family residences and their appurtenant and recreational uses; preserving recreational access to the shoreline for a large number of residents; and being designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water. 74. The proposed use, as conditioned, will not interfere with the "normal public use of public shorelines", within the meaning of WAC 173-27-160(1)(b); considering it is intended to preserve the existing recreational use of the river in the vicinity and area by pleasure boats. 75. The proposed use of the site and the design of the project is compatible with the single-family dwellings, docks and other authorized uses within the area; and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and the SDP. 76. The proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located, and the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 77. It appears unlikely that additional requests for similar shoreline CUPs would be received for the construction of a boat ramp in the area; considering the lack of other good sites in the area for HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-0001 Page 10 construction of a boat ramp, the need for boating access that the proposed ramp would largely fill in the area, and the obvious expense and difficulty of constructing a boat ramp by private parties. Some area residents, or members of the public, may be able to negotiate an agreement with Felts Field to launch boats there, subject to signing a release of liability; but the intent of the project is to preserve pleasure boat access to the river, rather than expand it over historical levels. See discussion of alternative boat launch sites on p. 2-3 of Staff Report. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The application for a shoreline CUP for the proposed boat ramp is subject to the version of the City SMP in effect on August 28, 2015 ("SMP"), when the application was submitted as complete. 2. The application should be made subject to the conditions of approval attached by the Department to the SDP issued for the project. A condition of approval should be added that requires the rules and regulations adopted by the corporation for operation of the boat ramp to be consistent with such conditions, including the short-term and long-term BMPs. 1 A condition of approval should be added that requires a licensed motor vehicle driver and a qualified boat operator to launch or retrieve a boat on the ramp, with the Iicensed driver remaining in control of the tow vehicle, in the driver's seat, at all times during the launch/retrieval of vessel; and that such condition be included in the rules and regulations adopted by the corporation. 4. The proposed boat ramp project, as conditioned, meets the criteria for issuance of a shoreline conditional use permit under paragraph 7.05 of Section VII of the SMP, and the review criteria for shoreline CUPs set forth in WAC 173-27-160(1-2). 5. The application, as conditioned, complies with the version of the SVMC in effect on August 28, 2015, and all applicable development regulations. 6. Approval of the application, as conditioned, is appropriate under SVMC 17.80.130. IV. DECISION Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions, a shoreline conditional use permit for the project is hereby approved, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval imposed by the City Community and Economic Development Department ("Department") on the shoreline substantial development permit ("SDP") issued for the project on December 11, 2015; and subject to the following additional conditions of approval: 1. The rules and regulations adopted by the corporation for operation of the boat ramp shall be consistent with the conditions of approval imposed by the Department on the SDP issued for the project, and with the short-term and long -terns BMPs set forth in the Habitat Management Plan approved for the application. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-0001 Page 11 2. Two (2) persons, a licensed motor vehicle driver and a qualified boat operator, are required to launch or retrieve a boat on the ramp; with the licensed driver remaining in control of the tow vehicle, in the driver's seat, at all tithes during the launch/retrieval of vessel, and the qualified boat operator being in control of the vessel. This condition shall be included in the rules and regulations adopted by the corporation. DATED this 27`1' day of January, 2016 SPOKANE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Michael C. Dempsey, WSBA #8235 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL On January 27, 2016, a copy of this decision approving a shoreline conditional use permit ("shoreline CUP") will be sent by certified mail to the applicant, the Washington State Attorney General's Office and the Washington State Department of Ecology ("Ecology"); and by regular mail to other parties of record, RCW 90.58.140(10) requires that any shoreline CUP issued by local government be submitted to Ecology for approval or disapproval. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.180(1) and Section 17.90.010 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), a petition for review of Ecology's decision on the shoreline CUP by the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board must be submitted within 21 days of the date Ecology transmitted the decision to the City of Spokane Valley Community and Economic Development Department, The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file with the City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development -Planning Division, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA, 99206; by eontaeting Martin Palaniuk at (509) 921-1000. Copies of the documents in the record will be made available at the cost set by the City of Spokane Valley. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision SDP -2015-000I Page 12 Spolume County Hearing Examiner Cily of Spokane Valley 2016 Contract Position Hearing Examiner Stair Assistant 1 Adopted Direct Labor No. Budget Cost per Hour 1 145,232.64 90.07 1 44,374.29 27.52 2 189,606.93 117.59 MAO Per Indirect Per Cost Per Hour Hour Hour 7.42 9.61 107.09 2.71 30.23 7.42 12.32 Note: Rate based on indirect costs per 2014 For 2016 A-87 Plan applied to total expenditures. Maintenance & Operation Adopted Al & 0 Less; FSP end ilure Redneiions 4940 Pointing- reimbursed for t00% or cosi Adjusted AI & 0 Amma1 Hours Available Annual Hours Less: 11 Paid Holidays Less: 20 Vacation Days Less: 12 Sick Days Less:2 Training Days Annual Hours Worked 1,950.00 82.50 150,00 90.00 15.00 1,612.50 (11 days x 7.5 hours/day) (20 days x 7.5 hours/day) (12 days x 7.5 hours/day) (2 days x 7.5 hours/day) 9,85% 12,060 (100) 11,960 137.32 Spot arse County Maximum Annual Work Hours = 7.5 hours/day x 5 days/week x 52 weeks/year = 1,950 hours/year ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES BETWEEN CITV OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY. , 6 046; On March 14, 2006, the City of Spokane Valley (City) and Spokane County (County) (collectively the Parties) entered into an Agreement (the Agreement) for provision of Hearing Examiner services by the County for the City. Pursuant to Section 14 of the Agreement; entitled "Modification," the Parties are entitled to modify the Agreement. Section 16 of the Agreement also recognizes the ability to modify the Agreement, so long as any modification is in writing. The Parties desire to amend the Agreement by reducing the number of hours used to calculate the hourly rate the. County charges the City for hearing examiner services. The reduction in hours reflects a more accurate statement of productive hours incurred in providing hearing examiner services by the County to the City. The revised calculation is reflected in a new Exhibit 2 to the Agreement. This new Exhibit 2 shall replace the old Exhibit 2, with the. old Exhibit 2 becoming void upon the execution of this Addendum. This Addendum, with attached new Exhibit 2, shall constitute a modification of the Agreement upon execution by both parties, and be subject to the terns and conditions of the original Agreement, except as otherwise stated herein. DATED: LC- /)/4.Z ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS l SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON sEAa • ' clx' J coo. -' MARK NCI - L )D MILLI Clellepioa " A:eiesay7 Daniela Erickson DATED: AYI'ES Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk AP1,JOVEP S `ORE Oi 1�Y: ie City Aorncy RD, Vice -Chair itfIS, Commissioner CI'T`Y OF SPOKANE VALLEY David Mercier, City Manager Addendum 10 Spokane Valley Contract 006-14 C06-42 • Exhibit 2 Spokane County Spokane Valley (fearing Examiner Hourly Rote 2006 Contract Position 1 leat'iug Examiner Staff Assistiuit 1 2006 Adopted Direct Labor indirect Per No. Budget Cost per Hour (lour 1 106,136-00 69.48 544 1 61.229.00 40.08 3.14 2 167365.00 103.57 8.58 Note: Rate based on indirect roans per A.87 Plan applied to salary and benefits Maintenance & Operallon 2006 Adopted M & 0 1ccu Pie pea flit Tree Not Relator to Spoktoc Vallry 9170 1,412.1- Use Spokane Ville/Lewd Saviccs fur Paltry Cnsrt 5110 hat.tbovcrruncntrd - Sp,L,u,o Vnitey vile hi. -e srp r « oust ror ccmflic1 casts 9110 Gori lU,d I'roftatioanl . will rot rpend tm VelrY nate s I,na: I;zpcnditury Hal art loos 3111 Orrice Supplirs • reflma e(ptttrd cos; for 236 4190 aim Peufettimtal . Lexis rescnrth only expected cast 4910PrindeS-rcvithurscdfi H5%oftop A(ljusted M & 0 Annua.lfirm rs Available Annual Hours Less: 11 Paid Holidays Less. 10 Vacation Days Less: 4 Sick Days Less: ,MiSt; 30 minutes/day (milts, (mini Less: Two I5 -minute breaks/day Annual Hours Worked 1.950.00 $2.50 75.0(1 30.00 117.50 117.50 1,.527.50 M&O Per Hour Cost 1'er !War 3.94 710~6 43.22 7.83% 3.91 9,744 (500) (1,000) (200) (4 (10) (400) (1,230) 6,014 (11 days x 7.5 hows/day) (I0 days x 7.5 huats/day) (4 days x 7-5 hours/day) ( 235 avg days/year x 30 ntitlulcsrday divided by 60 minutes/hour) ( 235 ovg days/y& it x 30 minutes/day divided by 60 minutca/hoor) 122.09 Spokane County Maximum Annual Work Hours = 7.5 hours/day x 5 dttys+week x 52 wccks/ycar = 1,950 hours/year Spokane County Maximum Annual Work Days = 5 days/week x 52 weeks/year =260 days/year Spokane County Average Annual Work Days = 260 mux dayx/yor - 11 paid holidays - 10 vocation days- 4 sits: days = 235 avg days/year Return to: Danicla Erickson, Cleric of the Board Board of County Commissioners • 1.116 W. Broadway Spokane, Washington 99260 ]NTER:L,OCAL ACREI+ MINT FOR HEARING 1 XAIl NER SERVICES Ir THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (,ianuary 1., 2005 -December 31., 2005) • 6 .6191 vas ACREEIVICNT, made and entered into by and between Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washinrigton 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having oes for the transaction of business at the 'Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Affic venue., Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," jointly hereinafter referred to as the "PARTIES." The COUNTY and C.I`tY agree as follows. SECV[ON NO. 1: 1Ui C1'1`AI S AND FINDINGS (�t) The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County has the care of County property • and the management of County funds and business under 'RCW 36.32.120(6). (b) Counties and cities may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform under chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act). . (c) Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.70.970 the Board of County Commissioners' of Spokane has adopted s Bearing Examiner System and codified the same under Spokane County Code chapter 1A6. (d) The City of Spokane Valley has adopted ail ordinance providing for the establishment of a Hearing Examiner system to bear land use, administrative and other matters over which the City has jurisdiction. (c) The City of Spokane Valley desires to utilize the services of Spokane County's 'Hearing Examiner for the purpose of hearing land use, adm fttistrativo And other matters over which the City has jurisdiction pursuarit to SVMC chapter 10.35. SECTLON NO. 2: DEFINITIONS (a) • Agreement: "Agrcetnent" means this Interlocal Agreement between the CITY and COUNTY regarding hearing examiner services. Enlcrlocal Agreement, Hearing Examiner Page 1 of 11 (b) City: "CITY" means the City of Spokane Valley. (c) County: "COUNTY" means Spokane County. (d) Maintenance and Operations: "ivfaintenance and Operations" and."M&O" shall meant (1) those class codes (3000-5999 and 7000-9999) used by Spokane County in its budgetary process as prescribed by the 13ARS manual adopted by the State of Washington under chapter 43.88 ROW so long as such expenditures are directly attributable and proportionate to services rendered to CITY under the terms of this Agreement. (c) Services: "Services" means those services identified in Exhibit 1. (t) Cori sation: "Compensation" means that methodology set forth in Exhibit 2 used to establish the amount of money which the CITY will pay the COUNTY for providing Services. (g) "Capital improvement: "Capital Improvement" shall mean any expenditure in excess of $1999.99 or such higher figure as set by the COUNTY as the capitalization threshold during We term of. the Agreement. The COUNTY shall give the CITY advance notico ofan), increase in the capitalization threshold. The PARTIES agree to meet' and discuss the impacts of any change in the capitalization threshold which ivill cause an increase of costs to the CITY in excess of. $50,000.00.. Any such expenditure will be coded as provided for iar the BARS -manual adopted by the Shite of Washington under RCW 43.88. (h) 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. (i} Hearing Examiner: "Hearin; Examiner" means that person appointed by the Board of 'County Commissioners pursuant to Spokane County Code Section 1.46.030 to include. any. Hearing rxaniiner pro -tem. Provided, However, the COUNTY agrees to consider the reeonir.nendation(s) of the CITY in conjunction with designating any Hearing Examiner pro -tears to hear CITY r.natters. SECTTONNO. 3: PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the PARTIES' understanding as to the terms and conditions under which the COUNTY will provide Services on behalf of the CITY. It is' the intent of the PA.RTiHS that Services to be provided by ,the COUNTY will be consistent with the CITY'S Council/Manager form of government provided for in chapter 35A.13 RCM/. • SECTiO.N NO. 4: Ili77tA'I'ION/WIT wItAIVAL This Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2005, and run through .December 31, 2005, unless one of the .PA.RTiES provides notice as set forth in Section 7. interlocal Agreement, hearing Examiner .Page 2 or!! At the conclusion of the initial term, this Agi-eerncnt shall automatically be renewed from year to year thereafter effective fanuary Isr to December 31' All renewals shrill be subject to all terms and conditions set forth herein except for Exhibit 2. The PARTIES recognize it hilly unlikely that Exhibit 2 setting forth the new billing rates for each year's Services will be available at the start of any renewal time frame. Accordingly, until a new Exhibit 2 bas beep prepared and agreed to between the PARI'IhS, the .PARTIES agree that the COUNTY will bill the C1TY and the CITY will pay thc COUNTY at the same billing rates paid in the previous year. Upon the PARTIES agreement on a new Exhibit 2, the CITY and COUNTY will reconcile payments to 'date under the previous years billing rates with the new billing rates. Any underpayment for any Services will be duc in the first payment due following reconciliation. Any overpayment for any Services will be credited to the first monthly payment due following the reconciliation. The PARTIES agree that no interest shall be owing by either Party to the other Party for any overpayment or underpayment determined as a result of the reconciliation. Any Party may withdraw at any time from this Agreement for any reason whatsoever upon a minimum of 180 days written notice as provided for in Section 7 to the other Party. SECU[0NNO. 5:. COST 01? SERVICES AND PAYMENTS The CI`IY shall pay the COUNTY the costs for Services provided under this Agreement as set .forth in Exhibit 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: The COUNTY CEO shrill advise the CITY Manager as soon as possible of any anticipated or unanticipated capital improvement costs that arise during the contract period. The City shall pay capital improvement costs either (1) under the Cost Allocation Plan as an indirect cost amortized over the useful life of the improvement utilizing straight -Dine depreciation and incorporating the expected salvage value bf the improvement at the end of its useful Life or (2) as a direct cost in thc form of a contribution made to the 'Equipment Rental and Revolving Fund. The CITY shall be responsible only for .capital improvement costs incurred after March 31, 2003. Any portion of a capital improvement that was paid for or acquired through separate agreement or with grant proceeds, bond proceeds, user fees, donations, or any other acquisition method that reflects a contribution on behalf of CITY shall not be included in the depreciation schedule applied to the C1TY. Any capital improvement for which the COUNTY seeks reimbursement from the CITY must be necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Agreement. • The COUNTY Y will bill the CITY for the cost of Services monthly, by the 15th of the month for the previous month. Payments by the CJTY will be due by the 5`s day of the following month. At the sole option of the COUNTY, a penalty may be assessed on any late payment by thc,CITY based on lost interest earnings had the payhncut been timely paid and invested in the Spokane County Treasurer's Investment Pool. The Cl -1 Y • may dispute any monthly billing. Pending resolution of Fin y dispute, the PARTIES -agree that the CITY shall pay timely that. portion of the bill that is undisputed. In the event the CITY disputes any monthly billing it shall include in conjunction with the monthly payment a letter stating with specificity the basis for the dispute. The PAR7:1ES agree to meet within thirty (30) calendar days of the COUNTY's receipt of the documentation letter stating the 'basis for tine CITY disputing any monthly bilWig to resolve the matter. In the event the ,PARTIES cannot mutually resolve the matter within the thirty (30).calendar day time frame, unless otherwise agreed by the PARTIES, the matter shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in Section No. 17. The selection of arbitrators as provided for in Section No._17 shall commence within thirty (30) calendar days of the running of the thirty (30) calendar day time frame. Interlocal Agreement, Hearing Examiner • Page 3 of 11 Any resolution of a disputed amount through use of the arbitration process identified in Section 17 shall include, at the request of either Party, a determination of whether interest is appropriate, including the amount. The 1'ARTl1 S recognize that it is riot always possible for either Party to discover errors in billing. The PARTIES further recognize that there must be sonic finality to addressing such errors. Accordingly, the PARTIES agree that both PA.l TIBS are Foreclosed from challenging any errors in billings if the matter is not drawn in writing to the other PA.RTY'S attention tvithin thirty (30) calendar days of the last invoice of the calendar year. Errors raised within this time frame that are not mutually resolved shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in Section No. 17. SECTION NO. 6: RALA'TI U RESPONSIBILTT1E.S IN CONJUNCTION 't:l'li PROVLDliNG SERVICES The COUNTY or designees agree to attend staff meetings as requested by the CITY Manager. The COUNTY or designees agree to meet upon request by the CITY Manager or his/her designee to discuss any Service provided under the terms of this Agreement. The CITY agrees the COUNYY may use the COUNTY'S stationery in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement. SECEION NO. 7: NOTICE All notices or other cornrrninications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third clay following the day on which the wane have been mailed by first class delivery, postage prepaid addressed to the COUNTY or the CITY at the address set forth below for such Party, or at such other address as either Party shall from dme- to-time designate by notice in writing to the other Party: COUNTY: CITY: Spokane County Chief Executive O.Wcer or his/her authorized representative 1116 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260 City of Spokane Valley City Manager or his/her authorized representative Redwood Plaza 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 SECTION NO. 8: REP Reports d The COUNTY shall provide the CITY with reports documenting actual usage under this Agreement at the same time each invoice requesting payment is made, unless otherwise mutually agreed by - the Parties. The .Parties agree that -the terminology "reports documenting usage" means that type of information provided by the COUNTY to the CITY in the 2004 agreement for Services. Such reports shall be in a format as mutually agreed to. between the .Patties. The content and/or format for such reports may he changed from time -to -time by written agreement between CITY and COUNTY staff. - Interlocal Agreement; Hciring Examiner Page 4 of 11 Records Review — The CITY shall be allowed to conduct random reviews of the records generated by the COUNTY in performance of this Agreement. The CITY will provide the COUNTY with reasonable advance notice of the records reviews. The Parties agree that they will make best efforts to achieve a resolution of auy potential records confidentiality issues, including entering into confidentiality agreements or other similar mechanisms that will allow disclosure of the necessary information to accurately conduct a records review. If the CITY will be allowed to view only those records directly relating to Services provided within CIT Y's corporate boundaries, then the COUNTY must keep a log of original documents used to charge the C[TY, and those documents must have identifying numbers or letters so the original source documents can be easily retrieved. SECTION NQ. 9: COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, 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. 10: ASSIGN'IV.T NT No Party may assign itt whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of the other PARTY. .SECTION NO. 11: COUNTY EMPLOYEES The COUNTY shall appoint, hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees performing Services under this A.greeamtent according to applicable collective bargaining agreements and applicable state and federal laws. The COUNTY agrees to meet and confer with the CITY with respect to stair that is assigned to provide Services. Issues of discipline or performance will be specifically handled according to COUNTY policies. SECTION NO. 1.2: IA.EITLI 'Y (a) The COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless the 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 die COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In die event that any suit based upon such olaium, action, loss, or damages is brought against the CITY, the COUNTY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the C1TY.reservcs the right to participate in, said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment said suit be rendered against the CiTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the CITY and the COUNTY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the COUNTY shall satisfy the same. (b) The CITY shall indemnify arid hold harmless the 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 ofor arising out of any negligent act or omission of the CITY, its officers, agerits and employees, relating to or arising out of performing Services pursuant to this Agreethent. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against the COUNTY, the CITY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that the COUNTY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental. or public law is involved; and if Final judgnent in said suit be rendered against the COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against the Interlocal Agreement, I•Iearing Examiner Page 5 of 11 COUNTY and the CITY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, the 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) IFach Party's duty to indemnify shall survive the termination or expiration of the A.grccment. (f) The foregoing iudcrttrtity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's iuununity under Washington's Industrial Insurance .A.ct, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the 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 indem.iiitor's einployces. The PARTIES acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. (g) The COUNTY and the C]TY, agree to either'self insure or purchase policies 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 liability coverages. SLC'1'iON NO. 13: RELATIONSIflP 0) 11i.11 PARTIES 'lhe PARTIES intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. The COUNTY shall be an independent contractor and not the agcnt or employee of the CITY, that the 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 COUNTY. Any and all employees who provide Services to the CITY under this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the COUNTY. The COUNTY shall be solely responsible for the cantina and actions of all employees under this Agreenient and any liability that may attach thereto. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or representative of the CITY Shall bo deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the COUNTY for any purpose. 8.147.1.1-0N- NO. 14: lIOD!TICATION This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written agreernent of the .PARTIES. S.ECTTONNO.1.5: P.ROPERTY AM) EQUJPIW:N'1' The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in conjunction with providing the Services shall remain with the original owner, unless otherwise specifically and mutually agreed to by the PARTIES to this Agreement. For the purpose of this section, the terminology "owner" means that Party which paid the full purchase price for the property or equipment. Interlocal Agreement, Hearing Examiraer Page 6 of 11 SECTION NO. 16: ATJ.T., WRITINGS CONTMNEJJJJI RT,.-TN/131NDLNG EFFECT This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. Tho PARTIES agree that there are no other uuderstawdings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. ? o changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the PARTIES unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by the PARTIES. This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their successors and assigns. SECTION NO. .17: DTSP ITE. RESOLUTION Any dispute between the PARTIES which cannot be resolved between the 1PARTfES 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 CLO and the CITY Manager. If the COUNTY C.EO and the CITY Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to arbitration. The provisions of chapter 7.04 RCW shall be applicable to any arbitration proceeding. The COUNTY and the C!1'Y 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 7.04 RCW. The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the PARTIES.. SECTION NO. 1.8: VTNUII STIPULATION This A.greetnent 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. 19: 'SEVEit:Ali1-LI'.k Y 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 tltis•Agrecment 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 he deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreernent shall be deemed to oodiCy to conform to'such statutory provision. SECTION NO. 20: RECORDS All public records prepared, owned; used or retained by the COUNTY in conjunction with providing Services wader the terrns of this Agroctnent shall be deemed CITY property and shall be made available to the CITY upon request by the CI'T'Y Manager subject to the attorney client and ,attorney work product privileges set forth in statute, court mile or ease law. The COUNTY will notify the CITY of any public disclosure request under chapter 42.17 RCW for copies or viewing of such records as well as the COUNTY'S response thereto. [.nterlocal Agreement, I-Iearing Examiner Nape 7 of 1 1 SECTION SO. 21 iTAuli`TGS The section 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. 22: TIME OF ESSENCE OF AGREEMENT Time is of the. essence of this Agreement and in case either 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 Party may, at its election, hold the other Party liable for all costs and damages caused by smirch delay. SECTION Nb. 2•3: UNCONIROLLAI3l:.E C:i.R.CUMSTANCES/ftVIPOSSLBILT.TY A delay or interruption in or failure or performance of all or any part of this Agreement resulting froth Uncontrollable Circumstances shall be deemed nota 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, .told any other circumstances beyond the control of the COUNTY which render legally impossible the performance by the COUNTY: of its obligations under this Agreetuent, shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement. SECTION NO. 24: FILING This Agreetuent shall be f led by the Countywith such Offices or agencies as required by chapter 39.34 RCW. SECTION NO. 25: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL The PARTIES warrant that the officers executing below have been duly authorized to act for and on behalf of the Party for purposes of confir nm.tng this Agreement. SECTION NO. 26: INITIATI.VES The PARTIES recognize that revenue reducing initiative(s) passed by the voters of Washington may substantially reduce local operating revenue for the CITY, CO'UN1TY,or both PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that it is necessary to have flexibility t0 reduce the contracted amount(s) in this Agreement in response - to budget constraints resulting from the passage of revenue reducing initiativc(s). 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. 27. CONIPLIANCE WITH LAWS The Patties shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they ti may be applicable to the tams of this Agreement. Interlocal Agreement, I- iearing.Examiner Pune 8 of 11 SECTION NO. 28: DISCLAIMER AIMER Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall riot he construed in any manner that would limit either Party's authority or powers under laws. SECTION NO. 29: SUPERSEDE This . Agreement shall, supersede and terminate that agreement between the Parties entitled "°:1NTER,LOCA.T, COOPERATION' AGREE II?.NT 13.ETWEEN CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY FOR lifEA.IUiNG EXA :I]NER SERVICES" executed under Spokane County Resolution No. 03-0311 and executed by the CITY ori March 26, 2003. SECTION NO. 30: ASSURANCE The CITY shall pay the COUNTY the true and full cost of all Services provided under this Agreement. The intent of the Parties is that neither Party will subsidize the other anti that the CITY will not subsidize any other jurisdiction that is receiving similar services. 1N W .T.NE..SS WV[I TU OIC, the PARTIES have caused ibis Agreement to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: ATTEST: Clef. f the Board BOA.R.D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON TODD 1VIIE „ KE, Chair A SENT MARK RICHARD, Vice -Chair Daniela Erickson DATED: JJL06 A' =I E r4r Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: Office of City At rney Fav ,Interlocal Agreement, Hearing Examiner 'UUS, Commissioner CITY! E,KIIIIBIT 1 I.tearing Examiner Services shall include all time spent by thc Hearing Examiner in making site visits, preparing for and conducting the public hearing, reviewing the record, drafting a written decision and rulings on ,notions, organizing and mailing a decision or recommendation, drafting; necessaiy correspondence, and, conducting other duties tinder the CITY .[tearing Examiner Ordinance on items referred to the Hearing Examiner by the City Manager or his/her designee. Hearing Examiner Services shall also include the time spent by the Hearing Examiner in meeting with CITY staff to discuss improvements to CI'T'Y 1=Learing Examiner system, if specifically requested by the City Manager or his/her designee, prescribing rules for the scheduling and conduct of herrings and other procedural matters related to thc duties of the Hearing Examiner, and reporting to and meeting with the CITY Council and/arPlanning Commission. The 1 -fearing Examiner shall charge and retain the costs of preparing and certifying records and transcripts for appeals of CITY 'Hearing Examiner decisions from the appellant as provided by statute or CITY ordinance. C!TY shall be responsible for providing legal advice to the 1-Jearing Examiner in conjunction with him performing ]:Learing Examiner Services under the terms of this Agrement. !-leanings shall be held in that location designated by the CITY. Interlocal Agreement, Hearing Examiner Page 10 of 1 1 • EK13113IT 2 SPOKANE COUNTY ' SPOKANE VALLEY 'BEARING EXAMINER HOURLY :LUTE 2005 CONTRACT Position Rearing Examiner 1 '100,339.00 Staff Assistant T 1 51,842.00 2 152,181.00 2005 M&O • Cost Adopted Direct Labor Indirect Per Per Per No. ]3udget Cost per Hour Hour Hour dour 51.46 4.53 3.47 59.45 26.59 2.34 9 78.04 6.87 3.47 Note; Rate based on indirect costs per 01113 A-87 Cost flan Escalated 2003 for 2005, adjusted to only include depreciation of capital improvements acquired after the Cl 1'Y's official date of incorporation, prepared by VRM Group, an independent plan preparer applied to salary and benefits Maintenance & Operation 2005 Adopted M & 0 'gess: Expenditures Not Related to Spokane Valley 4170 Legal -Use Slioknrtc Valley Legal Services for (500) 5110 Intergovernmental - Spokane Valley will hire separate counsel for (1,000) 91 10 Inter -fund Professional - will (200) 9502 ]n(erftind Motor Pool - will not use for Valley cases (150) Less: Expenditure Reductions • 311.1. Office Supplies - reflects expected cost for 2005 (500) 4190 Otherprofessional - Lexis research only expected (400) 4940 Printing - reimbursed for 85% (1,260) Adjusted M & O 6,761 8.80% 10,771 .Annual'Roars Annual Hours Worked 1,950 Note: Spokane County employees work 7.5 hours per day, 37.5 hours per week, and 1,950 hours annually. Interlocal Agreeruent,1•Iearing Examiner Page 11 or.' 1 88.38 Return to: I)aiiieha Erickson Clerk of the Board 1116 West Broadway Spokane, Washington 99260 110 11 1 11 1 11 1 u 1 Spokane Valley Contract No. CO3-22 Approved: March 20, 2003 tui 11 1 1 III SPOKANE COMP( COUMSS10,Y ACR 10,00 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY 3 4311 FOR HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES 4869396 Page: 1 of 6 0110112003 10:00A Spokane Co, Pi THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" 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 the "CITY,"jointly referred to hereinafter as the "PARTIES." W1TNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RC\V 39.34.080, governmental entities inay contract with each other to perform any governmental service which each may legally perform; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane \'alley is newly incorporated and at this time docs not have a Hearing Examiner to conduct quasi-judicial hearings on land use and other matters involving the City ofSpokanc Valle}; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has adopted an ordinance providing for the establishment of a Hearing Examiner System to hear land use, administrative and other matters over which the City has jurisdiction; and 1VU.ER.EAS, Spokane County has adopted a Hearing :Examiner System and appointed Michael C, Dempsey as its Hearing Examiner. ,Michael C. Dempsey is a member of the .Washington State Bar Association and is knowledgeable on land use and other local government matters. NOW, TITCR.EFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises hereinafter contained, the PARTIES mutually agree as follows: C(1-77 SECTION N O. 1: PURPOSE 11 11 1 11 1 11! 1 11 SPO lif 00141IY GO'f.1 SSIO AGR 1 11 111 4869396 . 111111 POaIjOge;1�22 of 6 00� 10:OO $0.00 Spokane Co, 'A The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a mechanism whereby COUNTY'S Hearing Examiner can act as the Hearing Examiner pro -tem for CITY to conduct administrative and quasi-judicial hearings. SECTION NO. 2: COMPENSATION CITY agrees to pay COUNTY at the rate of SEVENTY-NINE DOLLARS ($79.00) per hour for "Hearing Examiner Services" performed in 2003. The PARTIES agree that the Hearing Examiner will use the same methodology as used to establish the 2003 hourly rate to establish the 2004 and subsequent yearly hourly rates. The Hearing Examiner shall keep a log in fifteen (15) minute intervals of the number of hours worked and nature of the work performed for each assigned CITY hearing item. The PARTIES understand and acknowledge that the Wearing Examiner shall not be considered an employee of CITY when performing services pursuant to this Agreement. For the purpose of this Agreement the terminology "Hearing Examiner Services" shall include all time spent by the Hearing Examiner in malting site visits, preparing for and conducting the public hearing, reviewing the record, drafting a written decision and rulings on motions, organizing and mailing a decision or recommendation, drafting necessary correspondence, and conducting other duties under the CITY'S Hearing Examiner Ordinance on items referred to the blearing Examiner by the City Manager or his/her designee. "Hearing Examiner Services" shall also include the time spent by the Hearing Examiner in meeting with CITY'S staff to discuss improvements to CITY'S Hearing Examiner system, if specifically requested by the City Manager or his/her designee, prescribing rules for the scheduling and conduct of hearings and other procedural matters related to the duties of the Hearing Examiner, and reporting to and meeting with the CITY'S Council and Planning Commission. The fee shall be deemed to include all costs associated with such duties, including staff assistant time, mileage, and other costs of the Hearing Examiner. The ilearing Examiner shall charge and retain the costs of preparing and certifying records and transcripts for appeals of CITY Hearing Examiner decisions from the appellant as provided by statute or CITY ordinance. CITY agrees Hearing Examiner may use Spokane County hearing Examiner stationery in conjunction with providing Hearing Examiner Services under the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO. 3: PAYMENT COUNTY through Hearing Examiner shall submit billing invoices to CITY on a monthly basis for !-tearing Examiner- Services. Billings shall be submitted on or before the 5th of the month for the preceding month. All killing invoices shall include documentation setting forth a listing of the Hearing Examiner Servicers performed and time spent on each item. CITY shall submit payment, within thirty (30) days of receipt of a billing invoice. Payment shall be made payable to COUNTY, c/o of the Hearing Examiner, 3`d Floor, County Public Works Building, 1026 West Broadway, Spokane, Washington 99260-0245. At the sok option of COUNTY, a penalty may be assessed on any late payment by CITY based on lost interest earnings had the payment been tirnely paid and invested in the Spokane County Treasurer's Investment Pool. 869396 1/11/1111 Pae: 43 of 6 I SPUME COLEY CO3':ti'IISSl41l AGR ROO Suoltan0003 C.o, �M1 SECTION NO. 4: AUTHORIZATION FOR SERVICES The CITY Manager or his/her designee shall be responsible for the administration of this Agreement and requesting the services of the Hearing Examiner, SECTION NO. 5: AGREEMENT NOT EXCLUSIVE Michael Dempsey is hereby appointed as a Hearing .Examiner pro -tem for CITY. This Agreement is not exclusive and CITY may designate other Hearing Examiners pro-tcm to hear similar matters as authorized by local ordinance or resolution. SECTION NO. 6: DURATION This Agreement shall commence at 12:01 A.M. on April 1, 2003, and run tlurough 12:00 P.M. December 31, 2004. After the initial term, this Agreement shall automatically renew for additional one (1) year time periods. Either Party may terminate this Agreement for any reason whatsoever upon 90 days written notice to the other Party. CITY understands that COUNTY cannot guarantee that its Hearing Examiner will be available at all times requested by CITY, but shall be available at all times scheduled by the PART -MS. SECTION NO. 7: DECISIONS The Hearing Examiner pro -tens shall comply with the requirements of federal, state and local law relating to the matter being considered by the Hearing Examiner, including the ordinances and resolutions of CITY. If there is no applicable time period under statute or local ordinance or resolution for issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision, the Hearing Examiner shall exercise his best efforts to render a written decision with findings and conclusions within thirty (30) calendar days of concluding the hearing. If the Hearing Examiner's written decision is appealed, the Hearing Examiner shall review and certify the record from the hearing to the appropriate body after preparation of the record by the Hearing Examiner. SECTION NO. 8: ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT CITY shall supply all necessary administrative support services for the Hearing Examiner, such as hearing room, recording equipment, notifications, files and copies of applicable regulations, policies, and reports. SECTION NO. 9: AGREEMENT ANI..) ADMINiSTRATION No new or separate legal entity or administrative entity is formed by this Agreement. No property wi1I be acquired, held or disposed of. SECTION NO. 10: LIABILITY (a) COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of ti HI 111 S.POK&IIE COW11Y CMISS1011 AGR SOB Spokane Go. �A any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, or arty of them 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; provided that CITY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgrnent in said suit be rendered against CITY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against CITY and COUNTY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, COUNTY shall satisfy the save. 1 11 i 1 1 111 11 111111 11 4869396 Pae: 4of6 04)01(2003 10;00.4 (b) CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them 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, or any of them relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement. 1.n the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, Toss, or damages is brought against COUNTY, CITY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that COUNTY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against COUNTY and CITY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, CITY shall satisfy the same. (c) In executing this Agreement, COUNTY does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way releases CITY from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of CITY ordinances, polices, rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suite, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such CITY ordinance, to include its constitutionality, policy, rule or regulation is at issue, CITY shall defend the sante at its sole expense and, i f judgment is entered or damages are awarded against CITY or COUNTY, CITY shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and reasonable attorney's fees. (d) The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each party's irnmunity under Washington's Industrial insurance Act, Chapter 51 RC1\1, respecting the 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. ThePARTIES acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by then. (e) 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 auto liability coverage. SECTION NO. 11: TERMINATION/iMIODIFICATI ON If the Agreement is terminated, CITY shall reimburse COUNTY for any services performed pursuant to this Agreement that have not at the time of termination been paid for and which the Parties have previously agreed is compensablc work. This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES. 11 11 1 11 1 11 1 1 1 P(}1(BJJF fYl I1Y M' 1C4if)1J :11A SECTION NO. 12: VENUE 1 11 4869396 III O4I8gOi f 2003 10:00A 4(1.111 5nnicanR Ca, k� This Agreement has and shall be construed as having been made and delivered in the State of Washington, and the laws of the State of Washington shall be applicable to its construction and enforcement. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceedings for the enforcement of this agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted only in the courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION NO. 13: PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT The ownership of all property and equipment provided by either Party in conjunction with each meeting its obligations under the terms of this Agreement shall remain with the original owner unless specifically and mutually agreed by the PARTIES to the contrary. SECTION NO, 14: RECORDS All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by Hearing Examiner in conjunction with providing Hearing Examiner Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed CITY property and shall be made available to CITY upon request by the CITY Manager. .Hearing Examiner will notify CITY of any public disclosure request under chapter 42.17 RCW for copies or viewing of such records as well as the Hearing Examiner's response thereto. ,SECTION NO. 15: LEGAL ADVICE CITY shall be responsible for providing legal advice to the Hearing Examiner in conjunction with his performing Hearing Examiner Services under the terms of this Agreement. SECTION NO. 16: ALL WRITINGS AS CONTAINED HEREIN This Agreement contains all of the terms 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 the PARTIES. SECTION NO. 17: RECORDING This Agreement shall he recorded with the Spokane County Auditor after its approval by both PARTIES. 4869396 11 11 111 I 1 I 11 111 Ari 04 112(03 °10 0 ,fif AU u INTY 0 iS5i0N AG9 i0.00 So°lme Go. WA IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Agreernent to be executed on the date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED 25 o& ATTEST: V1CKY M. DALTON CLE:: OF THE BO BY: 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOAlt bU�NTyY WASliINCrTON 9 LEY, Chair Danicla Sp cputy M. ATE A.SL only my Deputy Prosecuting Attorney DATED:` IO6) 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: City Clerk By: mai435 (Title) NO. . 3 0311 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASFDNGTON IN THE MATTER OF EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY REGARDING HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RC\V 39.34.080, governmental entities may contract with each other to perform any governmental service which each may legally perform; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley is newly incorporated and at this time does not have a Hearing Examiner to conduct quasi-judicial hearings on land use and other matters involving the City of Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has adopted an ordinance providing for the establishment of a Hearing Examiner System to hear land use, administrative and other matters over which the City has jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Spokane County has adopted a Hearing .Examiner System, appointed Michael C. Dempsey as its Hearing Examiner and Michael C, Dempsey is a member of the Washington State Bar Association and is knowledgeable on land use and other local government matters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, that either the Chairman of the Board, or a majority o.f the Board, be and is hereby authorized to execute that document entitled "INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY FOR l IEARJNG EXAMINER SERVICES" pursuant to which, under certain terms and conditions, the Spokane County 1 -tearing Examiner will act as the hearing Examiner pro -tem for the City of Spokane Valley and conduct administrative and quasi-judicial hearings at the rate of SEVENTY- NINE DOLLARS (S79.00) per hour for services performed in calendar year 2003. PASSEAND ADOV' 1 thin 25 1 day of .�c , 2003, °g co�Ii/ ,s". 'r BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS /.o�44cic�G�Q�� �► WASHINGTON c h 7, r OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, \� ASHiNGTON E III, off, ® o / ° 1 _.. Q 5 E T " g • r . +ti '� ' SEAL ••• �-,r JOHN ROSKELLEY, ChairS v ATTEST: %‘` co>s�� a° �ca , 03 VICKY M. DALTON '•,.�'y�� _._ _ 6 ® ,CLERK OF THE BOARD s ! 1 IA .RI. , Vi• __ •: �� 0 j J rx _� I 1 i l , m 4 cla Daniela Erickson, Deputy M. ATE. M CAST/ of r ,� �_ r 1:Walley Ciry\Resorutions\valley-hearing examine/Aloe Page 1 of 1 7E o 0 o r uZvvanca CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 30, 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 County Library District Sprague/Balfour property update. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of the interlocal agreement between the Spokane County Library District and the City in September, 2012. BACKGROUND: The City purchased 8.4 acres of vacant property in 2013 following entry of an interlocal agreement with the Spokane County Library District (SCLD) whereby SCLD agreed to purchase 2.82 acres of that property for construction of a new Spokane Valley library facility with surrounding grounds. The interlocal agreement contained a provision that if SCLD was unable to successfully pass a bond measure at the ballot, the City would re -purchase the 2.82 acres after October 23, 2017. In 2014, voters approved the formation of the Spokane Valley Library Capital Facilities Area, however the request for funding new library facilities fell short of the 60% needed with only 55% approval. The Library Board went back to the voters in 2015 with a reduced request for funding and received 57.7% approval, still short of the required super majority. The Spokane Valley Capital Faculties Area was dissolved after the second failed attempt for voter approved funding. SCLD is now asking the City to consider amending the interlocal agreement it has with the City to change the date for re -acquisition by the City, moving it up from October 23, 2017 to any time after September 1, 2016. SCLD would presumably then initiate the process for selling the property back to the City shortly thereafter, with the normal closing process to follow. OPTIONS: Council discretion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: SCLD acquired 2.82 acres January 31, 2014 for $839,285. These funds in the amount of $839,285, generated from the sale of the property in 2014, have been retained in the Civic Facility Capital Project Fund #310. If approved, payment would be made from that account. STAFF/OTHER CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Nancy Ledeboer, SCLD Executive Director. CITY ATTACHMENTS: 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Acquisition of Real Estate (see highlighted Section 10). LIBRARY ATTACHMENTS: Library District Request for City's Reacquisition of Balfour Park Property; PowerPoint Presentation INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL ESTATE BETWEEN CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT This Agreement is made by and between the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ("City") and the SPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT, a Washington municipal corporation ("Library District") collectively referred to herein as the "Parties", based upon the following Recitals. The Agreement shall become effective as of the date the last Party hereto executes this Agreement. RECITALS . A. WHEREAS, the Parties each have need of acquiring real property in furtherance of their respective public purposes; and 13. WHEREAS, four contiguous parcels of real property comprising approximately 8.4 acres located on the corner of Sprague and Herald within the City and legally described on the attached Exhibit "A", (the "Property") have been identified by the Parties as appropriate to their needs. The Spokane County parcel numbers are 45174.9053, 45174.9054, 45174.9055, and 45174.9056; and C. WHEREAS, City anticipates entering into negotiations with the owner of the Property, Pring Corporation ("Pring"), whereby the City would purchase the Property from Pring; and D. WHEREAS, the Library District for its purposes needs between two and one-half and three and one-half acres of the Property while the City needs the balance; and r:\SPODOCS\26321100Q061AGREE11007874 1 E. WHEREAS, the Parties hereto wish to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of agreeing to jointly develop the Property and to provide for dividing the Property between the City and the Library District at a later date such that the interests of both Parties will be served; and F. WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that there will be costs to construct frontage improvements directly related to the anticipated development activity of the respective Parties, and that the Parties need to apportion those costs between themselves; and G. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.34.340, the City is authorized to acquire by purchase title to real property for park and recreational purposes; and H. WHEREAS, RCW 39.33.010 authorizes governmental entities to transfer real property between themselves as set forth in RCW 39.33.020, and I. WHEREAS, RCW 39.34.030(1) provides that any power or authority capable of being exercised by a public agency of this state may be exercised jointly with any other public agency of this state. NOW THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing recitals, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Joint Board. No joint board or agency shall be created as a result of this interlocal agreement between the Parties. Any action taken pursuant to the terms of this agreement must be separately approved by the governing boards of each Party. 2. Purchase of Property. The City will negotiate in good faith with Pring regarding a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Purchase and Sale Agreement") for the purchase of the Property. 3. Purchase Price. The Library District, contemporaneous with the Closing between the City and Pring, and subject to mutual agreement on the price paid by the City to Pring, shall pay to the City an amount equal to the per square foot Purchase Price of the Property based upon the total number of square feet of the Property determined by the survey times two and one-half acres (108,900 sq. ft.) together with the same proportionate share of any survey, title, recording, closing, and phase T environmental audit costs. Any appraisal fees shall be paid entirely by the City. The City is not represented by any Realtor, and shall not pay any fees related to services provided by any Realtor related to purchasing the Property unless otherwise agreed to in writing. 1:1SPODOCS126321I000061AGREE11007874 2 4. Title. The Parties agree that the Purchase and Sale Agreement shall reflect that the Purchase Price at Closing shall be paid in cash and that title to the Property shall be taken in the name of the City, subject to the contract right of ownership by the Library District of at least 2.5 acres, as identified in this Agreement. This contract right of ownership is enforceable in an action for specific performance. 5. Closing. Closing of the transaction to purchase the Property shall occur on or before a date mutually acceptable to the City and Pring. 6. Joint Site Dcvelo nnent Plan. Within one year following the Closing, the Parties shall Work together to A. mutually select a consultant team; and B. draft and finalize a Joint Site Development Plan with the goal of agreeing, among other things, on how much of the Property the Library District will require for its purposes, and location of the same. The Parties intend that the Joint Site Development Plan shall include building footprints, parking, curb cuts, sidewalks, storm water management, access includingreciprocal access and parking easements Warty, and any other matters that the Parties deem desirable to be included as part of such Joint Site Development Plan. The Library District anticipates that its needs will include the following: A. A minimum of a 30,000 square foot building on one floor, that will serve as a destination facility with programming intended to draw participants from the Spokane County region. B. The exterior building image should provide a sense that this building is a library and an important civic and community building. This can be accomplished by using timeless, quality materials like brick, stone, concrete and composite metal panels to name a few. C. Site Requirements: • Building footprint a minimum of 30,000 square feet. s Vehicular access required for rear service entrance. 1:1S PODOC S12632110000 61AGREE 110078 74 3 • Appropriate parking to meet the City's code minimum requirements for a public library, with a 100 seat meeting room. • Require frontage on or clear visibility from Sprague Avenue but not from behind a parking lot. • At least one side of library building adjacent and open to landscaped park area. The City anticipates that its needs will include the following: A. Land for a park or other civic uses B. Due to civic nature of the site, shared hardscape such as walkways and plaza anticipated C. Potential amenities to consider: • parki ng • reading garden • public market space • civic plaza and fountain • flag display/Veteran's memorial • small picnic shelter • large shelter • performance/gathering place • seasonal cafe place • open field • walking loop/trail 1:15 P0D0CSl263211000061AGREE\1007874 4 • art/sculpture walk D. Site requirements: • Public access to library restrooms • Park frontage on Sprague • Off-street parking for City users (shared parking with Iibrary) Fundamental to the understanding between the Parties hereto is that as of the date hereof, neither Party is in a position to know precisely how the Property should be divided such that the resulting two parcels will maximize the use and benefit to each Party of the Property for the Parties' respective needs to the extent allowed by law. To that end, the Parties agree that as of the date hereof, the number of square of feet and the precise location of the boundary line to be created cannot be known until completion of the Joint Site Development Plan. The Parties therefore agree to cooperate in good faith with each other to arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement for dividing the property as reflected in the Joint Site Development Plan. Any engineering or other consulting fees incurred in this process shall be split equally. Allocation of costs for a traffic study that addresses impacts of anticipated development is the subject of a separate Memorandum of Understanding between the Parties. Based upon the traffic study, the Parties have identified certain right-of-way improvements or site -wide improvements (collectively referred to as "frontage improvements) that are necessary for the respective proposed projects. The Parties agree to split the frontage improvements currently identified in the traffic study on an equal basis. The frontage improvements currently identified are set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Allocation of additional costs for any other frontage improvements that are necessitated by or otherwise determined as part of the Joint Site Development Plan will be as agreed by the Parties within 30 days of completion of the Joint Site Development Plan, The Parties will negotiate the allocation of any such additional frontage improvement costs in good faith. 7. Property Adjustment. If, as a result of the Joint Site Development Plan process the Library District determines that it needs more than 2.5 acres, then the City agrees that it will sell to the Library District at the original per square foot Purchase Price up to' one additional acre of the Property. Payment to the City by the Library District of any additional property in excess of the original 2.5 acres shall be made on or before recording of the Deed described in Section 8 below_ Any costs incurred for the boundary line adjustment process, and any surveying fees and fees for preparation and recording of the Deed shall be paid for by the Library District. Any legal fees incurred by the Parties shall be the separate responsibility of each. 1:1S POD O C S1263211000061AGR EE11007674 5 8. Deed to Library District. Within 30 days after completion of the Joint Site Development Plan, the Parties will cooperate to initiate the process to adjust the boundary line as agreed in the Joint Site Development Plan through a boundary line adjustment. Within 10 days of the completion of the boundary line adjustment, the City will convey to the Library District by deed that portion of the Property designated for the Library District on the Joint Site Development Plan to the Library District. 9. Failure of Joint Site Development Plan. In the event that, despite their good faith best efforts, the Parties are unable to agree on a Joint Site Development Plan as described above, and absent an agreement between the Parties to extend the deadline for developing such Joint Site Development Plan, then City shall, within 60 days after the final deadline for developing the Joint Site Development Plan, reimburse the Library District the fiill amount of that portion of the Purchase Price together with the pro -rata share of any survey, title, recording, closing, and phase I environmental audit costs paid by the Library District and from that point in time this agreement would be considered void. Each Party shall pay one-half of the costs of the Joint Site Development Plan if the project does not go forward, either due to failure to agree on a Joint Site Development Plan or because the District does not pass its bond as set forth in Section 10, 10. Re -Purchase by City. In order to construct a library building and ancillary improvements on the portion of the Property acquired,by the Library District, it is anticipated that the Library District will need to secure voter approval of a District -wide bond levy covering this and other projects. Without voter approval of such bond, the Library District will not be in a position to develop its portion of the Property. The Parties agree that in the event that the Library District has not, within five years following the Closing, secured voter approval of a construction bond for the library building and ancillary improvements in such amount as shall be determined necessary by the Library District, that thereafter the Library District shall reconvey all of the Property back to the City at the same price paid by the Library District to the City. Such payment shall be paid all in cash. The Library District, in such event, shall convey title to the City with the same type of instrument as it received the Property from the City, and from that point in time this agreement would be considered void. In the event the construction bond is approved, the Library District shall commence construction within one year of the date of voter approval of the construction bond. 11. Maintenance Costs. The City agrees to maintain the Property, including that portion deeded to the Library District, until such time as the Library District shall begin development of its property. Maintenance is anticipated to include weed control and trash removal, and the Library District agrees to reimburse the City on an annual basis its proportionate share of such costs. The District and City shall negotiate in good faith the allocation of maintenance costs for the external library grounds both during the period of construction of the library facility, as well as maintenance costs once the facility is constructed. 12. Use of Property. The City agrees that its portion of the Property will be dedicated to public use and will not be sold to any third party. The Library District agrees that its portion of 1 ;1S PO©OCS1263 211000061AGR EE11007874 6 the Property will be developed into a public library facility provided that funding for such project is secured as provided above in Section 10. The City, at its expense, will be allowed to use the entire site for civic purposes until the District provides the City with a notice that the District will commence construction activities in 30 days. The City agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the District from and against all claims, causes of action, and damages arising out of the City's use of the Property for any such civic purposes. 13. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, legal representative, agents, attorneys, successors and assigns.: 14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the sole and entire agreement between the Parties, and there is no other agreement, either oral or in writing, which modifies the terms of this Agreement. No statement, promises, or inducements made by either Party or any agent of either Party that is not contained in this written Agreement shall be valid or binding. Any enlargement, modification or alteration of this Agreement is binding only if executed in writing and signed by all Parties hereto. 15. Attorneys' Fees. In any action to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, at all trial and appellate levels, including any bankruptcy proceedings. 16. Venue. This Agreement is entered into in the State of Washington and venue of any action shall be the Superior Court for Spokane County. 17. Notices. All notices, demands or other communications which are required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing, and either personally delivered or mailed to the other Party at the address set forth below its signature on this Agreement, or at such other addresses as either party may give to the other by notice in writing pursuant to the terms of this paragraph. 18. Waiver. Waiver by either Party of any covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement shall not operate as or be considered to be a waiver by such Party of any other covenant, condition or provision hereof, or of any subsequent breach of either Party. 19. Additional Acts. The Parties each hereby agree to perform, execute and/or deliver or cause to be performed, executed and/or delivered, any and all such further acts, documents and assurances as may be reasonably required to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. I:ISPODOCS12632I1000061AGREE11007874 7 20. Recording of Agreement. Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 39.34.040, this Interlocal Agreement shall be filed with the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 21. Negotiation and Construction. This Agreement, and each of the terms and provisions hereof, are deemed to have been explicitly negotiated between the Parties, and the language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against either Party. 22. Representation of Authority. Each person who executes this Agreement represents and warrants to the Parties that he or she has the authority to do so. SPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Bv: G�ZGI�oziedeMV Print Name: fOni j 1 &Iehoev' Title: Eye,athVVe'•Vecivve Address: 11311 N. 4 /9494 3100, r r, e i4,4 Dated: �� 602s I3v: Print Name: Title: (x/17 ,d/'t&/G ,1 Address: / / i2 7 �41r4G� &C. � Oo/ f,e Dated: Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: G� / • Philip S. Brooke, ° ttorney at Law City Attorf'iy Dated: ( ( ( 1 IS PODOC S12632I1000061AG R EE11007874 ,4/./a/ Dated: 9 -27.-/ 2- 8 EXHIBIT A The southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., in the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington; Excepting therefrom the West 20 feet; Further excepting therefrom the North 15 feet; Further:excepting therefrom the South,80.feet for Sprague Avenue.: Spokane Co. parcel no.s 45174.9053, 45174.9054, 45174.9055, and 45174.9056 Frontage Improvements Cost Estimate Prajecl Name: Spokane County Library • Proposed Main Library Site Frontage Improvements: Herald Rd.; Main Ave, Prepared By: Preparation Date: Bryan D. Hicks, P.E. July 18, 2012 EXHIBIT B *Oka' e _.Valley IIEMO 155 DOTSUO. EPEC. WON VOA ITE,kIDEECRIprIDN UNIT OF MEASURE PLANNED QUANTITY ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED ITEM PRICE 1 1.09.7 0001 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 5 31,600.00 $ 31,500 2 1.05.4 703B ROADWAY SURVEYING L.S, 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,600 6 1-07.15 7736 SPCC PLAN L.S. 1 $ 600.00 $ 500 9 1-10.3 6971 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000 10 2-01 0035 CLEARING AND GRUBBING L.S. 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000 12 2-02 SAWCUT ASPHALT PAVEMENT L.F. 1,300 $ 1.50 5 1,950 14 2-03 0310 ROADWAY EXCAVATION & EMBANKMENT, INCL. HAUL C.Y. 738 $ 16.00 S 11,808 17 4-04 5115 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE C.Y. 366 $ 48,00 $ 17,664 19 5-04 HMA CL. 112", 0.26 FT. DEPTH, PG 64.28 S.Y. 144 5 24.00 $ 3,456 20 5-04 HMA CL 112", 0.33 FT. DEPTH, PG 64-28 S.Y. 872 $ 20.00 $ 17,440 26 7-05 1082 PRECAST CONCRETE DTWWELL TYPE B -SWALE EACH 3 $ 3,400.00 $ 10,200 34 8-01 TEMPORARY EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL L.S. 1 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,500 35 8-02 SWALE EXCAVATION INC. HAUL C.Y. 380 $ 23.00 $ 8,740 35 8-02 6405 TOPSOIL TYPE A G.Y. 150 3 33.00 $ 4,950 39 8.02 6555 SOD INSTALLATION S.Y. 1,361 $ 8.00 5 10,888 40 8-03 6071 IRRIGATION SYSTEM LS. 1 5 7,600.00 $ 7,500 42 8-04 8700 CEMENT CONIC. TRAFFIC CURB &GUTTER L.F. 1,225 $ 13.00 $ 15,925 43 6-04 6707 CEMENT CONC. PEDESTRIAN CUR© L.F. 80 $ 18.00 $ 1,440 44 8-04 1070 CEMENT CONCJQUARRY SPALL SPILLWAY S.Y. 20 $ 60.00 5 1,000 45 8-06 7059 CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APPROACH 5.Y, 186 $ 44.00 $ 8,184 47 8-14 7055 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK $,Y. 727 $ 34.00 $ 24,718 48 8-14 7058 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE A EACH 4 $ 1,250.00 S 6,000 61 8-20 6912 HAWK PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL L.S. 1 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $ 393,863 Contingency (25%) Inflation Adjustment Factor (4%fyr) Construction Sub -Total PE (16%) CE {15%} Utility Allowance - UndergroundIng of overhead lines (East side of Herald) Right Of Way 2 years TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE $ 98,466 $ 31,609 $ '623,838 $ 78,676 $ 78,576 $ 20,000 $ • $ 700,989 Cost Estimate Assumptions: Includes pavement widening, s!dewalk, curb 8. gutter end swales for frontage of undeveloped parcel along Herald Rd. and Main Ave. Estimate does not include frontage Improvements In front of existing Balfour Park on Main Ave Cr Balfour Rd. Includes HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Signal on Sprague Ave. Vain Ave, - (Herald Rd. to Fells Rd.) Local Access Street: L = 650-0 3" HMA over 6" CSTC; Ex. Width: 30-f1 wide; No additional widening req'd 10 -ft swells; 6.51 sidewalk, Herald Rd, - (Snraoue Ave. to Maln Ave.) Collector Street: L 575.8 4" HMA over 6" CSTC; Ex. Width! 25 to 3041; Widen to 40-f1 10 -ft swale; 6-N sidewalk Library District Request for City's Reacquisition of Balfour Park Property Background The Spokane County Library District (District) has a long history of serving the residents of Spokane Valley, dating back to 1942 when the District was officially formed. In 1955, the Valley Library was built at 12004 East Main as the first library and administrative offices for the District. From this facility, the District provided library services to the residents of Spokane County, as well as from a bookmobile and 10 book deposit locations. In 1986 a major expansion of the Valley Library was completed, more than doubling the space where families came to borrow books, attend story times, and participate in summer reading programs. Many of the children who attended these programs and borrowed books from the Valley library bring their children and grandchildren to the library today. Civic Pride In 2004, the newly formed City of Spokane Valley contracted with the District to continue providing library services to Spokane Valley residents. The following year in May, 13,966 (87%) residents of Spokane Valley voted to annex to the Library District. The library was renamed the Spokane Valley Library to align with the emerging sense of civic pride. In cooperation with the new City, plans were made to expand library services. In March 2008, voters were asked to form a Greater Spokane Valley Library Capital Facility Area (GSVLCFA) along with a proposal for $33,400,000 to replace the Spokane Valley Library, expand the Argonne Library, and build a new library in GreenacresNeradale. Both the GSVLCFA and the proposed funding failed to achieve the required level of voter approval. In 2010, District trustees adopted a Master Facilities Plan 2010-2030 outlining comprehensive opportunities to expand the District's facilities to meet the demands of a growing population countywide. The plan included proposals to build three new libraries in Spokane Valley. In anticipation of implementing this plan, approximately 2 acres were purchased on Conklin Road just south of Sprague Avenue. Additional efforts were undertaken to identify property to serve the southernmost part of Spokane Valley; however, no land was found that met criteria for a third library. The District worked with a realty firm to identify available parcels along the Sprague corridor suitable to build a library to replace the current Spokane Valley Library. SPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT www.sdd,org Administrative Offices 509.893.8200 fax 509.893.8472 Airway Heights Library Cheney Library 509.893.8250 509.893.8280 Argonne Library Deer Park Library 509.893.8260 509.893.8300 Fairfield Library 509.893.8320 Medical Lake Library 509.893.8330 Moran Prairie Library Otis Orchards Library 509.893.8340 509.893.8390 North Spokane Library Spokane Valley Library 509.893.8350 509.893.8400 Library/City Partnership The Library District approached the City of Spokane Valley in 2011 with a proposal to purchase 8 acres on East Sprague Avenue for the purpose of building a city park and a new library. After investigating numerous potential building sites, the preferred option was the East Sprague Avenue property. However, the parcel was larger than the library needed and the owner did not want to divide the parcel. An agreement to jointly purchase the property between the City of Spokane Valley and the District was signed in October of 2012. The City of Spokane Valley negotiated the purchase, and the Library District paid for the portion needed for a new library. Architects were engaged to gather public input, develop a site plan for the park, and determine where to place the future library on the land. The 2012 agreement acknowledged that the new library would require voter -approved funding and provided a window of 5 years for the District to secure funds and break ground. If the Library District was unable to secure voter -approved funding to build the library, the City agreed to repurchase the property for the amount paid by the District. Following several months of planning and public meetings, it was determined to site a 30,000 square -foot, one-story library along Sprague Avenue at Herald Road. Parcel 45174.9063 was established under District ownership. The District's total payment for the property to the City of Spokane Valley was $841,414. Subsequently, library trustees passed resolutions to put requests before the voters to establish the Spokane Valley Library Capital Facility Area (SVLCFA) and fund $22 million to build a new Spokane Valley Library, a Conklin Road Library, and renovate the Argonne Library. The cities of Millwood and Spokane Valley passed resolutions acknowledging this effort, and the County placed the issue before voters in a special election held in April 2013. The SVLCFA was approved with 13,159 (59.2%) votes. However, the funding request received only 12,189 (54.86%) affirmative votes, not enough for the required super majority. The District reviewed election results and talked with stakeholders to determine whether there was sufficient support to go back to the voters. Some voters were confused by the two issues on the ballot, and many voters believed that the funding had been approved not realizing that a super majority was required. The SVLCFA was established by voters in April 2013, so only one question to approve funding would be needed on a second ballot attempt. Questions about the future of the existing Spokane Valley Library were addressed to include its renovation as a technology learning center/express library. In August of 2015, a $22 million funding request received 13,859 (57.57%) affirmative votes, still shy of the required super majority. With the second failed funding request, the SVLCFA was automatically dissolved as per state law. PiSPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT www.scld.org Administrative Offices 509.893.8200 fax 509.893.8472 Airway Heights Library Cheney Library 509.893.8250 509.893.8280 Argonne Library Deer Park Library 509. 893.8260 509.893.8300 Fairfield Library 509.893.8320 Medical Lake Library 509.893.8330 Moran Prairie Library Otis Orchards Library 509.893.8340. 509.893.8390 North Spokane Library Spokane Valley Library 509.893.8350 509.893.8400 listening to the constituents District trustees heard the voters, and after two unsuccessful efforts to secure bond funding to build new libraries, the decision was made to focus on maximizing use of the current facility. The Library District is committed to providing excellent services to the residents of Spokane Valley from the existing facility and through partnerships that take library services out into the community. Four service priorities have been identified as critical to the success of individuals in the Valley and to foster community engagement: Early Learning: Starting school ready to learn is essential to academic success. Hundreds of preschool children attend programs at the library each week to participate in early learning activities that foster a love of language and learning. Additionally, parents and caregivers attend training where they learn methods to prepare their children to enter school ready to learn. Business and Career Development: Economic development thrives in the Valley when job seekers have the resources they need to find well -paying jobs and business owners have the information needed to make decisions that support the growth of their businesses. Through partnerships with WorkSource, the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, and Central Valley School District, the Spokane Valley Library provides resources and assistance to individuals making career decisions and to entrepreneurs growing businesses. Education and Enriching lives through lifelong learning: Valley residents of all ages benefit from access to library materials that address their information needs and recreational interests. Programs focusing on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math spark a love of learning for youth of all ages, and stimulating programs engage adults who want to keep learning throughout their lives, Interaction, Sharing, Connections: Community members view their Library with a sense of civic pride as they volunteer for the Friends, share their expertise at Library programs, and find new ways to connect with other members of the community at the Library. Library staff are active members of service and economic development organizations where they bring Library information resources to advance community goals and encourage participation in community. After exhausting efforts to earn voter approval to fund new libraries, District trustees passed Resolution 16-04 indicating they will not pursue another bond election prior to 2018, and Resolution 16-05 invoking the clause in the 2012 agreement with the City of Spokane Valley to purchase Parcel 45174.9063. SPOKANE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT www.scld,org Administrative Offices 509.893.8200 fax 509.893.8472. Airway Heights Library Cheney Library 509.893.8250 509.893.8280 Argonne Library Deer Park Library 509. 893.8260 509.893.8300 Fairfield Library 509.893,8320 Medical Lake Library 509.893,8330 Moran Prairie Library Otis Orchards Library 509.893.8340 509,893,8390 North Spokane Library Spokane Valley Library 509,893.8350 509.893.8400 AilDISTRICT LIBRARY SPOKANE COUNTY Library District Request for City's Reacquisition of Balfour Park Property Background - Spokane Valley Library • Serving Spokane Valley as an independent Library District since 1942 D5.0<ISal,E7ftCflUICTIlTV LIBRARY P' 1 Background — Spokane Valley Library • Valley Library built in 1955 • District's first library building and administrative offices • From this facility, the District provided library services to the residents of Spokane County, a bookmobile, and 10 book deposit locations. $FOKAhr COUNTY LIBRARY Pr DISTRICT Background — Spokane Valley Library 1986 - major expansion of the Valley Library was completed, more than doubling the space Msco�sF;e cevHry LIBRARY DISTRICT 2 Background -- Spokane Valley Library • In 2004, the newly formed City of Spokane Valley contracted with the District to continue providing library services • In May 2005, 13,966 (87%) residents of Spokane Valley voted to annex to the Library District. • The library was renamed the Spokane Valley Library to align with the emerging sense of civic pride. Msvu<nn¢ wuuTv LIBRARY DISTRICT Spokane Valley Library 2015 numbers Visitors 299,961 - approximately 900 per day Circulation 555,001 -- more than a half million items Programs 869 — more than two per day Program attendance 19,270 Computer reservations 77,003 Meeting room reservations 828 - more than two per day saoxatie aauNn LIBRARY rr DISTRICT 3 Spokane Valley Library 2015 numbers Spokane Valley Library serves as the home base for the majority of outreach programs to day cares and adult facilities Outreach storytimes 345 Outreach storytime attendance 3,458 Adult facility visits 336 Adult facility circulation 19,553 sr,),:41.r COUNTY LIBRARY r� DISTRICT Previous plans & elections rxifity SNninuzief' SPoljne S'r11c1 2008 — Voters reject proposal for $33,400,000 bond to: • Replace Spokane Valley Library, • Expand Argonne Library • Build new GreenacresNeradale library 2010 - Master Facilities Plan outlines need to meet demands of growing population MSPQ(AN[ CQUHTV LIBRARY DISTRICT 4 Library District/City Partnership 2011 — • Preferred option for new library was East Sprague property • Library District approaches the City of Spokane Valley to purchase 8 acres between Herald and Balfour • City park/new library combination - 9 __ , :PPI, r- ., 40 n ; lig `' P 1 SPP R.E • I ,� ll l i .•1 P19111 SsO jE CaU�IrY LIBRARY D15TRICT Library District/City Partnership • Agreement signed in October 2012 • City negotiated price, Library District paid for library's portion • Agreement— new library requires voter -approval with a 5 -year window to secure funds and break ground • If not approved, City to repurchase property • Architects went to work immediately gathering public input & developing a site plan • Comrnunity advisory board established s'D!KU.E COUNTY ` LIBRARY ■I DISTRICT 5 Library District/City Partnership . �m - , mip i 4.it► :44 da 1?4 ,14 .4- 44. _ j:14-1?i LIBRARY Pr DISTRICT Library District/City Partnership Two issues on ballot: • Establish Spokane Valley Library Capital Facility Area • Fund $22 million to build a new Spokane Valley Library, a GreenacresNeradale library, and renovate the Argonne Library 2014 Election results: • Capital Facility Area approved 59% (13,159 votes) • Funding failed with 54% support (12,189 votes) • Super majority of 60% required for funding DSo[Sp <41T.E RCOUICTNTY LIBRARY 6 Library District/City Partnership BOND: • Capital Facility Area established, so only one question to approve funding on second ballot attempt • Future of existing Spokane Valley Library addressed 2015 Election results: • Funding failed with 57% affirmative votes • Super majority of 60% required for funding • SVLCFA automatically dissolved 11111111 DISTRICT LIBRARY Committed to Excellent Service • District trustees heard the voters • Decision made to maximize use of current facility Library District is committed to providing excellent services from existing facility • Strengthening partnerships that r. ' take library out into the community wir 771,97 Ei Four service priorities identified: Early Learning Business & Career Development Education & Enrichment Interaction & Sharing 11101s�o<nticcauwrr P 1 LIBRARY DISTRICT 7 Early Learning ' ,1mL Starting school ready to learn is essential to academic success Hundreds of preschool children attend weekly programs to participate in early learning programs to help develop skills for school success. Parents & caregivers attend trainings where they learn methods to prepare children to enter school ready to learn. LIBRA !C.1 DlSirilC. Business & Career Development Economic development thrives in the Valley when: • Job seekers have resources they need to find well -paying jobs • Business owners have information needed to make decisions that support the growth of their businesses Partnerships with WorkSource, the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, and Valley school districts 5•p�nllE COUIITY LIBRARY _._U* DISTRICT 8 Education & Enrichment Valley residents of all ages benefit from access to library materials • Information needs • Recreational interests Programs focusing on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math for youth (STEM) Stimulating programs engage adults interested in life-long learning /IN DISTRICT LIBRARY STO?AIiE CO(PiTY Interaction & Sharing Valley residents view their library with a sense of civic pride as they: • Volunteer for the Friends of the Library • Share their expertise at library programs • Find new ways to connect with others in the community Library staff are active in service and economic development organizations where they bring library information resources to advance community goals Rs,.sou<due ceur+rr LIBRARY DISTRICT 9 Resolutions District trustees passed two resolutions: • Resolution 16-04 — The District will not pursue another bond election prior to 2018 • Resolution 16-05 -- Invoking the clause in the 2012 agreement with the City of Spokane Valley to purchase parcel 45174.9063 V�LtE3llARY DISTRI'CT Future Plans for Spokane Valley Library Expansion Options A, B, C Reconfigure Floor Plan to create as much public space as practical • Add first floor public multi- purpose/meeting room • Additional programming space (i.e. Media Lab/Maker Space) • Additional quiet study spaces • Single service kiosk • Consolidate first & second floor staff workstations • Update finishes & technology infrastructure 1101 SPOr4hERC�lIN7Y LIBARY DISTRICT 10 11 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 30, 2016 Department Director Approval: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: National Endowment for the Arts, Our Town Grant Opportunity GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The affects of public art have been shown to help spur economic development, foster a sense of community, increase tourism, and provide a path toward individual enrichment. Done correctly, public art is a vehicle for a community to express its identity. Annually, the National Endowment for the Arts through its Our Town grant program awards a limited number of grants to governmental agencies which are working to integrate public art into communities across the country. Grants range from $25,000 to $200,000 and can be used to fund a variety of projects related to public art planning and implementation. Government agencies are required to partner with a local non-profit art agency for work on the funded project and must contribute a 1 to 1 non-federal match for any funds received through the grant. City staff, with the assistance of the Spokane Valley Arts Council, are interested in applying for the Our Town grant to fund the creation of the City's first Public Arts Master Plan. Arts and culture have been shown to boost economic development, tourism and community identity. An arts master plan would establish a vision for public art throughout the City, determine how the City could use public art to promote the unique identity of our community and establish guidelines for public art projects. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to bring back at the September 6, 2016 meeting for motion consideration. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen, Planner ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Our Town National Endowment for the Arts Christina Janssen, Planner Spokane _Valley 1 Public Art Public art enhances a region through increasing opportunities and paid work for artists, beautifying the landscape, establishing identity, and is a catalyst for economic development. Spokane _Valley Footer 2 Public art - Why is it important? Economic Development ■ Quality of life is becoming an increasingly important consideration in modern business location decisions. ■ Creatively identifying and marketing community assets contributes to attracting a strong workforce. ■ Cultural amenities provide a competitive edge by improving a community's ability to attract economic activity. ■ Economic benefits also include the many businesses contributing to projects including design professionals, fabrication, engineering, lighting, installation, etc. Spokane _Valley Footer 3 Public art Tourism Why is it important? ■ Travel Industry Association of America — Survey results indicate that 65% of American adult travelers say they include a cultural, arts, heritage or historic activity or event while traveling. ■ In addition to specific arts & cultural activities, tourists spend money on lodging, dining, retail and sightseeing. ■ Popular cultural activities include visiting historic sites, museums, live theater, art galleries, heritage or ethnic festivals and music concerts. ■ Public art can help visitors navigate a city and can generate cultural tourism Spokane _Valley Footer 4 Public art -Why is it important? Community Identity ■ Public art projects that engage the community provide citizens with a way to improve their environment and the opportunity to develop a sense of pride and ownership. ■ The incorporation of public art into a community gives tangible expression to a community's history and values. ■ Public art programs are an opportunity to return life and vitality to underutilized areas of a community. Spokane _Valley Footer 5 Public Art in the City of Spokane Valley What we have.... • CenterPlace Art Display s � Discovery Park bronze statues 2"d Saturday Art Walk Spokane Valley Heritage Museum Spokane Valley Arts Council Spokane _Valley Footer 6 Public Art in the City of Spokane Valley What we don't have.... ■ A plan for placement of public art throughout the City. ■ A comprehensive understanding of the artistic & cultural resources currently available in our City. ■ Criteria for content & quality of public art. Spokane _Valley ■ A strategy for showcasing & drawing people to the City's public art pieces Footer s: 7 National Endowment for the Arts ■ Independent federal agency that promotes arts and culture. ■ Partners with state arts agencies, local leaders, other federal agencies and philanthropic groups. • Supports arts learning, cultural heritage and works to provide equal access to the arts in every community. Spokane _Valley Footer 8 Our Town Grant ■ Supports local efforts to enhance quality of life and opportunity for existing residents, increases creative activity, and creates a distinct sense of place. ■ Projects must represent the distinct character and quality of the community. ■ Awarded to local governments in partnership with a non-profit organization — Spokane Valley Arts Council ■ Grants range from $25,000 to $200,000 ■ All grants require a nonfederal match of at least 1 to 1 (financial or "in kind") Spokane _Valley Footer 9 What the grant will fund: Arts Engagement Cultural Planning ■ Programming that fosters interaction among community members ■ Programming that activates existing cultural & community assets ■ Artist residencies ■ Professional development for artists ■ Festivals & performances that activate spaces not normally used for such purposes ■ Cultural asset mapping ■ Cultural district planning ■ Development of master plans or community —wide strategies for public art ■ Community workshops and plans for the integration of arts into the community Design ■ Design of public spaces ■ Community engagement activities ■ Design of work spaces of artists ■ Design of cultural facilities Spokane _Valley Footer 10 What the grant will not fund: ■ General operating costs ■ Construction, purchase or renovations of facilities ■ Commercial enterprises ■ Placement of individual pieces of artwork ■ Projects for which the selection of artists or artwork is based upon criteria other than artistic excellence and merit Spokane _Valley Footer 11 Master Arts Plan ■ Establish a vision for public art within Spokane Valley ■ Evaluate existing public art throughout the City ■ Perform external research & benchmarking ■ Engage the community through public participation workshops ■ Explore and determine how best to use public art to enhance the unique identity of Spokane Valley ■ Assess available sources of funding ■ Establish guidelines for accepting gifts and loans of public art ■ Establish guidelines for public art in City -funded areas/projects ■ Establish guidelines for public/community participation Spokane _Valley Footer 12 Master Art Plan ■ Cost to create plan- $100,000 $50,000 grant funds $50,000 matching funds ■ Identify matching funds in 2017 budget Spokane _Valley Footer 13 Important Dates ■ Application deadline —September 19, 2016 ■ Award Announcement —April 2017 ■ Date projects may begin —August 1, 2017 Spokane _Valley Footer 14 Spokane _Valley Footer 15 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 30, 2016 Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['information ® admin. report Department Director Approval: ['new business ['public hearing ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Solid Waste Collection Services RFP Development Update PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative Report March 29, 2016 and administrative report on May 31, 2016. BACKGROUND: On November 17, 2014, the City entered into contracts for solid waste collection services with Waste Management of Washington, Inc. (WMW) and Sunshine Disposal, Inc. (SDI) to cancel their G -Certificates, extinguish any remaining rights to "measurable damages," and to allow the City to fully assume control of solid waste collection. These contracts maintain the prior services provided by WMW and SDI under their G - Certificates and terminate on March 31, 2018. With the termination date just two years away, staff has begun the process to procure long-term solid waste collection services through a competitive process. This process will allow the City to seek lower rates and additional services from the selected provider or providers, while still maintaining conformity with the City's adopted Solid Waste Management Plan. To begin the process, staff issued a request for proposals and ultimately selected Epicenter Services, LLC, from the two submittals to assist the City with procurement of solid waste collection services. Staff has been working on the many parts of the solid waste collection Request for Proposals (RFP) with Epicenter Services since its selection in early 2016. Staff provided an administrative report on March 29, 2016, outlining the general RFP process. Since the new solid waste contract will be the first opportunity for the City to seek those services important to our community, it is important that public input be an integral part of the development of the solid waste collection RFP. While the primary service (collection of garbage) will remain much the same, it is important for the public to provide their views on potential changes and additional services they would like to see. Examples of potential changes or additional services include adding a bulk garbage pick-up, changing the frequency of yard waste or recycling pick-up, or other event pick-up options. In order to give all citizens and business owners an opportunity to comment on the solid waste collection RFP process, a survey was constructed and mailed to all mailing addresses in the City through the Hot Topics newsletter mailed out on June 17. The survey was also made available on the City's website from June 16 through July 8. Staff provided an administrative report on May 31, 2016 seeking Council input in the survey. Staff has compiled all of the survey results and prepared a survey report summarizing the results and key takeaways. Staff believes the survey was a success, as over 600 people responded and provided comments. The detailed survey results are included in the attached survey report, but generally citizens have some interest in additional pick-up services, but are primarily concerned with keeping rates low. They are mostly satisfied with their current service providers. Staff would appreciate comments and feedback from Council related to the survey results and we will incorporate these into the RFP development. Next Steps? In addition the survey, the draft RFP and contract were submitted to several solid waste service providers for industry review and comments. We are still in the process of reviewing, responding to, and incorporating those comments into the draft RFP/contract and anticipate the following for next steps in the RFP process: ➢ Discussion with City Council regarding results from Industry Review, Draft RFP and Draft Contract at the September 13 Council Meeting. ➢ Issue and publish notice for the RFP, September, 2016. ➢ RFP Proposals due December, 2016. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown with regard to Solid Waste Collection Services; City has contracted with Epicenter Services, LLC, to assist with the competitive procurement process. The contract provides for the City to pay Epicenter for services up to $47,500. Costs for the consultant will be paid from the City's solid waste administrative fee. STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth, Public Works Director Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: City of Spokane Valley 2016 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report, Power Point Presentation Solid Waste CoUethon Update: Public Survey Results Eric Guth Morgan Koudelka Erik Lamb Carolbelle Branch Angelik Sorenson Current solid waste collection contracts with Waste Management and Sunshine Disposal terminate on March 31, 2018 In the midst of a solid waste collection services procurement process Began in late 2015 with selection of Epicenter Services, LLC as solid waste consultant to assist with RFP/Contract preparation and the RFP process Public input is an integral part of the RFP process Allows input on what is working and what changes the community would like to see aste CoUcctIoTrSurveq Survey was put together by staff with input from City Council at the May 31, 2016 meeting Twelve primary questions Also sought information about submitter - e.g., residential or commercial pick-up Opportunity for comments Distributed in City Hot Topics mailer on June 17, 2016 Survey was available online at City website from June i6 through July 8 Data collected between June i6 and July 8, 2016 SLtrveVSDTh mary 669 people completed the survey Majority (over 90%) were residential and majority (over 75%) listed Waste Management as their current provider Primary interest in keeping rates low Interest in special pick-up events Interest in changing winter yard waste/food waste pick-up Interest in recycling options Generally, satisfaction with current haulers How important are special item pickup days (appliances, sofas, limbs, other similar items) at no additional cost? 250 200 150 100 50 0 209 1 -Not Important Special Item Pickup 100 139 2 3 72 • 114 4 5 - Very Important No Answer How important are lower rates if you sort your recycling (as opposed to unsorted recycling)? 250 200 150 100 50 0 218 Lower Rates for Sorted Recycling 1 -Not Important 6o 2 102 3 87 13.0% 172 4 5 - Very Important No Answer N „Quesibn 3 How important is live customer service access after regular business hours? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Live Customer Service After Reg. Bus. Hours 371 97 14.5% 91 37 48 1 -Not 2 3 4 5 -Very Important Important No Answer 7 How often do you prefer billing to be provided? 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 299 Monthly Billing Frequency 353 Quarterly 1 No Answer or Other „Quesiion 5 - How often do you prefer recycling pickup to be provided? Recycling Pickup Frequency 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 181 27.1% Weekly 4” Every Other Week 6 12 Monthly No Answer or Other 9 14.7% i„Quesion 6 How often do you prefer winter (Dec-Feb) yard and food waste pickup to be provided? Winter Yard/Food Waste Pickup Frequency 96 14.3% 203 30.3% 232 Weekly Every Other Monthly None No Answer or Week Other 10 - NW estions 7-9 How important are enhanced services versus low rates, and which is most important to you? 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Enhanced Srvs or Low Rates More Important 124 487 58 Enhanced Services Low Rates No Answer or Other 11 - NW estions 10-12 How satisfied are you with your current garbage/yard and food waste/recycling service provider? 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Current Service - Garbage/Recycling Pickup 388 85 21 1 -Not satisfied 2 145 3 4 5- Very No Answer Satisfied 12 estions 10-12 cont. 250 200 150 100 50 0 Current Service - Customer Sry/Call Center 6 1 -Not satisfied 33 4.9% 86 2 3 105 15.7% 198 29.6% 211 4 5- Very No Answer Satisfied 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Current Service - Billing and Notifications 1 - Not satisfied 2 3 158 330 4 5- Very No Answer Satisfied 13 Council meeting on updated RFP/Contract (early September 2016) Release RFP to haulers Mid -late September 2016 RFP responses submitted to City Mid -late December 2016 Council review, best and final round (if necessary) and selection January through February 2017 Finalize and execute contract March 2017 Questions? SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SURVEY RESULTS REPORT Spokane � Valley Prepared by Carolbelle Branch Angelik Sorenson Erik Lamb Eric Guth Mark Calhoun Morgan Koudelka Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Background On November 17, 2014, the City entered into contracts for solid waste collection services with Waste Management of Washington, Inc. (WMW) and Sunshine Disposal, Inc. (SDI) to cancel their G -Certificates, granted by the State, extinguish any remaining rights to "measurable damages," and to allow the City to fully assume control of solid waste collection. These contracts maintain the prior services provided by WMW and SDI under their G -Certificates and terminate on March 31, 2018. With the termination date less than two years away, the City has begun the process to procure long-term solid waste collection services through a competitive process. This process will allow the City to seek lower rates and additional services from the selected provider or providers, while still maintaining conformity with the City's adopted Solid Waste Management Plan. To begin the process, staff issued a request for proposals for a solid waste consultant. The City ultimately selected Epicenter Services, LLC, from the two submittals to assist the City with procurement of solid waste collection services. Staff has been working on the many parts of the solid waste collection Request for Proposals (RFP) with Epicenter Services since its selection in early 2016. Since the new solid waste contract will be the first opportunity for the City to seek those services important to our community, it is important that public input be an integral part of the development of the solid waste collection RFP. While the primary service (collection of garbage) will remain much the same, it is important for the public to provide their views on potential changes and additional services they would like to see. Examples of potential changes or additional services include adding a bulk garbage pick-up, changing the frequency of yard waste or recycling pick-up, or other event pick-up options. In order to give all citizens and business owners an opportunity to comment on the solid waste collection RFP process, a survey was constructed and mailed to all mailing addresses in the City through the Hot Topics newsletter mailed out on June 17. The survey was also made available on the City's website from June 16 through July 8. Council input, and comments from the industry review of the draft RFP and contract will be incorporated into the final RFP. PROCESS SCHEDULE Event Solid Waste Surveys Accepted Draft RFP issued for industry review/comment period Industry comments due Issue and Publish Notice of Proposal Documents Deadline for Proponent Questions Proposals Due Proposal Eval., Interviews, B&F Round Selection, Finalization of Contract Time Frame June 16 — July 8, 2016 July 8, 2016 4:00 PM, August 8, 2016 September, 2016 October, 2016 Mid -December, 2016 December/January, 2016 January/February, 2017 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Recommendation to City Council City Executes Contract Contractor Delivers Transition/Implementation Plan Container Delivery or Relabeling Start of Collection Services Summary February/March, 2017 March, 2017 June, 2017 March, 2018 April 1, 2018 A total of 669 people completed the survey, with 297 completing the survey by mail while another 372 people completed the survey online. The survey instrument (included as Attachment B), asked what type of respondent (resident, employee, or business owner) the person is and who the person's service provider is (Waste Management, Sunshine, or both). The first section included three questions on service and rate considerations, the second section included three questions on frequency of specific services, the third sections included three questions on goals for the new collection contract, and the fourth section included three questions on satisfaction with current service. There was also an area at the end of the survey for respondents to write in comments. Comments specific to each question or section have been included in the report and a list of all comments received has been included as Attachment A. The resounding themes indicated by the survey respondents are that customers are happy with the service they currently have and low rates are a priority. Most of the respondents are single family home residents with Waste Management as their current solid waste collection provider. In the Service and Rate Considerations section, there is considerable interest in special pickups but more people feel it is not as important as keeping rates low. Many customers would be willing to separate recycling if it resulted in lower rates but many others like the ease of single stream recycling and would likely recycle more if they did not have to sort their recycling. Customers did not contact customer service often enough to make extended live customer service hours a priority. In the Frequency section, most customers responded that they prefer to keep quarterly billing although almost as many expressed a preference for monthly billing. Regarding recycling pickup, most customers prefer to maintain every other week pickup while there were a substantial number of customers who wanted different options available, whether it was more frequent or less frequent pickups, smaller bins, or more items accepted. Winter yard/food waste pickup generated the most varied responses and likely the most frustration and dissatisfaction expressed with current service and options. Customers would like more options for winter yard and food waste pickup, from weekly to no pickups, with the current monthly pickups also popular. A desire to have the winter rates match the service was also expressed as was no cart rental fees for no winter use and the ability to easily suspend service in the winter without extra fees. The answers received in the Goals for the New Collection Contract section made it clear that low rates are much more important to customers than enhanced services. While there is some interest in a variety of added service features that large majority of customers are satisfied with a simple collection service and have a priority of keeping rates low. Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report In the section Satisfaction with Current Customer Service, the answers received indicated that customers are very satisfied with their current service, with local pickup service garnering the highest satisfaction marks while call center service showed the greatest opportunity for improvement. The conclusion of the responses received from the survey is that the citizens and business owners of Spokane Valley prefer to maintain good service and keep rates low. If the rates from the proposal are competitive then there may be an opportunity to consider other options such as special pickup days and varying frequencies of pickup for yard waste and recycling. The large number of responses and comments received from solid waste customers indicates that solid waste collection is an important service for citizens and business owners and these responses provide an invaluable resource and coupled with the industry comments will help the City craft a RFP document and negotiate a solid waste contract that will best match the needs of the Spokane Valley community. Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Survey Respondent's Profile The profile of the survey respondents is primarily single-family home occupants with a few multi -family residents and business owner and employees mixed in. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2 Survey Respondents Profile 22 625 3 17 Multi -Family Resident Multi- Resident Single- Business Unspecified Owner/Mgr/Emp Family Family Owner/Mgr/Emp J Solid Waste Provider Waste Management provides the majority of subscription -based solid waste collection in the City and this is reflected in the provider indicated by the survey respondents with over 90% of those responding to the question indicating they are Waste Management customers. For this reason, the answers to the customer service questions were not segregated between the providers. 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Solid Waste Collection Provider 516 38 15 100 Waste Management Sunshine Both Not Specified or None Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Service and Rate Considerations The first three questions asked respondents to rate the importance of service and rate considerations on a scale of one to five, with one being not important and five being very important. Special Item Pick-up Days One of the questions asked was how important respondents felt it was to have some selected days that allow customers to put out large, bulky items at no additional cost. This service could assist customers with spring cleanup and with getting rid of non -working appliances and unusable furniture when it may be difficult for the customers to transport these items to the transfer station. These pickups would also assist property owners clean-up after windstorms that leave a lot of yard debris. A consistent theme throughout the survey is that many respondents are perfectly happy with service as it currently exists and do not feel the need to change it. While this theme is reflected in the special pickup answers, with the most popular answer being "Not Important", more than half of the respondents that answered the question selected 3-5 on the upper end of the importance scale, indicating that such a feature in the future solid waste collection contract would be beneficial to a significant number of customers. This service also was deemed important enough that it was one of the top 5 comments received in the comment section of the survey. 250 200 150 100 50 0 209 Special Item Pickup 100 1 - Not Important 2 r 139 3 72 4 114 5 -Very Important 35 No Answer Special Item Pickup Comments Favor special item pick-up (Bulky items, appliances, limbs) twice a year. Large yard 24 debris monthly. Pay as needed for special pickups. 1 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Lower Rates for Sorted Recycling Anticipating that low rates will be very important to solid waste customers, the survey asks if customers would be willing to sort recycling if that provided less expensive rates. The most popular answer is that this option is not important. However, close behind for the top answer is that this option is very important and more than half of the respondents that answered this question selecting 3-5 on the importance scale. Eight respondents commented that they liked single -stream recycling. An important consideration is that while low rates are important to the City solid waste customers, single -stream recycling likely encourages more people to recycle and encourages those that do recycle to recycle more, achieving goals set forth in the State Solid Waste Act and in the City's Solid Waste Plan. 250 200 150 100 50 Lower Rates for Sorted Recycling 1 - Not Important 2 3 87 4 172 5 - Very Important No Answer Lower Rates for Sorted Recycling Comments Like single stream recycling. 8 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Live Customer Service after Regular Business Hours A common concern for solid waste customers in cities across Washington is that a problem such as a missed pickup occurs and a resident does not discover it until returning home after work. When the resident calls to report the problem the customer service center is closed and the customer has to wait until the following day to report the problem and then may have to wait an additional day to have the problem resolved. A question was asked of respondents regarding the availability of live customer service after regular business hours and how important that feature is. More than half of the respondents indicated that this feature is not important while less than 8% of the respondents indicated that this feature is very important. The results of this question tie into other responses and comments from the survey that indicate that people are mostly satisfied with the current service they are receiving and that there is not often a need to contact customer service. 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 LO Live Customer Service After Reg. Bus. Hours 371 55.5% 1 - Not Important 97 2 91 13.6% 3 37 5.5% 4 48 25 5 - Very Important No Answer Live Customer Service After Regular Business Hours Comments 24/7 customer service or better hours. 2 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Frequency The next three questions asked customers what the preferred frequency is regarding billing, recycling pickup, and winter yard/food waste pickup. Respondents were asked to choose their preference from multiple frequency options. Billing Frequency Currently, customers are billed quarterly for service and are billed in advance. While the majority of respondents indicated they preferred to maintain quarterly billing, more than 45% of those that responded to the question indicated they preferred monthly billing. Some of the comments received provided insight into respondents' preference for monthly billing, with some indicating that limited or fixed budgets make it difficult to pay for three months at a time. 1 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 299 Monthly Billing Frequency 353 Quarterly 17 No Answer or Other Billing Frequency Comments Monthly billing 10 Do not like to pre -pay for service. 1 Every 6 -month billing 1 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Recycling Pickup Frequency Currently solid waste customers in the City receive recycling pickup every other week. The majority of survey respondents indicated they prefer to maintain the existing recycling pickup schedule although there were several comments requesting more frequent pickups. Other comments received indicated that some would like to see more items accepted in recycling and some would like to see recycling bins available at apartment complexes where none are currently available. The most frequent comments centered on disliking being charged for recycling and bins, and the bins being too big for the amount of recycling people have. Frequent comments had to do with small households and retirees with small amounts of garbage and recycling having the same charge and same size bins as larger families. 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 181 27.1% Weekly Recycling Pickup Frequency 411 61.4% Every Other Week 65 Monthly 12 X1:8% No Answer or Other Recycling Pickup Comments Would like low rates for recycling/no charge for recycling or smaller container at lower 36 rate. Bin too big. Fewer pickups. More frequent recycling (Weekly) 17 Increase recycling as much as possible (More items accepted). 8 Mandatory recycling bins at apartments. 6 Recycling containers for customers at restaurants and less waste from fast food. 2 Like large recycling bins 1 Required recycling. 1 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Winter Yard/Food Waste Pickup Yard and Food Waste is currently picked up weekly except in the winter months of December, January, and February when it is picked up Monthly. Solid waste customers were asked how often they would prefer to have yard/food waste pickups in the winter. While the most popular answer was to not have any pickups at all and nearly as popular was to retain monthly winter pickup, the true answer may be more complex. A third of the respondents prefer more frequent winter pickups, a significant number. It also appears from the comments that many customers are discouraged by having to pay the same rate in the winter months, having to pay for the cart rental in the winter months, the high monthly rate for yard/food waste pickup, the difficulty in placing a vacation stop, and being charged for a cart pickup in order to get out of being charged for a service they don't use in the winter. Others also would prefer the flexibility of being charged only when they put the cart out. 250 200 150 100 50 0 Winter Yard/Food Waste Pickup Frequency 127 96 14.3% 203 30.3% Weekly Every Other Week Monthly 232 34.7% None No Answer or Other Yard/Food Waste Pickup Comments Yard waste is too expensive. 10 Do not like yard waste charged at same rate in winter with fewer pickups. 8 Like yard waste service. 3 More frequent yard waste pick-up in winter. 3 No charge to pick up seasonal container. 2 Separate food waste container, yard waste containers too stinky. 2 Would like pet waste to be disposed of in yard waste. 1 Yard Waste containers at mobile home parks. 1 Food waste pickup. 1 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Once a month yard waste pickup for lower rates. 1 Free Christmas Tree pickup 1 Like frequent yard waste pickup in summer 1 Smaller yard waste containers. 1 Food waste container is too small. 1 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Goals for New Collection Contract The next two questions of the survey asked respondents to identify how important enhanced services and low rates are and then choose which is more important. The intent of these two questions is to help guide the City on areas of focus when constructing the contract for service. Enhanced Services The results of the survey made it very clear that customers are happy with the current service provided and prefer that it not be changed. There were a small number of comments on a variety of topics. i 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Enhanced Services 293 1 - Not Important 95 2 115 3 73 4 59 34 5 - Very Important No Answer Enhanced Services Comments Do not want to pay for extra services that won't be used 2 Like ability to put out extra bags. 1 Like additional options to be available as needed 1 Want a good solution for food boxes (pizza boxes). 1 Rebate or rental for composting bins. 1 Don't like non-paying people getting free pickup. 1 Yard waste and recycling not offered in Greenacres 1 Compost available to the public 1 Guidance on disposal of "other items" 1 Periodic hazardous waste pickups. 1 Morning pickup 1 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Low Rates Respondents indicated that low rates are very important with more than 57% answering number 5 — Very Important. Many respondents also took the time to write in comments echoing the same sentiment while other rate related comments asked for senior discounts, carts with no rental charge, lower or no fee for extra garbage, or the ability to only be charged when can is put out. i 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 -Not Important 2 Low Rates 382 3 4 5 - Very Important No Answer 1 Rate Comments Lower rates 30 Senior discounts. 8 Supply standard garbage containers at no cost to customers. Do not like paying for yard 6 waste can over winter Do not think it is fair to charge extra if garbage is higher than sides of can or for extra 6 bag when less than full some weeks. Fee for extra garbage is too high. Should be charged only when can is put out. 4 1.11111111111111111111 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Enhanced Services or Low Rates More Important Respondents overwhelmingly indicated that low rates are more important than enhanced services with more than 70% choosing low rates as more important. 600 500 400 300 200 100 Enhanced Srvs or Low Rates More Important 124 Enhanced Services 487 Low Rates 58 No Answer or Other Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Satisfaction with Current Customer Service Three questions were asked of respondents regarding satisfaction levels with current customer service in the areas of garbage/recycling pickup, call center service, and billing and notifications. Customers are overall very satisfied with their current service. Garbage and recycling pickup received the highest levels of satisfaction with more than 80% of those that answered the question indicating that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their service by answering 4 or 5 on the scale of 1-5. Two-thirds of those that answered the question about call center customer service answered 4 or 5 in satisfaction with a large number of survey respondents not answering this question as they likely have not had interaction with the call center. The call center is not local and the comments received indicate frustration at inaccurate information, being unfamiliar with local information, and not being as responsive as local staff. 77% of those that answered the question regarding satisfaction level with billing and notifications answered 4 and 5 indicating a high degree of satisfaction with this service. While 31 respondents commented on a variety of poor service received, nearly three times as many respondents commented on the good service they are receiving. Many of the concerns about poor service centered on problems with customer -owned cans, missed pickups especially for yard waste, and problems with call -center customer service. Other popular comments have to do with receiving better notification of what is and is not accepted, having local customer service, and having a better way to have vacation stops to accommodate the large number of retirees and customers that spend their winters elsewhere. Current Service Garbage/Recycling Pickup 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 L Current Service - Garbage/Recycling Pickup 388 1- Not satisfied 2 3 4 5- Very Satisfied No Answer J 29.6% P Current Service - Customer Sry/Call Center Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Customer Service Customer Service/Call Center ILV 250 200 150 100 50 0 3 — 86 12.9% 1- Not satisfied 2 3 105 mumumwmilPiiii 4 198 5- Very Satisfied 211 31.5% No Answer Current Service Billing and Notifications 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Current Service - Billing and Notifications - Not satisfied 2 93 158 330 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 39 5.8% 3 4 5- Very No Answer Satisfied Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Customer Service Comments Happy with current service. (Good service, courteous drivers) 91 Poor customer service (Missed pickups esp yard waste, leave lids open and cans 32 knocked over, difficult phone tree, poor website, rude, garbage left in street, break cans, drive too fast, inconsistent pickups times, took customer's can, no can srv, lids left on ground, cans not emptied completely, billing errors, requested info not sent, wrong info provided, confusing invoices). Better notification of what is accepted and what is not. (Periodic notification and new 7 stickers sent out) Local customer service with real person 6 Calendar or info stating pickup days 4 Vacation stops not convenient. (No extra charges, suspend service and billing). 4 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Attachment A Survey Comments Happy with current service. (Good service, courteous drivers) 91 Would like low rates for recycling/no charge for recycling or smaller container at lower 36 rate. Bin too big. Fewer pickups. Poor customer service (Missed pickups esp yard waste, leave lids open and cans 32 knocked over, difficult phone tree, poor website, rude, garbage left in street, break cans, drive too fast, inconsistent pickups times, took customer's can, no can srv, lids left on ground, cans not emptied completely, billing errors, requested info not sent, wrong info provided, confusing invoices). Lower rates 30 Favor special item pick-up (Bulky items, appliances, limbs) twice a year. Large yard 24 debris monthly. More frequent recycling (Weekly) 17 Prefer waste go to Waste To Energy Plant 14 More options for less garbage: smaller cans, every other week pickup, lower rates. 13 Fewer restrictions on what is accepted in garbage (Take light bulbs, oil, batteries, paint, 12 medical etc.). Hoz waste call-in, large items Monthly billing 10 Yard waste is too expensive. 10 Increase recycling as much as possible (More items accepted). 8 Likes single stream recycling. 8 Does not like yard waste charged at same rate in winter with fewer pickups. 8 Senior discounts. 8 Better notification of what is accepted and what is not. (Periodic notification and new 7 stickers sent out) Supply standard garbage containers at no cost to customers. Do not like paying for yard 6 waste can over winter Do not think it is fair to charge extra if garbage is higher than sides of can or for extra 6 bag when less than full some weeks. Fee for extra garbage is too high. Local customer service with real person 6 Mandatory recycling bins at apartments. 6 No mandatory collection, want self -haul option. 5 Do not like Friday pickup, carts are left out if going out of town. 4 Vacation stops not convenient. (No extra charges, suspend service and billing). 4 Charged only when can is put out. 4 Calendar or info stating pickup days 4 More frequent yard waste pick-up in winter. 3 Like yard waste service. 3 Do not want to pay for extra services that won't be used 2 24/7/ customer service or better hours. 2 No charge to pick up seasonal container. 2 Separate food waste container, yard waste containers too stinky. 2 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Recycling containers for customers at restaurants and less waste from fast food. 2 Do not like to pre -pay for service. 1 Like ability to put out extra bags. 1 Like frequent yard waste pickup in summer. 1 Like additional options to be available as needed 1 Would like pet waste to be disposed of in yard waste. 1 Want a good solution for food boxes (pizza boxes). 1 Rebate or rental for composting bins. 1 Food waste pickup. 1 Once a month yard waste pickup for lower rates. 1 Free Christmas Tree pickup 1 Don't like non-paying people getting free pickup. 1 Pay as needed for special pickups. 1 Like large recycling bins 1 Required recycling. 1 Yard waste and recycling not offered in Greenacres 1 Every 6 -month billing 1 Smaller yard waste containers. 1 Yard Waste containers at mobile home parks. 1 Compost available to the public 1 Food waste container is too small. 1 Guidance on disposal of "other items" 1 Periodic hazardous waste pickups. 1 Morning pickup 1 Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report ere ind 2nd the lies awn. 1 Attachment B SOLID WASTE SURVEY 2016 As the City of Spokane Valley prepares to solicit proposals for the new contract for collection of garbage, yard and food waste, and recyclables, your input is important 00 help ensure we secure the right services et the best rates for our residents and businesses. Please take a moment to answer the short survey below, and submit it no later than Friday, July 8, 2016 to City Hall at the following address: at should take only about 3 – 5 minutes to complete the survey.) City of Spokane Valley Solid Waste Survey 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane.Valley, WA 99206 If you prefer to take the survey online, go to www.spokanevalley.oro/SoiidWaste. ABOUT YOU Are you responding as a (please check ane): , IA • Resident of a single family house or duplex O Resident of a multi -family apartment/dwelling ❑ Owner/manager/employee of a multi -family apartmentjdwelling O Business owner/manager/employee Who is your current garbage collection provider? (please circle one) - Sunshine Disposal, Inc. Waste Management, Inc. SERVICE AND RATE CONSIDERATIONS On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being Not Important and 5 being Very Important, how Important are the following to you (please circle one for each question or check N/A Don't Know)? FREQUENCY How often do you prefer the following services to be provided (please circle one for each _question? 4) Billing: Not Important -- Monthly Quarterly Very Important N/A Don't Know 1) Special item pickup days (appliances, sofas, limbs, other similar Items) at no additional cost: 1 2 3 4 5 0 2) Lower rates if you sort your recycling (as opposer/ to unsorted recycfing): 1 2 3 4 5 3) Live customer service access after regular business hours: 1 2 3 4 5 FREQUENCY How often do you prefer the following services to be provided (please circle one for each _question? 4) Billing: -- Monthly Quarterly --- 5) Recycling pickup Weekly Every other week Monthly -- 6) Winter (Dec-Feb)yard and food waste pickup; Weekly Every otherweek. Monthly — None Continued on back... Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report GOALS FOR NEW COLLECTION CONTRACT Ona scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being Not Important and 5 being Very Important, how important are the following to you (please circle one for each ouestlon or check N/A Don't Knoww? SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT CUSTOMER SERVICE: On e scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being Not Satisfied and 5 being Very Satisfied, how satisfied are you with your current garbage/yard and food waste/ recycling service provider(s) for the fallowing (please circle one for each question or check N/A Dant Knew)? Not Important Very Important N/A Don't Know 7) Enhanced services (bulk items pickup, more Frequent pickup of recycling, winter pickup of - yard/food waste): 1 2 3 4 5 £ 8) Low rates: 1 2 3 4 5 C7 9) Which is most important to you (please circle ones Enhanced Services . Low rates SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT CUSTOMER SERVICE: On e scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being Not Satisfied and 5 being Very Satisfied, how satisfied are you with your current garbage/yard and food waste/ recycling service provider(s) for the fallowing (please circle one for each question or check N/A Dant Knew)? COMMENTS: Please use the space below for any comments you would like to share regarding g rates, customer service, or other: age/yard and food waste/recycling pickup services, Thank you very much for your input, We appreciate the opportunity to improve your City of Spokane Valley garbage, yard and food waste/ recycling pickup services. More information on the City of Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan is available at www.sookaneval€evorolSolidWaste or by calling 509-921-1000. Not Satisfied Very Satisfied N/A Don't Know 10) Garbage/recycling pickup: 1 2 3 4 5 £ 11) Customer service/call center: 1 2 3 4 5 £ 12) Billing and notifications: 1 2 3 4 5 £ COMMENTS: Please use the space below for any comments you would like to share regarding g rates, customer service, or other: age/yard and food waste/recycling pickup services, Thank you very much for your input, We appreciate the opportunity to improve your City of Spokane Valley garbage, yard and food waste/ recycling pickup services. More information on the City of Spokane Valley Solid Waste Management Plan is available at www.sookaneval€evorolSolidWaste or by calling 509-921-1000. Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Attachment C - Detailed Survey Tabulations Online Mailed Surveys Surveys Total All Surveys About You Multi -Family Owner/Mgr/Emp Resident Multi -Family Resident Single -Family Business Owner/Mgr/Emp Unspecified Total Provider Waste Management Sunshine Both Not Specified or None Total Special Item Pickup Days 1 - Not Important 2 3 4 5 - Very Important No Answer Total Lower Rates if You Sort Recycling 1 - Not Important 2 3 4 5 - Very Important No Answer Total Live Customer Service After Reg. Bus Hours. 1 - Not Important 2 3 4 5 - Very Important No Answer Total 1 0.3% 14 4.7% 264 88.9% 1 0.3% 17 5.7% 297 100.0% 194 65.3% 3 1.0% 0 0.0% 100 33.7% 297 100.0% 84 28.3% 38 12.8% 58 19.5% 29 9.8% 58 19.5% 30 10.1% 297 100.0% 78 26.3% 34 11.4% 41 13.8% 34 11.4% 84 28.3% 26 8.8% 297 100.0% 154 51.9% 47 15.8% 44 14.8% 12 4.0% 22 7.4% 18 6.1% 297 100.0% 1 0.3% 8 2.2% 361 97.0% 2 0.5% 0 0.0% 372 100.0% 322 86.6% 35 9.4% 15 4.0% 0 0.0% 372 100.0% 125 33.6% 62 16.7% 81 21.8% 43 11.6% 56 15.1% 5 1.3% 372 100.0% 140 37.6% 26 7.0% 61 16.4% 53 14.2% 88 23.7% 4 1.1% 372 100.0% 217 58.3% 50 13.4% 47 12.6% 25 6.7% 26 7.0% 7 1.9% 372 100.0% 2 0.3% 22 3.3% 625 93.4% 3 0.4% 17 2.5% 669 100.0% 516 77.1% 38 5.7% 15 2.2% 100 14.9% 669 100.0% 209 31.2% 100 14.9% 139 20.8% 72 10.8% 114 17.0% 35 5.2% 669 100.0% 218 32.6% 60 9.0% 102 15.2% 87 13.0% 172 25.7% 30 4.5% 669 100.0% 371 55.5% 97 14.5% 91 13.6% 37 5.5% 48 7.2% 25 3.7% 669 100.0% Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Billing # % # % # Monthly 102 34.3% 197 53.0% 299 44.7% Quarterly 178 59.9% 175 47.0% 353 52.8% No Answer or Other 17 5.7% 0 0.0% 17 2.5% Total 297 100.0% 372 100.0% 669 100.0% Recycling Pickup # % # % # Weekly 41 13.8% 140 37.6% 181 27.1% Every Other Week 206 69.4% 205 55.1% 411 61.4% Monthly 38 12.8% 27 7.3% 65 9.7% No Answer or Other 12 4.0% 0 0.0% 12 1.8% Total 297 100.0% 372 100.0% 669 100.0% Winter Yard/Food Waste Pickup # % # % # Weekly 52 17.5% 75 20.2% 127 19.0% Every Other Week 39 13.1% 57 15.3% 96 14.3% Monthly 84 28.3% 119 32.0% 203 30.3% None 111 37.4% 121 32.5% 232 34.7% No Answer or Other 11 3.7% 0 0.0% 11 1.6% Total 297 100.0% 372 100.0% 669 100.0% Enhanced Services # % # % # 1 - Not Important 126 42.4% 167 44.9% 293 43.8% 2 43 14.5% 52 14.0% 95 14.2% 3 55 18.5% 60 16.1% 115 17.2% 4 25 8.4% 48 12.9% 73 10.9% 5 - Very Important 21 7.1% 38 10.2% 59 8.8% No Answer 27 9.1% 7 1.9% 34 5.1% Total 297 100.0% 372 100.0% 669 100.0% Low Rates Total # % # % # 1 - Not Important 13 4.4% 18 4.8% 31 4.6% 2 11 3.7% 8 2.2% 19 2.8% 3 47 15.8% 53 14.2% 100 14.9% 4 47 15.8% 76 20.4% 123 18.4% 5 - Very Important 167 56.2% 215 57.8% 382 57.1% No Answer 12 4.0% 2 0.5% 14 2.1% 297 100.0% 372 100.0% 669 100.0% Solid Waste Collection Survey Results Report Enhanced Services or Low Rates More Important # % # % # Enhanced Services 32 10.8% 92 24.7% 124 18.5% Low Rates 207 69.7% 280 75.3% 487 72.8% No Answer or Other 58 19.5% 0 0.0% 58 8.7% Total 297 100.0% 372 100.0% 669 100.0% Current Service - Garbage/Recycling Pickup # % # % # 1 - Not satisfied 4 1.3% 17 4.6% 21 3.1% 2 7 2.4% 11 3.0% 18 2.7% 3 28 9.4% 57 15.3% 85 12.7% 4 36 12.1% 109 29.3% 145 21.7% 5- Very Satisfied 214 72.1% 174 46.8% 388 58.0% No Answer 8 2.7% 4 1.1% 12 1.8% Total 297 100.0% 372 100.0% 669 100.0% Current Service - Customer Service/Call Center # % # % # 1 - Not satisfied 12 4.0% 24 6.5% 36 5.4% 2 8 2.7% 25 6.7% 33 4.9% 3 35 11.8% 51 13.7% 86 12.9% 4 39 13.1% 66 17.7% 105 15.7% 5- Very Satisfied 120 40.4% 78 21.0% 198 29.6% No Answer 83 27.9% 128 34.4% 211 31.5% Total 297 100.0% 372 100.0% 669 100.0% Current Service - Billing and Notifications # % # % # 1 - Not satisfied 8 2.7% 20 5.4% 28 4.2% 2 3 1.0% 18 4.8% 21 3.1% 3 30 10.1% 63 16.9% 93 13.9% 4 55 18.5% 103 27.7% 158 23.6% 5- Very Satisfied 179 60.3% 151 40.6% 330 49.3% No Answer 22 7A% 17 4.6% 39 5.8% Total 297 100.0% 372 100.0% 669 100.0% CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 30, 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: Administrative report — Browns Park — Lease of a portion to Water District 3 for well facilities. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.49.020(D). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report August 3, 2016. BACKGROUND: Soon after incorporation, Spokane Valley received Browns Park from Spokane County, along with the other parks in the City. A brief history of Browns Park is being provided for context. Until 1969, the owner of what is now Browns Park was owned by the Yamamoto family, which farmed this as part of a larger farm. In 1969, the Yamamotos granted an easement and water right to a well, believed to be where the current well pumphouse is near the west/central side of the park. This was granted to the Guthries and West Valley Builders, Inc. It is unclear at this time who any successors in interest were to this easement and water right. There does not appear to be any documentation transferring the 1969 easement from Guthries and West Valley Builders to any other party. The District, in Mr. Carroll's August 19 letter (attached), appears to assert that, as the successor in interest to the water right, it may have an implied easement on the City property to access the water it has rights to. Staff does not necessarily agree. In 1971, the Yamamotos transferred the property to the Brown family, which then transferred what is now the park to Spokane County in 1975. In 1978, Washington Water Power (now Avista), sought and was granted a 35 year lease to locate a wellhead and pumphouse on the property, which expired in 2013. Washington Water Power later transferred its water rights to Water District 3, which currently owns them. The issue of the lease recently came up when the City inquired about getting water for the new splash pad feature, which is part of the Browns Park master planned renovation. The City and Water District 3 began to discuss how to address the expired lease issue. In very broad terms, the former lease allowed for the use of the park property in exchange for water for irrigation and domestic purposes, and no money was exchanged by either side. By most accounts, the lease was a successful example of a mutually beneficial relationship. At the August 3, 2016 administrative report, the Council instructed staff to negotiate the best terms it could on a proposed lease, and separately on a proposed easement. There have not been any true negotiations since that time, although there have been discussions. City staff proposed a replacement lease that features the following: 1. 35 years to provide long-term security; 2. an additional 15 years whereby if the City is going to sell the property to a third party for non -park purposes, the District would have a right of first refusal/option to purchase that portion where their facilities are located, plus the contamination control zone; 3. to account for a potential increase in usage of water over what was historically agreed to (because of the splash pad), the parties would take the annual water usage from 2011 through 2015, calculate the average year from that period, and use that as the new baseline for usage. In any year the City exceeded that amount, it would pay the District the normal rate the District charges its other customers; 4. the District would comply with the City's standard non -abandonment provisions with regard to not leaving defunct facilities in City property; 5. the City would pay all costs associated with any new or modified facilities related to providing water in the new improvements; and 6. no additional funds would be paid to the City by the District for ground rent. The District maintains that it needs to have a permanent easement for long-term security in the location of its well facilities. They advise that it would cost between $400,000 and $500,000 to move its well facilities to another location, so they want to preclude that possibility if they can. To date, the District has not proposed a draft easement, and informed staff August 24 that they would not be doing so. In prior verbal discussions with Joe Carroll, the District said it may propose the following: It would pay between 33 and 50% of the fair market value (to reflect it is an easement rather than fee title), which could be paid out over a number of years through receipt of water on site by the City rather than exchange of cash, and that if the easement were to terminate due to it not being needed any more, the District would have to remove its facilities only if the City had an immediate need for their removal because of an immediately pending project (for example, in the next 30 days). Otherwise, the facilities could be abandoned in the City property, with no liability for their future removal. The splash pad was scheduled to be substantially complete as of August 26 but may take up to one additional week, when it will be ready to hook up. The District stated in Mr. Carroll's August 19 letter that the City cannot hook up to its existing water line for a separate water feature, even though it would not likely decrease pressure, because of an internal District policy. Instead, the District states that the City must run a new water line through the park to Pines Road and hook up there, at an additional cost of $7,100 charge from the District to the City. There would be additional construction charges as well. Contrary to the assertions in Mr. Carroll's letter, the City has not connected to the existing water line, and is currently unable to operate the new splash pad. The Council may need to consider connecting to the water line in Pines Road at City expense if it wants to have the splash pad open this summer. Staff will present additional information regarding the future park use as set forth in the Browns Park Master Plan. OPTIONS: (1) move to a future agenda and approve the proposed lease with Water District 3 as drafted; (2) ask staff to pursue granting an easement to Water District 3; or (3) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council discretion. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Mike Stone, Park and Recreation Director. ATTACHMENTS: (1) Proposed lease agreement with Water District 3 relating to Browns Park; (2) Letter from Joe Carroll dated August 19, 2016; (3) Two graphics showing location of District facilities and sanitary control zone at Browns Park. DRAFT City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Reference Numbers of Related Documents: 427149C; Off. 394 pages 1693-1704 Grantor: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Grantee: SPOKANE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 3 Abbreviated Legal Description: Ptn SW1/4 SW1/4 27-25-44 Additional on page 2 Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#: Ptn 45273.9036 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 3, SPOKANE COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER 45273.9036, SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLACEMENT AND OPERTATION OF A WELL PUMP HOUSE ON CITY PARK PROPERTY This Lease Agreement is entered into by the City of Spokane Valley (referred to as "City"), and Spokane County Water District No. 3 (referred to as "District"), and jointly referred to hereinafter as the "Parties"; and WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain premises located at 3101 South Pines Road, Spokane Valley, Washington, 99016, and commonly referred to as Brown's Park. The primary feature of Brown's Park since its construction in the late 1970's has been a softball field, a playground for young children, three volleyball pits, and included a picnic shelter and bathroom; and WHEREAS, this property has had a well pump house and related water transmission facilities ("the pump house") located on it since 1969, when then -owners Ichiro and Tai Yamamoto granted to Ralph and Gertrude Guthrie a Water and Easement Agreement; and WHEREAS, the property was subsequently transferred to the Brown family, which transferred its interest to Spokane County for public park purposes; and WHEREAS, in 1978, the City's predecessor in interest, Spokane County, executed a 35 year lease agreement ("the prior lease) for the location of the pump house with Washington Water Power, the predecessor in interest of the District; and Lease Agreement Water District No. 3 Page 1 of 7 DRAFT WHEREAS, the prior lease expired June 1, 2013, and the Parties have not executed any form of subsequent agreement for the continued location of the pump house on the City's Brown's Park property; and WHEREAS, the primary consideration for the prior lease agreement was that the District would provide "all volume of water necessary for lawn sprinkling and domestic use on the park will be furnished at no expense whatsoever to the Lessor. For the purpose of furnishing said water to the Lessor under the terms of this agreement, the Lessee shall make available a 3" water connection at the pump location;" and WHEREAS, the District has continuously located the pump house and provided water for irrigation and domestic purposes since approximately 1978; and WHEREAS, in 2015, the City began constructing a number of new amenities at Brown's Park, removing the softball field and replacing it with seven sand volleyball courts to date with nine additional planned. The City is currently in the process of constructing a splash pad water feature, and will install replacement playground and picnic shelter facilities in the near future; and WHEREAS, the Parties seek to enter into a new lease that continues to be mutually beneficial, and provides for substantially the same terms as the prior lease. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this lease agreement ("Agreement") is to set forth the Parties' understanding regarding the terms and conditions under which the District may occupy a portion of Brown's Park. The District's use shall be defined as two separate areas, the Facilities Area comprised of those areas where the well pump house and related water transmission facilities are located, and the Sanitary Control Zone. The Parties agree those areas are as follows: Location of the pump well house facility described as follows: The North 30 feet of the South 407.0 feet of the West 198.0 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 25 North, Range 44 E.W.M., City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington; Except the West 30 feet thereof. Together with the water transmission facilities location described as follows: The Sanitary Control Zone location is described as follows: All located on Spokane County Assessor's parcel number 45273.9036. Lease Agreement Water District No. 3 Page 2 of 7 DRAFT 2. USE OF THE PREMISES. A. The District is hereby granted the right within the Facilities Area to install, reinstall, construct, erect, alter, repair, energize, operate, and maintain water distribution facilities consisting of vaults, manholes, main lines, distribution lines, pipes, valves, sleeves, meters and meter boxes, cables, wires, fire hydrants, water wells, pumps, electrical and telecommunication lines, well house buildings, and other necessary or convenient appurtenances for the purpose of a water well and associated main lines or lateral lines (collectively referred to as "water facilities"), and in connection with all the foregoing to cut, trim or chemically treat trees, bushes and shrubs and remove any and all appurtenances necessary for the installation, operating, maintenance, removing, repairing and replacing said water system, together with a nonexclusive right of ingress and egress of the Facilities Area and Sanitary Control Zone. No other use of the property, including any expansion of the existing use, is permitted without prior approval of the City, subject to Paragraph 7, below. B. The City shall not install any permanent structures in the Facilities Area and Sanitary Control Zone; provided, that pavement may be installed. Should the City install structures or other improvements (except pavement) on the Facilities Area and Sanitary Control Zone so as to restrict access to the any of the water facilities covered herein or interfere with the function of the Sanitary Control Zone and it is necessary to remove said structures for access to any of the water facilities covered herein for repairs, maintenance, or other reasons, the City shall be responsible for the cost for removal and replacement of said improvements. During construction and, in the event of repairs or maintenance, the District shall repair and/or replace any pavement removed by excavation. The City shall not pave or install any structures over valves or meter boxes. C. The Sanitary Control Zone described herein is an area to protect the public water supply well and is subject to measures required to protect the public water supply. The Sanitary Control Zone area may not be developed without the approval of the District, its successors, or assigns. The City and District agree to comply with any future regulations to protect the Sanitary Control Zone and to protect the public water supply. The well pump house has a pipe that drains externally from the pump house into a dry well located on the east side of the building. The District shall maintain the dry well in such a manner that it drains well and does not result in any negative impact to the turf surrounding the dry well. 3. TERM OF LEASE AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be in effect upon signing, and shall expire 4:00 p.m. on September 1, 2051 unless terminated earlier by mutual written agreement. The District shall have a first right of refusal/option to purchase the property comprising the Facilities Area and Sanitary Control Zone during the life of this Agreement, plus an additional 15 years, until September 1, 2066. This first right of refusal/option to purchase is granted for no additional consideration, and would apply only if the City sought to transfer a substantial portion of the northeast quarter of what is present-day Brown's Park to a third party. The cost to the District to purchase the property under this provision would be 50% of the fair market value at the time the District seeks to invoke this provision, plus all costs associated in any way with the transfer. 4. PAYMENT. The consideration for this Agreement is that the City will allow the District to continue to locate its water facilities on City park property, and in consideration, the District shall provide water for irrigation and domestic purposes based on the following formula: - Take the annual gallons of water usage from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2015 to establish the average annual usage for City purposes; Lease Agreement Water District No. 3 Page 3 of 7 DRAFT - The District shall provide the average annual usage to the City at no cost; - Any additional usage in a year over the average annual usage shall be billed to the City at the District's normal cost for domestic water usage. The Parties acknowledge that this represents fair and adequate consideration that is mutually beneficial. The District shall install three water meters at the City's cost at a size identified by the City, two for irrigation and one for domestic water use, and provide at least a three inch water service pipe to serve Brown's Park. 5. MAINTENANCE COSTS. The District shall be responsible for all maintenance, including costs, relating in any way to placement and use of its water facilities on the City's property. The City shall be responsible for maintenance, including costs, of those water service facilities which have been installed for the purpose of providing water (irrigation or domestic) to Brown's Park from the point the pipes are five feet from the exterior well house wall. 6. ABANDONMENT OF DISTRICT FACILITIES. At the expiration or termination of this Agreement, the District shall remove all of its facilities from the City property, and no facilities may be abandoned in place without express prior written approval of the City. The City has discretion and authority to direct the District to remove a facility abandoned by the District on the subject property (whether or not the entity had permission to abandon the facility) and restore the park property to its pre -removal condition when: (a) a City project involves digging that will encounter the abandoned facility and the location of the abandoned facility will impede the progress of such project; (b) the abandoned facility poses a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the public; or (c) the facilities are owned by the District and have not been in continuous use for a 24 month period. The District may delay removal of the abandoned facility until such time as the City commences a construction project on the subject property unless (b) above applies. When (b) applies, the District shall remove the abandoned facility from the subject property as soon as weather conditions allow, unless the City expressly allows otherwise in writing. The expense of the removal, and restoration of improvements in the subject property that were damaged by the facility or by the removal process, shall be the sole responsibility of the District. If the District fails to remove the abandoned facilities in accordance with the above, then the City may incur costs to remove the abandoned facilities and restore the subject property, and is entitled to reimbursement from the District for such costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 7. MODIFICATION. The Parties may modify any term contained in this Agreement by prior mutual written agreement. 8. ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS, OR IMPROVEMENTS. The District shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of the City, make any alterations, additions, or improvements in, to, or about the Premises. The City shall timely respond to any requests to make alternations, additions or improvements in, to, or about the Premises. Lease Agreement Water District No. 3 Page 4 of 7 DRAFT 9. INSURANCE. The District shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to Premises which may arise from or in connection with the District's use of the Premises. The District is required to maintain commercial general property liability insurance policy at least in the amount of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate minimum coverage from an insurer acceptable to the City. The District shall furnish the City with a copy of the required insurance certificates and/or amendatory endorsements with this signed Agreement. 10. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS. A. The District shall indemnify and hold harmless City and its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent or intentional act or omission of the District and its officers, agents, and employees relating to or arising out of its obligations under the terms of this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against City, the District shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that City reserves the right to participate in said suit; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against City, and its officers, agents, and employees or jointly against the District and City and/or their respective officers, agents and employees, the District shall satisfy the same to the extent of the District's apportioned liability. B. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless District and its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent or intentional act or omission of the City and its officers, agents, and employees relating to or arising out of its obligations under the terms of this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against District, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that District reserves the right to participate in said suit; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against District, and its officers, agents, and employees or jointly against the City and District and/or their respective officers, agents and employees, the City shall satisfy the same to the extent of the City's apportioned liability. 11. NOTICES. All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third day following the day on which the same have been mailed by first class delivery, postage prepaid addressed to the District or the City at the address set forth below for such Party, or at such other address as either Party shall from time -to -time designate by notice in writing to the other Party: DISTRICT: General Manager Spokane County Water District No. 3 1225 North Yardley Street Spokane Valley, Washington 99012 CITY: City Manager City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 After September 30, 2017, notice shall be sent to: 10210 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Lease Agreement Water District No. 3 Page 5 of 7 DRAFT 12. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. 13. ASSIGNMENT. Neither Party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of the other Party. 14. WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREINBINDING EFFECT. The Parties agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties hereto, their successors, and assigns. 15. NO WAIVER. No officer, employee, or agent of the City or the District has the power, right, or authority to waive any of the conditions or provisions of this Agreement. No waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall be held to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach. All remedies afforded in this Agreement at law shall be taken and construed as cumulative, that is, in addition to every other remedy provided herein or by law. The failure of either Party to enforce, at any time, any of the provisions of this Agreement or to require, at any time, performance by the other Party of any provisions shall not, in any way, affect the validity of this Agreement or any part hereof, or the right of either Party to hereafter enforce each and every such provision. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Mark Calhoun, Acting City Manager ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Spokane DATED: On this day personally appeared before me Mark Calhoun, to me known to be the Acting City Manager of the City of Spokane Valley, who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act of said water district for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first written above. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires: Lease Agreement Water District No. 3 Page 6 of 7 DRAFT Ty Wick, General Manager STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Spokane Dated: On this day personally appeared before me Ty Wick, to me known to be the General Manager of SPOKANE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 3, who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act of said water district for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first written above. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires: Lease Agreement Water District No. 3 Page 7 of 7 LAW OFFICES JOSEPH G. CARROLL, P.S. 12929 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99216 (509) 928-2345 FAX (509) 928-2348 JOSEPH G. CARROLL August 19, 2016 Via email Cary P. Driskell City Attorney City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 RE: Brown's Park Water Well; Water Feature Connection Dear Cary: On Tuesday, August 16, we were discussing the Brown's Park well situation as a result of my call to you last week in which my hope was to move forward in resolving the Brown's Park well issue. You indicated during our conversation that, contrary to what had been discussed before, the City was going to hook up its new splash pad/fountain water feature using the existing water system and meters at Brown's Park. I was surprised to hear you say that since Spokane County Water District No. 3 (the "District") had informed the City that the water feature should have a separate service. During our conversation, you indicated that the contractor and/or City Engineer had determined that physically you could make the connection with adequate water pressure and, therefore, you were going to do it. I understand from the District that you have already made this connection. I checked with the District to confirm that it is their standard procedure that water features such as the City is installing at Brown's Park require a separate service. The situation is made much more difficult by your position that the District had, at best, a lease on the water well site that expired approximately three years ago. We have discussed the history, but it might be helpful for me to repeat it here. The well logs, copies of which were previously provided to you, indicate that there were three diggings or drillings of wells, but there are really only two well locations. There has been a well at the present location from either 1896 or 1932. The first well was dug in 1896 to an indicated depth of 120 feet. That was dug for J.E. and Hazel V. Melton. A second well was dug for the same couple in 1932 to the same indicated depth of 120 feet. The latest drilling was by Washington Water Power in 1978 and the well log clearly indicates that they started at 118 feet and that the 118 feet was "drilled by others". Therefore, Washington Water Power used one of the existing wells and drilled down to an increased depth of 173 feet. August 19, 2016 Page 2 The water right documentation indicates that the 1896 well was for 400 acre feet of water; the 1932 well had an associated water right for 655 acre feet of water; and the Washington Water Power well from 1978 had associated with it a 2,530 acre feet water right. That amount of water would clearly indicate the use of the wells was to serve areas other than the nine acres of what is now the Brown's Park property which is only nine acres. In 1969, the owners of the property, the Yamamotos, granted an easement for the well to Ralph and Gertrude Guthrie and West Valley Builders, Inc. The easement indicated the water was to serve, in addition to what is now the Brown's Park area, the surrounding developing properties located to the east and north. The District now serves that same area. That easement clearly indicated it was to serve the developing properties to the east and north and gave no indication it was not to run with the land. In 1978 Washington Water Power entered into a lease agreement with the County. The lease ran to May 31, 2013. As part of the lease, the water purveyor was to provide water for lawn sprinkling and domestic use at the park. The splash fountain water feature is a recreational water use which was never part of the lease agreement. Therefore, this is a new use and is not included in the past usage at the park. Just because you anticipate decreased future water needs at the park does not mean that you are entitled to apply any future irrigation water savings to the new recreational use at the splash fountain water feature. The issue of the lease came to light when the City contacted the District to obtain water service for its splash fountain water feature that it was contemplating constructing. The District indicated that would require a separate meter and service and the City agreed with that at that time. Your personal position has been that the City should not confirm or enter into an easement agreement with the District but should negotiate a lease since, in the long term, the City might change the use of Brown's Park and the well site and easements would potentially present a problem to the City. At the City Council meeting on August 3, you presented your position to the council and some of the council members indicated they were open to an easement; however, there was no vote and no indication of a majority opinion, either one way or the other, as to whether the City would insist upon a lease or an easement or some other position. Easements appurtenant are favored over easements in gross. It is also well established under Washington law that easements, once recorded, do not need to be referenced in subsequent deeds to run with the land. Loose v. Locke, 25 Wn.2d 599, 171 P.2d 849 (1946); Clippinger v. Birge, 14 Wn. App. 976, 547 P.2d 871 (1976). I understand your position is that, despite the Yamamoto easement, the lease entered into by Washington Water Power with the County indicates there was no ongoing easement, even though the District is serving the same area referenced in the easement. Essentially, your position is that the District has no right to its well site in the Brown's Park area. Based on your legal position, while the District and the City have August 19, 2016 Page 3 been operating as if the lease continues, you are taking the position that the provision in Section 10 could be implemented whereby the District would remove all pumps, portable equipment, trade fixtures, etc. within 90 calendar days. You are recommending to the City Council that they take the legal position that the District has no legal right to have the well site on the Brown's Park property unless they enter into a new lease. As you are aware, the District desires permanence for its water wells and has some concerns about the approach of providing free water, which has been questioned by the State Auditor. Based upon your position, the District has no choice but to insist that, until the matter of the District's right to have the water services on the property is resolved, the District will not install the water service for the splash fountain water feature on the Brown's Park property where you are contending that the District has no legal right to be. The District would, therefore, need to install a meter and meter box within a public right of way where it has access to the meter and meter box. You were advised by the District that there would be additional cost of installation of such a service in addition to the connection fee (for a 2 -inch service) of $11,505.00 and that the least expensive right of way location would be off of Pines Road for an additional cost of $7,100.00. That was when you informed me that the City was going to take the cavalier approach of connecting the splash fountain to its existing service, even though it was contrary to the prior discussions and the District's standard procedure which requires a separate service with a water feature. During our discussions, you have indicated that the City's position is that it will pay for the separate water service for the splash fountain water feature; however, the change of the City's position to connect the existing water service to the new splash fountain is contrary to that statement. The District's procedures require payment and installation of a separate service for such a water feature prior to the connection of the water feature. Since the City has taken this improper action, the District will need to review it; however, you should be advised that the District has the right to terminate water service for improper connections that are contrary to the District's procedures and requirements. Of course, if that became an issue, prior to any disconnection, notice and an opportunity for a hearing would be provided. The District understands that the City Parks Department would like to have the splash fountain water feature installation completed this season, even though the summer season is close to an end. Accordingly, the District offered to save the City some expense and place the meter for the new service in the right of way on Pines Road, rather than in the right of way off 31st, even though the 31st location would be easier for the District. Since your recommendation to the City Council is for a lease and not an easement on the water well and the existing system setups which are located on the Brown's Park property, the District has no choice but to take into consideration that the City Council will ultimately agree with your recommendation and determine that the District has no easement rights to have the meters, including the meter required for the August 19, 2016 Page 4 new splash fountain water feature. The District cannot locate the water service meter on an area where the City contends it has a right to kick the District off. The District has attempted to work with the City to try to resolve the issues surrounding the well and water services that are located on the Brown's Park property. However, since the City has changed its mind and connected the splash fountain water feature to the existing water system knowing full well that such a connection is contrary to the procedures, rules and regulations of the District, it appears that the City's position is that the well and the new park configuration are not compatible. Therefore, the District will be taking immediate steps to investigate drilling a new well at another location. The District may also consider if the unauthorized use of the water service or connection of the water feature was a violation of RCW 9A.61.020. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH G. CARROLL JGC:mrb cc: Spokane County Water District No. 3 (via email) 1 E. 30TH AVENUE E. 32ND AVENUE 1 1 1 Spokane Valley Ol ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS AND PERIMETER WALKING PATH. CHAMPIONSHIP SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT (26'-3" X 52'-6" COURT WITH 15' SIDE BUFFER AND 15' END BUFFER) WITH LIGHTS. O NEW SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS (16 COURTS TOTAL, INCLUDING CHAMPIONSHIP COURT - 26'-3" X 52'-6" COURT WITH 10' SIDE BUFFER AND 15' END BUFFER). O EXISTING SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT, RENOVATE TO ACCOMMODATE NEW, PREFERRED COURT SIZE (FOR FAMILY GATHERINGS/NEIGHBORHOOD). OS SLACKLINE COURSE. O BASKETBALL COURT, 50' X 84'. 0 SMALL PICNIC SHELTER. O8 LARGE PICNIC SHELTER. O9 LARGE RESTROOM WITH OUTDOOR SHOWERS. 10 STORAGE FOR VOLLEYBALL ASSOCIATION, ATTACHED TO ENTER RESTROOM BUILDING. 11 PLAYGROUND. 12 SWINGS. 13 SPLASH PAD. 14 TOT LOT. 15 SMALL RESTROOM. 16 EXPANDED PARKING LOT WITH NEW ENTRY AND EXIT DRIVES AND NEW STRIPING, APPROXIMATELY 81 SPACES. 17 EXISTING PARKING LOT WITH MINOR IMPROVEMENTS, APPROXIMATELY 38 SPACES. 18 ACCESS TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. 19 EXISTING TREES. 20 NEW TREES. 21 EXISTING PUMP HOUSE BUILDING. 22 OPEN PLAY AREA. 23 WELL HOUSE PROTECTION ZONE: 150' RADIUS FROM PUMP HOUSE & WATER MAIN APPROACH. BROWNS PARK MASTER PLAN MICHAEL TERRELL • LANDSCAPE ORCYITECNR_, ELLC 1421 N MEADOWRPOOD 441 E, SH: IE 1SC MAY PO, 1014 \,7' // // - I j I 7 CUA) Ze✓" A\ DIMENSION PLAN is \\ 8c 881 88° sz L 88. 1 \ I I o \4a.r 8 8 L- \ OD - —2035 D El T GRAFI I CSC L: 20 C 10 20 CALLOUTS 0 CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA. 0 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. 11,3 EXISTING PLAYGROUND. ESERVE AND PROTECT. 10 EXISTING RESTROOM. PRESERVE AND RDTKT. 0 EXISTING PUMP HOUSE RESERVE AND PROTECT. CED EXISTING SHELTER. PRESERVE AND PROTECT. EXISTING PARKING LOT. PRESERVE AND PROTECT. CID EXISTING TREE. PRESERVE AND PROTECT. SEE L13-1, DETAIL L AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TREE PROTECTION. BESTING PICNIC BENCH, SEE L -L FOR DEMOLMON INSTRUCTIONS. o EXISTING POWER POLE. PRESERVE ANDPRDTED. O CONCRETE WALK. SEE LD -I, DETAIL x AND SPECIFICATIONS. O EXISTING COMPONENTS. SAND VDLEYE.ALL COURT PRESERVE AND PROTECT. SAND nGLPOTBLEWATERLINEGHE L-IILLD UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT ONE -CALL NUMBER 811 CAI 0 1,110 SVCS DAYS IIIFF0 CC DM LEGEND ISO. RADIUS WELL HOUSE PROTECTION ZONE AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT EXISTDG IRRIGATION MAIN LINE IRRIGATION MAIN LINE IJI,11,700,XEIMATE=TION:DEVLIKIZG4.-f//11:=7,==.,.0„),11.1.re LOCATION, VERIFY IN THE FIELD • • .ZirATE LOCATION OF EXISTING POTABLE WATER SUPPLY - VERIFY LOCATION IN THE FIELD. PRESERVE AND EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE. PRESERVE AND PROTECT ADIEXISTINGMATaxS N,ONPR READ - APPROXIMATE LOCATION, VERIFY IN THE FIELD. REMOVE ANY CONFLICTS AND G. 510 AmUST,mATw ExlsnrvG. AL`E-APPROXIMATE LOCATION, VERIFY IN THE FIELD. REMOVE ANY CONFLICTS AND SOD REPLACEMENT. SEE SPECIFICATIONS. 1 SE DIAMETER DRAIN ROCK UNDER SOD FAL1‘,LTALE.IJ,IASTIIZED PLAYGROUND SAFETY MULCH MATCHEXTST,NG PROTECT SAFETY SURFACING FROM CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. SITE VERIFICATION/ PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF DEMOLITION CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AFFECTING THE INTENDED LIMITS OF THE DEMOLMON WORK. THIS INCLUDES VERIFICATION OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS, EXISTING D.INAGE STRUCTURES, AND FINISH CURE AND WALK ELEVATION. CONT.CTOR TO IDENTIFY PROPERTY CORNERS AND CLEARLY MARK. ANY DISCREPAN2ELS/gLI BE REPORTED TO THE LANDSCAPE 2 in:VITCEA`TrIgmOF DISCREPANCIES. ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE FIELD ODNDITIONS AND THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ANDOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY. EOar:a I`P`L'EiE THE CONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 5 PRESERVE AND PROTECT EXISTING HARDSCAPE TO REMAIN. n. N THE FIELD DY UNDSCAPE ARCHTTECTAND/ORAND 7. 1,1.4=11.0ZECT DETAI. AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISRUPTION, TYPICAL IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 9 LIABLE FOR ENCROACHMENT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF ENCROACHMENT ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, E.EMENTS, SET -BACKS, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL PROPERTY RESTRICTONS EITHER MARKED OR UNMARKED CONSTRUCTION. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR DETASLS. 12. MAINTAIN IRRIGATION TO EXISTING AND ADJACENT PARK AREAS .EAS WHERE DISRUPTION OCCURS. EDIT.ErfE.DED=SURFACING FROM CONTAMINATION BY ROC., 19. PARK TO REMAIN l'N'OAP=ON DURING CONSTRUCIION. Lends.. PLLC DEE O U J J p m0. LU a J N O oa M8 YN z ao 0 ▪ 3� ape 0 a DIMENSION PLAN REVISION DATE e 14-002C 8/19/16 36 MT 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: August 30, 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: Painted Hills Planned Residential Development -Project Overview GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Project status admin report presented to Council October 6, 2015. BACKGROUND: City Council requested a status update on the Painted Hills Planned Residential Development Project at the September 22, 2015 Council meeting. The project update was originally presented to Council on October 6, 2015. Council has requested another update overview on the project status for the benefit of the four new councilmembers not present at the previous update. Staff will provide an updated overview of the project, explain the process for approval and answer questions about the development. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Gabe Gallinger, Development Services Manager ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Painted Hills Planned Residential Development Spokane Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N G D wrS IN History • Prior to 1985: the property was zoned Agricultural and was designated as Urban in the Spokane County Future Land Use plan. • November 1985: a Conditional Use Permit was approved to operate a 9 hole golf course. • 1989: Golf course is opened to the public. • January 1, 1991 -Property is rezoned by Spokane County to UR -3.5 • October 28, 2007: With the adoption of the City of Spokane Valley Zoning Regulations, the property is re -zoned Single -Family Residential district (R-3) • August 2012: Golf Course files for bankruptcy. • October 2013: Property obtained by Black Realty, Inc. • July 24, 2015: Application is submitted for a 580 unit Planned Residential Development. Current Zoning R-2 R-3 R-4 MF -1 • MF -2 0 • CMU MUC NC C • RC • I-1 • I-2 • P105 VALLEY 45334.90 60 �_ P 45343.9093 45343.9094 -40 th"Avi 4V 0 0 k. ill 43r� Ave - ;15., 44041 9048 A 4 Painted Hills today IJBE/RETAIL 2. 1 2. AC. Spokane Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N DIVESI( 1S13 Cottages No. of Lots 52 Lot area 1,700 — 6,200 sq. ft. Lot frontage 20 — 40 ft. Spokane \al ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN DIVISION3 Single Family No. of Lots 206 Lot area 5,500 — 8,500 sq. ft. Lot frontage 50 — 60 ft. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION Estate Lots No. of Lots 42 Lot area 9,000 — 10,000 sq. ft. Lot frontage 80 ft. Spokane Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . . N G DIVISION MULTI -FA M I LY I I ,95 AC. Multi -Family -228 Units Mixed Use — 52 Units Spokane Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION COM MEPC IA. .. 1 .62 ACJ Planned Residential Development (PRD) SVMC 19.50 • PRD's are allowed in all residential zoning districts • Residential developments of all types are allowed in PRD's • Uses allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone are allowed in PRD's • PRD's allow greater flexibility when applying zoning regulations • The underlying zoning regulations dictate the density of a PRD • The Hearing Examiner makes the final decision on all PRD's Spokane Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN C7 DIVISION Process 0 eiz ku aT0 at . 0 co 0 5 Q FE.,114 Z Peat design SEPA check -list Flood Pe'ain Tr k rivact Analysis SEP\ I)ecihion Issued . CU Q Pal 0 w • 0• Sty Report bowed ued eci 0 Appeal Period Beginm Today Spokane .000 Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .._P NN G DIVISION Keeping Our Citizens Informed Departments Departments - Home IP - Com munity ►Community and Economic Development IP- City wCity Attorney City Clerk lb- City kCity Council P. - City City Manager ► Directory DOC u m en i5 Finance 11. - Form Form s Human Resources lb- Operations ►operations & Admin *- Parks Parks & Recreation Poi €e Pao! t'A'orks Solis Waste Community and Economic Development Community and Economic Development Welcome to Community and Economic Development The Community and Economic Development Department works with the community to establish and implement the long-term vision and goals of the City of Spokane Valley and to ensure that growth and development is safe and consistent with city policy. The department continues to focus on imp-o•aing service delivery to the community and overall customer satisfaction. The Community and Economic Development Department has four divisions: • Building • Economic Development • Development Engineering • Planning Trending Prolects: Painted Hills Planned Residential Development information Periodic Comprehensive Plan Update Contact Information John Hohman Community Development Director Phone: (509) 720-5300 jhohman spokanevalley.org Deanna Horton Administrative Assistant Phone: (509) 720-5391 dhorton n s poka neval I ey.org Doug Powell Building Official Phone: (509) 720-5305 dpowell@spokanevalley.org Gabe Gallinger Development Services Senior Engineer Phone: (549) 720-5318 ggal I i nger rn s poke neva I I ey.org Span cara COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN, G DIVISION Ospa rtm.rltz P epsrtr.ents Herne a COM mu niter had ECoatemis D evelopment. a City Attrierrey City Oath e City Counca ■ City Momper ► Directory DUCumelm F+nence ■ Forms Neiman Rasatsrces r. Operations & Admin r Pecks& Resre■tien PaiA[e Pu 6i,c Works le Soled Waste e Community and Et onomec Developr eni . Mame ng & Zoning . Painted h Painted Hills Planned Residential Development The City of Spokane valley has received an application fora Planned Residential Development (PRD) located at 4403 S. Dishman Mica Rd. The site was formerly the Painted Hills Golf Course. The proposal includes 580 dwelling units comprised of 300 single family homes and 280 multifamily units, neighborhood commercial space suitable for small scale retail, office and other neighborhood services, and 30 acres of dedicated open space. The application for the PRD was submitted and deemed complete before being distributed to all City staff and other agencies with jurisdiction for review. Additionally, a Notice of Application was mailed to all property owners directly adjacent to the site. Currently the application materials are being reviewed. Following this review, a public hearing will be conducted in front of the Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner. At this time, no date has been established for the public hearing. Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.80.060, the Hearing Examiner makes the final decision on all PROs. as ", 1 Process At A Glance Today Use the links below to view the application documents and other materials related to this development. October 6, 2015 Presentation to City Council • Pre -Application = Pre -Application Conference Form = Pre -Application Meeting Worksheet • Application = Subdivision Application • Narrative • Geohazard Evaluation • Biological Evaluation, Buffer Averaging, and Habitat Management Plan • Sewer Concurrency • Water Concurrency • Certificate of Water Availability • Certificate of Sewer Availability • Traffic Impact Analysis • Traffic Technical Appendix pt. 1 • Traffic Technical Appendix pt. 2 = Planned Residential Development Application Traffic Impact Analysis - Response to Traffic Count Comments 10/15/2015 Traffic Impact Analysis - Response to Traffic Count Comments 10/20/2015 = Traffic Impact Analysis - Response to TIA Comments • Staff Report & Decisions Determination of Completeness = Determination of Incompleteness • Agency Comments = Central Valley School District = Department of Ecology Spokane Tribe of Indians Spokane County Utilities Avista = Spokane Regional Health District Spokane County Water District No. 3 = Fire Protection District 8 • City of Spokane Valley Comments Traffic Impact Analysis Review- Sean Messner, PE Senior Traffic Engineer Floodplain Review - Henry Allen, Development Engineer Traffic Impact Analysis - Second Submittal - Sean Messner, PE Senior Traffic Engineer Spokane Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION Public Comments SiZkane Planned Residential Development Thank you for submitting comments on the Painted Hills PRD. Your participation is an important part of the process. Your comments have been added to the public record which will be forwarded to the Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner for review prior to the public hearing. At this time, a date has not been established for the public hearing. The Painted Hills project is a 303 lot subdivision with a Planned Residential Development overlay and does not include any rezoning of the property. Painted Hills For the most recent information on this project and to view materials related to the development please visit: www.spokanevalley.org.. paintedhillsinfo Spokane Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NN G DIVISION Questions To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of August 25, 2016; 8:30 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative Council & Staff City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings Sept 6, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Aug 30] Proclamation: Legislative Recognition ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Legislative Agenda — Mark Calhoun 2. Motion Consideration: Arts Masterplan, Nat'l Endowment of the Arts NON -ACTION ITEMS: 3. Introduction of Draft Comp Plan — John Hohman, Mike Basinger 4. Iron Horse State Park/John Wayne Pioneer Trail — Cary Driskell 5. City Hall Update — Eric Guth 6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins (20 minutes) Our Town Grant—C.Janssen (10 mins) (60 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 120 minutes] Special Meeting, Friday, September 9, 2016; 10 a.m. — 12:30 p.m. (Opening Ceremony: 9:30 a.m.) Spokane Regional Council of Governments. Spokane Co.Fair & Expo Ctr, Conf. Facility, 404 N Havana Street 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. Mayoral Appointment: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee — Mayor Higgins 4. Snow and Ice Removal — Cary Driskell 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Tuesday, Sept 20, 2016 meeting cancelled [due Tue, Se tt66] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 50 minutes] Wed, Sept 21, 2016, Special Meeting - Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Outside Agency Presentations: Social Service & Economic Dev. Agencies — 2. Property Tax Revenues — Chelsie Taylor 3. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins [due Tue, Sem] (— 60 mins) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) Chelsie Taylor [*estimated meeting: 80 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 [due Tue, Sept 20] (5 minutes) (30 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 minutes] Oct 4 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Emergency Preparedness — Cary Driskell, Ed Lewis (Dept Emergency Mgmt) 2. City Hall Update — Eric Guth 3. Budget Amendment, 2016 — Chelsie Taylor 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins Oct 11, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2017 Proposed Budget — Chelsie Taylor 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) Draft Advance Agenda 8/25/2016 8:14:06 AM [due Tue, Sept 27] (— 60 mins) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 90 minutes] [due Tue, Oct 4] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) Page 1 of 3 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: (a) Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection Project; (b) CenterPlace Catering [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] Oct 18, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. CenterPlace Catering - Mike Stone 2. Advance Agenda - Mayor Higgins [due Tue, Oct 11] (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] 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. Motion Consideration: CenterPlace Catering Contract - Mike Stone [due Tue, Oct 18] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Periodic Review Draft Comp Plan, Planning Comm. Findings - Mike Basinger (45 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda - Mayor Higgins (5 minutes) 9. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 115 minutes] Nov 1, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. City Hall Update - Eric Guth 2. Draft 2017 Fee Resolution - Chelsie Taylor 3. Advance Agenda - Mayor Higgins [due Tue, Oct 25] (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 30 minutes] Nov 8, 2016, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, 2016 Budget Amendment - Chelsie Taylor 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting 2017 Budget - Chelsie Taylor 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Comp Plan & Dev. Regulations - Mike Basinger 6. Motion Consideration: Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection Project Bid Award - Steve Worley 7. Admin Report: LTAC Recommendations to Council - Chelsie Taylor [due Tue, Nov 1] (20 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (20 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 100 minutes] 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. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Comp Plan & Dev. 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda - Mayor Higgins 4. Info Only: Department Reports Nov 29, 2016 - No Meeting - Thanksgiving Holiday Dec 6, 2016, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. City Hall Update - Eric Guth 2. Advance Agenda - Mayor Higgins Draft Advance Agenda 8/25/2016 8:14:06 AM [due Tue, Nov 8] (5 minutes) [due Tue, Nov 15] (5 minutes) Regulations - Mike Basinger (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] [due Tue, Nov 29] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55 minutes] Page 2 of 3 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 [due Tue, Dec 6] (5 minutes) (15 minutes) (25 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 70 minutes] [due Tue, Dec 13] (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 70 minutes] January 3, 2017, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Dec 27] 1. Mayoral Appointment: Two Planning Commissioners (3 -yr terms) (5 minutes) 2. Mayoral Appointment: Two Members for Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (1 or 2 yr terms) (5 minutes) 3. Mayoral Appointment: Councilmembers to Various Board and Committees for 2017 (10 minutes) 4. Advance Agenda January 10, 2017, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda — Mayor Higgins *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: AWC Citizen Action Days (Feb 15-16, 2017) District Court False Alarm Program GSI Contract follow-up Library District NLC City Summit (Nov 16-19) SRTMC Interlocal Agreement Term Limits TPP Discussion Undergrounding Draft Advance Agenda 8/25/2016 8:14:06 AM [due Tue, Jan 2] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) Page 3 of 3