The URL can be used to link to this page

2018, 01-16 Study SessionAGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT (with some action items) Tuesday, January 16, 2018 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10210 E Sprague Avenue (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Proclamation: Honoring Hearing Examiner ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Ordinance 18-001, Nuisances — Cary Driskell, Erik Lamb [public comment] 2. Second Reading Ordinance 18-002, Unfit Dwellings — Cary Driskell, Erik Lamb [public comment] 3. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Appleway Trail Project, Sullivan to Corbin — Robert Lochmiller, Gloria Mantz, Chelsie Taylor [public comment] DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL NON -ACTION ITEMS: 4. Henry Allen; and Spokane County Water Resources Manager Mike Hermanson 5. Cary Driskell; and Mike Dempsey 6. Gloria Mantz, Bill Helbig 7. Gloria Mantz, Bill Helbig 8. Erik Lamb, Mike Basinger, Chaz Bates 9. Mayor Higgins 10. Mayor Higgins 11. Mark Calhoun 12. Executive Session: [RCW 42.30 ADJOURN Water Banking Hearing Examiner Annual Report Intelligent Transportation System Infill, Phase One Project Update Argonne Road Preservation Project Update, Broadway to Indiana Annexation Advance Agenda Council Check in City Manager Comments .110(1)(b) Potential Land Acquisition; and RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) Potential Litigation] Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Study Session Agenda, January 16, 2018 Page 1 of 1 Spokane 1 . u Va11ey 'Idm rocdomotion of Rppreciotion To Baring examiner i e iJempgep WHEREAS, The City of Spokane Valley incorporated March 31, 2003, and recognized the need for a process to facilitate land use decisions, code interpretations and appeals of City actions, by someone with training and experience in land use planning and zoning, including that such person have a license to practice law in the state of Washington; and WHEREAS, The City created the "Office of Hearing Examiner" to conduct hearings and make decisions concerning land use regulations; and WHEREAS, Spokane Valley and Spokane County entered into an agreement for the City to enlist the services of Spokane County's Hearing Examiner, Mr. Mike Dempsey; and WHEREAS, In his official role of Hearing Examiner, Mr. Dempsey has handled over one hundred land use matters, and conducted numerous hearings concerning dangerous dogs. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Rod Higgins, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley on behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council and the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, do hereby proclaim our appreciation to Mike Dempsey, Hearing Examiner for his steadfast, dedicated and conscientious work; and we wish him well in his retirement. Dated this 16th day of January, 2018. L.R. Higgins , Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ® new business ['public hearing ['information ❑admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading — Proposed Ordinance No. 18-001 regarding chronic nuisances GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 7.05 SVMC; chapter 17.100 SVMC; chapter 17.110 SVMC; Appendix "A" SVMC; chapter 7.48 RCW. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of chapter 7.05 SVMC, relating to nuisances, in 2003; amended in 2005, 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2017. Chapter 17.100, relating to enforcement, was recodified in its entirety in 2016 as part of the Comprehensive Plan update with minor changes. City Council heard an administrative report on the proposed changes on December 12, 2017 and a first reading on January 9, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City adopted chapter 7.05 SVMC relating to nuisance properties shortly after becoming a city in 2003. The most common types of nuisances we have dealt with over the years have involved accumulations of trash, junk vehicles, and accumulations of broken machinery or equipment. Less frequently, we deal with other types of nuisance violations such as illegal structures, encroachments on sidewalks (vegetation, debris), fire hazards, noise, dust, graffiti, and excessive yard sales. Chapter 17.100 SVMC contains the administrative enforcement provisions for the Code, including nuisances and various land use violations. Chapter 17.110 involves fees and penalties, including fees related to appealing code enforcement violations. The City has altered and refined the nuisance provisions over the years to make them more effective, or to address new items as appropriate. The current Code Enforcement Officer is Nicole Montano, who recently joined us from Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS). On average, the City handles 330 new compliance cases annually. Of that number, the Office of the City Attorney has been forwarded an average of 30 cases per year since 2013 to pursue potential legal action. A nuisance case may be initiated in one of several ways, including observation by City staff, on referral from another agency, or through receipt of information from citizens. When Ms. Montano initiates a code compliance investigation, she will generally engage in the following process: - visit the property in person to determine whether there is a likely violation; - if so, attempt to make contact with the owner or occupant in an effort to get compliance through the easiest means possible, voluntary compliance; - if it cannot be cleaned up immediately, a warning notice would then likely be issued to provide specific information on the nature of the violation, as well as what is necessary to cure it including applicable timeframes; - most people are interested in executing a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) with the City, which explains what will be done, including timeframes, to come into compliance. Successful completion of the terms of the VCA results in suspension of the penalty; Page 1 of 4 - staff would follow up after the time for compliance in the warning notice had expired. If the violation was taken care of, the City would issue a letter to that effect; - if the violation had not been eliminated, the City would issue a Notice and Order, which if not appealed, assesses a minimum penalty of $500 and identifies the time by which the violation must be abated by the property owner or occupant; - if the Notice and Order is not appealed, and the violation not cleaned up, then the case would get referred to the Office of the City Attorney for further enforcement action; - the Office of the City Attorney attempts to contact violators as well in an effort to get compliance instead of filing suit in Superior Court. If we are successful, then the City will issue a letter that the property is in compliance; - if we don't get a sufficient response, we file suit and seek an abatement order from the Court which will order the owner/occupant to remove the violations and, if they fail to do so, authorize the City to enter the property after 20 days, to abate the violation. After such an abatement, the City is authorized to get a lien against the property in the full amount, however only the first $2,000 of that amount is a high priority lien on par with County and municipal taxes. We generally have to wait until the property transfers before we get paid the rest of the money we spent on abatement. There are some cases where the City never gets paid, however, the City was able to assist the neighborhood in removing a blight that was likely reducing their property values. Staff has become aware of the need to consider several revisions to chapters 7.05 and 17.100 SVMC. In addition to substantive revisions, staff looked at both entire chapters in an attempt to update language as appropriate, or correct minor issues that may exist and make the language more accurate. Staff discussed six substantive issues with City Council at its December 12, 2017 meeting. The issues and points of discussion from Council are as follows: (1) Chronic Nuisances. This would add provisions for chronic nuisance properties. Chronic nuisances involve numerous, on-going criminal activities, including search warrants, arrest warrants, active commission of crimes such as drug crimes, burglary, etc. These impacts occur not only on the subject property, but also for blocks around in the form of residential burglary, car prowling, vehicle theft, graffiti, and vandalism. We worked with Spokane County to draft new provisions to address these chronic nuisance properties. We would rely primarily on our Police Department, staffed by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, to provide the relevant background information on chronic criminal activity for certain properties. Staff from the County, Sheriffs Office, and Spokane Valley agreed it would be helpful to use a very similar approach across the two jurisdictions since Deputies would be doing the bulk of the evidence gathering to support pursuing these types of cases. The proposed new Code provisions define what kind of criminal activity qualifies as a chronic nuisance, but specifically excludes domestic violence charges so we don't re -victimize the victims of domestic violence. If a property has either four qualifying criminal events, plus at least one regular nuisance (garbage, junk vehicles, noise, etc) in a 12 month period, we would be able to proceed with imposing this violation. Alternatively, if a property has five qualifying criminal acts in a 12 month period, we would be able to proceed. If Spokane County Superior Court agrees that it meets the criteria, we would seek an abatement order from the Court that precludes the bad behavior, and can include an order that the premises be vacated for up to one year by the owner or occupant if lesser remedies are insufficient. Page 2 of 4 Council gave consensus to include the proposed chronic nuisance provisions in the proposed ordinance. (2) Noise and odors relating to urban animal keeping. The Council and the Planning Commission have engaged in considerable discussion about urban animal keeping. One of the impacts of these activities is increased noise and odors for neighboring properties. Increasing the number and types of animals allowed in an urban environment will undoubtedly result in increased complaints from adjoining properties about increased noise, increased odor, loose animals, and likely flies. This is not to say that these impacts should be the determinative factor for the Council on whether it moves ahead with expanding the areas where such animals will be allowed, including the types and numbers allowed, but it should be at least part of the Council's consideration. The City of Spokane expanded its urban animal keeping in recent years. They report that this has resulted in increased calls for service by their code compliance office to deal with issues like noise, odor, setback of pens from property lines, etc. These impacts are separate from dealing with animals on the loose, which Spokane contracts with SCRAPS to handle. This is a separate contract from Spokane's contract regarding dogs and cats, and Spokane Valley would need to enter into a separate contract with SCRAPS as well to respond to animals other than dogs and cats that are loose. At the December 12, 2017 meeting, Council moved to keep the current animal keeping regulations. The motion passed 6-1. With this motion, no changes were made to odor and noise provisions related to urban animal keeping. (3) Other noise complaints. There are several additional items relating to noise staff wanted to bring to Council's attention. Primarily, this amendment would bring our Code in line with the statutory requirements, with a minor addition, and state the requirements directly in our Code rather than relying on a citation to state law without including all of the language. The additional provision (SVMC 7.05.040(L)(2)(o) relates to an issue that has come up several times involving calls from neighbors of schools where events occur outdoors that generate significant noise. Examples are sporting events like high school football games, or marching bands practicing. The proposed revision makes such events exempt from the nuisance regulations because they cannot effectively be muffled or eliminated. Council gave consensus to include the proposed noise provisions in the proposed ordinance. (4) Yard sales. SVMC 7.05.040(0) currently limits yard sales to no more than seven consecutive days, or no more than two consecutive weekends. These were the limits imposed by Council a number of years ago in an effort to try to balance the various interests. Several Councilmembers noted this year that there are a number of properties that appear to be having yard sales throughout the spring and summer months. This impacts neighborhoods by increasing traffic when people are trying to enjoy the weekend in their yards. Some properties have yard sales so often it appears they are operating a commercial business in residentially -zoned areas. The Council may amend the language to further limit the holding of yard sales by putting a cap on the total number that may be held at a property during a calendar year. The draft suggests a total of two, but the Council may change that. Council gave consensus to include the proposed yard sale provisions in the proposed ordinance for first reading. At the January 9, 2018 meeting, Council indicated it would like to limit the impacts to residential properties and to limit the number of yard sales to either three or four times per year. Council indicated it would determine which number at the second Page 3 of 4 reading. Staff have included language limiting the yard sale restrictions to residential properties. Staff will seek Council direction on whether the number of yard sales should be limited to three or four times each year. (5) Dwelling or camping in the rights-of-way. Currently, there are no prohibitions on people living in motorhomes or travel trailers in the rights-of-way unless they are there for more than 30 days. As such, it is not uncommon to see motorhomes or trailers in the streets, particularly in residential areas, with long extension cords running from them to a building. Similarly, staff has noticed in a number of places steps and slide outs extending into the street, sometimes into or near the lanes of travel. This creates a hazard to the driving public and to those who are in the motorhomes and trailers. It is presumed that many of these are related to seasonal visits from relatives, although others are pretty clearly long-term stays extending several months or more. The City has received some complaints from residents about both of these types of situations. Council gave consensus for staff to come forward with proposed language governing living in RVs in the public rights-of-way. Staff will come forward in the near future with specific provisions for living in RVs in both the ROW and on private property. These provisions are not included in the proposed ordinance for first reading. (6) Camping on private residential property. The City has received a number of complaints or comments over the years from citizens in residentially -zoned, property concerned about somebody in the neighborhood staying long term in a motorhome or travel trailer in the driveway or rear of the property. Under current City Code, a person is permitted to stay in this fashion for up to 30 days. Council gave consensus for staff to come forward with proposed language governing living in RVs on private property. Staff will come forward in the near future with specific provisions for living in RVs in both the ROW and on private property. These provisions are not included in the proposed ordinance for first reading. OPTIONS: Move to approve proposed Ordinance No. 18-001, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 18-001, amending the Spokane Valley Municipal Code related to chronic nuisances and other nuisances. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney; Rachelle McFetridge, Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Draft proposed Ordinance No. 18-001. Page 4 of 4 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 7.05 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CHRONIC NUISANCES AND OTHER UPDATES, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.100 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.110 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING WAIVER OF CODE ENFORCEMENT APPEAL FEES, AMENDING APPENDIX A OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO NUISANCES, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020 and RCW 35.22.280(30), the City of Spokane Valley (City) is authorized to "declare what shall be a nuisance, and to abate the same, and to impose fines upon parties who may create, continue, or suffer nuisances to exist; and WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 7.48 RCW, the City is authorized to obtain an order for a warrant of abatement of public nuisances that may exist within the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 7.43 RCW, the City is authorized to determine and abate drug nuisance properties that may exist within the City; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted chapter 7.05 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to declare what conditions shall be public nuisances within the City, which conditions include, but are not limited to garbage, junk, machinery parts, and other materials improperly stored on property, junk vehicles, excessive dust, excessive noise; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted chapter 17.100 SVMC to provide administrative procedures for enforcement of code violations, including public nuisances; and WHEREAS, there exist within the City a number of properties that are creating significant adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood due to the high amount of drug and other criminal activity occurring at the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that eliminating chronic nuisances where a high amount of drug and other criminal activity occurs is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the applicable nuisance provisions in the SVMC to allow the City to address and eliminate chronic nuisances and to provide necessary updates to other provisions for the public health, safety, and welfare. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The City Council hereby finds that there exist within the City a number of properties with a high amount of drug and other criminal activity occurring at the property and that these properties create a significant adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The City Council further finds that eliminating such chronic nuisances is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. The City Council hereby finds it appropriate to amend the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to provide for provisions Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 1 of 16 DRAFT related to chronic nuisances and to update other appropriate Code provisions related to nuisances and nuisance abatement procedures. Section 2. Amendment. Chapter 7.05 SVMC is hereby amended as follows: 7.05.010 Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter 7.05 SVMC is to create and maintain a safe and healthy environment for the citizens of the City by identifying and reducing eliminating the conditions that contribute to injury, illness, devaluation of property, and the incidence of crime through the existence of nuisance conditions on public and private property. 7.05.020 Definitions. In addition to any definitions contained in Appendix A, the following words shall, for the purposes of chapters 7.05 and 17.100 SVMC, be defined as: "Abate" means to take whatever steps are deemed necessary by the cmManager city manager or designee to ensure that the property complies with applicable Spokane Valley Municipal Code nuisance ordinance requirements. Abatement may include, but is not limited to, rehabilitation, demolition, removal, replacement or repair. "City" means the City of Spokane Valley, Washington. "Code compliance officer" means a regular or specially commissioned officer so designated by the c mManagercity manager or designee for the City. "Days" will beare counted as business days when five or fewer days are allowed to perform an act required by this chapter 7.05 SVMC. "Days" will beare considered calendar days when more than five days are allowed to de -perform an act required by this chapter 7.05 SVMC. "Days" are countedt a computed by excluding the first day, and including the last day, unless the last day is a holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, pursuant to RCW 1.12.040, as now adopted or hereafter amended. "Determination of compliance" means a written determinationstatement from by the City Managercity manager or designee that evidence exists to determine that the violation(s) stated in the warning, voluntary compliance agreement, notice and order, stop work order, or other applicable order haves been sufficiently abated so as to comply with the SVMC. as to the nuisance violation(s) stated in the voluntary compliance agreement or notice and order. "Director" means the city manager for Spokane Valley, or his/her designee."Found in violation" means t 1. A notice and order has bccn issued and not timely appealed; 2. A voluntary compliance agreement has been entered into; or 3. The hearing examiner has determined that the violation has occurred and such determination has not bccn stayed or reversed on appeal. "Graffiti" means an unauthorized marking, symbol, inscription, word, figure, designmarkings, inscriptions, words, figures, designs, or other inscribed material visible from premises open to the public, that h i 'e been placed upon any property through the use of paint, ink, dye, or any other substance capable of marking property. "Hearing examiner" means the City of Spokane Valley hearing examiner, as provided by Chapter 18.20 SVMC as adopted or hereafter amended. Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 2 of 16 DRAFT "Impound," for the purposes of this chapter, means to take and hold a vehicle in legal custody pursuant to law. "Inoperable" means incapable of being operated legally on a public highway, including, but not limited to, not having a valid, current registration plate or a current certificate of registration. "Junk vehicle" means a vehicle substantially meeting at least three of the following criteria: 1. Is three years old or older; 2. Is extensively damaged, such damage including but not limited to any of the following: a broken window or windshield, or missing wheels, tires, motor, or transmission; 3. Is apparently inoperable; 4. Has an approximate fair market value equal only to the approximate value of the scrap in it. "Mitigate" means to take measures, subject to City approval, to minimize the harmful effects of the nuisance violation where remediation is either impossible or unreasonably burdensome. "Nuisance" means a person'sthe unreasonable or unlawful use by a person of real or personal property, or the unreasonable, indecent, or unlawful personal conduct or omission of conduct which materially interferes with, obstructs, or jeopardizes the health, safety, prosperity, quiet enjoyment of property, or welfare of others, offends common decency or public morality, or obstructs or interferes with the free use of public ways, places, or bodies of water. "On-going criminal activity related to the premises" means that (1) criminal activity is or has been occurring at the premises; or (2) criminal activity is or has been occurring near the premises and such activity has a reasonable and proximate connection to the premises, whether by owners, occupants, or persons visiting such owners or occupants. Examples of conduct or actions that constitute criminal activity occurring at or near the premises of the subject property include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Service of a search warrant by law enforcement personnel; or 2. Arrest of one or more individuals by law enforcement personnel during any 24-hour period; or 3. Commission of a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony at or near the premises and where there is a reasonable and proximate connection between the crime or criminal and the premises, including those visiting the owner or occupants of the premises; or 4. Visits by law enforcement personnel which occur based upon a reasonable belief by law enforcement that a crime is occurring or has occurred, but which do not result in any of the actions identified in (1)-(3) above; provided that visits alone may not form the sole basis for determining a premises to be a chronic nuisance premises. For purposes of this definition, service of warrants, arrests, or commission of misdemeanor or felony domestic violence shall not be considered criminal activity. "Person" means any public or private individual, sole proprietorship, association, partnership, corporation, or legal entity, whether for-profit or not-for-profit. public or private, and the agents and assigns thereof.e€ such individual, association, partnership, corporation or legal entity. "Person(s) responsible for a nuisance violation" means the person or persons who caused the violation, if that can be determined, and/or the owner, lessor, tenant, or other person(s) entitled to control, use, and/or occupancy of the property and the abutting public rights-of-way.,including any public rights of way abutting a person, firm, or entity's property where the nuisance violation occurs. Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 3 of 16 DRAFT "Person(s) responsible for a junk vehicle nuisance violation" means any one or more of the following: 1. The land owner where the junk vehicle is located as shown on the last equalized assessment roll; or 2. The last registered owner of the vehicle, unless the owner in the transfer of ownership of the vehicle has complied with RCW 16.12.101state law; or 3. The legal owner of the vehicle. "Remediate" means to restore a site to a condition which docs not pose a probable threat to the general public health, safety or welfare. "Vehicle," for the purposes of SVMC 7.05.040(PN), includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles. The term does not include devices other than bicycles moved by human or animal power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks, pursuant toas set forth in RCW 46.04.670. 7.05.030 Compliance, authority and administration. In order to discourage public nuisances and otherwise promote compliance with this chapter 7.05 SVMC, the City Manager or designee may, in response to field observations, determine that violations of this chapter 7.05 SVMC have occurred or are occurring, and may utilize any of the compliance provisions set forth in contained in Gchapter 17.100 SVMC. 7.05.040 Nuisances prohibited. No person, firm, or entity shall erect, contrive, cause, continue, maintain, or permit to exist any public nuisance nuisances within the City including on the property of any person, firm, or entity or upon any public rights-of-way abutting a person, firm, or entity's property. Prohibited public nuisances include, but are not limited to: A. Vegetation. 1. Any vegetation, or parts thereof, which hang lower than eight feet aboveover any public walkway or sidewalk; or hang lower than 14 feet aboveover any public street; or which are growing thereon in such a manner as to obstruct or impair the free and full use of anythe public walkway, sidewalk, or street by the public„ or violate City clearview triangle policies regulationsadopted by the City. The City shall be responsible for maintaining all vegetation placed by the City adjacent to a public walkway, sidewalk, walkway, or roadwaystreet. 2. Any growth of noxious weeds or any toxic vegetation shall be subject to Gchapter 16-750 WAC as currently adopted and hereafter amended. B. Buildings, Structures, Fences. 4. Buildings or portions thereof which are deemed dangerous or unfit pursuant to the Spokane Valley building codoSVMC (including all building and property maintenance codes and regulations as currently adopted and hereafter amended). currently adopted International Property Maintenance Code and the International Existing Building Code); provided, that such conditions or defects exist to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public or the structure's occupants is endangered. 2. Any fence that obstructs or obscures the view of traffic or traffic control devices, pursuant to clearview triangle policies adopted by the City. C. Sidewalks. Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 4 of 16 DRAFT 1. Any protrusion, awning, or overhang that inhibits or obstructs use of a public walkway or sidewalk. 2. Any object, construction, or damage that inhibits or obstructs the surface use of a public walkway or sidewalk. 3. Snow or ice not removed from a public sidewalk within a reasonable time. 43. Accumulations of dirt or debris not removed from a public sidewalk. D. Unauthorized Signs. Any sign not in compliance with the City's currently adopted sign code. €D. Accumulations of Materials, Garbage, Recyclables, Furniture, Machinery. 1. Building and Construction Materials. Any accumulations, stacks, or piles of building or construction materials, including but not limited to metal, wood, wire, electrical, or plumbing materials, not associated with a current, in -progress project including metal, wood, wire, and electrical or plumbing materials, and not in a lawful storage structure or container. in disarray or exposed to the elements on the property. This provision does not apply to a designated contractor's yard, as defined in the currently adopted Spokane Valley zoning code. 2. Garbage, Recyclables, Compost, and Infestations. a. Garbage or recyclables not kept in a properly stored in a receptacle with a tight -fitting lid. b. Any accumulationccumulations of broken or neglected items, litter, salvage materials, oro junk not in an approved enclosed structure. c. Recyclables not properly stored and regularly disposed of. 4c. Creating or maintaining any accumulations of matter, including but not limited to foodstuffs; or dead vegetation (excluding properly maintained residential compost piles) that harbor or are an attraction for the infestation of insects or vermin; failinging to eliminate such infestations;; or or ffailinging to eliminate intrusive insects. 3. Furniture, -ate Appliances, Furnishings, and Equipment. a. Any4ll broken or discarded household furniture, furnishings ef-equipment, or any applianceappliances not in an approved enclosed structure. b. All accessible refrigeration appliances not having the doors secured or removed, or any enclosure that can entrap humans or animals. Any enclosure which may entrap a human or an animal, including accessible refrigeration appliances that have not had the doors secured or removed. 4. Machinery and Equipment. Any broken or inoperable; accumulation of, or part of, accumulations of, or parts of machinery or equipment not in an approved enclosed structure. SVMC 7.05.040(D)(4)This subsection does shall include such machinery and equipment as boats, let -skis, snowmobiles, aircraft, and the like, but shall not include junk vehicles, which that are regulated pursuant to SVMC 7.05.040(N) by subsection LPA of this section. EE. Fire Hazards. Any gstacks or accumulations of newspapers, dead vegetation (excluding properly maintained compost piles), overgrown vegetation, cardboard, or any other paper, cloth, or wood products left in a manner that could poses a substantial risk of combustion or the spread of fire, as determined by the €Fire fcrMarshal. QF. Toxic or Caustic Substances. Improper storming or keeping of any toxic, flammable, or caustic substances or materials. lG. Smoke, Soot, or Odors. Allowing the escape or emissionThe escaping or emitting of any eeeeeessa y er—harmful smoke, soot, fumes, ei-gases, or odors which are offensive or harmful to a reasonable persons of ordinary sensibilities. IH. Bodies of Water. Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 5 of 16 DRAFT 1 All stagnant, pooled water in which mosquitoes, flies, or other insects may multiply, excluding any City -approved structure related to storm drainage systems. 2. The polluting of any waterway, well, or body of water which is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Spokane Regional Health Districtanother federal, state, county, special purpose district or city agency. K. Holes, Pits, and Excavations. Anyft excavated or naturally occurring uncovered holes, pits, or excavations, which are -not marked, guarded, or otherwise secured, and which constitute a concealed danger. that arc in excess of 10 or more inches in width at the top and four feet or more in depth. KJ. Attractive Nuisances. Any accessible nuisance which is attractive nuisance to children including, but not limited to, unattended machinery or equipment, unsecured abandoned or vacant buildings, open and unattended vehicle trunks, or other unguarded conditions or situations that could injure or trap a child. liK. Noise 1. Any noise or sound that, originating within a residential zone, intrudes into the property of another person that exceeds the maximum permissible noise levels pursuant toas established in chapter WAC 173 60 81-0173-60, as currently adopted and hereafter amended. Such noise or sound may include, but is not limited to, noise or sound created by use of a radio, television set, musical instrument, sound amplifier, or other device capable of producing or reproducing noise or sound; or in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding, or testing of any vehicle, off-highway machinery or equipment, or internal combustion engine. 2. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1): a. Normal use of public rights-of-way; b. Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by Chapter 173-62 WAC; c. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds that originate at airports which are directly related to flight operations; d. Sounds created by surface carriers engaged in commerce or passenger travel by railroad; e. Sounds created by warning devices not operating continuously for more than five minutes, or bells, chimes, or carillons; f. Sounds created by safety and protective devices where noise suppression would defeat the intent of the device or is not economically feasible; g. Sounds created by emergency equipment and work necessary in the interest of law enforcement or for health, safety or welfare of the community; h. Sounds originating from officially sanctioned parades and other public events; i. Sounds created by watercraft, except to the extent that they are regulated by other City or state regulations; j. Sounds created by motor vehicles licensed or unlicensed when operated off public highways, except when such sounds are made in or adjacent to residential property where human beings reside or sleep; k. Sounds originating from existing natural gas transmission and distribution facilities; 1. Sounds created in conjunction with public work projects or public work maintenance operations executed at the cost of the federal government, state or municipality; m. Sounds created in conjunction with the collection of solid waste; n. Sounds created in conjunction with military operations or training; o. Sounds originating from organized activities occurring in public parks, playgrounds, gymnasiums, swimming pools, schools, and other public facilities and public recreational facilities during hours of operation; p. Sounds originating from agricultural activities. Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 6 of 16 DRAFT 3. The following shall be exempt from provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.: a. Sounds originating from residential property relating to temporary projects for the repair or maintenance of homes, grounds, and appurtenances; b. Sounds created by the discharge of firearms on authorized shooting ranges; c. Sounds created by blasting; d. Sounds created by aircraft engine testing and maintenance not related to flight operations; provided, that aircraft testing and maintenance shall be conducted at remote sites whenever possible; e. Sounds created by the installation or repair of essential utility services. 4. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of SVMC 7.05.040(K)(1) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., or when conducted beyond 1,000 feet of any residence where human beings reside and sleep at any hour: a. Sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity; b. Sounds originating from the quarrying, blasting and mining of minerals or materials, including, but not limited to, sand, gravel, rock and clay, as well as the primary reduction and processing of minerals or materials for concrete batching, asphalt mixing and rock crushers; c. Sounds originating from uses on properties which have been specifically conditioned to meet certain noise standards by an appropriate City hearing body. 2. Sounds within a residential zone created by use of a radio, television set, musical instrument, sound amplifier, or any other device capable of producing or reproducing sounds, which emanates residential area, and which annoys or disturbs, or interferes with the peace, comfort, or repose of a reasonable person of reasonable sensitivity. 3. The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds within a residential zone in connection with thc starting, operation, repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off highway vehicle or internal combustion engine within a residential zone, and which annoys, so as to unreasonably disturbs, or interferes with thc peace, and comfort, or repose of a reasonable person of owners or possessors of real property. 'I. Any other sound occurring frequently, repetitively, or continuously which annoys or, disturbs the peace, comfort, or repose of a reasonable person of reasonable sensitivity. ML. Dust.- Any dl3isturbanceing the topsoil of any land area, or permitting the same, without taking affirmative measures to suppress and minimize the blowing and scattering of dust, by any person by any person without taking affirmative measures to suppress and minimize thc blowing and scattering of dust so as -which unreasonably disturb or interferesinterfere with the peace, and comfort, or repose of owners or possessors of real propertya reasonable person. This provision does not include permitted agricultural activities as legal nonconforming uses or permitted agricultural activities in general agricultural zones. N. Nuisance Premises. Any premises or structures allowing or maintaining prostitution, lewd behavior, underage consumption of alcohol, the harboring of juvenile runaways or wanted persons, or where there is the use, sale, manufacturing or distributing of any narcotic or controlled substance, or at which there is a pattern of criminal activity, arc prohibited nuisances. QM. Yard Sales. The holding or permitting of either: 1. Aa yard sale on the same real propertylot for (i) more than seven consecutive days;; er (ii) more than two consecutive weekends _. fMore than [three/four] separate yard sale events in one calendar year. The prohibition under this Section SVMC 7.05.040(M) shall only apply to dwellings, including but not limited to single family, multifamily, and duplex dwellings. Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 7 of 16 DRAFT PN. Junk Vehicles. All junk vehicles, or parts thereof, placed, stored, or permitted to be located on private property within the City limits.- SVMC 7.05.040(N)are public nuisances to be abated as provided in this chapter. This chapter does not apply to: 1. Any vehicle or part thereof that is completely enclosed within a lawful structurebuilding in a lawful manners so thate it is not visible from the street or any -other public or private property; 2. Any vehicle or part thereof that is stored or parked in a lawful manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler or licensed vehicle dealer, and the private property is fenced pursuant toaccording to the provisions of RCW 46.80.130; 3. A junk vehicle does not include a vehicle which is in the process of being repaired, as evidenced by the good faith efforts of the vehicle owner. This exception shall include having up to one "parts" vehicle, from which parts are being salvaged concurrent with the repair process for the vehicle being excepted from compliance in this section. Good faith efforts of repair maycan include producing invoices showing work or parts purchased for repair or renovation within 30 days prior to issuance of the notice of violation, or a declaration under penalty of perjury that the vehicle is in the process of being repaired and has been worked on within 30 days prior to issuance of the notice of violation. This exception allows up to 60 days for good faith repair. Upon good cause shown, the city managerCity Manager or designee shall have the discretion to grant one additional 60 -day exception period pursuant to SVMC 7.05.040(PN).this chapter. Under no circumstance shall any good faith efforts of repair extend for more than 120 days, after which time this exception shall no longer apply. This exception shall apply to one vehicle and one parts vehicle per parcel of land per calendar year; 4. There shall be allowed as exceptions to SVMC 7.05.040(PN)this chapter up to two junk vehicles in R-1, R-2, and R-3 and R zones, so long as they are completely sight -screened by maintained Type I or II landscaping, a maintained landscaped berm, or fencing, as may be required in the currently adopted zoning codoallowed pursuant to any currently adopted SVMC landscaping, berm, or fencing requirementsJunk vehicles allowed by this exception are restricted to only the R 1, R 2, R 3 and R 1 zone:,. QO. Graffiti. All graffiti upon public or private property is deemed a nuisanceAny graffiti on public or private property. RP. Development Code Violations. Any violation pursuant to Titles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and/or 25 SVMC. 7.05.045 Chronic Nuisances. A. The City Manager or designee may declare that a parcel or lot of real property, a building, including but not limited to the structure or any separate part of portion thereof, whether permanent or not, or the ground itself, or a ef-unit within a building, constitutes a chronic nuisance when any of the following conditions occur: 1. During any continuous 12 -month period, the property in question: (a) a final determination has been made by the City that conditions on the property constitute a nuisance pursuant to chapters 7.05 SVMC and 17.100 SVMC; and (b) has four or more occurrences of on-going criminal activity related to the premises; or 2. During any 12 -month period, the property in question has five or more occurrences of on-going criminal activity related to the premises. B. Defenses. It shall be a defense against a declaration of chronic nuisance if the person alleged to be responsible for the nuisance (1) affirmatively engages in reasonable and ongoing efforts to remedy the nuisance and/or on-going criminal activity; and (2) is not the perpetrator nor allows the perpetration of the nuisance or on-going criminal activities. Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 8 of 16 DRAFT 7.05.050 .Repealed. A. Upon receipt of a complaint, field verification of nuisance conditions should be made if possible prior to, concurrent with, or shortly after notifying the person responsible for the nuisance violation or alleged nuisance violation. B. Advising Interested Parties of Apparent Violation. The person responsible for the nuisance violation should be advised of any apparent violation, which may be by personal contact, phone, posting, or regular mail. The letter should state that a violation may have occurred, but has not been verified, and should ask the recipient to contact the City staff person issuing the letter. C. The city manager or designee will record all violations in a database system, including a list of all actions taken on the complaint. D. Staff undertaking field investigations shall comply with the provisions of this chapter regarding right of 7.05.060 Procedures when probable nuisance violation is identified. The City shall follow procedures pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC to identify nuisances, enforce the provisions of, and to remedy and abate any of the nuisances prohibited under chapter 7.05 SVMC. A. The city manager or designee shall determine, based upon information derived from sources such as field observations, the statements of witnesses, relevant documents and data systems for tracking violations and applicable City codes and regulations, whether or not a nuisance violation has occurred. As soon as the document the violation and promptly notify the person(s) responsible for the nuisance violation. B. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, a warning shall be issued verbally or in writing promptly when a field inspection reveals a violation, or as soon as the city manager or designee otherwise determines a nuisance violation has occurred. The warning shall inform the person determined to be responsible for a nuisance violation of the violation and allow the person an opportunity to correct it or enter into a voluntary compliance agrccmcnt as provided for by this chapter. Verbal warnings shall be logged and followed up with a written warning within five days, and the site shall be reinspected. C. The guidelines set forth for warnings, notifications and reinspections arc not jurisdictional, and failure to meet them in any particular case shall not affect the City's authority to enforce nuisance provisions with regard to that case. voluntary compliance agreement, cases whcrc the violation creates, or has created, a situation or condition that is not likely to be corrected within 72 hours, or when the person responsible for the nuisance violation knows, or reasonably should have known, that the action was a nuisance violation. E. Notice and orders should be issued in all cases whcrc the city manager or designee determines that the violation is unlikely to be fully corrected within 72 hours. F. If the violation is not corrected, the city manager or designee shall utilize the enforcement provisions contained in Chapter 17.100 SVMC as adopted or hereafter amended to obtain compliance with the applicable code provisions. Section 3. Amendment. The following sections of chapter 17.100 SVMC are hereby amended as follows. Any section of chapter 17.100 SVMC not identified herein shall remain unchanged. 17.100.030 Enforcement, authority, and administration. A. In order to discourage public nuisances and otherwise promote compliance with applicable code provisions, the City may, in response to field observations, determine that violations of SVMC Titles 17 through 22 and 24 SVMC and chapter 7.05 SVMC; have occurred or are occurring, and may: 1. Enter into voluntary compliance agreements with persons responsible for code violations; 2. Issue notice and orders, require voluntary compliance, assess civil penalties, and recover costs pursuant toas authorized by Cchapter 17.100 SVMC; Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 9 of 16 DRAFT 3. Require abatement by means of a judicial abatement order, and if such abatement is not timely completed by the person or persons responsible for a code violation, undertake the abatement and charge the reasonable costs of such work pursuant toas authorized by Gchapter 17.100 SVMC; 4. Allow a person responsible for the code violation to perform community service in lieu of paying civil penalties pursuant to as authorized by €chapter 17.100 SVMC; 5. Order work stopped at a site by means of a stop work order, and if such order is not complied with, assess civil penalties pursuant to as authorized by Cchapter 17.100 SVMC; 6. Suspend, revoke, or modify any permit previously issued by the City or deny a permit application pursuant toas authorized by cchapter 17.100 SVMC when other efforts to achieve compliance have failed; and 7. Forward a written statement providing all relevant information relating to the violation to the office of the city attorney with a recommendation to prosecute willful and knowing violations as misdemeanor offenses. B. The procedures set forth in Chapter 17.100 SVMC are not exclusive. These procedures shall not in any manner limit or restrict the City from remedying or abating violations of SVMC Titles 17 through 24 and Gchapter 7.05 SVMC in any other manner authorized by law. C. In addition to, or as an alternative to, utilizing the procedures set forth in cchapter 17.100 SVMC, the City may seek legal or equitable relief to abate any conditions or enjoin any acts or practices which constitute a code violation. D. In addition to, or as an alternative to, utilizing the procedures set forth in cchapter 17.100 SVMC, the City may assess or recover civil penalties accruing pursuant tounder €chapter 17.100 SVMC by legal action filed in Spokane County district court or superior court by the office of the city attorney. E. The provisions of Cchapter 17.100 SVMC shall in no way adversely affect the rights of the owner, lessee, or occupant of any property to recover all costs and expenses incurred and required by Gchapter 17.100 SVMC from any person causing such violation. F. In administering the provisions for code compliance, the City shall have the authority to waive any one or more such provisions so as to avoid substantial injustice. Any determination of substantial injustice shall be made in writing supported by appropriate facts._ For purposes of SVMC 17.100.030, substantial injustice maycannot not be based exclusively on financial hardship. G. The City may, upon presentation of proper credentials, with the consent of the owner or occupier of a building or premises, or pursuant to a lawfully issued court order, enter at reasonable times any building or premises subject to the consent or court order to perform the duties imposed by the SVMC. It is the intent of the city council that any entry made to private property for the purpose of inspection for code violations be accomplished in strict conformity with constitutional and statutory constraints on entry, and the holdings of the relevant court cases regarding entry. The right of entry authorized by Cchapter 17.100 SVMC shall not supersede those legal constraints. H. The City may request that the police, appropriate fire district, Spokane Regional Health District, or other appropriate City department or other non -City agency assist in enforcement. 17.100.050 Procedures when probable violation is identified. A. The City shall determine, based upon information derived from sources such as field observations, the statements of witnesses, relevant documents, and data systems for tracking violations and applicable City codes and regulations, whether or not a violation has occurred. As soon as the City has reasonable cause to Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 10 of 16 DRAFT determine that a violation has occurred, the violation shall be documented and the person responsible for the code violations promptly notified. B. Except as provided in SVMC 17.100.050(C), a warning shall be issued verbally or in writing promptly when a field inspection reveals a violation, or as soon as the City otherwise determines a violation has occurred. The warning shall inform the person determined to be responsible for a code violation of the violation and allow the person an opportunity to correct it or enter into a voluntary compliance agreement pursuant toas provided for by Gchapter 17.100 SVMC. Verbal warnings shall be logged and followed up with a written warning within five days, and the site shall be reinspected within 14 days. C. No warning need be issued in emergencies, repeat violation cases, cases that are already subject to a voluntary compliance agreement, cases where the violation creates or has created a situation or condition that is not likely to be corrected within 72 hours, cases where a stop work order is necessary, or when the person responsible for the code violation knows, or reasonably should have known, that the action was a code violation. D. Notice and orders may should be_ -issued in all cases in whichwhen a violation has been found and a voluntary compliance agreement has not been entered. When determining whether to issue a notice and order, the City may consider a number of relevant factors and criteria, including but not limited to the severity of the public impact of the nuisance violation, the time and cost to abate the nuisance violation, the likelihood to recover any costs of abatement, and the available City resources to abate the nuisance violation. E. The City shall use all reasonable means to determine and proceed against the person(s) actually responsible for the code violation occurring when the property owner has not directly or indirectly caused the violation. F. The warning shall specify a reasonable time frame for abatement of the violation, which may be modified based upon abatement progress; provided, however, that the initial amount of time for abatement shall not be longer than 30 days. A notice and order or stop work order shall be issued in the event the violation is not corrected or a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into in the time period specified in the warning. If the violation is not corrected, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into within 30 days of notification by the City, a notice and order or stop work order should be issued. Stop work orders should be issued promptly upon discovery of a violation in progress. 17.100.060 Service — Notice and Order and §Stop wWork eOrder. A. Service of a notice and order shall be made on a person responsible fora code violation by one or more of the following methods: 1. Personal service of a notice and order may be made on the person identified by the City as being responsible for the code violation, or by leaving a copy of the notice and order at the person's house of usual abode with a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there. For corporations and business entities, in-person service shall be on the registered agent as listed in the records of the Washington State Secretary of State; 2. Service directed to the landowner and/or occupant of the property may be made by posting the notice and order in a conspicuous place on the property where the violation occurred and concurrently mailing notice as provided for below, if a mailing address is available; or 3. Service by mail may be made for a notice and order by mailing one copy, postage prepaid, by ordinary first class mail to the person responsible for the code violation at his or her last known address, at the address of the violation, or at the address of the registered agent as shown in the records of the Washington State Secretary of State for corporations and business entitiesplacc of business of the person responsible for the code violation. Except for corporations and business entities, Tthe taxpayer's address as shown on the Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 11 of 16 DRAFT tax records of Spokane County shall be deemed to be the proper address for the purpose of mailing such notice to the landowner of the property where the violation occurred. Service by mail shall be presumed effective upon the third business day following the day upon which the notice and order was placed in the mail. B. For notice and orders only, when the address of the person responsible for the code violation cannot be reasonably determined, service may be made by publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in an appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal. Service by publication shall be deemed complete at the expiration of the time prescribed for publication. A notice and order served by publication shall be signed by a code compliance enforcement officer, shall include the dates of the publication, and shall contain a brief statement of the nature of the action and how it can be remedied. C. Service of a stop work order on a person responsible for a code violation may be made by posting the stop work order in a conspicuous place on the property where the violation occurred or by serving the stop work order in any other manner permitted by Chapter 17.100 SVMC. D. The failure of the City to make or attempt service on any person named in the notice of violation, notice and order, or stop work order shall not invalidate any proceedings as to any other person duly served. 17.100.250 Civil penalties — Assessment schedule. A. Civil penalties for code violations shall be imposed for remedial purposes for violations identified in a notice and order or stop work order, pursuant to the following schedule: Violation Penalty Amount First violation $500 Second separate violation within $1000 three year period (may be same type of nuisance as initial violation) Each subsequent separate $2,000 violation within three year period (may be same type of nuisance as previous violation(s)) Violation which is likely to 10 000 result in an economic benefit to the person responsible for the violation Chronic nuisance violation $2.500 pursuant to SVMC 7.05.045 Notice and orders and stop work orders basic initial penalty: $500.00. B. Additional penalties shall be added where there is: 1. Second violation: $500.00. 2. Each subsequent violation (three or more): $1,000. 3. Eeconomic benefit to the person responsible for violation: $5,000. C. Civil penalties shall be paid within 20 days of service of the notice and order or stop work order if not appealed. _Payment of the civil penalties pursuant to assessed under cGhapter 17.100 SVMC does not Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 12 of 16 DRAFT relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to correct the violation and/or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to Echapter 17.100 SVMC. D. The City may suspend civil penalties if the person responsible for a code violation has entered into and fulfilled all requirements of a voluntary compliance agreement pursuant to SVMC 17.100.100.- E. Civil penalties which are assessed create a joint and several personal obligation in all persons responsible for a code violation. may file for record with the Spokane County aAuditor to claim a lien against the real property for the , civil penalties, and costs of suit assessed pursuant to under Cchaptcr 17.100 SVMC if the violation was reasonably related to the real property. Any such lien can be filed under Chapter 17.100 SVMC if, after the expiration of 30 days from when a person responsible for a code violation receives the notice and order or 17.100.300 Cost recovery. A. In addition to the other remedies x ursuant toavailable under Echapter 17.100 SVMC, upon issuance of a notice and order or stop work order, the City shall charge the costs of pursuing code compliance and abatement incurred to correct a code violation to the person responsible for a code violation. These charges include: 1. Reasonable Legal Fees and Costs. For purposes of SVMC 17.100.300, "reasonable legal fees and costs" shall include, but are not limited to, legal personnel costs, both direct and related, incurred to enforce the provisions of Echapter 17.100 SVMC as may be allowed by law; 2. Administrative Personnel Costs. For purposes of SVMC 17.100.300, "administrative personnel costs" shall include, but are not limited to, administrative employee costs, both direct and related, incurred to enforce the provisions of Echapter 17.100 SVMC; 3. Abatement Costs. The City shall keep an itemized account of costs incurred by the City in the abatement of a violation under Echapter 17.100 SVMC; and 4. Actual expenses and costs of the City in preparing notices, specifications, and contracts; in accomplishing or contracting and inspecting the work; and the costs of any required printing, mailing, or court filing fees. B. Such costs are due and payable 30 days from mailing of the invoice. C. All costs assessed by the City in pursuing code enforcementeompliance. and/or abatement create joint and several personal obligations in all persons responsible for a violation. The office of the city attorney, on behalf of the City, may collect the costs of code compliance efforts by any appropriate legal means. D. In addition to, or in lieu of, any other state or local provision for the recovery of costs, the City may, after abating a violation pursuant to Chapter 17.100 SVMC, file for record with the Spokane County auditor to claim a lien against the real property for the assessed costs identified in Chapter 17.100 SVMC if the state law. E. Any lien filed shall be subordinate to all previously existing special assessment liens imposed on the same property and shall be superior to all other liens, except for state and county taxes, with which it shall Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 13 of 16 DRAFT share priority. The City may cause a claim of lien to be filed for record within 90 days from the later of the date that the monetary penalty is due or the date the work is completed or the nuisance abated. The claim of lien shall contain sufficient information regarding the notice and order, a description of the property to be charged with the lien, the owner of record, and the total of the lien. Any such claim of lien may be the period as provided for by state law. 17.100.310 Collection of civil penalties, fees, and costs. A. The City may use the services of a collection agency in order to collect any civil penalties, fees, costs, and/or interest owing under Cchapter 17.100. SVMC. B. In addition to, or in lieu of, any other state or local provision for the recovery of costs, the City may, after abating a violation pursuant to Cchapter 17.100 SVMC, file for record with the Spokane County Auditor to claim a lien against the real property for the civil penalties, fees, and costs assessed pursuant to Cchapter 17.100 SVMC if the violation was reasonably related to the real property, in accordance with any lien provisions authorized by state law. C. Any lien filed shall be subject to priority pursuant to state law, including but not limited to RCW 35A.21.405, as now adopted or hereafter amended. Any such claim of lien may be amended from time to time to reflect changed conditions. Any such lien shall bind the affected property for the period as provided for by state law. 17.100.320 Abatement. A. Emergency Abatement. Whenever a condition constitutes an immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare or to the environment, the City may summarily and without prior notice abate the condition. Notice of such abatement, including the reason for it, shall be given to the person responsible for the violation as soon as reasonably possible after the abatement. B. Judicial Abatement. The City may seek a judicial abatement order from Spokane County superior court to abate a condition which continues to be a violation of SVMC where other methods of remedial action have failed to produce compliance. C. The City shall seek to recover the costs of abatement as authorized by Cchapter 17.100 SVMC. 17.100.325 Abatement — Chronic Nuisances. A. Chronic Nuisance Judicial Abatement Order. The City may seek a judicial abatement order from Spokane County eSuperior eCourt to abate a condition deemed a chronic nuisance pursuant to ehaptefSVMC 7.05.045 SVMC where other methods of remedial action have failed to produce compliance. This abatement order, in addition to the remedies outlined in the remainder of chapter 17.100 SVMC, may seek abatement of the chronic nuisance as follows: 1. Direct the removal of all personal property subject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to RCW 69.50.505 from the property, building, or unit within a building, and direct their disposition pursuant to the forfeiture provisions of RCW 69.50.505. 2. Provide for the immediate closure of the property, building, or unit within a building against its use for any purpose, and for keeping it closed for a period of up to one year unless released sooner pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC. :. . . - .. • ; and Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 14 of 16 DRAFT 3. State that while the order of abatement remains in effect, the property, building, or unit(s) within a building ... .. }shall remain in the custody of the court. n order for abatement ofa granted 12 B. The City shall may seek to recover the costs . • ., chapter 17.100 SVMC. 17.100.340 Judicial enforcement — Petition for enforcement. I of abatement pursuant to A. In addition to any other judicial or administrative remedy, the Cityoffice of the city attorney, on behalf of the City, may seek enforcement of the City's order by filing a petition for enforcement in Spokane County eSuperior eCourt. B. The City shall petition must name as a respondent each person against whom the City seeks to obtain civil enforcement. C. A petition for civil In seeking Superior Court enforcement, the City may request monetary relief, declaratory relief, temporary or permanent injunctive relief, and any other civil remedy provided by law, or any combination of the foregoing. Section 4. Amendment. Chapter 17.110 SVMC is hereby amended as follows: 17.110.010 Master fee schedule. All fees and penalties for development permits, code interpretations, violations of provisions of SVMC Title 17 or allowed appeals shall be set forth in the City master fee schedule. A copy of this schedule shall be available from the City Clerkat the department. 17.110.020 Waiver of code enforcement appeal fee. A. A person, on the basis of indigent status, may request, in writing, a waiver of the appeal fee of any code enforcement decision made pursuant to chapter 17.100 SVMC if such indigent status exists because: 1. The person is currently receiving assistance under a needs -based, means -tested assistance program including, but not limited to, the following: Federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; State -provided general assistance for unemployable individuals; Federal Supplemental Security Income; Federal poverty -related Veteran's benefits; and food stamps programs; or 2. The person's household income is at or below 125% of the federal poverty guideline; or 3. The person's household income is above 125% of the federal poverty guideline and the applicant has recurring basic living expenses (as defined in RCW 10.101.010(2)(d)) that render the person without the financial ability to pay the appeal fee; or 4. There are other compelling circumstances that demonstrate the person's inability to pay the appeal fee. B. A person seeking a waiver of the appeal fee of a code enforcement decision shall include written proof of indigent status in the written request to waive the appeal fee. C. The City Manager shall consider and make a written determination of the waiver request prior to the appeal hearing. The City may schedule a hearing while the waiver request is being processed; provided, however, the City shall not conduct the hearing if a waiver request is denied until payment is made. Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 15 of 16 DRAFT Section 5. Amendment. Appendix A of the SVMC is hereby amended as follows: A. General Provisions. 1. For the purpose of this code, certain words and terms are herein defined. The word "shall" is always mandatory. The word "may" is permissive, subject to the judgment of the person administering the code. 2. Words not defined herein shall be construed as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. 3. The present tense includes the future and the present. 4. The singular number includes the plural and the singular. 5. Use of male designations shall also include female. B. Definitions. AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Abandoned: Knowing relinquishment by the owner, of right or claim to the subject property or structure on that property, without any intention of transferring rights to the property or structure to another owner, tenant, or lessee, or of resuming the owner's use of the property. "Abandoned" shall include but not be limited to circumstances involving tax forfeiture, bankruptcy, or mortgage foreclosure. "Abate" means to take whatever steps are deemed necessary by the City Manager or designee to ensure that the property complies with applicable SVMC requirements. Abatement may include, but is not limited to, rehabilitation, demolition, removal, replacement, or repair. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of January, 2018. ATTEST: City of Spokane Valley L.R. Higgins, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-001 Regarding Nuisances Page 16 of 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ® new business ['public hearing ['information ❑admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 18-002 to adopt proposed unfit dwelling regulations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 35.80 RCW PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council heard an administrative report on December 19, 2017 and a first reading on January 9, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City is seeking City Council action on another nuisance abatement tool. The City has several existing code enforcement provisions for dealing with public nuisances. These include chapter 7.05 SVMC, which outlines specific public nuisances including junk, garbage, junk vehicles, noise, odor, and dust; Titles 19 through 24 SVMC, which provide development, land use, and building safety regulations; and chapter 17.100 SVMC, which provides the administrative enforcement procedures for identifying and remedying nuisances and violations of development, land use, and building codes. Remedies include authority to obtain court orders and warrants authorizing the City to enter private property and abate the violations through removal of the garbage, or through requiring the responsible person to comply with the court order. Further, chapter 17.100 authorizes the City to recover costs related to any abatement action through the court system. Once a court judgment is obtained, it is recorded against the property and becomes a lien which is then paid once the property is sold. Further, the City works with owners on payment plans to recover costs prior to the transfer of property. However, cost recovery for nuisance abatement is limited under State law, which provides that liens are subject to all prior liens that are recorded before them. These include State and local taxes that are still owing and prior mortgages. Thus, if a property is in tax default and has several existing mortgages, those must be paid off before the City's cost recovery lien will be paid. The City worked with our local legislators to obtain a change to State law, and now the first $2,000 of the City's nuisance lien is a priority lien that is of equal rank of State and local taxes, so it is paid first along with those taxes. However, the remainder is still subject to the "first in time" rule and may not be paid depending on the other outstanding liens. Although the City's priority lien is limited to the first $2,000, it generally works for normal nuisance abatements, as costs typically run from $1,500 to $2,500. The City has had very few above $5,000. However, for abatement of unfit dwellings and structures, the cost recovery process becomes problematic. Abatement of unfit dwellings and structures often involves demolition of the structure, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Unfit dwellings and structures are often caused by fire or through long-time abandonment. State law option — Chapter 35.80 RCW State law provides an option for the City to maximize cost recovery on abatement of unfit dwellings, buildings, and structures. Chapter 35.80 RCW allows the City to recover all costs of Page 1 of 2 abatement of unfit dwellings, buildings, and structures as a priority lien of equal rank with state and local taxes. Notably, it is limited solely to abatement of unfit dwellings, buildings, and structures, so it cannot be used for normal nuisance abatement. However, it requires the City to adopt an ordinance to provide specific procedures for making determinations of unfit buildings and providing an opportunity for owners to respond. These procedures are similar, but still different from existing City code enforcement procedures. Thus, staff is proposing an ordinance adopting a new chapter 17.105 SVMC to comply with the requirements of chapter 35.80 RCW to allow the City to utilize the cost recovery for abatement of unfit dwellings, buildings, and structures. As part of the requirements of chapter 35.80 RCW, the City must create or designate an improvement board or officer. This officer conducts preliminary investigations and issues complaints identifying that a dwelling or building is unfit for use. There are extensive notice requirements for distribution of the complaint, including mailing, posting, and filing a copy with the county auditor. The officer must conduct a hearing on the complaint and must allow the owner an opportunity to respond. After the hearing, the officer may issue a final order. Again, there are extensive notice requirements for distributing the order. The order must also specify the required action to remedy the issues, which will include repair or demolition of the dwelling or structure, and the time period for such action to occur. Further, defendants may appeal an order within 30 days. The proposed ordinance specifies that the City Manager or designee will be the improvement officer. Staff have identified that the Building Official will be the likely designated improvement officer. The City must also create or designate an appeals commission to hear any appeals of an officer's order. The proposed ordinance specifies that the Hearing Examiner will act as the appeals commission. Further, the proposed ordinance includes the necessary appeals procedures for any Hearing Examiner appeal. Additionally, RCW 35.80.030 authorizes the City to create minimum standards for use and occupancy of dwellings, buildings, and structures, including when such dwellings, buildings, and structures are unfit for use. Further the City is required to create standards for when an unfit structure may be repaired versus when it must be demolished. Proposed section 17.105.040(A) SVMC includes the minimum standards for determining when a structure is unfit for use. Proposed section 17.105.040(C) SVMC includes the criteria for determining the appropriate remedial action. Finally, as discussed above, pursuant to RCW 35.80.030, the proposed ordinance also includes authority for the City to abate unfit dwellings, buildings, and structures when voluntary compliance is not achieved, and to recover all abatement costs it incurs. The City is authorized to assess its costs against the property as a lien that is of equal rank with all state and local taxes. OPTIONS: Move to approve Ordinance No. 18-002, with or without further amendments; or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No. 18-002 adopting chapter 17.105 SVMC for unfit dwelling, building, and structure regulations. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Unknown STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance No. 18-002 Page 2 of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 18-002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.105 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING UNFIT DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, AND STRUCTURES, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE 17.90.010 FOR UNFIT DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS, AND STRUCTURES, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, unkempt, unsafe, unsanitary and otherwise improperly maintained dwellings and structures that are not fit for human habitation or other uses pose hazards to the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, these conditions also adversely affect the value, utility and habitability of property within the City as a whole and specifically cause substantial damage to adjoining and nearby property; and WHEREAS, there exists unkempt, unsafe, unsanitary and otherwise improperly maintained dwellings, buildings, structures, and premises that are not fit for human habitation or other uses; and WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of property owners to properly maintain their properties and dwellings, buildings and structure thereon. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to establish a regulatory framework pursuant to chapter 35.80 RCW to inspect, repair, and demolish unfit dwellings, buildings, structures, and premises that are unfit for human habitation or other use and which are a hazard and threat to public health, safety and welfare within the City of Spokane Valley. Section 2. Adoption. That SVMC Title 17 be amended by adding a new chapter, to be designated "Chapter 17.105 Unfit Dwellings, Buildings, and Structures" - as follows: 17.105.010 Findings; Purpose. It is found that there exists in the City of Spokane Valley dwellings, buildings, structures, and premises which are unfit for human habitation and which are unfit for other uses due to dilapidation, disrepair, structural defects, defects increasing the hazards of fire, accidents, or other calamities, inadequate drainage, overcrowding, or due to other conditions which are harmful to the health and welfare of the residents of the City. This chapter is adopted pursuant to chapter 35.80 RCW and is intended to clarify and strengthen the City's procedures for abating such unfit dwellings, buildings, structures, and premises. This chapter shall only be used for those purposes specified in chapter 35.80 RCW and shall be in addition and supplemental to the powers conferred by any other law, including but not limited to chapter 7.05 SVMC and chapter 17.100 SVMC. Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 1 of 16 DRAFT 17.105.020 Enforcement authority and powers. A. The responsibility for administration and enforcement of chapter 17.105 SVMC, unless otherwise provided, is vested in the City Manager or his or her designee(s). All references to City Manager herein shall include his or her designee(s). The City Manager is designated as the City's "improvement officer" pursuant to RCW 35.80.030 for purposes of chapter 17.105 SVMC. B. The Hearing Examiner is hereby designated as the "appeals commission" pursuant to RCW 35.80.030 for the purposes of chapter 17.105 SVMC and shall have all rights and responsibilities for hearing appeals of administrative orders issued by the City Manager. C. The City Manager may exercise such lawful powers as may be necessary or convenient to effectuate the purposes and provisions of chapter 17.105 SVMC. These powers shall include, but are not limited to the following: 1. To determine, pursuant to standards proscribed herein and by the residential, property, and building codes adopted pursuant to chapter 24.40 SVMC, as the same now exist or are hereafter amended, which dwellings within the City are unfit for human habitation; 2. To determine, pursuant to standards proscribed herein and by the residential, property, and building codes adopted pursuant to chapter 24.40 SVMC, as the same now exist or may hereafter be amended, which buildings, structures, or premises are unfit for other use; 3. To administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses and receive evidence; 4. To investigate the dwelling or other property conditions in the City and to enter upon premises to make examinations when the City Manager has reasonable grounds to believe such dwellings, buildings, structures, or premises are unfit for human habitation or for other use; provided such investigations shall comply with all applicable constitutional, federal, state, and local laws and shall be made in such a manner as to cause the least possible inconvenience to the persons in possession; 5. To obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of entering premises to make such examinations, after submitting evidence in support of an application which is adequate to justify such an order in the event entry is denied or resisted; 6. To conduct all necessary hearings related to a determination of unfitness and to impose and require such remedies and penalties as may be appropriate to vacate, improve, repair, remove, or demolish unfit dwellings, buildings, structures, or premises; 7. To take all such actions as necessary to collect or assess any allowable costs, fees, or penalties as a result of actions taken pursuant to chapter 17.105 SVMC as allowed by law; and 8. To take such other action as may be reasonably necessary and related to administer, enforce, and carry out the requirements of chapter 17.105 SVMC. Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 2 of 16 DRAFT 17.105.030 Procedure to abate unfit dwellings, buildings, structures, or premises. A. Complaint. 1. If the City Manager, after a preliminary investigation, finds that any dwelling, building, structure or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use pursuant to SVMC 17.105.040, the City Manager shall cause a written complaint to be served either personally or by certified mail, with return receipt requested, upon all persons having any interest therein, as shown upon the records of the Spokane County Auditor, and shall post the complaint in a conspicuous place on the property that is the subject of the complaint. 2. If the whereabouts of any such persons is unknown and cannot be ascertained by the City Manager in the exercise of reasonable diligence, and the City Manager makes an affidavit to that effect with the complaint, then service may be made by: (a) personal service, or (b) mailing the complaint and affidavit by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to each such person at the address of the building involved in the proceeding, and mailing a copy of the complaint and affidavit by first-class mail to any address listed for each such person in the records of the Spokane County Assessor or Spokane County Auditor. 3. The complaint shall state in what respects such dwelling, building, structure, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use pursuant to SVMC 17.105.040, the applicable remedies that will be sought, notice of any penalties, and notice that if the City is required to abate the conditions, it may seek all costs, fees and expenses and such costs, fees, and expenses may be assessed upon the property and collected as allowed by law. 4. The complaint shall contain notice that a hearing shall be held before the City Manager at a place specified in the complaint, not less than 10 days nor more than 30 days after the serving of the complaint, and that all parties in interest have the right to file an answer to the complaint, appear in person, or otherwise, and to give testimony at the time and place in the complaint. 5. A copy of the complaint and any supporting affidavit shall be filed with the Spokane County Auditor, and the filing of the complaint shall have the same force and effect as other lis pendens notices provided by law. B. Hearing. As specified in the complaint, the City Manager shall conduct a hearing to determine if a dwelling, building, structure, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use. All persons identified in the complaint shall have the right and opportunity to file an answer with the City Manager and appear at the hearing in person, or otherwise, and give testimony concerning the preliminary determination set forth in the complaint. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling in hearings before the City Manager. At the conclusion of the hearing, after taking all testimony and reviewing all submitted evidence, the City Manager shall make a determination as to whether the dwelling, building, structure, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use pursuant to SVMC 17.105.040. Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 3 of 16 DRAFT C. Findings and Order. 1. Upon a determination that a dwelling, building, structure, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use pursuant to SVMC 17.105.030(B), the City Manager shall make written findings of fact in support of such determination, and shall issue and cause to be served upon each owner and party in interest as identified in the complaint, either personally or by certified mail with return receipt requested, and shall post in a conspicuous place on the property, an order that: (a) requires the owner and other parties in interest, within the time specified in the order, to repair, alter, or improve such dwelling, building structure, or premises to render it fit for human habitation or for other appropriate use, or to vacate, close, and secure the dwelling, building, structure, or premises, if that course of action is deemed lawful and reasonable pursuant to SVMC 17.105.040; or; (b) requires the owner and parties in interest, within the time specified in the order, to remove or demolish the dwelling, building, structure, or premises, if that course of action is deemed lawful and reasonable pursuant to SVMC 17.105.040. If a complainant has made a written request to be notified of the City's response to the complaint filed by the complainant, the City shall mail, first class with postage prepaid, a copy of the order made by the City Manager. 2. An order may require the owner to take effective steps to board up or otherwise bar access to the structure or premises, if deemed necessary for public safety, pending further abatement action. The order shall include any appropriate penalties or remedies available to the City pursuant to chapter 17.105 SVMC or other applicable provisions of the Code. 3. If no appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of service of the order, a copy of the order shall be filed with the Spokane County Auditor, and shall be a final order. 17.105.040 Criteria for determination of unfit dwellings, buildings, structures, or premises. A. Determination. The City Manager is hereby granted authority to determine if a dwelling, building, structure, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use if he or she finds that one or more defects or conditions exist in such dwelling, building, structure, or premises which are dangerous or injurious to the health and safety of the occupants of such dwelling, building, structure, or premises, the occupants of neighboring dwellings or buildings, or other residents of the City as follows: 1. The defects or conditions meet one or more of the following: a. Whenever any door, aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is not of sufficient width or size or is not so arranged as to provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic; b. Whenever the walking surface of any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is so warped, worn, loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic; Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 4 of 16 DRAFT c. Whenever the stress in any materials, member or portion thereof, due to all dead and live loads, is more than one and one half times the working stress or stresses allowed in the Washington State building code, as now adopted in chapter 19.27 RCW and Title 51 WAC or hereafter amended for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location; d. Whenever any portion thereof has been damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, flood or by any other cause, to such an extent that the structural strength or stability thereof is materially less than it was before such catastrophe and is less than the minimum requirements of the Washington State building code, as now adopted in chapter 19.27 RCW and Title 51 WAC or hereafter amended for new building of similar structure, purpose or location; e. Whenever any portion or member of appurtenance thereof is likely to fail, or to become detached or dislodged, or to collapse and thereby injure persons or damage property; f. Wherever any portion of a building, or any member appurtenance or ornamentation on the exterior thereof is not of sufficient strength or stability, or is not so anchored, attached or fastened in place so as to be capable of resisting a wind pressure of one half of that specified in the Washington State building code, as now adopted in chapter 19.27 RCW and Title 51 WAC or hereafter amended for new building of similar structure, purpose or location, without exceeding the working stresses permitted in the Washington State building code, as now adopted in chapter 19.27 RCW and Title 51 WAC or hereafter amended for such buildings; g. Whenever any portion thereof has wracked, warped, buckled or settled to such an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to winds or earthquakes than is required in the case of similar new construction; h. Wherever the building or structure, or any portion thereof, because of: (i) dilapidation, deterioration or decay; (ii) faulty construction; (iii) the removal, movement or instability of any portion of the ground necessary for the purpose of supporting such a building; (iv) the deterioration, decay or inadequacy of its foundation; or (v) any other cause, is likely to partially or completely collapse; i. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used; j. Whenever the exterior walls are not anchored to supporting and supported elements; are not plumb and free of holes, cracks or breaks and loose or rotting materials; or are not capable of supporting all nominal loads and resisting all load effects; k. Whenever the foundation systems are not firmly supported by footings, are not plumb and free from open cracks and breaks, are not properly anchored, or are capable of supporting all nominal loads and resisting all load effects; Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 5 of 16 DRAFT 1. Whenever roofing or roofing components that have defects that admit rain, roof surfaces with inadequate drainage or any portion of the roof framing that is not in good repair with signs of deterioration, fatigue or without proper anchorage and incapable of supporting all nominal loads and resisting all load effects; m. Wherever a building or structure, used or intended to be used for dwelling purposes, because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, decay, damage, faulty construction or arrangement, inadequate light, air or sanitation facilities, or otherwise, is determined by the building official, in consultation with the appropriate agency, to be unsanitary, unfit for human habitation or in such a condition that is likely to cause sickness or disease; n. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard; or o. Whenever any portion of a building or structure remains on a site after the demolition or destruction of the building or structure or whenever any building or structure is abandoned for a period in excess of six months so as to constitute such building or portion thereof an attractive nuisance or hazard to the public; or 2. The defect or condition otherwise substantially violates the standards and requirements set forth in the residential, property, and building codes adopted pursuant to chapter 24.40 SVMC, as the same now exist or may hereafter be amended. B. Nothing herein shall require the City Manager to determine a dwelling, building, structure, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use or to require any particular remedy or abatement unless otherwise required by law. C. Standards for Determining Appropriate Remedial Action. 1. Once the City Manager has made a determination that conditions are such that a dwelling, building, structure, or premises is unfit for human habitation or other use, the City Manager shall determine the appropriate remedy for the dwelling, building, structure, or premises. The City Manager is hereby authorized to require any appropriate remedy determined necessary to eliminate the hazardous, injurious, or dangerous conditions or defects and to bring the dwelling, building, structure, or premises into compliance with the residential, property, and building codes adopted pursuant to chapter 24.40 SVMC, as the same now exist or may hereafter be amended. Remedies may include but are not limited to requiring repair, renovation, restoration, removal, demolition of, or requiring the person to vacate and close or secure the dwelling, building, structure, or premises. For purposes of this section, "secure" means boarding all door, window, and other entry points or, if boarding is not possible due to damage, causing the property to be secured by completely fencing off the property or defects or dangerous conditions with at least a six-foot tall fence. When determining the extent of the remedy required, including demolition, the City Manager shall give consideration to: Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 6 of 16 DRAFT (a) whether the conditions create an immediate or imminent threat to public health, safety, and welfare for the subject property and/or adjacent or nearby properties; (b) the cost of available remedies versus the value of the property. This factor shall weigh more in favor of demolition as the cost of the remedy increases in relation to the value of the property; (c) the length of time the condition has existed; and (d) previous efforts by the owner or parties in interest to remedy the conditions. 2. Except as otherwise provided herein, a dwelling, building, structure, or premises that has been determined unfit for human habitation shall be demolished whenever the estimated cost of repair, renovation, restoration or other remedy exceeds 50 percent of the value of the dwelling, building, structure, or premises. 3. When a dwelling, building, structure, or premises has been determined to be unfit for human habitation or other use pursuant to SVMC 17.105.040(A) and has been ordered to be repaired, renovated, or restored, it shall be vacated and demolished if it has not been repaired, renovated, restored, or otherwise abated to such a degree to receive a written determination of habitability from the City Manager within six months after the date specified for completion of the required repair, renovation, or restoration, provided such date shall not exceed 18 months from the date of the final determination of unfitness, including any appeals of such determination. 4. The City Manager shall specify the timeline for (a) demolition of the unfit structure, if the structure is required to be demolished, or (b) other abatement required for structures in the determination of unfitness. 17.105.050 Right to Appeal. A. The following parties have standing to appeal an order of the City Manager to the Hearing Examiner: 1. The party in interest or owner of property subject to the order; and 2. The complainant if a written request is made to be notified of the City's response to the complaint filed by the complainant. B. An appeal of the City Manager's order may be filed within 30 days from the date of service. An appeal shall not be considered filed unless accompanied with the appropriate appeal fee and a complete appeal submittal. 17.105.060 Contents of an appeal to the Hearing Examiner. A. Each appeal to the Hearing Examiner shall include: 1. The case number designated by the City and the name of the parties in interest and owner of the property subject to the order; Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 7 of 16 DRAFT 2. The name and signature of each appellant or their authorized representative and a statement showing that each appellant has standing to file an appeal pursuant to SVMC 17.105.050. If multiple parties file a single appeal, the appeal shall designate one party as the contact representative; 3. The decision and specific portions of the decision or determination being appealed, and the reasons why each aspect is in error as a matter of fact or law; 4. Evidence that specific issues raised on appeal were raised during the hearing on the complaint or were timely submitted while the record was open if such issues could have been raised; provided issues that were not ripe (such as issues raised in decision) need not have been raised; and 5. The appeal fee pursuant to chapter 17.110 SVMC, unless otherwise exempted. The fee may be refunded, either wholly or partially, if: (a) the appellant requests withdrawal of the appeal in writing at least 10 calendar days before the scheduled appeal hearing date; or (b) the appellant(s) successfully appeals the City's order, which refund shall occur within 45 days of the Hearing Examiner's decision. B. All complete appeals submitted and allowed pursuant to chapter 17.105 SVMC shall be scheduled for hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The hearing shall be scheduled to allow the Hearing Examiner to issue a final decision on the appeal within 60 days from the date of filing of the appeal. Hearings on an appeal shall be open to public view. C. Notice of the appeal hearing shall be provided at least 10 days in advance of the hearing, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the appellant(s), the other party in interest, or other owner of the property subject to the order, and complainant, if the complainant made a written request to be notified of the City's response to the complaint, and the City. 1. Failure of a person entitled to receive notice does not affect the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner to hear the appeal when scheduled and render a decision, if the notice was properly mailed. 2. 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, or if the person fails to object to the lack of notice promptly after the person obtains actual knowledge of the hearing date. 3. 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 from the party or parties who did not receive notice. D. The filing of the appeal shall stay the order of the City Manager, except for temporary measures of an emergent nature that are required, such as securing the building to minimize any imminent danger to the public health or safety. Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 8 of 16 DRAFT 17.105.070 Hearing Examiner appeal procedures. A. The format of the appeal hearing shall be organized so that the testimony and written evidence may be presented quickly and efficiently. The format will generally be as follows: 1. A brief introduction of the matter by the Hearing Examiner; 2. A report by City staff including introduction of the official file on the order and its procedural history, an explanation of the City Manager's determination, including the use of visual aids, and the recommendation of the City on the appeal of the order; 3. The submittal of testimony and documents by or on behalf of the appellant(s), who have the burden of proof at the hearing; 4. The submittal of testimony and documents by the City and opposing parties; 5. Rebuttal; 6. Questions or requests for clarifications by the Hearing Examiner, and closing arguments; 7. Closure of the hearing; 8. Closure of the record and continuation of the matter for final decision. B. 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 generally 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. C. 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 shall make copies available at the hearing for review by the opposing party. D. 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. E. All testimony taken by the Hearing Examiner in an appeal pursuant to chapter 17.105 SVMC shall be under oath or affirmation. F. 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 the order on appeal. Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 9 of 16 DRAFT G. 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. H. 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. I. No testimony or oral statement regarding the substance or merits of an application is allowable after the close of the appeal hearing. No documentary material submitted after the 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. 17.105.080 Hearing Examiner appeals — reopening or continuing hearings. A. 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. B. 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 shall be given at least five days' notice of the date, time, place and nature of the reopened hearing. C. Motions by a party for continuation or to reopen a hearing shall state the reasons therefor and be made as soon as reasonably possible. The motion shall 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. D. 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. 17.105.090 Hearing Examiner appeal — record of hearing. A. 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. B. The record shall include, but is not limited to: 1. The City Manager's order and appeal submittal; 2. City staff reports; 3. All evidence received or considered by the Hearing Examiner; 4. The final written decision of the Hearing Examiner; Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 10 of 16 DRAFT 5. Affidavits of notice for the hearing; 6. The electronic recordings of the hearings and proceedings by the Hearing Examiner; and 7. The departmental file for the order and appeal, if incorporated into the record by the Hearing Examiner. C. 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. D. 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 pursuant to an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision. 17.105.100 Hearing Examiner appeal — decision. A. The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be in writing, include findings of fact and conclusions based on the record to support the decision, and shall bear the same legal consequences as if issued by the City Manager pursuant to SVMC 17.105.030. B. The Hearing Examiner shall render a final decision within 10 business days following the closure of the record, unless a longer time period is mutually agreed to in writing by the appellant and the Hearing Examiner; provided, the decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be issued within 60 days from the date of filing of the appeal. C. The Hearing Examiner shall report and provide notice of the decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the appellant(s) and to all parties and the City by first class mail, postage prepaid. Any final order in the Hearing Examiner's decision shall be posted in a conspicuous location on the property that is the subject of the decision and appeal. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision shall be filed with the Spokane County Auditor. A transcript of the Hearing Examiner's decision, findings, and orders shall be made available to the appellant upon demand. D. The Hearing Examiner may affirm, modify, reverse, or return with directions, the City Manager's appealed order in the event he or she finds an error of law or the record is not supported by substantiated evidence. E. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall be subject to further review only in the manner and to the extent provided in SVMC 17.105.110 and 17.105.120. If it is not timely and correctly appealed pursuant to SVMC 17.105.110 or 17.105.120, the Hearing Examiner's decision shall be a final order. 17.105.110 Hearing Examiner appeal — reconsideration, clerical errors. A. 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. Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 11 of 16 DRAFT B. The grounds for seeking reconsideration shall be limited to the following: 1. The Hearing Examiner exceeded the Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction; 2. The Hearing Examiner failed to follow the applicable procedure in reaching the Hearing Examiner' s decision; 3. The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law; 4. The Hearing Examiner's findings, conclusions and/or conditions are not supported by the record; or 5. New evidence which could not reasonably have been produced and which is material to the decision is discovered. C. The petition for reconsideration shall: 1. 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; 2. Identify the specific findings, conclusions, actions, and/or conditions for which reconsideration is requested; 3. State the specific grounds upon which relief is requested; 4. Describe the specific relief requested; and 5. Where applicable, identify the specific nature of any newly discovered evidence or changes proposed. D. 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 the same manner as provided for a decision in SVMC 17.105.100. Within 14 days the Hearing Examiner shall: 1. Deny the petition in writing; 2. Grant the petition and issue an amended decision in accordance with the provisions of SVMC 17.105.100; 3. Accept the petition and give notice to all parties of record of the opportunity to submit written comment. Parties of record shall have five calendar days from the date of such notice in which to submit written comments. The Hearing Examiner shall either issue a decision in accordance with the provisions of SVMC 17.105.100, or issue an order within 10 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 at least 10 days in advance of the hearing as provided in SVMC 17.105.060 to all parties of record; or Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 12 of 16 DRAFT 4. 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 at least 10 days in advance of the hearing as proved in SVMC 17.150.060 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 17.105.100. E. 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. F. 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. G. 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. 17.105.120 Appeal to Superior Court. Any person affected by an order issued by the Hearing Examiner may, within 30 days after the date of service of the Hearing Examiner's order, appeal the Hearing Examiner's order to Spokane Superior Court or may petition the Superior Court for an injunction or other appropriate order restraining the City Manager from carrying out the provisions of the Hearing Examiner's order. Pursuant to RCW 35.80.030, in all such proceedings the court may affirm, reverse, or modify the order and the review shall be de novo. 17.105.130 Abatement. A. The order of the City Manager or the Hearing Examiner may prescribe times within which demolition or other abatement shall be commenced or completed. If the action is not commenced or completed within the prescribed time, or if no time is prescribed within the time limit for appealing, the City Manager may commence the required abatement action after having taken the legally required steps, if any, to gain entry. If satisfactory progress has been made and sufficient evidence is presented that the work will be completed within a reasonable time, the City Manager or the Hearing Examiner may extend the time for completion of the work, subject to immediate summary revocation at any time without further hearing if satisfactory progress is not being made. B. If the owner is unable to comply with the City Manager's or the Hearing Examiner's order within the time required, and the time for appeals to the Hearing Examiner or petition to the court has passed, the owner may, for good and sufficient cause beyond his or her control, request an extension of time in writing supported by affidavit. The City Manager or Hearing Examiner may grant a reasonable extension of time after finding that the delay was beyond the control of the owner. There shall be no appeal or petition from the denial of an extension of time. C. Any work, including demolition, construction, repairs, or alterations required pursuant to SVMC 17.105, shall be subject to all permitting requirements of the City. Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 13 of 16 DRAFT 17.105.140 Abatement by the City. A. If the parties of interest or owner, following exhaustion of his or her rights of appeal, fails to comply with a final order issued pursuant to chapter 17.105 SVMC to repair, alter, improve, vacate, close, remove, or demolish the dwelling, building, structure, or premises, or fails to take other required action, the City Manager may direct or cause such dwelling, building, structure, or premises to be repaired, altered, improved, vacated, and closed, removed, demolished, or to abate such other conditions which render the dwelling, building, structure, or premises unfit for human habitation or other use as identified in the order and to take such further steps as may be reasonable and necessary to prevent access to the structure or premises, for public health or safety reasons, pending abatement. B. The City may seek a judicial abatement order from Spokane County superior court to abate a condition which continues to be a violation of chapter 17.105 SVMC, or which, pursuant to a final order or Hearing Examiner decision issued pursuant to chapter 17.105 SVMC, has been determined to be a dwelling, building, structure, or premises that is unfit for human habitation or other use. 17.105.150 Abatement Costs. A. The amount of the cost of any abatement conducted pursuant to SVMC 17.105.140, including actual abatement expenses, reasonable legal fees and costs, administrative personnel costs, penalties, all other related expenses and costs, such as costs of notices, contracting, or inspections, costs of appeal of any decision pursuant to SVMC 17.105.050, and court costs, shall be paid by the parties in interest or owner of the property. If the parties in interest or owner of the property fail to timely pay such costs, the costs shall be assessed against the real property upon which such cost was incurred. The costs of abatement shall be certified by the City Manager to the Spokane County Treasurer as an amount due and owing to the City, pursuant to RCW 35.80.030, to be entered by the Spokane County Treasurer as an assessment upon the tax rolls against the property for the current year and shall become a part of the general taxes for that year to be collected at the same time and with interest at such rates and in such manner as is provided in RCW 84.56.020 as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended, for delinquent taxes, and when collected to be deposited to the credit of the City's general fund. B. If the City removes, or demolishes a dwelling, building, structure, or premises pursuant to SVMC 17.105.140, the City shall, if possible, sell the materials from the dwelling, building, structure or premises. The proceeds of the sale of any materials shall be credited against the cost of removal or demolition, and if there is any balance remaining, such balance shall be paid to the parties entitled thereto, after deducting the costs incident thereto. C. The assessment shall constitute a lien against the property which shall be of equal rank with state, county, and municipal taxes pursuant to RCW 35.80.030(h). D. For purposes of this section, the cost of abatement shall include the amount of any relocation assistance payments that were advanced by the City pursuant to RCW 59.18.085 and which have not been repaid and any and all penalties and interest that accrue as a result of the failure of the property owner to timely repay the amount of these relocation assistance payments pursuant to RCW 59.18.085. E. The City Manager may modify the time or methods of payment of such expenses as the condition of the property and the circumstances of the owner may warrant. In cases of extreme Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 14 of 16 DRAFT hardship, such expenses may be waived pursuant to an appropriate written finding by the City Manager. 17.105.160 Supplemental Chapter. Nothing in chapter 17.105 SVMC shall be construed to abrogate or impair the powers of the courts or of any department of the City to enforce any provisions of its ordinances or regulations or to prevent or punish violations of such ordinances or regulations; and the powers conferred by chapter 17.105 SVMC shall be in addition and supplemental to the powers conferred by any other statute or ordinance. 17.105.170 Nuisances: Powers reserved. Nothing in chapter 17.105 SVMC shall be construed to impair or limit in any way the City's power to define and declare nuisances and to cause their removal or abatement by summary proceedings or otherwise. 17.105.180 Appeal to Superior Court. A. A decision pursuant to SVMC 17.105.100 shall be considered an "order" for purposes of this chapter. B. An order issued pursuant to this chapter 17.105 SVMC may be appealed to Washington State Superior Court solely as allowed by law. 17.105.190 Emergencies. The provisions of chapter 17.105 SVMC shall not prevent the City Manager or any other officer or agency of the City of Spokane Valley from taking any other action, summary or otherwise, necessary to eliminate or minimize an imminent danger to the health or safety of any person or property. 17.105.200 Discrimination. All proceedings under chapter 17.105 SVMC shall be subject to the anti -discrimination provisions of RCW 35.80.040 as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended. Section 3. Amendment. SVMC 17.90.010 is hereby amended as follows: A. Appeals and Jurisdiction. All final decisions shall be appealed pursuant to SVMC Table 17.90- 1. Specific procedures followed by the Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner, and City Council are set forth in Appendix B. Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 15 of 16 DRAFT Table 17.90-1— Decision/Appeal Authority Land Use and Development Decisions Appeal Authority Type I and II decisions Hearing Examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Building permits Hearing Examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type III decisions except zoning map amendments Superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type III zoning map amendments City council (SVMC 17.90.070); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type IV decisions Superior court Matters subject to review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020 Growth Management Hearings Board Shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, and shoreline variances Shoreline Hearings Board (RCW 90.58.180) Compliance and enforcement decisions (Chapter 17.100 SVMC) Hearing Examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Order of dwelling, building, structure, or Hearing Examiner (SVMC 17.105.050) pursuant to the premises unfit for human habitation or other appeal procedures set forth in chapter 17.105 SVMC; further use (Chapter 17.105 SVMC) appeal to superior court (SVMC 17.105.120) Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City of Spokane Valley as provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of January, 2018. City of Spokane Valley ATTEST: L.R. Higgins, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 18-002 Regulating Unfit Structures Page 16 of 16 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ['admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Bid Award Appleway Trail — Sullivan to Corbin Project #0237 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • June 28, 2016 — Council passed resolution 16-009 to adopt the 2017-2022 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan which included the project. • December 20, 2016 — Administrative Report discussed the progress of the project. • April 25, 2017 — Administrative Report discussed the progress of the project. • May 23, 2017 — Council passed resolution 17-011 to adopt the 2018-2023 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan which included the project. • November 21, 2017 — Administrative Report for the project which discussed the original bids received and the current re -advertisement of the project. BACKGROUND: The Appleway Trail Project - Sullivan to Corbin will construct a 1.3 mile asphalt path within the existing Spokane County Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way to extend the Appleway Trail from the east side of Sullivan Rd. to the west side of Corbin Rd/Sprague Ave. Some of the amenities proposed for the project include trailhead parking, irrigation, landscaping and lighting. Other improvements include signing, interactive play areas and a restroom at the east end of the project. This project is funded with state grants and City funds. In 2015, the City received $970,000 from the State 2015-17 Capital Budget, Local & Community Projects 2016 managed by the Department of Commerce, and $813,000 from the State 2015- 2017 Capital Budget which is managed by the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). The initial project budget was: City Match (Fund #312) $ 347,000 Department of Commerce $ 970,000 RCO $ 813,000 Total estimated costs $ 2,130,000 Consultant Welch -Comer and Associates designed the project and the City prepared the bid package. The first bids for this project were opened on August 11, 2017. However, all the bids exceeded the engineer's estimate and the budget for the project. To obtain more competitive bids, the project was re -advertised outside of the busy construction season and the project was revised to provide more flexibility in the bids by utilizing alternative bid schedules. The revised documents included the following bid schedules: 1 • Schedule A (Base Bid) — Includes the asphalt trail, landscaping, irrigation, lighting, parking lot and rough plumbing for the restroom. • Schedule B-1 — Contractor supplies and installs restroom facility. • Schedule B-2 — Contractor installs a City supplied restroom facility. (The cost for the City to purchase the restroom separately is approximately $65,000, which is not included in the bid schedule.) • Schedule C — Contractor supplies and installs trash receptacles, benches and dog waste dispensers. • Schedule D (Sign Package #1) — Contractor supplies and installs wayfinding and gateway signs. • Schedule E (Sign Package #2) — Contractor supplies and installs orientation and interpretative signs. • Schedule F — Trail Extension East — Extends trail 400 feet east of Corbin Rd. • Schedule G — Contractor supplies and installs Boulder Play Area. • Schedule H — Contractor supplies and installs Floating Stone Area. The project, using the revised bid documents, was re -advertised in November 2017. Three bids were received on December 8, 2017. The bid includes the Base Bid plus eight Additive Alternates. The low bidder's base bid was 1.8% higher than the engineer's estimate. A copy of the bid tabulation is attached. OPTIONS: Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the 1) Base Bid and Alternate B1 -Contractor Supplied Restroom; 2) Base Bid alone; 3) Base bid with any other combination of additive alternates; or 4) take other appropriate action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Appleway Trail — Sullivan to Corbin Project #0237 to Wm. Winkler Company in the amount of $1,972,690.00 plus applicable sales tax which includes the Base Bid and Alternate B1, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The current project budget is $2,130,000.00. The City has been awarded $1,783,000 in state grants for the project, including $970,000 from the Department of Commerce and $813,000 from the Recreation and Conservation Office. The remaining funding currently allocated to this project is from the Capital Reserve Fund #312 in the amount of $347,000. The base bid for the lowest bidder for the project is $1,880,940.50. The City would like to establish a contingency of 5% for the project which would be an additional $94,047.03, bringing the total base bid plus the contingency to $1,974,987.53. The current project budget includes $1,842,400 for construction of the project, which is $132,587.53 less that what is needed for the base bid plus the contingency. An additional $99,915.21 would also be needed to include the contractor supplied restroom in Schedule B1 (including sales tax at 8.9%), which would bring the total shortfall in current construction budget to $232,502.74. Possible funding sources to address the shortfall of $232,502.74 include fund balance from the Paths and Trails Fund #103 and the Parks Capital Projects Fund #309. At the end of 2018, Fund #103 is projected to have $54,928 available in ending fund balance and Fund #309 is projected to have $280,714 available. If the projected ending fund balance is not available for some reason in Funds #103 and #309, there are adequate Real Estate Excise Tax funds available to cover the shortfall. 2 If there are funds remaining in the 5% contingency after construction, the Parks and Recreation Department would like to purchase and install the site furnishings (trash receptacles, park benches and dog waste dispensers) for the project. This is estimated to cost a total of $25,000. (The site furnishings were included in Alternate C of the contractor's bid, however staff believes the City can save approximately $10,000 by purchasing and installing separately.) STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, CIP Manager Michael D. Stone, Director of Parks and Recreation Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS: Appleway Trail — Sullivan to Corbin Bid Results and Funding Analysis Summary of Bid Tabulation Bid Tabulation 3 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA Appleway Trail - Sullivan to Corbin Bid Results and Funding Analysis ADDITIONAL COSTS OVER PROJECT BUDGET: Base bid for lowest bidder $ 1,280,940,.50 5% Contingency 94,017.03 (1 Total base bid plus contingency 1,9741,987.53 Less project budget available for the construction contract (1,842,400.00) Additional funding needed for base bid plus contingency 132,587.53 Additional for Schedule Bi (contractor supplied restroom) 99,97:5,21 (2) Additional funding needed for base bid, contingency, & Sch. B1 5 232,502.74 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING; Fund #309 Parks Capital Projects Fund Estimated ending fund balance 12131/18 280,714.00 Fund 11103 Paths and Trails Fund Estimated ending fund balance 12/31/11 $ 54,328.00 If ending fund balance in Funds #309 and 44103 is not adequate to coveradditional costs, there appears to be adequate DEET funds available to cover any remainder necessary. Any changes to funding for this project will require a future amendment to the 2018 Budget. 1.73/20:18 (1) +f the contingency is underspent, the City may then have the option of adding park benches, garbage cans, etc. included in Schedule C- Site Furnishings. (2) Does not match bid tob due to recalculation of sales tax at 8.9% instead of 8.8%, which will be effective as of April 1, 2018, C:\Users\cbai n bridge\AppData\Lata I\M icrasoft\W indoors\INetCache\Content,Outlool l,03 DH B1 K€\Appleway Trail Sullivan to Corbin Bid Results Funding Summary of Bid Tabulation - Appleway Trail Sullivan to Corbin TOTAL WITH Schedules A and B1, including sales taxes $ 1,956,284.00 $ 1,980,763.96 5 2,064,190.58 5 2,1.72,477.00 (1) Less sales tax of $8,073.96, the total is $1,972,690 for Schedule A - Base Bid and Schedule B1 - Contractor Supplied Restroom, This agrees to the dollar amount in the proposed motion to award the contract_ ENGINEERS ESTIMATE SPL M. Winkler Co. T.La Rivere Equipment DW Excavating SCHEDULE A -BASE BID $ 1,848,028.00 $ 108,256.04 $ 53,856.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 51,000.00 $ 29,000.00 $ 73,164.00 $ 103,800.00 $ 43,520.00 $ 1,880,940.50 $ 99,823.46 $ 19,457.25 $ 35,682.00 $ 34,094.00 $ 15,033.00 $ 103,636.50 $ 100,933.76 $ 82,884.93 $ 1,967,671.06 $ 96,519.62 $ 20,920.73 $ 32,472.02 $ 48,341.08 $ 25,500.00 $ 103,792.45 $ 83,986.54 $ 49,786.88 5 2,070,749.00 5 101,728.00 S 23,283.20 $ 32,475.00 $ 40,950.00 $ 18,400.00 $ 106,121.00 $ 109,888.00 5 57,120.00 SCHEDULE B1 -CONTRACTOR SUPPLIED RESTROOM SCHEDULE B2 -CITY SUPPLIED RESTROOM SCHEDULE C -SITE FURNISHINGS SCHEDULE D-S[GN PACKAGE #1 SCHEDULE E -SIGN PACKAGE 42 SCHEDULE F -TRAIL EXTENSION EAST SCHEDULE G -BOULDER PLAY AREA IllalligarE AREA :'INNimilimmia TOTAL WITH Schedules A and B1, including sales taxes $ 1,956,284.00 $ 1,980,763.96 5 2,064,190.58 5 2,1.72,477.00 (1) Less sales tax of $8,073.96, the total is $1,972,690 for Schedule A - Base Bid and Schedule B1 - Contractor Supplied Restroom, This agrees to the dollar amount in the proposed motion to award the contract_ BID TABULATION Appleway Trail Project Pro eCt CI No. 6237 Valley.ne ITEM 6 OESCRPTION UNITS CRIANTITY ENGINEERS ESTIMATE WM, Winkler CO.. T. La Rlvere Equipment 050100532001150 U11T PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST IJYIT PRICE TOTAL COST CH6011LEROAOE RID _.- -.-- 100 PAOBILIZATION 1..5. 1 5121,00030 5 121,0110.00 $ 30,000.00 5177,167.9 51270990 5 171,16700 $ 11,7900 5111,000.00 523,11231 $ 111,n1]u.in1 $ 29,112.51 $135,1000.00 $31,00630 5 135,000.09 5 3159.9 101 CLEARING AND GRUBBING L.S. ] 830,961111 1117 ETMOVAI OFSTPIICTIIRI'S AND 03STRIICII11NS L5. 1 55,00090 $ 5,000.00 51,26210 5 1,252.09 $7,974.52 $ 2970.52 $100000 $ 17100.151 103 REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB L.r. 406 7590 $ 2000.00 511.55 $ 4,£00.00 712.13 $ 5,1152.50 $1-19 5 1,676.00 100 REMOVE CE618Ur CONC. SIDEWALN/DRIVEWAY APPROACH 5.Y. 350 $1600 $ 3,500.00 533.10 $ 11 5135.00 512.50 5 4,375.00 $7.50 $ 2 625.9 1115 REMOVE ASP IA1T PAVEMENT S.Y. 1,420 58.09 $ 11,3609 56.55 $ 9,301.00 54.83 $ 6,258.30 54.50 $ 3,39601] 106 REMOVE CHAIN LINK FENCE & GATE L.r. 13.1.1 55.130 5 65090 514.00 $ 1,320.90 59.15 5 1,153.50 $50.50 $ 6,515.00 107 RELOCATE 601JL0E115 EACH 50 552.013 5 2,500.00 561.10 $ :4,1155.00 557.20 5 2,800.00 559-00 $ 2,394.00 108 110A08116 EXCAVATION CY. 2,99 520.00 $ F4,0011.191 510.40 5 53,360.00 521.55 $ 62,705.00 520.10 $ 59,794011 109 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVA110N INCL. HAUL CY. 206 525.00 5 5,90.00 505.20 $ 5,006.00 524.45 $ 4,030.51 $20.43 $ 4,08090 110 CURB INLET, TYPE 1 EACH4 740600 5 1,60010 5200.00 $ F00.00 722832 $ 914.08 7260.00 $ 1,040.00 111 PRECAST CIINCRCTE DRYWELL, TYPE A EACH2 $3,50000 $ 7,001191 --- 53,406.00 5 6,812.9 53,245.39 $ 6,493.76 53,79.9 $ 7,403.00 112 HIGH-0E35'IY POLYETHYLENE [HOPE} PIPE 121N. 01A17. 1.4- 55 550.9 $ 2,750.00 $31.20 $ 1,716.9 $45.33 $ 2,493.15 555.60 5 3,058.00 113 ]3H4JSHE09UIII'A11N011134-611150, 415.01.143 5.Y. 9,100 57.54 $ 6(3,25010 55.90 5 53,090,00 8100 5 63,70D 00 50.75 $ 61,425.00 114 CRUSHED SLJRFAr4NG TOP CTOIRSE, 6 IN. DEPTH 5.Y. 4,250 510.00 7 4250690 59-05 5 38,062.50 $13.00 $ 62,5900 511.70 $ 45,72500 115 CONKLIN WATER SERVICE 1,5. 1 51,000.00 5 5,00090 56,009.00 $ 6,109.00 58,461.74 $ 8,464.74 $0,000.00 5 7,800.00 115 I LURA WATER SERVICE L.S. 1 50011.1111 $ 600.00 52,397.9 5 2,397.00 57,550.16 $ 7,550.76 51,80090 $ 1,800.9 117 1511314111' WATER 5ERVIEt L5, 1 54,800.9 $ 4,890.40 76,009.9 5 6,003.9 .51,224.28 $ 1,274.20 53,90.00 5 3,0110.51 118 119 JOINT ADHESIVE I.F. 910 $1.00 $ 100.310 73.50 5 3,4.500 $3.66 $ 3,623.40 53.40 S 3,76210 3L4N NINLS HI'fUMlNlluS PAVEMENT S.Y. 800 $5.5] $ 4,000-00 $ 91,0301'3 $ 12,09.00 $12.90 79.95 513.40 $10.79 $ 19,329.90 5 90545-00 $ 10,72010 7 16,48700 55.00 510.46 510.07 442.82 $ 9,9090 5 91,13600 5 11,25[ 70 S 17,556.20 $20.35 511.09 $14-79 $45.00 $ 15,250.9 5 100,100140 3 11,032.00 $ 13,45010 120 HMA CL 1/2" P9 9 29, 2 IN. DEPTH (70915] S.Y. 0,100 510.00 121 HMA CL1/2" PG 70-28, 213. DEPTH (ROADWAY] 5,3. S9 515.60 122 HMA ELI/2'P014-25, 410. DU, 111(ROADWAY] S.Y. 410 740.1,0 $ 16,400.00 123 HMA CL 1/2" PG 70 28, 2.51N. DEPTH (PAR165310T1 5.31. 020 515.00 $ 17 30010 $14.10 4 11,562.09 514.87 $ 17,193.40 $15.60 $ 12,792.00 120 175 SOIL RESIDUAL HERBICIDE 5.Y, 3,100 $1129 5 1,820.9 $0.10 $ 1,36500 $0.17 $ 1,547.09 75.18 5 1,638.00 ASPHALT 01151 PRICE A6195IME31 CALL 1 $ 5,09.9 - " 5 5,00600 509.9 $ 509600 126 198 MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT 6016 1 $ [1314} E,„-_.... < $ [3920 $ {1.10] $ 1LD0} $ 159,817.90 5174,73033 5 O..005 5 (lam $ 174,736.9 127 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT 154141 1 5 491�2 C;. $ (139] 128 1115109 I ION 505115 L.S. 1 510003600 $ 100,000.9 5155,386.00 5 155,330.00 7113,307.50 129 I RRIGRTION SYSTEM REVISION E5'0'. 1 $ 5,000,09 .. .1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 130 EROSION CONTROL 1,5, 0 $10,001.00:.5 10,000.9 52622.00 $ 2,622.9 517,152.49 5 17,152.49 522,00090 5 2949.9_ 131 H1101145410011215 ACRE 7.0 55,44000 5 35,000.00 58,300,9 5 58,280.00 814,097.10 5 58,38320 315,415.00, 3 107,995.9 132 500 INSTALLATION S.Y- 1,69 78.00 5 14,400,00 50.013 S 16,560.00 79,15 $ 17,02810 510.34 5 13,012.06 133 TOPSOIL TYPE A, 3' DEPTH 5,Y. 31,190 $5.00 $ 155,5099 $4.20 59.65 $ 330,020.9 $ 17,37099 "$1.35 $10.9 5 135,2854 $ 18,000.00 74-75 510.82 $ 107,725.9 5 13,47501 130 T01'S0IL TYPE A,1? LIEPTH 5.Y- 1,800 $7.50 $ 13,59911 135 TOPSOIL TYPE A, PLANTING RACKET . C.Y. 200 550.00 $ 12,500,00 $51.30 $ 12,325.9 552.89 t 13,21122110 557.70 $ 14,425.00 136 3510E HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIREH5- 1 GALION SHRUB OR PERENNIAL ERM 195 525.00 $ 4,875.00 522.50 $ 4,337.10 $23.10 5 4,509.50 775.23 $ 4,911.06 127 1,51PE-41315010055115055U1'Irwlu1 'KARL 18236101ER'- 3 GALLON SHRUB EACH 130 550.02 $ 0,5110.10 70320 5 6,390.00 450.60 $ 657100 755,40 5 7,20290 138 P5IPE MAI-IONA REPEN5 1 GALLON 511811R EACH 67 526.00 $ 1,675,00 $22.50 $ 1,50750 523.10 $ 1542.70 $25.00 5 1,675.00 139 P517E- PENSTEMON 415113LI5 'HUSKER RED' -1 GALLON SHRUB 08011 99 525.9 $ 2,475.00 522.50 $ 7,27250 523.10 5 2,286.90 525.9 $ 2,475.99 146 PSIPE-PERW513A ATRIPLECIr1HIA 111 116 1PI51'- 1 GALION0101UB EACH 75 550.00 $ 3,710.110 52250 $ 1,687-56 573.10 $ 1,732.50 525.00 $ 1,875.00 141 13503E PHY50CARP1.15 011011F01.101 'CENTER GIOW' - 5 CAI I ON 5110111 EACH 51 750.9 5 2,550.00 594-24 4 3,274.20 56600 $ 3,063.00 572.9 5 3,672.00 112 PSIPE- ARCHTOSTAPHYLOS IIVA URS[ -1 GALLON SHRUB 66611 106 525.9 $ 2,659.09 522.9 $ 2341500 523.10 $ 2,448.60 525.181 5 2,650.00 1.13 P5IPE-30500/000511- 5106LLE305131106 EACH 30 5150,09 $ 1,10600 $64.20 $ 2,31120 550-00 $ 2,376.9 572.9 $ 2,532.9 144 PSFPE ACER RIIRRUM 'AUTUMN BLAZE' (213.CAL) EACH 13 5300.00 5 3,900.00 $40030 $ 5,258.50 $394.30 $ 5,133.70 5455.00 $ 5,915.00 105 PSIPE- PSE- PIN05 STROBUS FASTIGATA LA411 4 5300.00 $ 1,200.00 $38410 $ 1535.00 $395.00 $ 1,580.00 543E-00' $ 1,728.00 143 5'510[- 1191110E4W2LE PINE(6-73EACH 22 7380,80 $ 3,300.00 :.5384.00 7 4,008.00 539506 $ 4,7409 5432.00 $ 5,104.9 147 PSFPE- TIM C3RDATA'GRECNSPIRE' (2 1N.680.] EACH 11 53990 $ 3,300,00 $404.50 $ 4,44050 5095.00 $ 4,345..6 .$455.00 $ 6005.00 148 PSIPE- PRUNUS 0 HILLIER! 'SPIRE' (2 1N. CAL.) EAC14 22 7300.00 $ 6,600.00 5404.50 $ 8,599.00 5345.9 $ 8,690.00 545500 $ 15,010.00 109 31513e- 71121.15 NIGRA (6-.01 119115 EACH8 73011.00 $ 2,400.9 5371.50 5 2,99600 5385.9 $ 3,080-00 5421.00 5 3,055-02 150 FINE 100331P1ST CY. 250 560,00 5 15,000,51 $107.03 5 23,750.00 5110.70 $ 27,50290 5120.9 $ 30,00601 151 DECOMPOSED GRANITE MULCH, 2" 0EPT71 58' 1,955 $15170 7 22,950.00 $24.10 $ :36,823.9 5154.75 $ 37,867.50 $27.00 $ 41,30990 152 DRINKINGFDUNTAIN EACH1 $5,100.00 $ 5,000.00 55,460.00 $ 5,46009 $3,200.00 5 3,209-00 57,099.09 $ 7,[10600 153 CEMENT 60NCRFTFmow C0 RR LF- 1,510 512.00 5 18,12039 425.00 $ 97,750.00 $11.55 $ 17,44650 512.60 5 19,02600 154 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 700 530.00 $ 21,000.00 $4190 5 28,19.00 $38.50 $ 20,950.60 $33.13 S 23,13290 155 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB L.F. 470 $30114 $ 14,19.9 $33.50 $ 11,745.06 $31.00 S 14,570.00 $32.80 $ 15,610 00 055 111M191 CDNC. 00945111145 6001(411 LF- LI.. 50 528.00 $ 1,4131.9 525.9 3 1,250.00 $27.50 $ 1,315.00 526.02 $ 1,301-(0 157 NARK LINE 320 54.00 5 1,280.00 34,511 $ 1,44010 55.50 $ 1,730,141 51.00 $ 1,600.00 158 PAINT LINE LF. 540 $790[ $ 1,080.9 51.9 $ 65400 51.05 $ .56790 $790 $ 1,030.00 10E4 BID TABULATION AppleWay Trail PrOJeCL PT0ject OR EVD. U237 ITEM # 9ESCRPTION UNITS ISUANTN.Y ENGINEERS ESTIMATE WM. Winkler CIE. T.L0 R0e4 Equipment DW Excavating UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE _ TOTAL COST 159 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE S.F. 610 513.00 $ 8,320.00 512.90 $ 4,755.0(4 $15.18 $ 6,515.20- 514.20 5 9,0116.110 1410 FAINTED M1CLE5S PARKING SPACE SYMBOL EACH1 $ $400.00 $ 500.00 507.00 5 87.00 $11 R-00 $ 317.60 5100.00 5 109.00 161 PLASTIC 51415 1141 LF. 90 517.00 5 1,5811.01 526.30 $ 2,331.00 52210 $ 1,980.00 529.05 $ 2,610.00 162 PAINTED TRAFFC ARROW EACH5 513.13 550.00 $ 200.00 $0.3.70 $ 97005 5/7.06 $ 306.00 448.50 $ 194.0]] 16.3 PARK 0013A1i0 E24011 14 51,500.00 $ 15,000.00 51,901.00 5 19,010.00 $495.00 $ 4,550.00 54605.00 5 16.010.00 164 PE14M1014CN11511144N6 L.S. 1 515,00000 $ 15,0111.191 50.00 $ 12,776.00 519,29000 $ 19.2541.09 514,1511.00 $ 14,150.00 165 PRDIECTTEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL LS. 1 $45,000.00 $ 45,000.00 54140 $ 76,000.101 $52,892.31 $ 62,19231 $84,200.00 $ 04,0100.1x1 158 11A611165 415 200 540.00 5 8,000.00 563.50 5 12,700.00 $113.70 $ 14,792.10 556.50 $ 11,300.00 102 RLUMINATII SYSTEM-rrNKLIN RO_ SERVICE IYIHNECTION1.5. 3,001.011 1 5300,000200 5 360,011190 $298,01.00 $ 298,061.00 5315,226.00 $ 314,22600 5322200.00 $ 322,200.00 168 ILLUMINAT]ON 105TEM-T5CHIRLEY RD SERVICE 001N14001106 L.S. 1 5271,000.00 5 270,000.00 5215,521018 $ 215,521.00 5777,315.00 5 227 315.00 5236,000.00 5 231,1101011 169 WFIEEL5700 11101 7 $50.110 $ 350.00 5136.00 $ 952.00 599.00 41 693.110 5154.00 3 1,050.00 170 901557 MEDfAN I5LAIIR S.Y. 24 560.00 $ 1,550.00 57!590 $ 6,622.00 527.50 5 660.07 5215.05 $ 5,160.00 411 OETECTAILE WARNING SURFACE S.F. 120 530.00 4 4,200.00 $30.00 $ 3,500.00 533.00 5 896090 $22.00 5 7,040,0n 172 4415044 PAVEMENT rAARM R 121/62 EACH 4 $3448 $ 240.00 522.60 $ 180.80 533.70 41 754.00 521.00 S. 200.00 173 DELINEATOR AND CDR0 HOLE EACH 9 510000 5 400.00 $125.00 $ 500.00 5137.50 $ 550.00 $140.00 $ 16440 144 BULLNOSE MARKING EACH 2 5250.00 5725.00 $ 500.00 $025010 $ 1,250.00 550.611 $ 101.20 $700.00 5 1,401.00 175 R0C11 RETAINING WALL TUN t5 $ 4,125.00 567550 $ 10.102.50 $57.22 $ 8544.30 $300.00 $ 1,500.00 176 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 5.Y. 300 $7000 $ 21.1rlflno $75.00 $ 22.904.94 066.00 4 19,000.00 508.18 5 20,654.00 117 CONCREIE PAD 4' THICK S.F. 820 518.00 $74.U]1 5 14,760.00 $25.10 $ 20,507.40 524.00 $ 15,180.00 511.70 5 12,054.00 178 COHCRFIF RA0 S" MICR S.F. 430 $ 10,320.00 54930 $ 18877.00 530.00 $ .17,9102.0 $11.50 $ 7 525.00 179 CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAYRPPROACI I 5.Y. 70 $8506 $ 5,550.00 577.00 $ 5,390.00 567.00 5 4,690.00 $73.80 $ 5,156.00 185 91611911 CON[. CURB RAMP TYPE PERPENDICULAR A (12 FT) EACH 3 52,000.00 07,01050 $ 6,000.00 51,779,00 $ 5,337,00 $1,5.50.00 $ 4,950.00 51,650.00 5 4,910.00 181 ClMTNTCONC. 0411145 RAMP 16P£ PERPENDICULAR 8$12FT) 0,1004 5 0,000.00 51,779.00 $ 7,01600 51,0500140 .00 $ 6,500 $1,650.09 $ 6.600.00 182 CEMENTCONC. CURB RAMP TYPE RAolo4sro [12 1 I} EACH 2 52,00000 $ 4,000,00 57,079.00 $ 4,058.00 51, 25.00 $ 3,850.00 $1,450.00 $ 0,300.00 183 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL A EACH 2 51.500.00 5 3,000.410 51,779.00 5 3,558,00 50,050.00 $ 3,300.00 51,650.00 $ 3,30000 184 rT MENTCONC. CURL/ RAMP 10PE PARALLEL B EACH 2 51,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $1,779.00 9 3,55800 51,650.00 $ 3,3111.45 $1,650.00 5 3,300.00 185 ADIUST MANHOLE TO GRADE EACH 17 5500.00 5 8,500.00 5001,50 $ 3,100.00 52,01218 41 34,207.00 5394.05 5 5,950.00 186 AMIDST VALVE TO GRADE €4011 2 5250.00 5 000.00 5003,00 5 000,05 51,14430 $ 2,6019.40 535100 5 700.00 187 SPCE pi AN 1,5. 1 5500.00 5 500.00 5670.50 $ 67050 51,710.40 $ 1,715.45 5100.40 5 130,00 188 MINOR CHANGE CALL. 1 - 5 15,000.00 $ 15,000,110 ` 5 11,000.00 5 15,000.00 SCHEDULER -TOTAL $ 1,811,108.10 $ 1,880,900.50 $ 1,967,671.01 $ 2,071,749.00 54191541E 81-0440006100041 SUPPLIED 0E57100061 209 0E53116114450011R 54147191. 15.l 1 55,807.05 $ 5-595.110.$ $ 6,562.00 $ 6,46290 $ 6,613.59 $ 6,633.54 $ 7550 74 $ 7,25000 201 0151001044 WATER SERVICE LS. 1 51,00000 $ 1,000,00 $ 5,67400 $ 5,614.1111 $ 6,013.89 5 6,013.89 $ 650.00 $ 651.01 707 I IIEHCH tXCAVAIION SAFETY SYSTEM LS. 1 51,000.00 5 4000.00 $ 562.50 5 50256 $ 573.13 $ 513.13 $ 150.00 5 650.00 203 FURNISH ALAR RTI IVrR PRrFAORICA1E11 HE5TROOM LS. 1 550,001.0] $ 50,00000 $ 73,866.00 $ 73,861.00 $ 69,484.28 $ 09,484.23 $ 77,100,01] $ 12,100.00 204 INSTALL PREFABRICATED RE5TRODM L.S. 1 520,000.00 S 20.000.00 $ 7,45190 $ '7,451.113 $ :1,146.00 5 0,106.03 4 9,550.00 5 9,8511.1111 205 BUILD INA 77Wr113N511111.INE; I.S.. 1 $71,lln5.nn $ 71,I6o.1I6 5 2,13190 5 2,137.00 5 2,832.00 S 7,0.,-c, 3,001.011 $ 3,460.00 5913510)0LE01-411070001. $ 99,500.00 $ 61,740.50 SCHEDULE02-10001$ $ 88,712.89 $ 93,500,00 SCHEDULE 81-54165 TRX $ 6,756.00 $ 8,073.96 23,253.25 $ 7,905.73 $ 8,228.00 SCHEDULE BE -TOTAL $ 100,256.OD $ 99,423.36 $ 96,519.62 $ 101,728.00 59449011.0.0132-0001,919308 91.10161013 0E540100M 100 2 RESTROOM SEWER SERVICF L.S. 1 $6,000.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 6,457.05 $ 6,46:1.00 $ 6,013.59 $ 6,613.59 $ 7,250.00 $ 7,150.04 201 RESTROOM WATER SERVICE 1.5. 1 $1,000.00 $ 1,00000 $ 5,674.01 $ 5,674.00 $ 0,013.89 5 6,013.89 5 G50.00 5 050.00 202 TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTI'M L.S. 1 51,000.00 $ $ 1,000.00 $ 567.50 $ 067.50 $ 573.13 5 573.13 5 050.00 $ 650.00 207 INSTALL PREFABRICCATCR 415TROLH21 L.5. 1 520,004.00 20,0410.00 $ 2,451.00 $ 2,45100 $ 3,156.00 5 3,146.00 $ 9,8501.10 $ 9,050.00 205 BUILDING POWER AND IIGIBING 1.5. 1 521,10000 $ 250(001 $ 2,734.00 $ 2,734.00 5 2,882.00 5 2,882.00 $ 3,500.131 $ 3,000.00 5045701€ 62-551TOTAI $ 49,500.00 5 17,883.50 $ 19,228.61 $ 21,40000 SCHEDULE 811-54105 TAK $ 4,350.70 $ 1,573.75 $ 1,137.12 $ 1,483.20 SCHEDULE02-10001$ 53,87695 $ 1.9,45725 $ 20,920.73 $ 23,253.25 of4 BID TABULATION Appleway Trail Fio6 cl Pro i ect Cl P No. 9207 I I LM A DESCRPTI10N UNITS QUANTITY ENGINEERS 0510MATE WM, Winkler Co. 57 000.00 T.I.F. Rimm; 041lipmc4L 4,x00.00 DW Excavating UNIT PRICE TOTAL C051 EMIT PRICE TOTAL COST 5 1.300.00 uN IT PRICE TOTAL COST i 1,350.1.21 UNIT PRICE f TOTAL COST 513110103, 0517E FURNISHINGS 4 GP1FINNS SI CN EACH 1 515,000.00 5 16,400.00 300 301 903[11 FACH 11,006. DO 02.500.00 6 15.000.00 52,62.,00 53,065310 5 15,9110.10 $ 2,359.38 $ 14,132.28 $ 2,401100 7104511 RECEPTACLE EACH5 56,014.00 52,500.00 $ 12,500.90 5 15,325110 $ 2,621166 5 13,193.39 5 2,850,00 $ 14,250.00 352 11 DG WASTE 015400568 EACH 5 5700.00 $ 3,500.07 5562.00 53.05.50 5 7,300.00 $ 720.68 5 160340 5 545.00 $ 2,725.00 1103 818F RACK EACH2 S.F. 51540.00 $ 3.600.00 $ 1,611 110 $ 621.52 6 1,243.44 5 .55000 $ 1,100.30 SCHEDULE 11-001100 $ 34,000.08 $ 33,662.00 60 $ 32,472.02 1,200.80 $ 32,47570 SCHEDULE 0-5109 PACKAGE R1 4011 NI II I. N101111E10 1311141 EACH 2 57 000.00 5 4,x00.00 51,071.00 1 6,142.00 5 1.300.00 5 2.606.01 i 1,350.1.21 5 7.700.00 4111 GP1FINNS SI CN EACH 1 515,000.00 $ 15,fCO3l31 $11,396.00 $ 11,006. DO 5 11,136.08 S 11,430.00 $ 17,05070 S 13,650.00 407 0044)18, 1.1, SIC 10 EACH 4 58,000.00 $ 37,003.06 56,014.00 $ 16,056.0 $ 8,376.25 5 31,307.00 $ 4,1100.00 5 19,820.03 512102612E 0 -TOTAL $ 51,600.00 5 34,09400 $ 41,361.03 5 90,950.00 SCHEDULE 0-5102 N PACIEA1112 C. 1171111411 1,30 G 100001130 L.S.1 52,501110 $ 2,51.10.30$3842.00 5 3,472.00 51,000.00 Su[ 111411'0,11665161.5 EACH 3 A 17,0111.110 5 ]1,nn11.'�111 21,512'22 1 6,201.30 $ 6,40000 5 (11,11110.11] 5 5,4011.00 5 9,000.00 Sul []Il1EV'i A. '11ON 5100 EACH $x,11313.11] $ 0, 1144.20 24,442.40 5 0,00200 5 7.5011.00 $ 7,511111111 $ 040000 5 9,90000 SCHEDULE E -TOTAL 512.50 $ 29,000.00 5 15,033.00 1.155.00 603 $ 25,500.00 50 55.00 5 18,40000 SCHEDULE F -TRAIL EXTENSION 6010 c06 601 C. 1171111411 1,30 G 100001130 L.S.1 52,501110 $ 2,51.10.30$3842.00 5 3,472.00 51,000.00 5 5,060.00 56300.00 S 66,300.00 REMOVE CEMENT [090. [4140 1_,I:. 60 55.40 $ 300.00 510.30 5 01100 500.63 5 757.80 53.80 $ 2]0.10] MD! 9,3300E CEMEH1 CONC. SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY APPROAGI 5.11. 210 510.00 $ 7,1020 532.20 $ 6,762.00 512.50 $ 2,01,5.x0 $6_50 5 1.155.00 603 REMOVING PLASTIC LINE L.F. 50 55.00 $ 250.00 $0.35 $ 302.50 816S0 6 825.00 57.00 54.00 $ $ :550.40 3200.024 6516 RCM03196 pLASI IC CROSSWALK LINE S.F. 800 52.53 $ 2,00111.01 $3.60. $ 2,880.00 50.05 $ 4,940.00 605 ROADWAY E%CAVATION INCL. HAUL C.Y. 60 520.00 5 1,200.80 536.80 5 2,208.00 421.95 $ 1,259.00 527.00 $ 1,020.0] 506 UNCI A55IF(PD 1:011300I'ION INCL. HAUL C.Y. l5 525.00 $ 375.1 525 20 $ 37200 52445 $ 366.75 52740 $ 405.00 607 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP 64161863, 41N. DEPTH 5.Y, 470 57.00 $ 3,200.06 55.90 5 2,773.00 57.010 5 3,290.00 57.00 5 3,290.00 cos CRII0HT0 SURFACING TOP COURSE 61N. DEPTH S.Y. 190 510.00 5 1900.00 59.05 $ 1,01950 510.40 $ 1,900.00 $11.70 5 2,223.00 619 HMA CLI/2" PG 61-28, 219. 114114111 (11110111 5.1. 470 58.00 $ 3760.00 510.00 5 1,70090 510.52 5 4,946.44 511.00 $ 5,17974 610 SOIL 31'5101131. 11E01311.101E 5 Y. 470 50.20 5 94.03 53.15 5 7030 50.17 5 7990 56.70 $ 96.00 011 IIIHIGATION SYSTEM [FRAIL EO1ENSION EASTS LI.1 510,0 (0,00 $ 10,300.16 53,200.00 5 3209.00 53,300.00 $ 3,3110.02 $3,600.00 $ 3,00090 612 506 I351'10LIATI3H 5.11. 410 58.00 $ 3,760.00 59.20 5 4,7740009.46 $ 4.446.2) 510.40 5 4,888.510 613 TOPSOIL. 17PE A, 6" OEPTH 5.0, 470 510.00 5 4,700.10 59.65 $ 4,535.50 51070 $ 4,73441 510.80 8 5,076.04 614 TOPSOIL TYPE A, PLANTING RACIER L. C.Y. 10 $51100 $ 50000 551.30 5 513.06 552.00 $ 528.00 558.00 $ 530.1 615 PSIPC-ADE R 11U 51UN1 'AUNMH RAZE' (2 IH. CAL.} EACH 10 5275.02 $ 2,.75303 5604.50 $ 4.04590 561580 $ 4,116.04 5455.00 $ 4,550.00 614 FINE COMPOST C.Y. 10 55702 5 600.00 5107.00 $ 1,07000 5100,00 5 1,100.00 5120.00 5 1,70044 627 [rMrNT CONC.IINFFIC CURB APED GUTTER 1_7. 00 530.07 S 1,800.00 541,00 $ 2,46070 538.50 $ 2,310.00 517.00 $ 1,920.00 6E2 CEMENTCONC. PEDESTRIAN 13IRO LF. 20 $2602 $ 500.00 525.00 $ 500.00 527,50 $ 550.03 520.00 5 520.0n 619 PAINTED CROSSWALK LINE S.F. 580 55.0) $ 2,90070 53.05 $ 1,]99.00 53.03 5 '7,757.40' $3.43 $ 11911 2.00 620 PARK 3011AR0 EACH 1 $1,310-02 5 1,300.00 51,943.00 $ 1,943.00 55010.00 $ 500101 52,000.00 5 2,000.00 621 PERMANENT SIGNING L5. 1 559000 $ 500.00 5570.50 5 570.50 51,10090 5 1,100.00 560070 $ 00.00 1622 PRU0ECr TEMPORARY TRAFFEC CONTROLL5 1 $2,000.00 $ 2,103.0 55,719.00 $ 3,719.00 $2,500.00 $ 2,5116.111 54,350.00 $ 4,350.00 523 RLUh11NATION SYSTEM -WAR EXIT VISION LAST u.I $24,40190 $ 2000.0 $43,823.90 $ 93,123.110 $402 290.00 5 46,200.00 $47,000.60 $ 47,00.10 1324 CLMINICONC. SIDEWALK S.Y. 15 $70.00 5 1,150081 $76.101 $ 1,140.0 $66.001 S 990.40] $20.00 $ 1,059.00 625 CONCRETE PAD 4'TI1IC0 S.r. S.F. SD 20 56.50 $7.50 $ $ 325.00 150101 525.1d $43.90 5 $ 1,75.5,10 878.0 $20.0 536.00 5 $ 1,200.00 610,04 514.60 515.40 $ $ 730.40 300,00 626 C6NCR0TE PAD 6' TRICK 627 CEMENT CONC. CUR) 110MP TYPE RA01USP11112 FII FACIE 1 52,00.0 $ 2,500.00 52,029.00 5 2,029.0 51,375.00 $ 1,920.00 51,754.00 $ 1,750.0 SCHEDULE FTOTAC 3 --73416400 '$ 133,63630 $ 103,792.45. $ 106,121.0 3411 BID TABULATION Appleway Trail Project Project CIP Nn- 0237 Spokane. ljvJIky. ITER. If DESORPTION UNITS QUANTITY ENGINEERS ESTIMATE Wm- Winkler Co. CHECKLIST T.La Rivere Equipment DW Excavating UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL COL YES UNIT PRICE 1 TOTAL COST SCHEDULE G-011ULOER PLAY AREA Nu.1 1 1 100 ]BOULDER PLAY ,APIA 1 L.S. [ 1 5 190.000.001 S 100,000.00 5 92.77000 1 $ 97,770,1:0 $ 77,1YR.E0 1S 1!,103.00 5 101,000.001 $ 17.1.07.0.4x/ sCHEDHiLE G-sUeTOTAL ✓� $ 100,000.00 5 92,770.00 ✓ $ 77,103.60 $ 101,000.00 SCHEDULE G -SALES TAX 1 ✓ 3 0,800.04 $ 5,7.63.76 6 6,793.04 Bidder Qualification Statement $ 3,001.03 SCHEDUILEG-TOTAL tabulation for the Appleway Trail $ 100,00000 $ 100,933.70 10361AgMrySubcontractor Hist $ 83,960.69 1 $ 109880.00 RUO 3111ATI06 S100L Ali LA 40,OfID OD 40.OUOLO /5. 101 S /0,181.00 43,760.00 SCHEDULE PI -SUBTOTAL 40JIngRO 76,181.00 $ SCHEOL/LE H-5ALE5 TAnI 3,520.00 6,703.93 5CHEOULE H TOTAL 43,520.40 82,869.9'0 49790.09 5 5/,50000 5 x2,500-09 $ 52,900-00 $ 4,620.00 S 17,12000 01,760.09 4,026.06 49,786-00 I highlighted amounts 4nf4 CHECKLIST Adrlssda Acknowledged YES YES YES Nu.1 1 1 ✓ Ctunputnivc 81116 went Opened nn7 oncember8, 2011. I hereby `� Y ' ✓� reitiltalion of rssntnllance wIII1 Wage Payn.enl statutes ✓ 1 ✓ certify to the hest u9 my ability e - F Contractor's Adminisbalioo Information 1 ✓ ✓ Thal this Ls a inw and correct hid' Bidder Qualification Statement 1 1 V tabulation for the Appleway Trail 10361AgMrySubcontractor Hist ✓ 1 1 Project LIP 84237 i' - F arritu. .,-i,` Bid Dcensit Form ✓ ✓ v 12/8/17 Bidtleposil Surety Form ✓ / ✓ Surely Power of Attorney ✓ ✓ ✓ Repo: 'ciliation, and 4vlifh:al:ma ✓ ✓ 1 I highlighted amounts 4nf4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ® public hearing ['information ® admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Water Banking GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Senior Engineer Henry Allen will introduce Mr. Mike Hermanson. Mr. Hermanson is the Water Resources Manager within the Environmental Services Department at Spokane County. The Water Resources Program includes groundwater monitoring of the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, aquifer education and outreach, monitoring associated with the County's NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit, Water Banking, making water supply Determinations of Legal Availability, and water resource investigations. Mr. Hermanson has worked for Spokane County for over ten years and has almost twenty years' experience in the natural resource and environmental field. Mr. Hermanson will discuss issues associated with the Hirst decision in general and as it relates to Spokane County. Mr. Hermanson will also explain water banking, which is a means to mitigate the impacts of the Hirst decision. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Henry Allen, Senior Engineer ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation The Hirst Decision in Spokane County Mike Hermanson Spokane County Water Resources Manager Hirst Decision in Spokane County • Analysis of implications of the Hirst Decision in Spokane County • Interim ordinance development and implementation • Water banking in the Little Spokane Watershed Spokane County WASHINGTON 2 Hirst Decision -Key Holdings 1. Permit exempt wells cannot impair senior water rights, including instream flows. "There is no question that a permit -exempt well may not infringe on an earlier -established right to water under the doctrine of prior appropriation" 2. The County is responsible for determining if water is legally and factually available before issuing a building permit. "RCW 19.27.097(1) provides in relevant part: Each applicant for a building permit of a building necessitating potable water shall provide evidence of an adequate water supply for the intended use of the building. In addition, RCW 58.17.110(2} provides: A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for ... potable water supplies .... Through these statutes, the GMA requires counties to assure that water is both factually a .d legally available." Spokane County WASHINGTON Hirst Decision -Key Holdings 3. Counties cannot rely on Ecology to make legal availability decision "Counties may not rely on Ecology's inaction in failing to close a basin as a determination that water is presumptively available for appropriation. Such inaction fails to provide any assurance that a new permit -exempt well will not infringe on senior water rights.." 4. Did not rule on the validity of exemptions within pre -2001 Instream Flow Rules "...However the cooperative approach (with Ecology) does not allow counties to disregard evidence of minimum flow impairments in reliance on an outdated regulation" Spokane County WASHINGTON 4 Hirst Decision —Spokane County Response • This is a GMA case why not wait until we update our comp plan? • Comp Plans are deemed compliant until proven otherwise. • Spokane County Comp Plan section on water availability relies solely on 19.27.097. • Hirst Decision explicitly changed the interpretation of 19.27.097, and decisions by the Supreme Court are binding on non-parties when the court issues a Mandate. • Spokane County passed an interim ordinance to implement holdings of the Hirst Decision. Spokane County WASHINGTON 5 Interim Ordinance Provisions • A new use established as the result of a building permit will not result in the impairment of a senior water right. • Focused on two categories of existing water users. 1. Senior adjacent groundwater users 2. Instream flow regulations AVIA SS rLl¢le S.oimm} WRIA Sfi ligSpokane YalIay-Rathdrum Rralrie Aquifer (SVRPj WRIA Boundary County Boundary Saxe, Rex, has ^ iwce, mis WRIA 34 Y..Ie.) Designated WRIA's in Spokane County Framework Consickeellons Spokane County, Washington '0-e5 DEc2o16 arl Lean lira EN Cfilea pilaw Wm. Spokane County WASHINGTON 6 Existing Adjacent Groundwater Users • Will the new use impair a senior adjacent water user by causing additional drawdown of the senior water users well? . � c Ground Surface Static water level Spokane County WASHINGTON 7 Existing Adjacent Groundwater Users • Water is drawn down when pumping starts and creates a cone of depression. c Ground Surface Shape of cone of depression dependent on aquifer properties -thickness, how fast water moves... z Loi c,; ma() Pumping water level o� Spokane County WASHINGTON 8 Existing Adjacent Groundwater Users • New well added. Distance is far enough that cone of depressions do not intersect +` Ground Surface Pumpin water level Spokane County WASHINGTON 9 Existing Adjacent Groundwater Users • New well added. Distance such that cone of depressions intersect. • Ground Surface Pumping water level Spokane County WASHINGTON 10 Existing Adjacent Groundwater Users • Existing (senior) water users now has a lower pumping level. • Ordinance specifies acceptable change at 10 feet Ground Surface Pumping water level Change due to new well Spokane County WASHINGTON 11 Existing Adjacent Groundwater Users • How do we determine if a new use will cause additional drawdown in an existing well. • Analysis: • Pumping rate and aquifer properties (thickness, how fast water moves,...) • Setbacks: • With conservative estimates of aquifer properties at 500 ft. there is minimal drawdown interference • In some aquifers 500 ft. is not necessary- • Sand and gravel —100 ft. • Clay and silt — 200 ft. • Bedrock (granite) — 200 ft. • Basalt — 500 ft. • Hydrogeologic analysis — site specific aquifer properties • 10 submitted to date. Spokane County WASHINGTON 12 WRIA 55—Instream Flow Impairment Added • Need to consider adjacent groundwater users and impairment to instream flows. • Impairment to instream flows has been litigated many times over the last 20 years • Impairment to instream flows exist when any new use has a calculable impact on stream flows with latest scientific tools (groundwater models). • Use of models has demonstrated that any new use will take water from stream flow. Groundwater Model Spokane County WASHINGTON WRIA 55 -No new water use • Water are the options? • Water from the spring runoff could be stored and used to augment stream flows in the summer and fall. • Possible solution, but not in the short term • Water rights issued before the Instream flow regulation was established are not junior to the rule and can be fully exercised with out risk of curtailment. • Repurpose water that is not subject to the rule for new uses, otherwise known as a water bank. Spokane County WASHINGTON 14 Water Bank — How does it work? 1. Identify a current water use not subject to the instream flow rule. Water Bank — How does it work? 1. Identify a current water use not subject to the instream flow rule. 2. Water use is stopped. Water Bank — How does it work? 1. Identify a current water use not subject to the instream flow rule. 2. Water use is stopped. 3. Groundwater levels go up — streamflow increases Increase \ in stream flow Water Bank — How does it work? 1. Identify a current water use not subject to the instream flow rule. 2. Water use is stopped. 3. Groundwater levels go up — streamflow increases 4. New uses are initiated 5. Surface water impacts from new uses are offset by the surface water benefits from stopping the agricultural use. 6. No net change in water balance Little Spokane Water Bank Status • Spokane County created a new water bank fund and loaned $1,000,000 from the General Fund to acquire rights and operate the bank. • Purchase and sale agreements for two rights completed, 2 others pending. • Water rights transfer into the bank nearing completion. • Working on development of water bank ordinance to implement the bank- • Purchase eligibility • Quantity of water • Price • Anticipate selling mitigation certificates in late December. Peteonin MIA 55 VAN 5 ahriel Lilac Ogle REN] ORQLLC COVIerY -" omitie cou,rr Wahl 54 's1 for Mn'ivRable gation WAC -113555 Gage WAC 113557 Rule • 1.111. Spokane B �W. apillun.. Wirer OwR.N MANST maga swami Wei Deer Park Farming Water Right G3- 24214(4) Mitigation Suitability Map LLtue Spokane Water Bank WRIA 55. Whirr LOO ----- Spokane County WASHINGTON Contact Information Mike Hermanson Spokane County Water Resources Manager 509-477-7578 mhermanson@spokanecounty.org Spokane County WASHINGTON 20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Hearing Examiner Annual Report GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 18.20 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: City Attorney Driskell will introduce Mr. Mike Dempsey, who will give a brief overview of the 2017 Annual Hearing Examiner Report OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: City Attorney Cary Driskell ATTACHMENTS: Hearing Examiner Annual Report for 2017 Calendar Year SpoKANT MICHAEL C. DEMPSEY OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CHIEF EXAMINER MEMORANDUM To: City Manager, City Council Members, and Community & Public Works Director From: Michael C. Dempsey, City Hearing Examiner 7frt9 Re: Annual Report on Hearing Examiner System, 2017 Calendar Year Date: December 29, 2017 The City Hearing Examiner is required to annually report to the City Manager, Council Members, and Community & Public Works Director on the City Hearing Examiner system. The annual report is required to state the number and type of hearings conducted and decisions issued for 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. The 2017 budget for the County Hearing Examiner was approximately $208,000. The City reimbursed Spokane County approximately $34,400 in 2017 for Hearing Examiner services. PUBLIC WORKS BLDG. 3RD FLOOR • 1026 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WA 99260-0245 PHONE: (509) 477-7490 • FAX: (509) 477-7478 • MDEMPSEY@SPOKANECOUNTY.ORG Annual Report on Hearing Examiner System, 2017 Calendar Year December 29, 2017 Page 2 B. Matters Heard in 2017 In 2017, the Hearing Examiner heard and/or decided 13 land use applications and 1 dangerous dog appeal for the City. There were no appeals of the Examiner's decisions. The following table indicates the disposition of land use matters heard in 2017: 2017 Spokane Valley Land Use Applications Type of Application Approved Denied Returned Appealed Plat 9 - - - Plat Alteration - - - - PUD - - - - Rezone 1 - - - Variance - - - - Conditional Use Permit 1 - - - Shoreline Permit - - - - TOTALS 11 - - - Administrative Appeals - 2 - - On the administrative appeals, the Hearing Examiner upheld the administrative decision issued by the City Community & Economic Development Department. On the dangerous dog appeal, the Hearing Examiner upheld the declaration by SCRAPS. For comparison purposes, the Hearing Examiner heard 25 land use applications, administrative or enforcement appeals, 22 drug forfeiture claims, and 5 dangerous dog appeals for Spokane County; and 2 dangerous dog appeals for the City of Spokane. Several of the drug forfeiture matters involved investigations of controlled substances violations by the Spokane Valley Police Department, through the Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force. This included a major drug investigation conducted through the issuance of federal search warrants for several properties in the Yakima, Spokane, Spokane Valley and Post Falls areas. Multiple kilos of cocaine, large quantities of methamphetamine, more than $700,000 in U.S. currency, and more than a dozen vehicles were seized by local and federal authorities; and 22 individuals were indicted on federal controlled substance violations. The investigation is still ongoing. C. Observations and Recommendations Re ardinHearin . Examiner System and City Land Use Policies. Re. : :lations, and Procedures The public hearings conducted by the Hearing Examiner for the City are held at City Hall on Annual Report on Hearing Examiner System, 2017 Calendar Year December 29, 2017 Page 3 Thursday mornings. The hearing room and the audio and video system in the new City Hall are state of the art, and City staff is highly skilled in manipulating the system for hearings. The City's website, under the Community & Economic Development Department, can be accessed to obtain copies of Hearing Examiner decisions and agendas for Spokane Valley matters. The Hearing Examiner believes that the hearing examiner system for the City of Spokane Valley is working well. The lack of appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions over the past several years is a sign that the analysis and recommendations made by City staff, and the decisions issued by the Hearing Examiner, are sound regarding land use matters and other items heard by the Examiner. The Hearing Examiner has kept 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 continues to be impressed with the overall expertise of City planning staff members who appear before the Examiner, the quality and thoroughness of the reports prepared by staff on land use items, and the sophistication and utility of the power point presentations submitted by staff at the public hearings. City planning staff is very 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 Matters 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 2017. Annual Report on Hearing Examiner System, 2017 Calendar Year December 29, 2017 Page 4 The Hearing Examiner will retire from his position as Spokane County Hearing Examiner effective January 1, 2018. Spokane County is currently working on replacing the position. 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 Examiner is a graduate of the University of Washington and Gonzaga Law School; and has been an attorney since 1978. It has been an incredible honor and pleasure to serve as the Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner since the City incorporated in 2003. The Examiner's Office employs a staff assistant who acts as the clerk and recorder during land use hearings conducted for Spokane Valley and Spokane County, handles budget, accounting and clerical functions; processes, schedules, provides noticing for drug forfeiture claims and/or forfeiture orders; and helps set up and edit the Examiner's decisions. Kim Thompson has served as the Hearing Examiner's staff assistant since July 2017. She was previously employed as a legal secretary and judicial assistant by Spokane County District Court, giving her key experience in recording hearings and acting as clerk. Before that, Kim worked for several years as a technical editor and writer for an international environmental engineering firm in Seattle, Washington. She has outstanding editing, software and organizational skills; bringing many improvements to the office including the innovative organizing of electronic files, archiving of documents and editing of decisions. E. Meeting with City Manager, City Council, and Director of Community & Public Works The Hearing Examiner welcomes the opportunity to meet with the City Manager, City Council members, and the Director of Community & Public Works regarding this report, upon request. c: Chris Bainbridge Cary Driskell, City Attorney Lori Barlow, Community & Economic Development CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Department Director Approval: ❑ Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ['information ® admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) Infill — Phase 1 Project Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • June 23, 2015 — Council approved Resolution No. 15-005 which adopted the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which included this project. • February 9, 2016 — Council approved Resolution 16-005 adopting the 2016 Amended TIP which also included this project. • September 13, 2016 — Administrative Report discussing the results of the August 2016 project construction bid. BACKGROUND: The project installs Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) fiber optic lines along several road segments, including: University Road between 4th and 16th Avenue; Sprague Avenue between 1-90 and Fancher Road; Fancher Road between Sprague and Broadway; and Broadway Avenue between Fancher Road and Park Road. The purpose of providing the ITS system is to connect city traffic signals to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 1-90 ITS trunk line, connect to the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center (SRTMC), and to provide redundancy to the City's system. In 2013, the City submitted a grant application and was awarded Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for the project. The initial, 2013, project budget was: City Match CMAQ Grant Total estimated costs $ 44,221 $ 283,341 $ 327,562 The following was assumed at the time of the grant application. • Conduit Requirements: All of the conduit, except at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing on Fancher, was in place and useable. As part of this assumption, the initial project estimate assumed that installation of the conduit at the UPRR crossing would cost $16,000. When the engineering phase was initiated, it was determined that there is approximately 440 feet of conduit that needs to be installed for the project. • Engineering Costs: The initial project estimate included only $26,000 for the engineering phase. Once a consultant was selected for this project, their fee was finally negotiated at $40,000 (initial was $60,000). Part of the reason for the higher engineering consultant fee was to design the missing conduit segments. In addition to consulting fees, the initial engineering phase estimate did not include cost incurred by the City for staff to administer and manage the contract and grant. • Right -of -Way Phase: The initial project estimate did not include a right-of-way (ROW) phase. As the project progressed through design, two signal utility easements, a temporary construction permit and railroad right-of-way entry permit were needed, triggering a ROW Phase at a cost of $13,005. Page 1 of 4 To account for the additional engineering costs, the City increased the City match from $44,221 to $67,061 in June 2016, prior to seeking construction bids. Construction bids were opened in August 2016 and the low bid was $107,150 over the Engineer's Estimate, which was over the project budget. The main difference in cost versus grant estimate was the construction of the conduit under the UPRR. The construction cost for the crossing was $76,000 while, as previously noted, the grant estimate for the crossing was $16,000. The City did not award the construction contract and investigated alternative crossing methods to reduce project construction costs. A geotechnical firm, hired by the City to investigate the crossing, found several 11 -inch diameter cobbles at the boring depth under the UPRR. This size cobble may not break apart using traditional crossing techniques and could prevent the successful completion of the crossing. The geotechnical firm recommended using an air rotary drill method of construction. The size or nature of any boulder encountered does not matter, since the drill can advance through any type of rock found in the region. The estimated cost to install the crossing using this technique is approximately $200 per linear foot versus $1,175 per linear feet associated with the bid received in August 2016. In November 2016, the City contacted the UPRR to determine if the proposed air rotary method was acceptable for the UPRR crossing permit which specified a "Jack and Bore, Dry Method." In February 2017, the UPRR ultimately rejected the proposed air rotary method. To continue moving the project along to fruition, City staff researched the use of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) for the UPRR crossing. To achieve the minimum cover (15 feet) under the tracks specified by UPRR, and avoid construction impacts to businesses, the drilling length increased substantially. In April 2017, staff submitted to UPRR a revised crossing application with HDPE conduit under the tracks using HDD procedures. In July 2017, the UPRR approved the application with the revised construction method. In revising the current project cost estimates, utilizing HDD as the UPRR crossing results in a construction cost of $331,367, approximately $34,000 less than the August 2016 bid results. However, the redesign work by City staff and the geotechnical consultant resulted in an engineering phase cost of $83,000, well above the $26,000 grant estimate. Additionally, in 2017, the Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center in cooperation with the City began a process to upgrade the controllers for all signals currently tied into the regional system so they all use compatible software. New controllers for the four signals included in this project must now be provided to tie in these intersections which are located at: Fancher Road at Broadway Ave; Broadway Ave at Park Road; University Road at 8th Ave; and University Road at 16th Ave. The cost to purchase the controllers and have the County Signal Shop install them is estimated to be $17,000. Page 2 of 4 The following summarizes the initial and current project estimated costs and funding needs: PROJECT ESTIMATED COSTS Current Cost Initial Cost Difference Engineering Phase $84,000 $26,205 ($57,795) Right -of -Way Phase $13,005 ($13,005) Signal Controllers $17,000 ($17,000) Construction with Contingency $364,540 $262,050 Construction Engineering $21,300 $39,307 $18,007 Project Cost $499,845 $327,562 ($172,283) PROJECT FUNDING Current Funding Initial Funding City Match * $67,061 $44,221 See Note Below CMAQ Grant $283,341 $283,341 Total Funding $350,402 $327,562 Additional Funds Needed ($149,443) Note: City Match Increased in 2016 by $22,840 As this project and its funding shortfall is deliberated, the CMAQ grant requirements must also be considered. To date, the City has been reimbursed approximately $50,000 from the CMAQ grant. According to the terms of the grant, the project must be constructed in 2018 with a reimbursement request for the remainder of the CMAQ funds submitted by year-end. If the City chooses not to complete the project through construction, the City must refund the reimbursed funds to the grant program. City staff discussed the project funding shortfall with the agencies that manage the grant funds, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC). As the funding shortfall exceeds 15% of the original estimate, it was determined that the City can request additional grant funds through SRTC and its Board of Directors. However, there are no guarantees that the SRTC Board will approved the request. Staff recommends making a request through SRTC to provide an additional $99,443 in grant funds with an additional City match of $50,000. If the SRTC grants the additional funds, the proposed project funding will be: City Contributions (Fund 301) Current City Funds $ 67,061 Additional City Funds $ 50,000 Total City Funds $ 117,061 Grant Contributions Current CMAQ Funds Additional Grant Funds Total Grant Funds Total Project Funds (Proposed) Page 3 of 4 $ 283,341 $ 99,443 $ 382,784 $ 499,845 OPTIONS: Consensus: (1) Request additional funds from SRTC with an additional $50,000 City match and construct the project in 2018; (2) Request a different amount from SRTC with an appropriate City match to fund the project; (3) Do not construct the project and reimburse CMAQ grant $50,000; or (4) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Seeking Council Consensus to request additional funds from SRTC with an additional $50,000 City match to construct the project in 2018 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $50,000 from Fund 301 STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, Bill Helbig ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Page 4 of 4 Project Update Spokane Valle Gloria Mantz, PE, Engineering Manager Bill Helbig, PE, City Engineer Presentation Agenda January 16, 2018 Need and Benefit Project Location Project Scope Project History Project Cost & Funding Next Steps Spokane .000 Valley Need & Benefit January 16, 2018 Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center (SRTMC) formed in 1998 City of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Spokane County Washington State Department of Transportation Spokane Transit Authority Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Advantages Reduces Traffic Delay Reduces Congestion Reduces Need for Additional Lanes Spokane 3 Reduces Pollution 1 _ Valley Project Location January 16, 2018 ITS INFILL PROJECT ITS INFILL PROJECT LEGEND PLANNED CONDUIT FILL SPOKANE VALLEY SVGNALS ✓YYSDOT SIGNALS DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGN CIT/ BUILDINGS • • Spokane _ Valley Project Scope January 16, 2018 Provide System Redundancy Install Fiber Optic Cable in Existing Conduit Install Fiber Optic Cable in New Conduit Under Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Tracks on Fancher Rd Connect New Signal Controllers University & 8th University & 16th Fancher & Broadway Broadway & Park Spokane .000 Valley Project History January 16, 2018 Project Estimated Cost — 2013 Engineering $ 26,205 Construction (Included 25% Contingency) $ 301,357 Total $ 327,562 Awarded Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Grant — 2013 City Match $ 44,221 CMAQ Grant $ 283,341 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 327,562 Project History January 16, 2018 2013 Engineering Assumption $26,000 for Engineering 2015 — Consultant Fee Negotiated Down to $40,000 2013 Conduit Assumption Only New Conduit Required Under UPRR — $16,000 Estimate 2015 — Project Requires Over 440 Feet of New Conduit 2013 Right of Way Assumption No ROW Phase Required 2015 — Easements and RR Crossing Permit Required — $13,000 Project History January 16, 2018 $22,840 Budget Increase in June 2016 Fall 2016 Bid Results $107,000 Over Engineer's Estimate $75,850 of Overage Due to UPRR Crossing High Bids Due to Rocky Soils and Late Season Bid City Rejected All Bids Jack and bore drilling Project History January 16, 2018 Geotechnical Consultant Research Applicable UPRR Crossing Construction Recommended Air Rotary Drilling Construction Method Revision Proposed Air Rotary Drilling to UPRR (November 2016) UPRR Rejected Air Rotary Drilling (February 2017) Construction Method Revision Proposed Horizontal Directional Drilling (April 2017) UPRR Approved Horizontal Directional Drilling (July 2017) 9 Horizontal Directional Drilling Project History January 16, 2018 Horizontal Directional Drilling Less Expensive on a Linear Basis Requires Longer Crossing to Obtain Vertical Separation Savings Not as Significant as Expected Engineering Costs Consultant Fees UPRR Approval Process Missed 2017 Bid Window — UPRR Crossing Approval Process SRTMC Upgraded Signal Controller Boards in 2017 Project Signals Require New Controllers Spokane 10 Estimated Cost $17,000 if Purchased & Installed by the City .000 Valley Project Cost & Funding January 16, 2018 Current Estimated Costs Initial.' Costs Engineering Design ROW Signal Controller Upgrades Construction with Contingency Construction Engineering Total PROJECT FUNDI City Match* (Increased in 2016 by $22,840) CMAQ Grant Total Funding Total Additional Funding Needed $84,000 $13,005 $17,000 $364,540 $21,300 $499,845 Current Funding $26,205 $262,050 $39,307 $327,562 $57,795 $13,005 $17,000 $102,490 $18,007 $172,283 $67,061 $283,341 $350,402 $44,221 $283,341 $327,562 $22,840 $149,443 Next Steps January 16, 2018 Project Construction Must be Completed by December of 2018 City Currently Reimbursed N$50,000 from CMAQ Program If Not Constructed, City Must Refund Reimbursement SRTC and WSDOT Consulted to Discuss Funding Requirement City Can Request Additional Grant Funds from SRTC Requires SRTC Board Approval — No Guarantees Utilize Additional City Funds of $50,000 as Match Spokane .000 Valley Next Steps January 16, 2018 Staff Recommendation Fund the Current Project Requirement Request $99,443 Additional Grant Funds SRTC City Provides Additional $50,000 Grant Match (N33.5%) — 301 Fund for Additional SRTC Grant Funds Construct Project in 2018 Spokane .000 Valley Next Steps January 16, 2018 Proposed Project Funding City Contributions Current Funds Proposed 301 Funds Total City Funds (Proposed) Grant Contributions Current CMAQ Funds Proposed New Grant Funds Total Grant Funds (Proposed) Total Project Funds (Proposed) 14 $ 67,061 $ 50,000 $ 117,061 $ 283,341 $ 99,443 $ 382,784 $ 499,845 Spokane .000 Valley Questions January 16, 2018 15 Spokane .000 Valley CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ['information ® admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Argonne Road Preservation (Broadway to Indiana) CIP 252 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: • June 23, 2015 — Council approved Resolution No. 15-005 which adopted the 2016-2021 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which included this project • February 9, 2016 — Council approved Resolution 16-005 adopting the 2016 Amended TIP which also included this project. • February 28, 2017 — Council approved Resolution 17-006 adopting the 2016 Amended TIP which also included this project. BACKGROUND: The Argonne Road Preservation Project (Broadway to Indiana) was awarded Surface Transportation Funds (STP) funds in 2014. The main scope of the project is street preservation and the upgrade of pedestrian ramps at the intersections along this corridor. The initial, 2014, project budget was: City Match $ 86,400 STP Grant $ 553,600 Total estimated costs $ 640,000 Argonne Road (North of Mission) • In 2009, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) repaired the Argonne Road bridge deck over 1-90; and placed a 2 inch HMA inlay within the 1-90 limited access area on Argonne Road and on the freeway ramps. As required by the state, the City reimbursed WSDOT for this work. 1-90 ramps and streets within the 1-90 Limited Access area are monitored by WSDOT and their resurfacing is frequently included as a City funded project in periodic resurfacing efforts every 10 to 20 years. The current Pavement Condition Index (PCI) values for the existing HMA pavement in this section range from 88 to 73. There are no alligator cracking on the pavement. There is some minor rutting north of the bridge deck at 1-90 and a minor cracking at the bridge deck south joint. • In 2016, the Spokane Valley Maintenance Department placed a 2 inch HMA inlay from the Indiana Avenue intersection south to the WSDOT limited access paving joint line as the pavement experienced significant failure. • As a result of the maintenance work conducted by WSDOT and the City's street maintenance personnel, the segment of Argonne Road between Mission and Indiana is currently in good condition. The minimal pavement stress observed on Argonne road north of Mission does not warrant a grind and overlay treatment at this time. Argonne Road (Broadway Avenue to approximately 270 feet North of Broadway Avenue) • In 2017, the City was awarded Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) funds to construct concrete intersections on Broadway Avenue at Argonne and MuIlan (CIP Project 0142). The northern limit of this project terminates on Argonne, approximately 270 feet north of the Broadway Avenue intersection. CIP Project 0142 is currently scheduled to be completed prior to the Argonne Street Preservation Project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends working with the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) to decrease the limits of the Argonne Road Street Preservation. The proposed limits of the project will begin approximately 270 feet north of Broadway Avenue and terminate at the intersection with Mission Avenue. The estimated cost of the project is: Engineering Phase $ 58,000 Right -of -Way Phase $ 60,000 Construction Engineering $ 39,351 Construction $ 396,510 15% Contingency $ 59,027 Proposed Project Budget $ 609,888 Current Project Funding CMAQ $ 86,400 City Fund 301 $ 553,600 Total $ 640,000 OPTIONS: Consensus: (1) Request an amendment to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to change the limits of the project to start 270 feet north of Broadway and terminate at Mission Avenue; or (2) take other action as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Seeking Council Consensus to request an amendment to the State Transportation Improvement Program to change the limits of the project to start 270 feet north of Broadway and terminate at Mission Avenue BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No additional funding for the project is needed. STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz, Bill Helbig ATTACHMENTS: Presentation Ar. onne Roa• Preservation Spokane Valle Gloria Mantz, PE, Engineering Manager Bill Helbig, PE, City Engineer Presentation Agenda Project Scope and Location Project Background and History Project Limit Revisions Project Funding Next Steps Spokane .000 Valley Project Scope and Location Argonne Road from Broadway to Indiana Pavement Preservation Project Update Existing Ramps — ADA Standards Awarded Surface Transportation Program City Match STP Grant Total Estimated Project Cost 3 (STP) Grant — 2014 $ 86,400 $ 553,600 $ 640,000 Spokane _ Valley Project Background and History 2009 —Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Inlay —Within the I-90 Limited Access Area & On/Off Ramps Currently No Alligator Cracking Minimal rutting and minor cracking at the bridge deck south joint 2016 — City Street Maintenance Failing Pavement Condition Indiana Avenue to WSDOT Project Limit HMA Inlay Spokane .000 Valley 5 Project Background and History Broadway -Argonne -Mullan Intersection Project (CIP 0142) November 2017 —Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grant Awarded for Project Construction Extends Approximately 270 feet North of Broadway Spokane .000 Valley Argonne Project Limit Revisions Recommend Decrease of Project Limits Overlap with Broadway -Argonne -Mullan Intersection Project Good Pavement Condition North of Mission (WSDOT Project) Proposed Project Limits Begin 270 feet North of Broadway Terminate at the Intersection with Mission 6 NO 1P\\\P MISSION PROPOSED PROJECT LIMITS CL BROADWA 268'± 7 Project Funding Project Estimated Costs — Revised Engineering Design $ 58,000 Right of Way $ 60,000 Construction Engineering (10%) $ 39,351 Contingency (15%) $ 59,027 Construction $ 396,510 Total Estimated Cost (Revised) $ 609,888 Current Project Funding City Match $ 86,400 Surface Transportation Program Grant (STP) $ 553,600 Total Project Funding (Current) $ 640,000 Spokane .000 Valley Next Steps Amend State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Revise Project Limits Seeking consensus from Council 8 Spokane .000 Valley Questions Spokane .000 Valley Meeting Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action January 16, 2018 Department Director Approval: Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business ['new business ['public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ['pending legislation ['executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: The Annexation Process in Washington GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 35A.14 RCW PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report on annexation process on July 12, 2016. BACKGROUND: City Council has requested information and materials to describe how the annexation process works in Washington. This administrative report will discuss the legal authority, requirements, and available methods of annexation in Washington. Further, staff will discuss policy considerations and the history of annexations within the surrounding Spokane region. Details on the annexation process are provided in the attached PowerPoint presentation. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A at this time. However, annexations generally have substantial financial and budgetary impacts on cities. Specific impacts will be identified at the time of a specific annexation. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates, Economic Development Specialist; Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint presentation The Annexation Process in Washington Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager Chaz Bates, Economic Development Specialist Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney January i6, 2018 City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney i wimmenew OVTVie\of IegaHssu Authority for annexation Annexation within Urban Growth Areas Annexation methods Assumption of indebtedness Zoning considerations City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 2 11111111111111- Authority 1111111111f Authority for Annexation "Any portion of a county not incorporated as part of a city or town but lying contiguous to a code city may become a part of the charter code city or noncharter code city by annexation." RCW 35A.i4.oio City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Annexation within UGA No code city may annex territory beyond the adopted Urban Growth Area (UGA). RCW 35A.14.005. To annex in a UGA, the territory proposed for annexation must be within the code city UGA, and have at least 6o% of the boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation contiguous to the annexing code city or one or more cities or towns. RCW 35A.14.46o(i) City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Annexation Methods Unincorporated territories contiguous to Spokane Valley may be annexed into city limits through: 1. Voter initiated election 2. City Council initiated election 3. Direct petition There are specific processes and requirements for annexation of territories within Urban Growth Areas (UGA) and the assumption of indebtedness for newly incorporated areas. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Election - Voter Initiated First, a petition shall be filed with the County Auditor with a copy to the City Council which includes: A call to vote on the annexation The boundaries of the area to be annexed The number of registered voters in the annexation area The signatures of registered voters living in the annexation area of at least io% of the votes cast at the last general election If the petition is sufficient, the City Council shall, within 6o days, notify the petitioners of its acceptance or rejection of the annexation. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 11111111111111- Election 1111111111f Flection - Voter Initiated After City Council approval, the petition is to be filed with the Board of County Commissioners, along with a statement, if applicable, regarding the provisions for assumption of debt. (RCW 35A.14.o3o) The Board of County Commissioners shall call the special election at the date requested by the City. RCW 35.13.040. If a majority vote in favor of the proposal, the annexation is approved. (Indebtedness shall be approved by 6o%) If approved, the City Council would then adopt an ordinance effectuating the change. (RCW 35A.14.o9o) City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Election - City Council Initiated If the City Council determined it would best serve the interests of the City, it may, by resolution, call for an election to submit the annexation proposal to the voters. RCW 35A.14.o15. A certified copy of the resolution would then be filed with the Board of County Commissioners. This resolution shall include: Boundaries of the area to be annexed Number of registered voters in the area That the City will pay for such election City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Election - City Council Initiated The Board of County Commissioners shall call the special election at the date requested by the City. RCW 35.13.040. If a majority vote in favor, the annexation is approved. (Indebtedness shall be approved by 6o%) If approved, the City Council would then adopt an ordinance effectuating the change. (RCW 35A.i4.o9o) City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Owners of not less than io% of the assessed value of the land to be annexed shall notify the City Council in writing of their intentions to commence annexation proceedings. After receipt of request, City Council must set a date within 6o days to determine whether it shall accept the annexation. Consider whether to accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposal; Consider whether to require simultaneous adoption of proposed zoning; Consider whether to require the assumption of all or any portion of City indebtedness by area annexed; Acceptance means City Council will allow proposal to proceed, but does not commit City to approving the annexation. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney If accepted by the City Council, a petition would be drafted and circulated and shall be signed by: (i) property owners of not less than 6o% of the assessed value of the property for which annexation is petitioned; or (2) property owners representing a majority of the area proposed for annexation and a majority of the registered voters in the area. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Petition requirements Description of property according to government legal subdivisions or legal plats; Map outlining the boundaries of the property sought to be annexed; Requirements regarding assumption of City indebtedness; and Requirements regarding proposed zoning for the area to be annexed. The petition shall be submitted to the County Assessor and the County Auditor for certification. RCW 35.01.040(9). City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney If the petition is certified, the City Council may consider it and hold a public hearing. RCW 35A.14.13o Following the hearing, City Council makes determination on annexation Approval shall be done by ordinance. The ordinance may annex all or any portion of the proposed area, but may not include in the annexation any property not described in the petition. RCW 35A.i4.4o. Upon passage of the annexation ordinance, a certified copy shall be filed with the Board of County Commissioners. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Annexation Review Boards Spokane County disbanded its boundary review board under the authority of RCW 36.93•23o Consequently, the City will not, presumably, have annexations reviewed by any board. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney m pt i o-ry ntkted n ess The annexation statutes authorize the City Council to require property in an area being annexed to assume, as a condition of annexation, a pro rata share of the annexing city's then -outstanding indebtedness. A city may submit to the voters the question of annexation and assumption of indebtedness on the same ballot proposition. RCW 35A.14.o85. If the measures are combined, the annexation and assumption of indebtedness shall be authorized only if: The proposition is approved by at least 6o% of the voters of the area proposed to be annexed voting on the proposition; and The number of persons voting on the proposition constitutes at least 4o% of the total number of votes cast in the area at the last general election. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Mr- o n�ebtedness If both a proposition for annexation and assumption of indebtedness are both submitted and passed, the City Council shall adopt an ordinance providing for both measures. RCW 35A.i4.o9o. The City Council may allow an annexation proposition to pass despite the indebtedness proposition failing; or they can refuse to annex when a proposal for assumption of indebtedness has been disapproved by the voters. RCW 35A.14.o9o. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 11111111111111 - Applicable Zoning Statutes authorizing "pre -planning" in conjunction with Comprehensive Plan. If no "pre -planning" - SVMC 19.180.010 In the absence of a pre -established zoning designation therefor, the Council shall, within the annexation ordinance, establish an interim classification for the property on the City's zoning map. The interim zone shall be consistent with the annexation area's Comprehensive Plan designation. The process for establishing an interim zoning district shall meet the requirements of RCW 36.70.795. Requires subsequent review and establishment of permanent Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district. City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Annexation Considerations City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney i8 Overview Why Annex Annexation Considerations Annexation and Zoning Consequences of Annexation UGA's Annexations 2003 -Present City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 19 Why Annex • Areas outside city limits may need urban levels of service Transportation, police and fire protection, wastewater Areas outside may demand city services but don't necessarily contribute a fair share toward the service Areas may have strong social and economic relationship with city (schools, jobs, parks) Residents may desire benefits of the city (utility costs, fire premiums, taxes) Allows cities to provide urban services efficiently City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney nexation Argumen s Pro Eliminate service duplication Voice in local government Eliminates "Start-up" costs Reflects cultural, economic, and social realties Greater bonding capacity Lower utility rates and/or fire insurance Con Want to live/operate business outside city City's regulations (animal keeping, license) City unable to finance additional services or unavailable Interest could be limited to a few City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 111•1111=11111M1- Annexation Considerations Boundary should be drawn to allow expansion of utilities without prohibitive costs Is the population and assessed valuation sufficient to pay its fair share of services Does the area contribute to logical city growth pattern and encourage orderly growth Can area be served with capital improvements and services in a reasonable time City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 111•1111=11111M1- Annexation Considerations Is the area adaptable to anticipated requirements for residential and commercial purposes Area should include residents who are favorable toward annexation or advantageous to residents Boundary and area need to consider effect of annexation on special purpose districts City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 111•1111=11111M1- Annexation Zoning Zoning for annexation areas follow one of two paths Early and upfront as part of joint county and city planning OR At the time of annexation: Automatically by ordinance Zone new territory into city zone most similar to county zone After annexation, land becomes part of the city's zoning authority and zoning can change City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Consequences of Annexation Financial Impacts to City • Costs of Annexation • Short Term (immediate need for services) Long Term (Capital improvement obligations) Costs of Not Annexing City residents could be subsidizing non city residents services City services are heavily used by non city residents which result in no cost recovery i.e. parks, street maintenance City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney U Gro th&ea City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney Municipal Boundaries =Spokane Valley ©Urban Growth Area (UGA) 0 OS 1 2 Mlles 26 Coytylo=ninglorUGAs Municipal Boundaries County Zoning =Spokane Valley LDR ®otneruGA fi MDR =Valley UGA — HDR CC ti LI City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 27 Waw Ds ttswiLthiniJ G A North Spokane 0 rarK sMe k.gatioe YY a wales19,A City of Spokane Pasadena k - Irrlg on Dlstrl #17 Hutton " Settlement . Trentwood Irrigation District #3 Pioneer Water Company Consolidate Irk LIM w Ave'i7r, T EMu Fells Fleki Or ardA .., day dgatl • F Spokane Coo Wat= Di #3 E aa. _ ^'e Hutchinson_ Irrigation of Spokane District CS P< so Kaiser Trentwood ruin Water District#6 Pinecr Mobi ▪ Nbdern • E ectrk • Water Companw E 809 ue Arc Spokane Industrial Park C nsdida rigati E20M1 Ave N County Water District #3 Spokane County Water Distrkt#3 Mh1e�dal Irrigation District gig okane Spokane County Water District 43 Vera Irrigation District#15 Municipal Boundaries =Spokane Valley 0 os s Mlles City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 28 Fire Q Fire District 9 E Wales MsEm City of Spokane vd uaarty Lake Spokane Valley F e Fire District 8 Municipal Boundaries =Spokane Valley Fire District ] olty of Spokane Fire District & Fire Olean 9 Spokane Valley Fire 101 -._recon D 0.5 1 2 Ir.!, ` Mlles City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 29 Sewer Distri Spokane reas served • GA way J Municipal Boundaries =Spokane Valley =Other UGA =Valley UGA County Sewer Unsewered sewered o 0 1 x a Mlles I it ii iil City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney 30 A��i'o��99-3-016 Year Area Name Jurisdiction Method 2003 Incorporation Liberty Lake General Election 2004 Verhoogan Spokane Petition 2005 Muirfield Spokane Petition 2005 Shopko Spokane Petition 2006 Liberty Lake Meadows Liberty Lake Council Action 2006 Park Place Spokane Petition 2007 Spokane Tribe Airway Heights Interlocal Agreement 2008 North Division Spokane Petition 2010 Greenfield Estates Spokane Petition 2011 West Plains UGA Airway Heights Interlocal Agreement 2012 West Plains Spokane Interlocal Agreement 2016 Spokane Spokane Housing Ventures Petition City of Spokane Valley - Office of the City Attorney To: From: Re: DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA as of January 11, 2018; 10:30 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 January 23, 2018, meeting cancelled Councilmembers attend AWC City Action Days (Jan 24-25), Olympia January 30, 2018, Study Session (w/action items) 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Jan 231 ACTION ITEMS: 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Contract Amend. Waste Mgmt, St.Wear Fee—M.Koudelka, E.Lamb, H. Allen (10 min) NON -ACTION ITEMS: 3. Code Text Amendment, 2017-0003, Subdivision Regulations — Lori Barlow (20 minutes) 4 Admin Report: Barker Grade Separation Project Update — Gloria Mantz, Bill Helbig (20 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Spokane Housing Authority Re -Authorization — Erik Lamb (15 minutes) 6. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 7. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 75 minutes] February 6, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Jan 30 ACTION ITEMS: 1. First Reading Ordinance 18-003 Amending Street Standards — Henry Allen, Micki Harnois 2. First Reading Ordinance 18-004 Updating Subdivision Regulations — Lori Barlow 3. Motion Consideration: Barker Grade Separation Contract — Gloria Mantz, Bill Helbig NON -ACTION ITEMS: 4. Functional Classification of Streets - Colin Quinn -Hurst 5. Advance Agenda (25 minutes) (15 minutes) (20 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 85 minutes] February 13, 2018, Special Meeting, Winter Workshop, 8:30 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. [due Tue, Feb 6] Tentative agenda items include: Outside Agency Funding Level February 20, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. fdue Tue, Feb 131 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) February 27, 2018, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue, Feb 201 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 18-003 Amending Street Standards — Henry Allen, Micki Harnois (15 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 18-004 Updating Subdivision Regulations — Lori Barlow (10 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunities (FMSIB and CSP) — Adam Jackson (20 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 6. Info Only: (a)Dept Reports; (b) Potential grant Opps (SRTC, SRTS, PBS) [*estimated meeting: 55 mins] March 6, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Proposed Amended TIP — Colin Quinn -Hurst 2. Accomplishments Report (2017) 3. Advance Agenda Draft Advance Agenda 1/11/2018 11:03:01 AM fdue Tue, Feb 271 (20 minutes) (— 60 minutes) (5 minutes) Page 1 of 2 March 13, 2018, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Mar 61 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2018 TIP — Colin Quinn -Hurst (15 minutes) la. Proposed Resolution Amending 2018 TIP 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunities (FMSIB and CSP) — Adam Jackson (20 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Potential Grant Opportunities (SRTC, SRTS, PBS) — Adam Jackson (20 minutes) 5. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 mins] March 20, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Mar 13] 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) March 27, 2018, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Mar 20] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Potential Grant Opportunities (SRTC, SRTS, PBS) — Adam Jackson (10 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) April 3, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue Mar 27] 1. Airport Update — Larry Krauter (15 minutes) April 10, 2018, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 3] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) April 17, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 10] April 24, 2018, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 17] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) Mav 1, 2018, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 24] *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Donation Recognition Governance Manual Police Dept Quarterly Rpt (April, July, Oct, Jan) Police Precinct Lease Renewal (Nov '18) Retail Recruitment Follow-up Sign Ordinance Street Illumination (ownership, cost, location) Tobacco 21 Resolution Transportation & Infrastructure Utility Facilities in ROW Draft Advance Agenda 1/11/2018 11:03:01 AM Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 Department Director Approval Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Potential Land Acquisition; Potential Litigation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: [RCW 42.30.110(1)b) and 42.30.110(1)i)] PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I move that Council adjourn into executive session for approximately 60 minutes to discuss potential land acquisition and potential litigation, and that no action will be taken upon return to open session." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mark Calhoun ATTACHMENTS: